Re: Valecraft Homes, permit…

Re: Valecraft Homes, permit for activities to achieve an overall benefit to a species
Environmental Registry of Ontario number 019-2824
Ministry reference number ER-C-001-20

To the Ontario Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, or To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing concerning the permit for activities to achieve an overall benefit to a species (Butternut, Blanding's Turtle) put forth by the proponent Valecraft Homes (ERO number 019-2824). This proposal is a poor excuse for a so-called overall benefit to both species and the Blanding's Turtle, in particular. As outlined below, the actions to achieve an overall benefit are grossly insufficient and clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the species' biology. This leads me to seriously doubt the ability of the proponent to achieve an "overall benefit".

Regarding reasonable alternative considered, "the proponent has concluded that the best alternative involves proceeding with site development and employing a 40 metres wide corridor of retained habitat surrounding the tributaries of Shirley’s Brook." Well, of course the proponent desires to proceed with development. The proposed 40 m buffer for the benefit of Blanding's Turtles (and Butternut) is laughable. A 40 m buffer zone is demonstrably insufficient for the Blanding's Turtle given that, "reported mean home ranges [of the Blanding's Turtle] generally fall between 10-60 ha (maximum 382 ha) or 1000-2500 m (maximum 7000 m); however, most studies likely underestimate Blanding’s Turtle home range size because few have utilized GPS loggers to track daily movements throughout one or more entire active seasons" (COSWIC 2018; https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/species/846-577). Not only is the 40 m buffer zone insufficient to meet the needs of the Blanding's Turtle, this measly buffer is irresponsible for the sake of protecting a riparian zone from flooding, erosion, contaminant run-off from the proposed development, et cetera.

Below I address the actions to minimize adverse effects on the species under discussion:
- Re, action 1: "creating 0.26 hectares of habitat through channel realignment (i.e. installation of meanders), excavating shallow pans/pools around the channel, digging deep channel pockets".
The size of this development and habitat loss is undescribed beyond the arbitrary size note of "a new subdivision, including approximately 612 residential units". What land and/or wetland area will be destroyed for development? Therefore, what proportion of the destroyed area is 0.26 hectares? This will allow the proposal to be judged for “no net loss” or an exchange of “like for like” as per clause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act. Related, it would be enlightening to know the mean plot size for the proposed 612 residential units. No matter, the creation of a paltry "0.26 hectares" of habitat is absurdly underwhelming. For reference, a standard football field is 0.62~0.82 hectares, a baseball field is ~0.8 hectares, a soccer field is ~0.70 ha, and here the proponent is proposing habitat creation at a fraction of such sizes. Again, of note from the Blanding's Turtle COSEWIC report and contrast to the size of the proposed development zone (0.26 ha) and area of habitat destruction (equivalent to "612 residential units"): "Reported mean home ranges [of the Blanding's Turtle] generally fall between 10-60 ha (maximum 382 ha) or 1000-2500 m (maximum 7000 m); however, most studies likely underestimate Blanding’s Turtle home range size because few have utilized GPS loggers to track daily movements throughout one or more entire active seasons". Furthermore, the active manipulation of in-use habitat (i.e., "excavating shallow pans/pools around the channel", "digging deep channel pockets") sounds like a very poor idea that will disrupt water flow regimes, cause siltation, and further disrupt the watercourse. It is not clear how these proposed actions will be undertaken in a manner that minimized harm to the Blanding's Turtle given that the species can be found associated with aquatic habitats year around. Finally, I would like the proponent to address (with reference to published peer-reviewed literature) how this action will supposedly meet the habitat requirements of the Blanding's Turtle.

- Re, action 2: "enhancing 1.27 hectares of habitat by installing hard substrate features (e.g. woody debris, logs, root wads) and seeding of riparian areas with a native wetland restoration seed mix"
It is not clear what value the (terrestrial?) hard substrate features will have for the Blanding's Turtle. In reviewing the COSEWIC Report and Recovery Strategy for the Blanding`s Turtle, Great Lakes / St. Lawrence population (https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/species/846-577) it is not clear what benefit this so-called "enhancement" will serve for the Blanding's Turtle. I would like the proponent to address (with reference to published peer-reviewed literature) how this action will supposedly meet the habitat requirements of the Blanding's Turtle.

- Re, action 3: "installing permanent fencing along a portion of March Valley Road (i.e. expanding fencing system in the area) to reduce risks of Blanding’s Turtle road mortality".
I support the installation of permanent fencing. In order to make this an effective action, the proponent will be required to specifically outline where and how long a portion of fencing will be added along March Valley Road. Also, in addition to fencing installation, there must be an enforcable commitment to maintain the fencing. Such fencing will only be useful it is remains continuous and undamaged, or else it can be dangerous to turtles that travel through fence gaps and become trapped on/near the road surface (see Baxter-Gilbert et al. 2015; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.01205…). The proponent must also demonstrate consideration of eco-passages (under-road connectivity structures) that will maintain population connectivity and allow turtle access to critical habitat (i.e., nesting and overwintering habitat).

- Re, action 4: "conducting monitoring of the overall benefit actions undertaken to ensure their effectiveness"
How long does the proponent intend to be conducting monitoring? As Blanding's Turtles are long-lived, the proponent ought to set aside several decades of funding for their monitoring of their overall benefit actions. If not, the proponent will not be capable of monitoring in a meaningful way that will fulfil their stated action. At present, this action is insufficient to meet "overall benefit" requirements.

Finally, I have concern one of the listed "potential approaches to minimize adverse effects on Blanding’s Turtle": "undertaking decommissioning of portions of Shirley’s Brook during the overwintering period for Blanding’s Turtle". It is very unclear what is meant by this statement (will the brook or the development be subject to "decommissioning"), but it is suggestive that portion of the waterway will be disrupted during the turtle wintering period. Under no circumstances should water flow regimes or water depth be manipulated during overwintering. Do so will put at severe risk any wintering turtles due to changes in temperature and dissolved oxygen, among other relevant environmental characteristics.

My comments on the "overall benefit" to Butternut are less extensive owing to my lack of familiarity with this tree species, but similarly critical. A stated action to achieve an overall benefit to Butternut involves "archiving four Butternut". What is meant by "archiving"? It is presumed that the proponent means killing the trees but collecting their seeds ("archiving") prior to doing so. What is the present population size of these trees in the development area? There could be effort to "archive" more than a pathetic four trees, no? The second proposed action "working with a local stewardship program to produce and distribute 555 Butternut seedlings to be planted" is a feel-good action without tangible benefit to the species. Please provide the rationale behind 555 Butternut seedlings. Surely the proponent used values of seed and sapling survival to produce this estimate that will offset the number of adult trees that will be killed? Will the proponent be tending to the seedlings, ensuring their survival to maturity to offset the losses of adult trees from the development? As noted in the Butternut COSEWIC report, saplings are rapidly killed by Butternut Canker, one of the foremost threats to the species (https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/species/793-336). Will the proponent be taking meaningful action to ensure the survival of the young trees that are planed as "offsets"? At present, the "overall benefit" actions for Butternut are grossly oversimplistic and unacceptable.

In short, there are numerous reasons why and how this development plan is short-sighted. It is my sincere recommendation that this permit be rejected. Many of the outlined "overall benefit" actions do not (come close to) adequately address proposed actions to minimize adverse effects for the Butter and, in particular, the Blanding's Turtle.