The Ontario government appears intent to push through new habitat regulations for endangered species, despite lingering questions, confusion and outrage from people in the forest industry.
With the revised Species at Risk Act set to come into effect July 1, the province has neither allowed proper public scrutiny nor provided adequate direction on how forestry operators are supposed to work around this legislation, say industry officials.
"The whole act is a poorly thought-out, difficult to implement piece of legislation," said Jeff Muzzi, manager of forestry services, County of Renfrew in Pembroke. "It’s going to have serious implications not only on the forest industry but on municipalities maintaining and developing roads and on private landowners. I don’t know how we’re going to have any economic prosperity if we’re that heavily regulated."
Peter Nitschke, general manager of the Bancroft Minden Forest Company which manages the Bancroft Minden Forest, said, "We are on the verge of habitat regulations being passed and implemented, and we haven’t had any serious discussions about what you can and can’t do in the regulated habitat areas.
"I need to know when I am working in habitat, how I need to modify my operations to meet the intent of the Act. I need to know what process to follow in order to legalize these operations. There needs to be an approval mechanism. Up to now there’s been no indication how to do this."
The regulations being enacted in July apply to nine species. Of those, the peregrine falcon and the wood turtle are the ones which are likely to have the most impact on forestry operations because their habitats have been identified within a number of sustainable forest licence areas.
The recovery strategy has gone through at least three drafts which have come up for public review.The second draft, which was posted in November 2008, included text suggesting forestry has had a significant negative impact on wood turtle populations. That reference drew criticism from the forest industry since even the Ministry of Natural Resources has acknowledged that poaching for the pet trade has been the main threat to that species.
Even though the reference to forestry posing a threat to wood turtle populations was removed from the latest draft of the regulations, there was a revision which expanded the "habitat" for wood turtles in Northern Ontario from 300 to 500 metres.
Adding to uncertainty is the fact the MNR isn’t identifying specific locations of wood turtle habitats because it doesn’t want to tip off poachers.
Nitschke said, "When you don’t tell us where this species is located, it really opens up the possibility that an individual is going to do something unknowingly harmful to this species because no one gave us the heads-up."
Muzzi questioned why the ministry would tighten restrictions against forestry and private landowners when poachers are the main threat.
"The forest industry has worked around wood turtle habitat for years applying timing restrictions and other precautionary practices. We’ve got them in abundance in Renfrew. We’ve obviously been doing something right without these new regulations."
Scott Jackson, manager of forest policy with the Ontario Forest Industries Association, pointed out the province vowed just a few years ago to lighten the burden of bureaucracy and red tape which had slowed government approval processes and held up forestry operations.
"This new act runs contradictory to the provincial government’s stated initiative to reduce process on the forest industry," he said.
In the meantime, Jackson said the OFIA has repeatedly asked the MNR to provide the scientific studies it has purportedly based its regulations on. So far, he said, the OFIA has received nothing.
"We’ve been told the regulations were based on the ‘best available science.’ We’ve made various requests to review some of the information the government has based its decisions on and that has not been made available. I think there’s an obligation on the part of the government to provide that information. We’d like to give it our own assessment to see if any particular study was given additional weight. We absolutely need to understand what the government is basing its decisions on or it’s difficult to comment on fully."
The MNR held a consultation workshop in Toronto on May 25, inviting opinions and questions about the new regulations. Several of those in attendance told The Working Forest there were too many questions left unanswered.
Jackson, who was among those who attended, questioned why the MNR would think one public meeting in Toronto would be sufficient enough for feedback on proposed legislation that has province-wide implications.
"When you’re developing regulations that could affect forestry and forest management, there should be some dialogue in the locales where those species are present," said Jackson. "There was only one workshop to deal with nine species and this was located in Toronto. The nine species covered have collectively a wide range and are located well outside the GTA."
Jackson said it’s clear the government has not thoroughly examined the implications of these regulations
"We’ve been told all the way through that the Endangered Species Act policies are all about the balance of environmental and socioeconomic objectives. But when we asked the government if they have done a socioeconomic study on the impact of these regulations, we were told no. So how does the government apply balance when it hasn’t applied socioeconomic filters? We would like to see a full social and economic assessment of the impact of these habitat regulations."
Besides the peregrine falcon and wood turtle, the revised Endangered Species Act identifies concern for habitats of the American badger, barn owl, eastern prairie fringed orchid, Engelmann’s quillwort, few-flowered club-rush, Jefferson salamander, the western silvery aster and the woodland caribou. The enactment of the revised regulations on July 1 applies to all of these species except for the caribou which is to be addressed at a later date.◊
MNR response to industry concerns
The Ontario forest industry is being denied an opportunity to review some of the scientific research the government purportedly used to support changes in the newly revised Endangered Species Act.
The MNR acknowledges it is choosing to withhold some of its data relating wood turtles, one of the species at risk identified in the new regulations.
"Information pertaining to wood turtle locations are sensitive in nature due to the threat to the species from poaching," said Jolanta Kowalski, a senior spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, explaining why requests for that information have been denied.
The recovery strategy has gone through at least three drafts which have come up for public review. The most recent version expanded the "habitat" for wood turtles in northern Ontario from 300 to 500 metres.
Asked why that change was made, Kowalski replied that it was based on the findings from the "best available science including both published and unpublished data and research."
Some of that unpublished data has been derived from MNR field staff reports.
"The mapping approach, based on species occurrence data, outlined in the recovery strategy, had to be revised to meet the requirements of a habitat regulation," Kowalski said.◊