Maple Leaf Foods Inc. Permit for activities with conditions to achieve overall benefit to the species - ESA s.17(2)(c)

Decision

This notice was originally published on March 02, 2012. It was updated on December 9, 2019 to advise the public that the application has been withdrawn by the Applicant, as they opted to submit a development plan and comply with the exemption under section 23.2 of the Ontario Regulation 242/08.

Proposal

The proposal to construct and operate a prepared meat products facility has the potential to adversely affect Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark and their habitat. The proposed permit conditions would provide benefits that exceed the adverse effects on Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark.

Both Bobolink and Meadowlark are listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List, in Ontario Regulation 230/08 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as threatened.

Subsection 9(1) of the ESA provides for the protection of endangered, threatened (and extirpated) species on the SARO List.

Habitat protection under the ESA applies to both Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark (subsection 10(1)).

The ESA allows some activities to proceed under a clause 17(2)(c) permit with specific conditions if: avoidance and reasonable alternatives have been considered; adverse effects will be minimized; and an overall benefit will be achieved for the species in Ontario. Providing an overall benefit to a protected species under the ESA involves undertaking actions to improve circumstances for the species in Ontario. Overall benefit is more than ‘no net loss’ or an exchange of ‘like for like’. Overall benefit is grounded in the protection and recovery of the species at risk and must include more than mitigation measures or “replacing” what is lost.

The Minister may issue a permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA that authorizes a person to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by section 9 or 10 of the ESA if the Minister is of the opinion that:
(i) an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through the conditions of the permit;
(ii) reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not negatively affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted; and,
(iii) reasonable steps to minimize negative effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit.

Maple Leaf Foods Inc. have applied under Clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA for a permit to construct and operate a 400,000 square foot facility (plus ancillary buildings) in the City of Hamilton. The building will function as a prepared meat products facility that will typically produce hot dogs, deli and sliced meats. Maple Leaf Foods Inc. intends to apply for an overall benefit permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA to allow for the damage and destruction of habitat (Subsection 10(1) of the ESA). Construction of the facility is proposed to begin in March of 2012.

Reasonable alternatives are being considered, including ones that would not adversely affect the species, and may include:
- Not undertaking the project at this location; and
- Adjusting timelines to eliminate impact to Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark.

Potential approaches to minimize adverse effects on individual members of Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark may include:
- Conducting vegetation removal and construction activities outside of the breeding bird season when Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark would not occur on site (i.e. August 1 to May 1);
- Ensuring that a construction inspector monitors all construction phases of the facility;
- Training provided by a qualified biologist for on-site workers, design team and consultants to raise awareness about Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark and avoid impacts.

Potential approaches to achieve an overall benefit for Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark may include:
- Securing, improving and maintaining high-quality land to replace any habitat that will be lost for the construction and operation of the facility at a replacement ratio of approximately 1:1.

Please note that the posting of this proposal on the Environmental Registry does not imply that a permit will be approved; a permit may only be issued where the legal requirements set out in clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA have been satisfied.

The following web-links provide additional information.