EndangeredSpeciesActPanel

ReportandRecommendations

SubmittedfortheConsiderationoftheMinisterof NaturalResources

1/18/2013

DraftforCommentNotforDistribution

January 18, 2013

Honourable Michael Gravelle Minister of Natural Resources 6th Floor, Whitney Block 99 Wellesley Street West Toronto, Ontario M7A 1W3 SUBJECT: Report of the Stakeholder Panel on the Endangered Species Act

Minister Gravelle: We are pleased to submit for your consideration our report and recommendations with respect to opportunities to improve the implementation of Ontarios Endangered Species Act. In our view, regular reviews of legislative frameworks and their effectiveness in achieving provincial objectives is inherent in good governance and we commend your initiative in bringing this forward. Through our exploration of challenges we identified a number of key themes and have provided a suite of integrated recommendations for your consideration. Notwithstanding and perhaps because of the range of interests contributing to this initiative, our collaborative efforts led to the development of consensus across a wide spectrum of issues. There is however, one area where two recommendations have been put forward. It may be suggested by some that a number of our recommendations have the potential to require new investment. While we have not undertaken any financial analysis in this regard, our recommendations should not be read to presume the allocation of additional government resources. In fact, many speak to the redirection of priorities, the re-engineering of processes and increased collaboration that may result in increased efficiency and effectiveness. The intense effort required by the relatively compressed timeframe within which the Panel undertook its work necessarily meant that our focus remained on the conceptual frameworks through which improvements could be advanced rather than detailed analysis and prescriptions. It is our expectation that the Ministry will further develop our recommendations and consider other advice received as it moves forward. Respectfully Submitted,

ESA Stakeholder Panel

Contents

1. ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................................. 4 2. Background&Context............................................................................................................. 5 3. RecommendationsandRationale ........................................................................................... 6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

TimingofHabitatProtection............................................................................................ 6 NatureofHabitatProtection ........................................................................................... 8 TransitionProvisions ...................................................................................................... 10 StreamliningofApprovals .............................................................................................. 13 LinkageswithExistingLegislation .................................................................................. 18 ResearchandMonitoring............................................................................................... 22 AdditionalImportant&RelevantConsiderations.......................................................... 25

Appendices: A: B: ESAPanelMembers SummaryofRecommendations

1.

ExecutiveSummary

This report has been prepared for consideration by the Minister of Natural Resources in his efforts to improve implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It has been authored by a panel of stakeholders representing a broad cross section of interests, all of whom have direct experience in the application of the Act to date and all of whom are committed to the protection and recovery of Species at Risk in Ontario. The Stakeholder Panel identified six key themes under which recommendations and rationale therefore are organized. Additional important considerations are also included. These recommendations are to be considered an integrated collective rather than independent of one another and the Panel strongly advises that they be considered as such. The document contains a total of twenty nine (29) recommendations that have been compiled into the following themes: Timing of Habitat Protection Nature of Habitat Protection Transition Provisions Streamlining of Approvals Linkages with Existing Legislation Research and Monitoring Additional Important & Relevant Considerations

A complete listing of the Report Recommendations is included in Appendix B.

2.

Background&Context

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007 came into force in 2008. Over the past four (4) years of implementation, governments, industries, conservation organizations and individuals collectively have gained experiences and identified challenges and opportunities for optimizing the efficient implementation of the Act. In November 2012, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) struck an Endangered Species Act Stakeholder Panel (the Panel), with a membership that reflected a broad and balanced range of interests and expertise1, and with a mandate to provide advice and recommendations to the Ministry that focus on ESA implementation recognizing the context of MNRs modernization framework2. The Panel was tasked with preparing recommendations over a short period of time - six weeks. Specifically, the Panel was to: Recommend approaches that will focus limited resources on those requirements and activities that will have the greatest positive impact on species at risk protection and recovery; Identify and advise on potential opportunities to streamline the implementation of the ESA; and Identify and advise on potential opportunities to streamline the transition to full habitat protection in 2013 (including the consideration of risk to the species).

The Panel was also asked to: Use a consensus model of decision making, recognizing the need to advance all views; Acknowledge and respect that where there are differences of opinion include those differences in the report3; Provide rationale and pros and cons for recommendations made; and Undertake the work in confidence.

In its deliberations, Panel members first contributed individual perspectives with respect to the challenges and opportunities for improvement of ESA implementation based on practical experience to date. Based on the breadth of initial input provided, the Panel organized commentary into the following themes:
1 2

Timing of Habitat Protection Nature of Habitat Protection Transition Provisions Streamlining Approvals Linkages to other Legislation;

Panel members and affiliations are identified in Appendix A th See MNRs Regulation Proposal posted on December 5 , 2012 regarding Proposed approaches to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which could include regulatory amendments to authorize activities to occur subject to conditions set out in regulation consistent with MNRs Modernization of Approvals EBR Registry Number 011-7696. Panel members acknowledge this as context only.

Research and Monitoring; and Additional Considerations, including COSSARO process improvements.

A brief description of each of these themes, rationale for action and recommendations with supporting pros and cons constitute the main body of this report, as outlined in Section 3. The Panel has endeavored to address significant issues and offers recommendations relevant to both the pending habitat protection (June 2013) of more than sixty (60) species and issues related more generally to the current implementation of the Act. The Panel wishes to stress the inherent interrelationship of the observations and recommendations made in the Report. In our view, the whole is greater than the sum of the respective parts. The Panel observes that the practical application of the proposed path forward necessarily requires differential consideration of the breadth of sectors potentially affected. Finally, we note that the current EBR posting appropriately invites input and advice from interests and perspectives not directly represented on the Panel. While efforts have been made to ensure our advice is as broadly applicable as possible, we expect that this additional input will help inform the Ministrys decisions as well.

3. 3.1

RecommendationsandRationale TimingofHabitatProtection

Core Concept: This Section deals with the relationship in time between the application of habitat protection provisions of the ESA and the investment of resources to contribute to species protection and recovery. Rationale: The Panel notes that the timing of the development of Government Response Statements and Habitat Regulations has led to uncertainty in the conservation and recovery of listed species. At the same time, this uncertainty has also resulted in additional complexity and inefficiencies for resource management, habitat creation and development project and process investments. The automatic listing of more than sixty (60) species and the inclusion of these transition species under the Act in late June 2013 can be expected to exacerbate this issue. Habitat Regulations and key associated and linked aspects of the Act (e.g., Government Response Statements, Recovery Strategies), are viewed by the Panel as key to determining appropriate and effective public and private sector actions and investments with respect to species recovery. Observations made in this regard include: Projects are being delayed and made more complex by periods of uncertainty and the absence of a policy framework to address transition after listing and before a Habitat Regulation is developed; While species protection after listing is critical, some potentially imprudent government and sector investments are being made and actions are being taken in the absence of direction with respect to species recovery; Approval requirements are generally undefined and, as such, authorizations are slow for extended periods during general habitat protection;

The process is by definition reactionary, with no mechanism to anticipate and develop proactive strategies to address the implications of listing; There is a continued desire to apply best available science to achieve timely habitat protection but uncertainty with respect to success to date; The process applies scientific considerations in the listing and recovery planning stages and only includes broader socio-economic considerations at the Government Response and Habitat Regulation stages; Improvements to this process could come from both an earlier engagement with stakeholders and the public and improved correlation between recovery investments and government decisions; New species listings or occurrences which happen during or after project approvals4 should be treated differently than those that are known in advance; Habitat listing and implementation of legislative requirements could benefit from a strategic framework that assesses risk to the species and acknowledges and respects approvals processes for projects/activities5; and With respect to the pending June 2013 date and provisions for automatic habitat protections for a large number of transition species, the development and application of a strategic framework could assist in determining priorities for Habitat Regulation development

Recommendation: 3.1-1 It is recommended that regulation pursuant to Section 55 of the ESA with appropriate rules and conditions (e.g. minimizing the killing, harming, harassing of species and/or damaging or destroying of habitat) for newly listed and found species be enacted on a time-limited basis linked to the finalization of Government Response Statements and Habitat Regulations. Pros Cons Creates defined linkage between government Is likely to require new strategies to meeting direction and investments and determined established timelines. These strategies would priorities. need to be developed in the short term. Ensures consideration of broader social, May delay investment in activities that could environmental and economic objectives in contribute to habitat protection. decision making.

Recommendation: 3.1-2 It is recommended that the Ministry apply a strategic framework to advance efforts and improve processes resulting in the development and finalization of Government Response Statements and Habitat Regulations.

4 Theseareexpectedtobedefinedforeachsectororgroupofsectors.ThePaneldidnotdiscussindetailapprovaltriggersacrosssectors. 5 Notethatapprovalsprocessesvarybetweenactivities,likelyrequiringasectoralapproachseeTransition 7

Pros Cons Applies a more focused effort to species for Requires new strategies and potentially which Habitat Regulations and sector additional/redirection of resources. investment relative to Government Response Statements are a priority. Aligns government and sector investment with government direction. Recommendation: 3.1-3 It is recommended that, a range of authorization options be considered and assessed for use (i.e. Permit by Rule, Permit with Registration , Permit by Review) and that appropriate conditions be developed prior to or coincident with the application of Habitat and/or Species protection (see Section 3.4). Pros Reduces delays and uncertainty in implementing projects and appropriate mitigation measures Helps ensure best practices are put in place as early as possible to help protect and recover species Assists in a more efficient investment of resources in species conservation and recovery Increases certainty for conservation projects Cons Requires a more anticipatory and proactive approach to preparing for the implications of species listing

3.2

NatureofHabitatProtection

Core Concept: This Section addresses how habitat protection requirements are being implemented as well as potential innovations regarding the concept of overall benefit. Rationale: General Habitat Protection While the Panel recognizes that the definition of General Habitat is provided in legislation, it is implemented upon species listing and is articulated through policy6. Observations with respect to the challenges experienced to date include:

MNR, 2008 - SAR Policy 4.1 Habitat protection for endangered, threatened and extirpated species under the ESA.

Overlap in some species habitat requirements makes implementation of provisions species by species (one off) inefficient and frustrating; Opportunities exist for the grouping of species for habitat protection, rather than protection species by species; There is a need to consider (e.g. balance and/or prioritize) the potentially conflicting needs of multiple species where habitat requirements (including timing of management prescriptions) differ over the same habitat area; Opportunities for the use of Best Management Practices/Management Plans (both with respect to the ESA and pursuant of other legislation) to serve as key implementing vehicles of habitat protection are being missed; General habitat protections are, in some instances, affecting decision making in areas designated for and/or under pressure for population/settlement/growth/natural resource management; as well as present and future economic activity; Rules around an accepted occurrence (e.g. the cutoff dates with respect to the last recorded record) are not clear.

Recommendation: 3.2-1 The Ministry of Natural Resources should undertake a comprehensive review of the Habitat Protection Policy (SAR 4.1) as well as the supporting document Categorizing and Protecting Habitat under the Endangered Species Act7 considerate of the concerns identified and make revisions, as appropriate, to contribute to the objectives articulated in this Report (e.g. transition, streamlining). The revised policy(ies) should be implemented as soon as possible. Pros Cons Responsive to experience to date in applying Will not, in and of itself, resolve issues with first iteration of policy(ies) respect to automatic habitat protection (e.g. timing) Offers an opportunity to improve policy(ies) while respecting the objective of species and habitat protection and recovery Contributes to broader ESA modernization objectives Rationale: Overall Benefit Application The Panel acknowledges the legislative requirements for demonstrating overall benefit associated with certain permits and/or instruments8. Concern has been expressed, however, with respect to the limitations of the policy provisions to enable the achievement of the objective of overall benefit. Suggestions for additional innovative approaches include: The use of mitigation banking as an option, encouraging relationships between project proponents and conservation and commercial organizations (e.g. innovative commercial and non-commercial restoration companies and organizations and pertinent ENGOs);

MNR,2012CategorizingandProtectingHabitatundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct. ESA, Sections 17(2)(c)(i), 18(1)(e)(iii)(A)

Recognition of research focused on advancing the state of science and knowledge with respect to the species and/or group of species; Provisions for direct financial contributions to broader recovery efforts and initiatives, potentially through a special purpose account; Crediting efforts of proponents of multiple projects in individual approvals (e.g. efforts at one or more projects may contribute to offsetting the impacts of another); and Recognition of certain habitat conservation (including restoration, management, protection and creation) projects as providing a de-facto overall benefit.

Recommendation: 3.2-2 The Ministry of Natural Resources should undertake a comprehensive review and revision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits considerate of the opportunities to advance the recovery of species through additional and innovative approaches. The revised standards should be implemented as soon as possible. Pros Provides for increased innovation in achieving permitting objectives and contributing to species recovery Helps position Ontario in a leadership position with respect to implementation tools

Cons Requires the development of a more comprehensive suite of tools and a commitment to monitor their efficacy

3.3

TransitionProvisions

Core Concept: Well designed transition provisions can specifically assist with implementation of the Endangered Species Act to ensure meaningful protection for species and provide process and business certainty for industry. Rationale: In general, the approvals process varies by sector, but is lengthy, often involving complex (in some cases multiple) approvals with various different pieces of legislation and government approval agencies. Transition provisions are required to specifically assist with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act to ensure meaningful protection for species while at the same time providing both process and business certainty for industry. MNR should consider time-limited transition provisions (through a Section 55 regulation) that take effect for projects/activities on the date that a new threatened or endangered species is listed. The transition provisions should also apply to species that are currently listed, but found on site late in the process. The provincial government should consider a risk-based approach that appropriately and strategically assesses the protection of species at risk and acknowledge previous earned approvals for projects/activities that have been obtained. The level of investment and earned approvals that have been obtained by projects/activities that have commenced prior to a
10

species being listed are two important criteria that should be considered. Proponents should be provided some measure of flexibility and be given the option to proceed under a transitional approach or strategy. Such transition regulations must comply with the purposes of the Act. Recommendation: 3.3-1 A strategic risk-based approach to transition9 provisions that acknowledges species-atrisk needs through species specific conditions10 on a sector basis should be adopted. Pros Cons Risk-based approach would attach species Transition could negatively impact species at specific conditions to transition that support risk in Ontario by delaying actions that have species at risk been outstanding in some cases for several years

Recommendation: 3.3-2 That the purposes of the Endangered Species Act must be met through any proposed transition regulation. This should be assessed within a framework that recognizes earned approvals that have been secured under other legislation, while acknowledging the need to take steps to minimize conflicts with prohibitions in sections 9 and 10 of the Act (the no harm or harass, damage or destroy provisions respectively). Pros Transition respects existing earned approvals that have been obtained by industry under other municipal, provincial, or federal legislation Cons Granting of exemption from ESA sections 9 and 10 prohibitions could result in negative impacts on SAR species conservation and recovery if transition requirements are not Provides business certainty (by linking transition effective to process timing / earned approvals obtained) If well designed and time limited, shows how If not used judiciously and in a time limited proponents can be brought into full compliance way, could weaken protections for species at with the Act in a reasonable way risk in Ontario

Recommendation: 3.3-3 A tiered approach (conceptual framework below) should be applied, assessing the risk to the species with the level of approvals and/or process timing that have been achieved on the date that the species is listed as threatened or endangered.

9 Thiswouldaddresstransitionspeciesandnewlylistedspecies. 10 Seasonalrestrictionsmayalsoapply(e.g.,avoidingharvestinginnestingseason) 11

Proposed Conceptual transition framework with respect to mitigation effort:

Low Risk to Species some effort (low) required on behalf of proponent Medium Risk to Species Moderate to High High Risk to Species High (this represents situation of highest risk to both species and proponents requires innovation and creativity)

Late (likely to be seen as most difficult for proponent)

Pros Provides improved business certainty (by linking transition to process timing/ earned approvals obtained) Risk based approach would attach species specific conditions to transition that support species at risk

Project Process Timing

Middle

L = low to moderate degree of effort required

Moderate to High

High

Early

M=moderate degree of effort required

Moderate to High

High

Degree of Risk to Species

Cons Transition could negatively impact species at risk in Ontario by delaying actions that have been outstanding in some cases for several years

12

3.4

StreamliningofApprovals

Core Concept: Greater efficiency in the ESA approvals process with respect to streamlining would be beneficial both in the context of MNR modernization and also to provide greater clarity and efficiency for proponents. The six specific recommendations in this section will, if implemented, increase the efficiency of the approvals process while ensuring that MNR can continue to meet its mandate with respect to species protection. Rationale: The Panel recognized that improvements are needed to ESA implementation in the areas of approvals. These improvements are required due to significant delays in receiving project/activity approvals, conflicts with habitat conservation activities and a need to ensure that species are receiving timely and consistent protection consistent with the purposes of the Act. Specific concerns include: Implementation of the ESA is having unintended consequences on projects/activities that have a primary purpose of conserving (restoring, protecting and managing) habitats; Lack of guidance tools such as brochures and fact sheets explaining in detail the process, conditions, and requirements for obtaining approvals under the ESA; Requirements and conditions for many similar projects/activities are not standardized; There are no standardized requirements or approaches that are ecosystem or multispecies based, creating uncertainly for all stakeholders (e.g. grassland species; tallgrass prairie species; wetland species; and coldwater species); Section 18 instruments are not being used; Lack of consistency between MNR district offices in ESA implementation particularly in terms of approaches to reviewing approval applications and developing conditions; Length of the process and level of effort required to acquire a Permit is often high and disproportionate with proposed Overall Benefit outcomes; Landowners are not clearly informed about what they can do on their lands without negatively impacting a listed species; Emergency repairs to existing infrastructure are not exempt from approval requirements under the ESA, which has the potential to result in a delay of important repairs to critical infrastructure, with potential human health and safety and/or significant socio-economic impacts; and Lack of delegation of authority for signing ESA Section 17 permits from the Minister to appropriate MNR senior staff causes additional delays in approvals.

Recommendation: 3.4-1 Implement an Approval Continuum The Ministry of Natural Resources should adopt an approval continuum where a permit by rule (PBR) approach is implemented for certain projects/activities, which must meet a prescribed standard set of conditions instead of proceeding through the regular negotiated approvals process (Permit by Review). Projects/activities that would suit this approach are those which are common and repeatable, where there is confidence in the mitigation and therefore a lower risk to the species / habitat and where acceptable
13

implementation Best Management Practices are followed. Examples include conservation projects where the purpose is habitat creation. Risk assessment criteria should be developed by MNR to determine what other types of projects/activities would be subject to this PBR standard condition approach. It is recommended that PBR only be implemented in circumstances for a relatively small proportion of approval applications in cases where the risk to ESA species is demonstrably low. Compliance would be enforced by focusing on self-regulation with random audits of activities. The Panel recommends a two-tiered approach to PBR where notification of activity and applicability is based on level of confidence in the mitigation measures and level of risk to the species. The second tier PBR would also be developed where proponents would register their activities (PBR with Registration). This approach would allow MNR to know the total number of projects/activities and project/activity types that are taking place and could spot audit a statistically meaningful sample of projects/activities and report publicly on compliance rates. This would help to improve the system over time. It is important that MNR develop criteria regarding when PBR without registration versus with registration would be appropriate. While the PBR approach offers efficiencies, MNR should use caution when determining what types of projects/activities are PBR versus PBR with Registration. In order to ensure MNR is meeting its mandate under the ESA for projects not requiring registration, MNR should develop a protocol for project/proponent audit as the proponent will be required to keep records of implemented projects/activities. Larger scale, higher risk projects/activities where there is a lower degree of confidence in the outcome are not appropriate for the PBR approach and would continue to require Permit by Review. At the present time, the majority of approval applications are being done by means of Permit by Review. An illustration of a possible gradient approach to approvals requirements is provided below. Note this is a schematic illustration, and should not be interpreted to indicate that a particular proportion of approval applications will be approved by a particular mechanism of approval.

14

High Degree of Confidence Low Risk Level of Risk to Species

Moderate Degree of Confidence

Low Degree of Confidence Low

Permit by Rule

Medium Risk

Permit by Rule with Registration

High Risk

High

Permit By Review

Degree of Confidence in the Outcome of Project/Activity

Pros Will allow for a streamlined and more rapid approvals process for projects/activities that have a high to moderate level of outcome predictability. Will reduce the volume of low/no risk applications for MNR participation/review, allowing resources to be focused on higher risk applications. Contributes to broader MNR modernization objectives. Will not apply to projects/activities that have a greater uncertainty; these will continue to be reviewed as they are currently. Will enable habitat conservation activities (with ultimate intent of benefiting species) to be implemented, with the effect of increasing habitat area.

Cons Will require work by MNR to develop and implement a framework for determining the degree of risk for particular approaches (e.g. BMPs) Will require a degree of trust between Province and proponent. There is a risk that standard conditions/rules will not be simpler or more easily determined than those imposed under the current regulatory regime (will not meet proponent need for greater certainty and simplicity while meeting protection objectives).

15

Recommendation: 3.4-2 Expedite Approvals for Emergency Repairs to Infrastructure, Built Structures The Ministry of Natural Resources should make the required regulatory changes such that activities that are deemed as emergency repairs, which are those necessary to protect human health or safety (e.g. repairing structural damage to a bridge, road or dam) could proceed on a PBR basis, provided that certain conditions established in regulation that would be designed to minimize adverse effects are met. This would include activities involving the maintenance of built structures, that if not maintained would pose a risk to human health or safety or would prevent delivery of essential services.

Pros Will allow for more efficient and timely repairs to important infrastructure, allowing it to be returned to service faster. Will reduce MNR resource requirements to review approval applications for emergency repairs. Protects human health and safety.

Cons

Recommendation: 3.4-3 Explore Multi-Species and Ecosystem Grouping The Ministry of Natural Resources should pursue grouping of listed species on an ecosystem or multi-species basis (i.e. group species by broad or more specific habitat types), wherein certain standardized conditions for approvals would apply, depending on habitat type. Pros Would facilitate certain conservation projects/activities. This will facilitate transition as new species are listed, as they will fit into a category with established requirements. Cons There may be some species that dont readily fit into one ecosystem/habitat. May be complex to implement, as some species in the same ecosystem habitat have differing and conflicting spatial and/or temporal requirements. May spotlight conflicts between species and with timing.

16

Recommendation: 3.4-4 Implement Automation of Approval Applications The Ministry of Natural Resources should pursue the automation and self-execution of approval applications, with use of web-based applications and registration to allow proponents to file and track their applications on line. Pros Will allow for greater efficiency for MNR staff, with shorter turnaround times. Enables centralized consistent approach to ESA implementation (addresses district inconsistency concern). May reduce human resource requirements for ESA administration/implementation freeing up staff for MNR core activities. Contributes to broader MNR modernization efforts. Cons Will require an investment or re-allocation in/of resources by MNR. May require more effort by applicant.

Recommendation: 3.4-5 Use Section 18 Instruments The Ministry of Natural Resources should explore the use of Section 18 instruments that could be used in conjunction with other provincial and federal project planning and approval legislation, for sectors that wish to pursue them. The effort should be undertaken in a manner whereby the habitat conservation needs of ESA species are addressed as part of the requirements of these Acts. Pros Will reduce duplication planning and project/activity approval efforts for proponents. Will expedite project/activity approval times for proponents. Will ensure SAR habitat needs are addressed in authorizations under other relevant Acts. Cons Will require MNR to develop guidelines for how to address SAR habitat needs under other Acts. As there is a lack of clarity on requirements of Overall Benefit test, this will require MNR to develop guidelines and principals to define standards for Overall Benefit with affected stakeholders.

17

Recommendation: 3.4-6 Delegate Authority to Approve Permit Applications The Ministry of Natural Resources should delegate authority to senior staff to approve applications and issue permits in keeping with the provisions of the Ministry of Natural Resources Act. Pros Will allow for greater efficiency for MNR staff to issue permits at the district level, and reduce turnaround times. Contributes to broader MNR modernization efforts. 3.5 LinkageswithExistingLegislation Cons

Core Concept: Recognition of existing standards and process that may achieve11 or contribute to, the purposes of the ESA, and where existing standards or processes are in conflict with the purposes of the ESA. Rationale: It is recognized that there are instances where existing regulatory frameworks (legislation, regulation and policy) may already provide a vehicle for the management and protection of species at risk in Ontario (e.g. Environmental Assessment Act, Planning Act, Crown Forest Sustainability Act, Environmental Farms Plans, Nutrient Management Act, Places to Grow Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Greenbelt Act and the Aggregate Resources Act) and as such, may* already achieve the intent and purposes of the ESA or contribute to the intent and purposes of the Endangered Species Act. Where such instances occur, it is imperative that the government work with affected stakeholders (e.g. individual economic development sectors/proponents) in order to avoid unnecessary process and burden and ensure recognition of these legislative frameworks. In explicitly recognizing the existing processes and standards established through other regulatory mechanisms, a more efficient and effective approach to species protection and recovery can be possible. This is not about any sector seeking to avoid obligations to protect species at risk but rather serves to recognize that the existing processes and standards established through other regulatory frameworks exist. Further, it is noted that the ESA provides direction that may be in conflict with existing regulatory requirements (related to species at risk or otherwise e.g. health and safety). Where such instances occur, it is imperative that the government work to resolve this conflict.

Ivey Foundation and CPAWS Wildlands League do not support the position that existing regulatory frameworks already achieve the purposes of the ESA. Ivey Foundation and CPAWS Wildlands League are of the view that legislation on its own without meeting the test of the Act does not meet the intent of the ESA. The Ontario Forest Industries Association and Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. believe that the CFSA is equivalent to the ESA in its provision for the protection of species at risk and their habitat
11

18

Collaboration with sectors subject to both contributing and potentially conflicting legislation is imperative.

Recommendation: 3.5-1 It is recommended that the Ministry assess where existing regulatory frameworks and planning processes currently contribute to or already achieve12 the purposes of the ESA, and work with appropriate sectors to ensure that existing standards and processes are recognized and that unnecessary process and burden is reduced or eliminated.

Pros Reduction of government expenditures related to duplicative approvals Reduction of industry expenditures related to same Reduction of public engagement requirements for citizen groups More rapid address of SAR species needs Maintains sector obligations to meet purposes of the Act while reducing redundancies in standards and process

Cons Requires resources to identify mechanisms by which these other acts can be made to align with the ESA where needed.

Recommendation: 3.5-2 It is recommended that the Ministry assess where the ESA provides direction that is in contrast or contradiction to direction provided under other existing provincial or federal legislation, regulations and policy and work with individual sectors to resolve any inconsistencies and/or to harmonize approaches. It is further recommended that the Ministry proactively conduct a cross-Ministry assessment to identify potential conflicts between the ESA and other legislation early in the listing process.

12 IBID. 19

Pros Provides a mechanism to rationalize existing legal regimes to ensure compliance with the ESA where conflicting direction exists Provides opportunity to address unintended consequences created by conflicting legislation Allows for the identification of opportunities for harmonization and conflict between regulatory regimes Avoids conflict in future, before it is realized on the ground.

Cons Requires effort within MNR and across government.

3.5-3 (a) Proposed by Ontario Forest Industries Association & Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. It is recommended that, given the equivalency between the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA), a time limited (no less than 10 years) regulation be developed under Section 55(1)(b) of the ESA which recognizes that the primary objectives of the ESA are met through the Environmental Assessment Act, the CFSA and its associated Forest Management Plans (FMPs), and, further, fulfills governments commitment to recognize the CFSA and FMPs as equivalent processes to the ESA with respect to planning for and providing for species at risk. It is further recommended that the government convene a stakeholder panel that would review the linkages between the CFSA and the ESA to ensure that the forest sector is satisfying the purposes of the ESA, and that this panel shall report to the government prior to the expiration of the regulation.

Pros Species management and protection to continue to be provided during panel review (mandated under the CFSA) Does not penalize sector that is already providing for species at risk (management and protection of SAR). Addresses governments standing commitment to the forest sector and municipal leaders. Promotes fair and equitable approach,

Cons Requires commitment of time and resources. Delays some aspects of habitat protection for SAR species until the renewal of FMPs. Delays the provision of a plan for future habitat needs for SAR species until plan revision.

20

Pros consistent with other resource sectors. Provides a transition period for FMPs to address the habitat needs of listed species in their area. Harmonizes an existing habitat planning process with that of the ESA. Reduces planning costs for industry and government. Reduces engagement requirements for the public.

Cons

(b)

Proposed by CPAWS Wildlands League & Ivey Foundation It is recommended that, given the compatibility between the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA), a time limited (until the development of the next 5 year operational forest management plan) regulation be developed under Section 55(1) (b) of the ESA when a new species SAR is listed (this would apply to newly listed and backlogged species). This will allow time to meet the requirements of the ESA through the Environmental Assessment Act, the CFSA and the resulting Forest Management Plans (FMPs) as a Section 18 instrument under the ESA. The transition regulation should stipulate any immediate requirements for the newly listed species at risk that apply to the existing approved FMPs. It is further recommended that the government convene a stakeholder panel that would review the linkages between the CFSA and the ESA to ensure that the forest sector is satisfying the purposes of the ESA, and that this panel shall report to the government within one year. Cons Has potential to increase costs of planning. Provides no/limited certainty for some Forest Management Plans. Could add significant planning workload to Forest Managers across the province. Any changes to objectives and strategies of the FMP trigger early plan renewal instead of a second five year operational plan. This is a step backwards for the Forest Industry.

Pros Provides a reasonable transition period until an FMP has to address the needs of a newly listed species. Ensures overlap with the planning of habitat manipulation in the forest with planning for the needs of SAR. Ensures that there is not undue delay in addressing SAR habitat needs. A transition for 10 years would mean that a newly listed species would not be addressed in a forest landscape for up to 10 years from listing.

21

3.6

ResearchandMonitoring

Core Concept: This Section focuses on the application of adaptive management as a conceptual framework for continuous improvement. Rationale: The Panel strongly supports the application of an adaptive management framework to the instruments designed to achieve the regulations and policies of the legislation, and also to the legislation, regulation and policy framework itself. Moreover, we are of the view that regular analysis of the broader social, economic and environmental impacts and benefits of the ESA is consistent with principles of good governance. We are of the shared view that continuous improvement can best be enabled through a deliberate and designed commitment to monitoring, evaluation and adjustment. Ongoing research and monitoring is also critical to assessing and reducing risk and uncertainty over time. Key considerations in this regard include: There is widespread perception that investments being made by proponents to satisfy the requirements of the Act are not being leveraged to contribute to broader science needs; Effects and effectiveness monitoring can be achieved by government(s), representative sector organizations, individuals and collaboratives; There are concerns that proponents are being required to implement impractical mitigation measures/conditions, without monitoring to understand whether these steps have worked or are continuing to work; There appears to be an absence of a framework either provincially or specific to a species to guide priorities for data and information collection; There is uncertainty with respect to data standards for monitoring and reporting; There does not seem to be an appropriate level of emphasis on effectiveness monitoring to support subsequent decisions; Tools such as Best Management Practices developed and applied by practitioners should be acknowledged and promoted; There needs to be a commitment from all parties to coordinated data and information sharing and exchange between proponents and government in support of advancing our collective knowledge at all stages of ESA implementation; There is a need to ensure that changes to existing policy documents are made in a timely manner; There is a need for support for science and information based continuous improvement; and Monitoring needs to consider environmental, social and economic parameters

Recommendation: 3.6-1 The Ministry should commit to and implement a formal adaptive management program to support the continuous improvement of the ESA and its implementation. Pros Will allow for a better understanding of the science, and will promote a consistency and standardization of approach across MNR districts. Cons Will require an investment in resources by MNR/proponents.

22

Will encourage innovation and use of best practices. Will foster a culture of continuous improvement.

Recommendation: 3.6-2 It is recommended that, in collaboration with willing stakeholders, sectors and proponents, MNR institute a funded formal adaptive management framework to be used for decisions and investments made to support the implementation of the ESA. Pros Cons Creates confidence that efforts and Given resource constraints, will require a investments made are prudent and will inform reallocation of government investments and/or subsequent decisions new collaborative business models with potential external costs Provides a basis for addressing broader science questions and research priorities Recommendation: 3.6-3 It is recommended that data and information collected to support ESA implementation be stored and maintained in a manner that enables analysis and assessment by government, stakeholders and sector partners, in a timely and transparent manner, over space and time. Pros Establishes a basis and framework for the consideration of site-specific data on broader scales. Encourages collaboration and partnerships between government and proponents/practitioners to advance the knowledge base Improves public confidence in decisions Improves transparency Recommendation: 3.6-4 It is recommended that the Natural Heritage Information Centre should be the onewindow database for the best available data and information on species at risk presence in Ontario.
23

Cons Requires the development of new (e.g. central repository) and/or adaptation of existing Information Architecture (e.g. NRVIS, NHIC). Need to consider sensitivity of some data and potential unsuitability to broad exposure (e.g. data related to species under threat of harvest). Could result in increased internal and/or external costs

Pros

Cons

Ensures consistent standards are applied to May require some migration of data not species at risk presence data collection and currently stored in NHIC. maintenance Provides confidence to proponents that their Will likely require additional and long term investments is data collection are being used investments to ensure data are harvested and stored efficiently on an ongoing basis.

Recommendation: 3.6-5 It is recommended that the Ministrys investments in collaborative research and monitoring initiatives and the development of Best Management Practices (e.g. Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund) continue and be reviewed and revised with an emphasis on the recognition of and opportunities to leverage sectorled research and monitoring, considerate of the recommendations of this report. Pros Cons Provides for investment of limited resources Requires ongoing commitment and likely some on priority areas to assist in achieving the modification to Species at Risk Funding modernization initiative (e.g. advanced Programs and/or alternative funding approval standards) mechanisms (e.g. dedicated revenue) Leverages the expertise, experience and Could result in increased internal and/or active involvement of proponents and external costs practitioners over time. Consistent with MNRs broader transformation plan regarding stewardship and partnership and science and information rationalization Recommendation: 3.6-6 It is recommended that formal socio-economic assessments be incorporated into the process of the development of Habitat Regulations and Government Response Statements and that periodic reviews of the broader impacts and benefits of the legislation be undertaken. Such assessments should be shared with the public and stakeholders in a timely and transparent manner. Pros Consistent with the expectations of the Habitat Regulation/Government Response Statement process Consistent with principles of good governance and public accountability
24

Cons Requires ongoing commitment and likely some modification to the Habitat Regulation and/Government Response Statement process.

3.7

AdditionalImportant&RelevantConsiderations

Rationale: During the Panels deliberations a number of important points were raised that fell outside of the six (6) core thematic areas of work. The Panel believes these points are relevant and worthy of inclusion within this Report for consideration by the Minister. Examples of these additional relevant observations include opportunities for: Better preparing to address the implications of the listing of species (i.e., especially in terms of stakeholder timing and engagement); The use of safe harbour type agreements to encourage and to promote species recovery while limiting potential risks to landowners; Ensuring that safe harbour agreements include research and monitoring provisions so that information gathered contributes to the long-term knowledge base; The encouragement of innovation, drawing upon and building upon the best practices available and where appropriate (e.g., species habitat mitigation banking and credit trading concepts); and The promotion of a stewardship culture in Ontario that underpins the intentions of the Act and which fosters ongoing and improved collaborative efforts and initiatives by all stakeholders related to species conservation and recovery.

In addition to these opportunities the following specific issues were also identified as beneficial in terms of engaging in ongoing dialogue and consideration: The need to consider approval simplification and certainty around the ability to transfer some responsibilities and liabilities for approval conditions to a third, implementing party (e.g., where the implementation is better suited to a party in terms of long term responsibility and continuity of implementation); The need for increased clarity around how multiple listed species will be addressed where spatial and/or temporal habitat requirements conflict (i.e., how does one prioritize the species which merits attention under the Act where conflicts arise)1; The need for additional clarifying guidance tools and factsheets in support of species conservation and recovery; The benefits of increased and ongoing Stakeholder engagement on an ongoing basis in relation to improvements proposed for the Act; and The benefits of ongoing dialogue around the consistent and equitable application of the ESA across various sectors and activities in all regions of the province.

Recommendation: 3.7-1 It is recommended that the process implemented by COSSARO be refined to improve stakeholder preparedness for listing and to optimize outcomes for species conservation and recovery.

25

Pros Responds to the notion that some stakeholders are surprised by listing outcomes and implications Reduces the potential for negative reactions to the listing of certain relatively widespread and abundant species (i.e., potential to discourage the reactive clearing or transformation of habitat) Process refinements would not require legislative changes Recommendation:

Cons Additional interaction between MNR and COSSARO may be required (affects timing and resources)

3.7-2 It is recommended that pilot scale applications of Safe Harbour Agreements be pursued for immediate implementation where appropriate. Pros Safe Harbour approach provides landowners with long-term protection from the implications of restoring habitat. Helps to foster a stewardship and recovery culture. Fostering innovation helps promote Ontarios role as a leader in the conservation and recovery of listed species in Ontario. Cons Safe Harbour Agreements may negatively affect adjacent and non-participating landowners Innovations sometimes have the potential to have unintended consequences, requiring careful thought and consideration. Potentially, does not provide long term certainty of habitat protection

Recommendation: 3.7-3 It is recommended that a process for the transference of approvals conditions, responsibilities, and liabilities be developed to address situations where a responsible third party may lead the implementation of an approval over time. Pros The potential that proponents that are not long-term entities may result in the abandonment of approval conditions, will be avoided. Implementation of approvals conditions will be simplified and made more efficient. Cons Without the correct process in place, responsibilities may be diluted or otherwise affected.

Recommendation: 3.7-4 It is recommended that the provision of information regarding listed species conservation and recovery be provided to stakeholders on a more proactive basis.

26

Pros Provides for increased clarity around key information and issues. Helps visibly position Ontario in a leading communications role position with respect to species at risk.

Cons Requires additional commitments of time and resources by the Province.

Recommendation: 3.7-5 It is recommended that the Province continue to foster innovative and collaborative dialogue amongst all stakeholders to optimize outcomes. In this regard, a review of existing committees and panels would be warranted to ensure the right existing/new vehicles for dialogue are routinely and consistently used to enhance communications amongst all stakeholders. Pros Provides for increased and ongoing dialogue across sectors and groups, thus permitting more opportunity for collaboration. Promotes the efficiency and coordination of information exchange amongst like bodies. Provides all stakeholders with information regarding current thinking and approaches (e.g., across sectors and organizations); this will help all stakeholders to equally weigh, discuss and implement preferred approaches to meeting the Act's intentions. Cons Province may need to find resources to support aspects of this process.

27

Appendix A ESA Panel Members

Endangered Species Act Panel Members Anna Baggio, CPAWS Wildlands League Julie Cayley, Ducks Unlimited Canada Michael Cole, Infrastructure Ontario Michael Collins-Williams, Ontario Home Builders Association Tim Gray, Ivey Foundation Tom Hilditch, Savanta Scott Jackson, Ontario Forest Industries Association Peter Jeffery, Ontario Federation of Agriculture Jamie Lim, Ontario Forest Industries Association Paul Norris, Ontario Waterpower Association Cynthia Robinson, Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association Tom Richardson, Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. Janet Sumner, CPAWS Wildlands League

Facilitator Karen Wianecki, Planning Solutions Inc.

28

Appendix B Summary of Recommendations

Timing of Habitat Protection: 3.1-1 It is recommended that regulation pursuant to Section 55 of the ESA with appropriate rules and conditions (e.g. minimizing the killing, harming, harassing of species and/or damaging or destroying of habitat) for newly listed and found species be enacted on a time-limited basis linked to the finalization of Government Response Statements and Habitat Regulations. 3.1-2 It is recommended that the Ministry apply a strategic framework to advance efforts and improve processes resulting in the development and finalization of Government Response Statements and Habitat Regulations. 3.1-3 It is recommended that, a range of authorization options be considered and assessed for use (i.e. Permit by Rule, Permit with Notice, Permit by Review) and that appropriate conditions be developed prior to or coincident with the application of Habitat and/or Species protection (see Section 3.4).

Nature of Habitat Protection 3.2-1 The Ministry of Natural Resources should undertake a comprehensive review of the Habitat Protection Policy (SAR 4.1) as well as the supporting document Categorizing and Protecting Habitat under the Endangered Species Act13 considerate of the concerns identified and make revisions, as appropriate, to contribute to the objectives articulated in this report (e.g. transition, streamlining). The revised policy(ies) should be implemented as soon as possible. 3.2-2 The Ministry of Natural Resources should undertake a comprehensive review and revision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits considerate of the opportunities to advance the recovery of species through additional and innovative approaches. The revised standards should be implemented as soon as possible. Transition Provisions 3.3-1 A strategic risk-based approach to transition14 provisions that acknowledges species-atrisk needs through species specific conditions15 on a sector basis. 3.3-2 That the purposes of the Endangered Species Act must be met through any proposed transition regulation. This should be assessed within a framework that recognizes earned approvals that have been secured under other legislation, while acknowledging

13

14 15

MNR,2012CategorizingandProtectingHabitatundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct.

Thiswouldaddresstransitionspeciesandnewlylistedspecies. Seasonalrestrictionsmayalsoapply(e.g.,avoidingharvestinginnestingseason) 29

the need to take steps to minimize conflicts with prohibitions in sections 9 and 10 of the Act (the no harm or harass, damage or destroy provisions respectively). 3.3-3 A tiered approach (conceptual framework below) assessing the risk to the species with the level of approvals and/or process timing that have been achieved on the date that the species is listed as threatened or endangered.

Proposed Conceptual transition framework with respect to mitigation effort:

Low Risk to Species some effort (low) required on behalf of proponent Medium Risk to Species Moderate to High High Risk to Species High (this represents situation of highest risk to both species and proponents requires innovation and creativity)

Late (likely to be seen as most difficult for proponent)

Streamlining of Approvals 3.4-1 Implement Approval Continuum The Ministry of Natural Resources should implement an approval continuum where a permit by rule (PBR) approach is implemented for certain projects/activities, which must meet a prescribed standard set of implementation conditions instead of proceeding through the regular negotiated approvals process (Permit by Review). Projects/activities that would suit this approach are those which are common and repeated, where there is confidence in the mitigation and therefore a lower risk to the species / habitat and where acceptable implementation best management practices are followed / repeated, such as conservation projects where the purpose is habitat creation. Risk assessment criteria could be developed by MNR to determine what other types of projects/activities would be subject to this PBR standard condition approach. It is recommended that PRB will only be implemented in exceptional circumstances for a relatively small proportion of approval applications in cases where the risk to ESA species is demonstrably low.
30

Project Process Timing

Middle

L = low to moderate degree of effort required

Moderate to High

High

Early

M=moderate degree of effort required

Moderate to High

High

Degree of Risk to Species

Compliance would be enforced by focusing on self-regulation with random audits of activities, and charges being laid for non-compliance, as appropriate. The Panel recommends a two-tiered approach to PBR where notification of activity and applicability is based on level of predictability of the outcome and level of risk of the project/activity. The second tier PBR would also be developed where proponents would register their activities (PBR with Registration). This approach would allow MNR to know the total number of projects/activities and project/activity types that are taking place and could spot audit a statistically meaningful sample of projects/activities and report publicly on compliance rates. This would help to improve the system over time. It is important that MNR develop criteria regarding when PBR without registration versus with registration would be appropriate. While the PBR approach offers efficiencies, MNR should use caution when determining what types of projects/activities are PBR versus PBR with Registration. In order to ensure MNR is meeting its mandate under the ESA for projects not requiring registration, MNR should develop a protocol for project/proponent audit as the proponent will be required to keep records of implemented projects/activities. Larger scale, higher risk projects/activities where there is a lower degree of confidence in the outcome are not appropriate for the PBR approach and would continue to require Permit by Review. At the present time, the majority of approval applications are being done by means of Permit by Review. An illustration of a possible gradient approach to approvals requirements is provided below. Note this is a schematic illustration, and should not be interpreted to indicate that a particular proportion of approval applications will be approved by a particular mechanism of approval.

High Degree of Confidence Low Risk Level of Risk to Species

Moderate Degree of Confidence

Low Degree of Confidence Low

Permit by Rule

Medium Risk

Permit by Rule with Registration

High Risk

High

Permit By Review

Degree of Confidence in the Outcome of Project/Activity

31

3.4-2 Expedite Approvals for Emergency Repairs to Infrastructure, Built Structures The Ministry of Natural Resources should make the required regulatory changes such that activities that are deemed as emergency repairs, which are those necessary to protect human health or safety (e.g. repairing structural damage to a bridge, road or dam) could proceed on a PBR basis, provided that certain conditions established in regulation that would be designed to minimize adverse effects are met. This would include activities involving the maintenance of built structures, that if not maintained would pose a risk to human health or safety or would prevent delivery of essential services. 3.4-3 Explore Multi-Species and Ecosystem Grouping The Ministry of Natural Resources should pursue grouping of listed species on an ecosystem or multi-species basis (i.e. group species by broad or more specific habitat types), wherein certain standardized conditions for approvals would apply, depending on habitat type. 3.4-4 Implement Automation of Approval Applications The Ministry of Natural Resources should pursue the automation and self-execution of approval applications, with use of web-based applications and registration to allow proponents to file and track their applications on line. 3.4-5 Use Section 18 Instruments The Ministry of Natural Resources should explore the use of Section 18 instruments that could be used in conjunction with other provincial and federal project planning and approval legislation, for sectors that wish to pursue them. The effort should be undertaken in a manner whereby the habitat conservation needs of ESA species are addressed as part of the requirements of these Acts. 3.4-6 Delegate Authority to Approve Permit Applications The Ministry of Natural Resources should delegate authority to senior staff to approve applications and issue permits in keeping with the provisions of the Ministry of Natural Resources Act. Linkages With Existing Legislation 3.5-1 It is recommended that the Ministry assess where existing regulatory frameworks and planning processes currently contribute to or already achieve16 the purposes of the ESA, and work with appropriate sectors to ensure that existing standards and processes are recognized and that unnecessary process and burden is reduced or eliminated.
16 Ivey Foundation and CPAWS Wildlands League do not support the position that existing

regulatory frameworks already achieve the purposes of the ESA. Ivey Foundation and WL are of the view that legislation on its own without meeting the test of the Act does not meet the intent of the ESA. The Ontario Forest Industries Association and Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. believe that the CFSA is equivalent to the ESA in its provision for the protection of species at risk and their habitat.
32

3.5-2 It is recommended that the Ministry assess where the ESA provides direction that is in contrast or contradiction to direction provided under other existing provincial or federal legislation, regulations and policy and work with individual sectors to resolve any inconsistencies and/or to harmonize approaches. It is further recommended that the Ministry proactively conduct a cross-Ministry assessment to identify potential conflicts between the ESA and other legislation early in the listing process. 3.5-3 (a) Proposed by Ontario Forest Industries Association & Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. It is recommended that, given the equivalency between the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA), a time limited (no less than 10 years) regulation be developed under Section 55(1)(b) of the ESA which recognizes that the primary objectives of the ESA are met through the Environmental Assessment Act, the CFSA and its associated Forest Management Plans (FMPs), and, further, fulfills governments commitment to recognize the CFSA and FMPs as equivalent processes to the ESA with respect to planning for and providing for species at risk. It is further recommended that the government convene a stakeholder panel that would review the linkages between the CFSA and the ESA to ensure that the forest sector is satisfying the purposes of the ESA, and that this panel shall report to the government prior to the expiration of the regulation.

(b)

Proposed by CPAWS Wildlands League & Ivey Foundation It is recommended that, given the compatibility between the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA), a time limited (until the development of the next 5 year operational forest management plan) regulation be developed under Section 55(1) (b) of the ESA when a new species SAR is listed (this would apply to newly listed and backlogged species). This will allow time to meet the requirements of the ESA through the Environmental Assessment Act, the CFSA and the resulting Forest Management Plans (FMPs) as a Section 18 instrument under the ESA. The transition regulation should stipulate any immediate requirements for the newly listed species at risk that apply to the existing approved FMPs. It is further recommended that the government convene a stakeholder panel that would review the linkages between the CFSA and the ESA to ensure that the forest sector is satisfying the purposes of the ESA, and that this panel shall report to the government within one year.

Research & Monitoring 3.6-1 The Ministry should commit to and implement a formal adaptive management program to support the continuous improvement of the ESA and its implementation. 3.6-2 It is recommended that, in collaboration with willing stakeholders, sectors and proponents, MNR institute a funded formal adaptive management framework to be used for decisions and investments made to support the implementation of the ESA. 3.6-3 It is recommended that data and information collected to support ESA implementation be stored and maintained in a manner that enables analysis and assessment by government, stakeholders and sector partners, in a timely and transparent manner, over space and time.
33

3.6-4 It is recommended that the Natural Heritage Information Centre should be the onewindow database for the best available data and information on species at risk presence in Ontario 3.6-5 It is recommended that the Ministrys investments in collaborative research and monitoring initiatives and the development of Best Management Practices (e.g. Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund) continue and be reviewed and revised with an emphasis on the recognition of and opportunities to leverage sectorled research and monitoring, considerate of the recommendations of this report. 3.6-6 It is recommended that formal socio-economic assessments be incorporated into the process of the development of Habitat Regulations and Government Response Statements and that periodic reviews of the broader impacts and benefits of the legislation be undertaken. Such assessments should be shared with the public and stakeholders in a timely and transparent manner. Additional Important & Relevant Considerations 3.7-1 It is recommended that the process implemented by COSSARO be refined to improve stakeholder preparedness for listing and to optimize outcomes for species conservation and recovery. 3.7-2 It is recommended that pilot scale applications of Safe Harbour Agreements be pursued for immediate implementation where appropriate. 3.7-3 It is recommended that a process for the transference of approvals conditions, responsibilities, and liabilities be developed to address situations where a responsible third party may lead the implementation of an approval over time. 3.7-4 It is recommended that the provision of information regarding listed species conservation and recovery be provided to stakeholders on a more proactive basis. 3.7-5 It is recommended that the Province continue to foster innovative and collaborative dialogue amongst all stakeholders to optimize outcomes. In this regard, a review of existing committees and panels would be warranted to ensure the right existing/new vehicles for dialogue are routinely and consistently used to enhance communications amongst all stakeholders.

34