November 10, 2025 Technical…

November 10, 2025
Technical Comments for Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting #025-0909
Proposed legislative and regulatory amendments to enable the Species Conservation Act, 2025
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

RE: County of Grey Comments on Technical Comments for Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting #025-0909
Dear Public Input Coordinator – Species at Risk Protection,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed legislative and regulatory amendments to enable the Species Conservation Act 2025. County staff appreciate the opportunity to provide input. Please find the following County of Grey staff comments in regard to ERO Posting #025-0909.
Potential Implications for County and Member Municipalities
Regulatory uncertainty during transition: The County will face a period of legal and administrative uncertainty until SCA regulations are finalized and a commencement order is issued. This may complicate decision‑making for ongoing planning applications, infrastructure projects, and development approvals.
Increased review and administrative workload: New registration requirements, conservation plans, and potential permit applications will increase workload for planning staff, legal teams, and enforcement officers, and may lengthen review timelines for applicants. County staff are uncertain of the review timeline implications when the SCA becomes in-force and effect. This may cause additional delays for applicants and internal review staff at the municipal level when awaiting responses and/or authorizations from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).
Changes to municipal approval conditions and agreements: Development agreements, site plan conditions, and other approval templates may need revision to reflect SCA obligations, transitional rules, and any new permit/registration conditions imposed by the Province.
May Need to revise internal procedures and checklists: Application intake forms, environmental review checklists, pre-consultation materials, and staff guidance documents may require updating to capture registration versus permit pathways and new species-specific requirements.
Data, mapping and technical capacity demands: The County may need to expand GIS layers, species occurrence data, and technical expertise to evaluate registerable activities and conservation plans.
Public disclosure and confidentiality considerations: Public availability of registration information could raise concerns around privacy, commercially sensitive information, or increased public scrutiny of local projects; the County will need guidance on handling enquiries and FOI implications.
Transition management for existing ESA approvals: The County must track projects with ESA-era permits, agreements, or conditional exemptions to determine which may continue unchanged, which require administrative amendments, and which need new SCA instruments.
Risk of duplicative or conflicting requirements with federal protections: Coordination with federal requirements for aquatic and migratory species will be necessary to minimize duplication and jurisdictional conflict that could delay projects or create inconsistent compliance obligations.
Municipal liability and inconsistent local protection: Municipalities may face pressure to accept SCA-registered measures that conflict with local natural heritage systems, creating inconsistent protection across jurisdictions.
Potential for net loss through registration-first approach: Registrations that authorize incremental impacts may facilitate cumulative habitat degradation unless constrained by robust conditions and cumulative thresholds.
Coordination gaps with federal laws: Reliance on provincial registration could create misunderstandings about federal triggers; early project screening for Fisheries Act/Species at Risk Act (SARA) and Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) is essential.
Implementation and enforcement capacity: Effective protection requires resourced verification programs, monitoring, and rapid corrective measures; absent that, the SCA could weaken on-the-ground outcomes.

County of Grey Comments for ERO posting #025-0909:
The County of Grey thanks the Ministry for the opportunity to comment on the Species Conservation Act (SCA) regulatory proposals posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO #025-0909). The County’s comments and questions below focus on matters of municipal planning, natural heritage mapping, regulatory transition, and implementation clarity. We would appreciate some further clarity with respect to some of the comments raised, followed by opportunities for technical review prior to finalizing regulations.
Habitat definition and mapping
• Comment/request: County staff request clarity on the SCA and its regulations and the relationship to functional Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) mapping and assessments for planning decisions. Regulations could cause confusion with respect to the SWH policies in the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) and the application of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM).
• Question: Will the Protected Species List regulation or registration rules still permit the ability to require significant wildlife habitat (SWH) assessments consistent with the NHRM?

Interaction with municipal policy and the PPS
• Comment/request: Municipal Official Plans and Natural Heritage System designations implement chapter 4.1 of the PPS. Based on provincial direction to use a systems-based approach to natural heritage, SCA instruments (registrations, permits, or orders) should not be interpreted to override municipal land use controls or ecological significance tests established through municipal planning processes.
• Question: How will administrative conflicts between SCA registrations/permit conditions and municipal planning decisions (for example, application refusal, municipal conditions, or site plan requirements) be resolved, and what appeal routes or administrative coordination mechanisms will be available?
Registration categories, conditions and codes
• Comment/request: County staff request that registrable activity categories and associated conditions be published in detail, and that conditions reflect species life history needs (foraging, migration, staging and connectivity) in addition to dwelling places. Please clarify which activities will be excepted versus which will require permits, and confirm whether the proposed exception list represents an expansion relative to current ESA exemptions.
• Question: Will codes of practice and registration conditions be developed with scientific peer review and include explicit monitoring and verification requirements?
Transition of existing ESA permits, agreements and recovery plans
• Comment/request: County staff seek clear, written transition rules that preserve protections and commitments made under existing ESA permits, agreements, and recovery plans until equivalent or better protections are in place under the SCA.
• Question: What is the timeline and administrative mechanism for transitioning active ESA permits, agreements, and recovery plan commitments to the SCA, and how will interim protections be enforced?
Federal triggers and interjurisdictional coordination
• Comment/request: County staff request mandatory integration of federal triggers (Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act (SARA), and Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA)) into municipal Terms of Reference so proponents cannot rely solely on SCA registrations to satisfy federal obligations.
• Question: Will the Province publish explicit guidance on coordinating SCA registrations with Fisheries Act authorizations, SARA, and MBCA considerations to avoid regulatory gaps or overlaps?
Species list changes and public process
• Comment/request: With new discretion to add or remove species from the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List, County staff request this be accompanied by opportunities for public, municipal, and scientific input.
• Question: Will additions or removals from the SARO list follow a defined public review process, and what criteria and assessment steps will be used for removal of a species?
Scope for aquatic species and migratory birds
• Comment/request: Aquatic species and migratory birds often depend on habitat functions that extend beyond narrowly defined “dwelling places.” Provincial narrowing must not produce protection gaps for important features such as fish habitat elements or migratory stopovers.
• Question: For aquatic species, how will riparian and watershed connected functions (for example nutrient inputs, feeding areas and hydrologic connectivity) be considered when SCA habitat definitions are narrow? Will registration conditions address these landscape and functional attributes?
Monitoring, compliance and enforcement
• Comment/request: County staff request robust monitoring and enforcement provisions tied to registrations, including independent verification and clear remedies for non compliance rather than sole reliance on after the fact penalties.
• Question: What minimum monitoring frequency, independent audit requirements, performance indicators, and adaptive management triggers will accompany registrations for high risk activities?
Qualified Professional roles and municipal Terms of Reference (ToR)
• Comment/request: Update municipal ToR templates to require Qualified Professional (QP) statements that address both SCA registration compliance and NHRM SWH significance tests. Include professional accountability clauses and explicit follow through obligations for conservation plans.
• Question: Will the Ministry provide standardized QP certification language for SCA registrations and templates for conservation plans to support consistent municipal review?
Indigenous and public consultation requirements
• Comment/request: County staff recommend that registration and permit processes include mandatory consultation with Indigenous communities for projects affecting SWH, given cultural and ecological values.
• Question: What consultation steps will be embedded in the registration and permitting pathways to ensure Indigenous knowledge and concerns are considered in SCA decisions?
Cumulative effects and landscape context
• Comment: A registration first model risks incremental, piecemeal loss of SWH. County staff request cumulative effects screening and caps for high conservation value landscapes prior to accepting registrations.
• Question: Will registration decisions integrate cumulative effects thresholds and refuse registrations where cumulative loss would breach municipal or provincial natural heritage objectives?
ERO posting, technical review and draft documents
• Comment: The consultation period should include professional review opportunities for draft regulations and technical documents (draft registration forms, mitigation measures/code of conduct, permit and registration conditions, and ToR templates) to allow fulsome comments informed by the detail necessary for municipal review.
• Question: The ERO posting does not include draft regulations, QP prepared registration mitigation measures, permit/registration conditions, or application documents. Will the Ministry provide an opportunity to review these draft technical documents prior to finalization and prior to the SCA becoming active?
Closing and requested actions
County of Grey staff would be happy to discuss these comments further with Provincial staff. While staff understand that there may not be time to respond to all comments on this ERO posting, staff would appreciate the following:
1. draft regulations and technical guidance documents (including Registration and Permit templates, proposed codes of practice, QP certification language, and mock-ups of the online Registration system) for technical review;
2. a municipal focused transition timeline for active ESA instruments; and
3. an opportunity for targeted technical consultations with municipal staff, conservation partners, and Indigenous communities prior to final regulatory decisions.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please do not hesitate to reach out should you require any clarification on any of County staff’s comments.
Yours truly,

Michael Cook, RPE
Planning Ecologist
519-378-4828
Michael.cook@grey.ca