As a resident of southern…

As a resident of southern Georgian Bay, I am well aware that the area is blessed with some of the finest coastal wetlands on the Great Lakes, and that the eastern shorelines of Georgian Bay provide critical habitat for a great number of increasingly threatened and endangered species. Invoking a special ministerial approval to destroy or damage critical habitat for something as trivial as a seasonal trailer park would be an abuse of that portion of the ESA allowing ministerial discretion. Species at Risk and their protected habitat are natural assets of the people of Ontario. Their destruction should not be permitted for anything but the most compelling of development needs. It is the intent of the Species at Risk Act that landowners should not have the right to use their property in ways that jeopardizes plants or animals at risk of extinction, endangerment or threat.

It can be argued that one development alone is not going to have a serious impact on SAR populations, however, habitat loss is compounded by cumulative impacts. Two or three similar developments within the species’ local range could cause their eventual demise. The Macey Bay development is the second residential development in the immediate area to seek ministerial approval for destruction of SAR and SAR habitat. A similar agreement was sought and approved for the Oak Bay golf community (EBR 010-9555) also permitting destruction of habitat for Blandings Turtle, Eastern Hog-nosed Snake and Eastern Foxsnake. Further development involving damage and destruction of critical habit is now proposed by HH (MB) LLP, leaving the impression that under the ESA, ministerial approval of habitat destruction is a routine event. That should never be the case.

Following are comments specific to Section 17 of the Endangered Species Act 2007:

2(c)(i)(A) An overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through the conditions of the permit.

• The conservation easement proposed for a portion of the property offers no added benefit to the three species. It simply avoids additional damage or destruction of existing critical habitat.
• Transfer of title for the area to be conserved to a conservation land trust would be much more beneficial to the species than the easement proposed, and would be in line with conservation measures that were required of other developments in the immediate area.
• Activities allowed within the protected habitat area should be clearly stated in the permit, if granted, rather than prohibiting one or two potentially destructive activities from the many destructive activities possible.
• Creating artificial nesting sites is highly unlikely to generate a net benefit for the three species identified in the application if continuity of access to other critical habit areas (e.g. basking, foraging, mating hibernation) is not also ensured.

2(c)(ii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted

• The best alternative has not been proposed from an ESA perspective.
• The applicant's preferred alternative maximizes habitat damage through maximum build-out.
• From the ESA standpoint, the best alternative is to not proceed with the project at all.
• A down-sized development that reduces residential unit counts and minimizes the effect on threatened and endangered species would seem a reasonable compromise between these two extremes, and would align with the goal of sustainable development within the Georgian Bay UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.
• The financial viability of the project should not concern the Minister, or in any way factor into the decision making process.

2 (c)(iii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on the species are required by conditions of the permit

• The permit, if issued, should include a requirement for monthly ongoing monitoring of site conservation and mitigation activities by a qualified third-party biologist to determine effectiveness of the mitigation measures before and during construction,
• An annual report to the satisfaction of the government agency issuing the permit should be required in order to maintain the permit, and it should be posted for public review.
• Specific performance indicators need to be monitored to ensure the area of occupancy of the species on the property is maintained or increased, the habitat connectivity within the local area is maintained or improved and the abundance of the species is maintained or increased over time.
• The permit terms should reflect the goals and objectives of the published Recovery Strategies for each and all of the ESA listed species that are expected to be affected by the development
• The permit, if issued, should have a reasonable expiry date, following which renewal or extension should require an updated EIS showing net benefit expectations have been meet.