10th year review of the…

10th year review of the Endangered Species Act
The City of Toronto currently protects sensitive natural areas and species through the recognition of Environmentally Significant Areas in our Official Plan, as well as bylaws such as the Ravine and Natural Feature Protection bylaw and Private Tree bylaw. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species in Ontario that we are at risk of losing. These species are the last of their kind on this planet, and as such it is of critical importance that we protect, monitor and use best practices to help these species recover. Ontario should continue to support this important legislation which supports, but does not duplicate our efforts.

AREA OF FOCUS 1 – LANDSCAPE APPROACHES
The City of Toronto already takes landscape approach to providing additional protection to Environmentally Significant Areas and areas that fall under our Ravine and Natural Feature Protection bylaw. Our landscape approach to protection is important for general habitat protection, however the Endangered Species Act is an added layer of protection for Species at Risk (SAR) and helps to guide the management of sensitive areas.
Some development and capital projects (such as park trails) are allowed in our protected areas and these projects can be designed to account for the presence of SAR if they are on site. This allows development to proceed, while minimizing or avoiding impacts to SAR if we know what they are, where they are, and best practices to support their recovery.
If the Province is to take a landscape approach, this could streamline the approval process by restricting development across a broader area where SAR may be present. However, in order to ensure the protection of SAR the regulations for this approach would need to be very strict. Having a species specific approach may actually give developers more flexibility in moving forward with their plans.
The landscape approach will not protect SAR that are located outside of a sensitive habitat. For example, a butternut tree in someone's backyard, or bobolink nesting in an old field, may be better protected through a species by species approach rather than just a landscape approach.

AREA OF FOCUS 2 – LISTING PROCESS AND PROTECTIONS FOR SPECIES AT RISK
Species should continue to be listed by COSSARO based on scientific evidence. The listing of species should not be swayed by political, economic or public opinion. As soon as a species is deemed at risk it should be listed as soon as possible. Any delay in listing could mean the extirpation or extinction of a species.
There are many uncertainties in development projects and business operations, however businesses should account for the need to protect SAR as part of their regular practice, particularly in any greenfield development. Clear communications to the business community about the Endangered Species Act's regulations can help to remove some of the uncertainty and assist businesses in making sound decisions.
COSSARO should modernize their communications to improve transparency and ensure that information around the assessment and classification of a species is clear or transparent. Decisions by COSSARO must be based on scientific study, review and consensus. These studies should not have any real or perceived conflicts of interest. For example, developers should not be allowed to present studies contrary to the scientific consensus unless performed by an independent body.

AREA OF FOCUS 3 – SPECIES RECOVERY POLICIES AND HABITAT REGULATIONS
There is no reason to extend the time limit of 9 months to develop the Government Response Statement if the review teams are adequately staffed and appropriate systems are in place to streamline and modernize opportunities for public engagement. There should be a process in place to update the GRS on an as needed basis if additional information comes to light. This may further restrict or potentially relax requirements of the proposed activities, depending on what new information is received.
There is no benefit to extending the five year timeline for conducting a review of progress towards the protection and recovery of a species. Reviewing recovery plans on a more frequent basis will allow these plans to be updated with new information and best practices. It may be beneficial to have a process in place that would allow updates to be made to the GRS on an as needed basis if new information comes to light, in addition to the 5 year reviews. Delays in review could also delay the possible delisting of a species, which would allow development to take place.
It may be helpful for the Ministry to provide guidance for the general protection of habitat when a new development or business operation is taking place. However, this general approach should not take the place of the need for species specific recovery plans. Providing additional support to businesses to better understand their roles and responsibilities in the protection of SAR could be provided by Ministry staff. A species specific approach can, in some cases, provide a developer with more flexibility in moving forward with a project.
There should be more transparency with respect to the development, submission and approval of mitigation plans. These submissions should be publicly available on the Ministry website. In so doing, it will make the protection of SAR more transparent to the public. In addition, sharing strategies and best practices between property owners who may have similar situations will make the development or updating of plans easier and will hopefully lead to a more speedy recovery of SAR if proponents are able to learn from each other.

AREA OF FOCUS 4 – AUTHORIZATION PROCESSES
Shortcuts to allow business to proceed must be done with the protection of SAR as the goal. If there are legitimate opportunities to streamline processes and reduce duplication that is fine. However, circumventing the process entirely by allowing businesses to pay into a general conservation fund does not make sense for SAR. Most species that are found on a specific site, may not be found in a similar habitat nearby. If SAR are introduced or transplanted to a different site there is no guarantee that they will survive or thrive in the new location. If a conservation fund option is developed, the funds must go towards protecting a specific species.
Conservation banking may be considered on a species by species basis. If appropriate, this is something that should be included as part of a species recovery plan. The province would need to monitor and regulate conservation banks to ensure that these areas remain protected and that the species in question are successful in these locations. There may be circumstances where conservation banking should not be an option, for example if the area to be developed is a large or significant area for the SAR in question. However, it may be an option for businesses to support conservation banks where they are impacting smaller habitat patches or where habitat for a specific SAR is marginal.
Conservation agreements or easement, registered on title, may be a good tool to address long term protection of the land. Provisions in the agreement should include specific provisions as per the recovery plans for species found on these sites. These areas must be monitored by the province or an independent conservation minded organization on a regular basis to ensure prohibited activities are not taking place.
Exemptions for significant social or economic benefit permits, s.17(2)(d) should not be allowed. There is no circumstance where a social or economic purpose should trump the potential extinction of a species.
These projects can be moved or modified to protect SAR. Situations where harm to humans is a concern, would be covered under the health or safety permit s.17(2)(a).

Additional comments
The Province should repeal the 2013 exemptions for forestry, hydro, mining and commercial development industries. In addition, section 57(1)1 of the Endangered Species Act should be amended so that any future exemptions cannot jeopardize the recovery of endangered and threatened species.
Having clear regulations and communications regarding requirements under the Endangered Species Act can take some uncertainty out of the development process making it easier to finalize business decisions on where to best locate new development - away from sensitive habitat and species at risk.
This should not be any concerns regarding timelines for releasing or reviewing Government Response Statements if there are appropriate staff and other resources available to conduct this work. Staff should be available to support and provide guidance to businesses in modifying their plans to best protect these species.