ESA - Ten Year Review of the…

ESA - Ten Year Review of the Endangered Species Act – Comments

In what circumstances would a more strategic approach support a proposed activity while also ensuring or improving outcomes for species at risk? (e.g., by using a landscape approach instead of a case-by-case approach, which tends to be species and/or site-specific.)
I agree that in order to have success protecting and restoring species at risk a landscape approach has to be considered. This would include landscape habitat targets, determination of minimum viable habitat for species. Ultimately success can only be achieved through stewardship programs. The reality is that most SAR are found on private land in southern Ontario. You need private landowner buy in. Since the ESA was introduced in 2007 the list of species at risk has grown alarmingly. Very clearly the current system is not working.

Are there existing tools or processes that support managing for species risk at a landscape scale that could be recognized under the Endangered Species Act?
There are tools such as safe harbour agreements, but programs such as the Alternate Land Use Services (ALUS) program are probably the best avenue for success. The key is to encourage and enlist willing landowners and to look at development proposals as an opportunity for restoration.

What changes would improve the notification process of a new species being listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List? (e.g. longer timelines before a species is listed.
Yes a longer time period. Also perhaps a quarterly list of species being reviewed and considered that could easily accessed by the public. There should always be opportunity for comment.
Should there be a different approach or alternative to automatic species and habitat protections? (e.g., longer transition periods or whether to apply, remove or temporarily delay protections for a threatened or endangered species, or its habitat.)ministerial discretion on
Yes, in some cases. For example, the greatest risk to Butternut is a disease (canker). The best hope for Butternut is to find trees that show signs of resistance to the canker. Private landowner cooperation and buy in is essential. Currently many private landowners are apprehensive and are fearful of restrictions to the use of their property because of the ESA (rightly or wrongly). Some landowners are even quietly removing their Butternut. A different approach that enlists the support of private landowners without any fear of restrictions would benefit Butternut more that the current approach.

How can the process regarding assessment and classification of a species by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario be improved? (e.g., request an additional review and assessment in cases where there is emerging science or conflicting information.
Currently COSSARO does draw on outside expertise to review status reports and provide input. Unfortunately everyone involved in the process currently tends to be like-minded quite often making the case for the greatest protection they can rationalize with the information they have. There are often huge data gaps. Some species being assessed simply have not been inventoried. The rational for some high level of protection is often very circumstantial. Currently there is a lack of objectivity. There absolutely needs to be a review by an independent, objective review team of the data and rationale for listing a species prior to a species being listed. This review team doesn’t have to be experts but should have science backgrounds or be able to draw on science. They would take an objective look at the data and determine if they feel there is sufficient data and evidence to support a recommendation for listing or if more information should be collected before listing. This approach would also increase transparency. A review team might also offer an opinion on whether listing a species would actually be the best approach for protecting and restoring a particular species. For example. Butternut. The issue with butternut is canker, generally not habitat loss. The best hope for butternut is to find trees that have resistance to canker. Most butternut are found on private land where landowner cooperation is needed to find butternut. The ESA has created mistrust and apprehension. Most landowners are not inviting government officials to look for healthy butternut and some are even cutting butternut out of misguided fear that having an endangered species will impact the use of their land.
In what circumstances is the development of a habitat regulation warranted, or not warranted? (e.g., to improve certainty for businesses and others about the scope of habitat that is protected?
In my opinion in most circumstances it is not warranted.

Area of Focus 4
Currently there are some tools under the ESA that can encourage stewardship of species at risk.; i.e.

Stewardship agreement, s. 16: An agreement may be entered into under this section for activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species at risk.

Protection or recovery permit, s. 17(2)(b): A protection or recovery permit may be issued for an activity that is meant to help a species at risk or its habitat, but the activity may involve actions that are otherwise prohibited under the Act (e.g., capturing or possessing the species).

Overall benefit permit, s. 17(2)(c): An overall benefit permit may be issued for an activity that would have an adverse effect on species at risk or their habitat, as long as an overall benefit is provided to the species in Ontario through conditions of the permit. Providing an overall benefit to a species means undertaking actions that contribute to improving the circumstances for the species.

However these tools are not widely used. There should be dedicated staff available to promote and assist landowners with these tools.
In addition, new programs should be implemented to expand stewardship efforts through partnerships with organizations such as the Ontario Woodlot Association who have direct links to private landowners.

For example, programs such the Alternate Land Use Services (ALUS) program is an excellent model to encourage private landowners to restore habitat for SAR.
In my opinion too much staff time has been spend on the development of habitat regulations which have been largely been ineffective over the southern Ontario landscape where about 90% of the land is privately owned. Not enough time has been spent working with private landowners to build trust and to initiate programs and projects to restore SAR to actually make a positive difference.

The following is a paper written in 2012. It was based on the proceedings of a workshop attended primarily by farmers, woodlot owners and people from the forest industry. At that time the Ministry of Natural Resources was the lead for the program. The paper I believe is still pertinent.

file:///C:/Users/Kerry/Desktop/backup/My%20Documents/ESA%20Discussion%20%20Paper-%20January%202012.pdf