October 5, 2018 Megan…

October 5, 2018

Megan McAndrew
Species Conservation Policy Branch
300 Water Street
Floor 5N
Peterborough ON
K9J 8M5
recovery.planning@ontario.ca

Dear Ms. McAndrew,
Re: ERO #013-3605 - DRAFT Government Response Statements for for the Massasauga, Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee, Kentucky Coffee-tree and Blue Ash
On behalf of Ontario Nature, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the draft government response statements (GRS) for the Massasauga, Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee, Kentucky Coffee-tree and Blue Ash.
Ontario Nature is a charitable conservation organization that protects wild species and wild spaces in Ontario through conservation, education and public engagement. Established in 1931, we represent over 30,000 individual members and supporters and over 150 member groups across the province.
Below I have outlined our general concerns for both strategies, followed by specific comments and recommendations on each GRS.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Lack of timelines
All of the GRSs lack timelines for action beyond the general commitment to focus on high priority actions within the next five years. No more specific timelines for high priority actions are provided. Further, for the majority of actions, which are not deemed high priority, there is no indication whatsoever of when they should or will be undertaken. Without plans or commitments to initiate actions in the near future, many of the actions listed are destined to languish on paper. This is a critical weakness in terms of government accountability, given the complexity involved in managing the protection and recovery of a species at risk and the necessity of relying on assistance from many individuals and organizations to do so to implement recovery actions.

Recommendation 1: Assign more specific timelines for high priority actions and general timelines for other actions.

2. No commitment to consult or engage with Indigenous communities
We note the lack of commitment to consult or engage with Indigenous communities in any of the GRSs. Even though the importance of working with First Nations to identify critical habitat is highlighted in the recovery strategy for the Massasauga (p. 25), for example, there is no mention of this important action in the GRS. Given the responsibilities and rights of Indigenous peoples in Ontario, as well as the significant Traditional Knowledge that they could bring to recovery actions if properly engaged, all of the GRS should include consultation and engagement with them as a priority action.

Recommendation 2: Include consultation and engagement with Indigenous communities as a priority action.

3. Lack of acknowledgement of or actions to address climate change
Climate change is a major threat to these four species-at-risk. A recent article by Naujokaitis-Lewis et al. 2018, discusses the threats in delaying conservation actions for species that are vulnerable to climate change. Specifically, they illustrate this using the Massasauga as a model species of how delays and inaction to address climate-related threats can lead to negative impacts to this species. The sooner climate related actions are undertaken the greater the chance of recovery for species-at-risk.

Recommendation 3: Identify and prioritize climate adaptation actions in each of the GRS.

DRAFT GRS FOR MASSASAUGA:
Overall we felt this was a strong GRS for the recovery of Massasauga. We share the ministry’s perspective regarding the importance of research and collaboration. However, there are key elements within the GRS that require improvement.
1. Lack of habitat regulation for Massasauga
Protecting and improving the quality of existing habitat is at the heart of multiple actions in the GRS. However, there is no action identified in the GRS for the development of a habitat regulation for the species. This is despite the fact that there is a clear recommendation in the recovery strategy that a habitat regulation should be developed:

“… it is recommended that the approach used to identify critical habitat in the federal recovery strategy, together with the General Habitat Description for Massasauga in Ontario (OMNR 2013) and relevant research, be considered when developing a habitat regulation under the ESA.” (p.4)

Further research in identifying specific habitat usage for the purpose of informing and creating habitat regulations should be completed for Massasauga habitat protection.

Recommendation 4: Include a government-led action to research and develop a habitat regulation for the Massasauga.

2. Weak Recovery Goals
The recovery goals for both Massasauga populations fall short of those in the recovery strategy. For the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence population, the recovery goal in the GRS speaks of “maintaining self-sustaining populations” in contrast to the recovery strategy which recommends “securing viable populations.” The difference between the two is important. The recovery strategy clearly states that “the number of adults may be fewer than 10,000 and is declining because of continued degradation and loss of habitat, increasing mortality on roads and ongoing persecution” (p. 1). If a population is currently declining it needs to be secured as viable before it can be maintained. Securing and maintaining are not interchangeable terms.

Recommendation 5: Revise the GRS recovery goal for the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence population so that it directly reflects that set out in the recovery strategy. Replace the phrase “maintain self-sustaining populations” with “secure viable populations”. A specific target to identify success in securing a viable population should be identified.

The recovery goal for the Carolinian population falls severely short of the goal and related objectives set out in the recovery strategy. According to the recovery strategy, the goal for the Carolinian population is to “prevent extirpation of the Ojibway populations” and “secure viable populations at Wainfleet” to ensure persistence of the species through its current range (p. 10). However, in the draft GRS the goal does not mention preventing extirpation or securing viable populations. It only aims to “increase the likelihood” of keeping the species in southern Ontario.

Recommendation 6: Revise the goal statement so that it matches that of the recovery strategy and aims to prevent the extirpation of Massasauga from Ojibway and secure the population at Wainfleet. The goal in the recovery strategy was created from a consensus among scientists, government, and non-government organizations and should be upheld.

Furthermore, the objectives listed in the recovery strategy that accompany the goal statement should also be included in the GRS goal statement. Specifically, the objectives are:

- (Ojibway) Maintain the habitat in Ojibway to allow for the survival of the extant individuals while the probability of long-term persistence is assessed
- (Wainfleet) Maintain the Wainfleet population of the Massasauga
- Maintain the current distribution and
- Determine the feasibility of population augmentation and habitat restoration to increase population size and distribution

The GRS goal does not speak to maintaining habitat in Ojibway or maintaining the distribution of either population beyond “increasing the likelihood” of retaining their current distribution. Also, augmentation (population management) and habitat restoration are only to be considered by the government, whereas in the recovery strategy objective they are clearly outlined as required.

Recommendation 7: Revise the goal statement to clearly define the approaches that will be implemented to maintain habitat and the current distribution of the Massasauga in southern Ontario.

In addition, the statement in the GRS goal that the government will support investigation, evaluation, and possibly implementation of population management in Ojibway and Wainfleet is an open-ended statement. It implies that the task of maintaining the current distribution and persistence of the Massasauga will fall to outside organizations, not the government itself.

Recommendation 8: Take greater action investigating, evaluating, and especially implementing population management for Massasauga in southern Ontario. Edit the goal statement to include the need for this and assign a leader to address the issue. Government should be on the forefront of protection and recovery of the species.

3. Disappointing level of commitment to government-led actions

Within the GRS there are many actions given to undertake on the road to recovery for the Massasauga. The government-supported actions are well laid out, clearly aligned with an objective and have fairly detailed explanations of why, how and what actions will be supported to achieve them. Conversely, the government-led actions are general, vague and lack any explanatory details of what will actually be done. For example, the very first listed government-led action is “Continue to manage the habitat of Massasauga in provincially protected areas and monitor populations, where feasible” (lines 163-164). This does not explain how habitat will be managed, and the words “where feasible” undermine any true commitment to action. Each of the government-led actions following this is similar in nature. Further, the GRS fails to assign a lead role to the government in addressing many of the high priority actions and threats identified in the recovery strategy, such as road mortality and the impacts of development.

Recommendation 9: Revise all government-led actions so that they match the level of detail and explanation provided for the government-supported actions. Remove weak wording such as “where feasible” which renders commitments almost meaningless.

Recommendation 10: Include all high priority actions from the recovery strategy as government-led priorities in the GRS.

There appears to be a cookie-cutter approach to identifying actions to be taken in the GRS. In each of the draft GRS for Blue Ash, Gypsy Cuckoo Bumblebee and Kentucky Coffee-tree several of the government-led actions are identical. Only two of the eight government-led actions set out in the Massasauga GRS are unique to this specific document. Instead, actions should be tailored to the specific species in question and should address the key threats and objectives set out in the recovery strategy.

Recommendation 11: Tailor actions identified for the Massasauga on the specific needs of and threats to the species.

4. Delay in developing GRS
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) failed to meet the legal requirement under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) that GRS are to be produced within nine months of the finalization of the recovery strategy for the Massasauga (ESA, sec. 11(8)) . The Massasauga recovery strategy was finalized in June of 2016, meaning that the GRS was over a year late in being published.

We note that the delay in publishing GRSs according to the legal requirements is a chronic problem in the ministry’s implementation of the ESA, as outlined in the 2013 special report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Laying Siege to the Last Line of Defence: A Review of Ontario’s Weakened Protections for Species at Risk (p. 17) and in the commissioner’s 2012/2013 Annual Report (parts 4.3 and 4.4).

DRAFT GRS FOR GYPSY CUCKOO BUMBE BEE
1. Acceptable goal statement, but lacks acknowledgement of threat mitigation
The short and long-term goals outlined in the draft GRS are in line with the recovery strategy. Both the GRS and recovery strategy aim to ensure the species’ long-term survival in Ontario by achieving a self-sustaining population. The recovery strategy specifies that this will be achieved through the protection and management of extant populations of the Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee as well as of host species’ populations (p. 9). The GRS, however, does not include language about protecting and managing populations, just that the persistence of the species at existing locations be maintained in the short-term.
Recommendation 12: Explicitly include language around protecting host species and extant populations in the GRS goal statement.
Further, the goal statement in the GRS does not include threat mitigation as outlined in the recovery statement: “[Recovery] should be accomplished by mitigating threats to these species including pathogen spillover, habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, pesticide use and climate change.” (p. 9) Some of these threats are addressed in the actions of the GRS, however this should be included in the recovery goal to ensure that the emphasis on threat mitigation is not lost. More specifically, there is no mention regarding the effects of climate change in the GRS, which will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the target and host species.
Recommendation 13: Include threat mitigation, including climate change, in GRS goal statement to highlight its importance.
2. Failure to address the impact of pesticides, specifically neonicotinoids
The protection of Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee and its habitat through the ESA are listed as a government-led action. However, the complete lack of transparency regarding the use of agricultural pesticides such as neonicotinoids is misleading. The use of systemic pesticides and fungicides is cited as a threat to this species in the recovery strategy:
Systemic insecticides (i.e. soluble chemicals targeting pests which travel through plant tissues and are present in tissues and fluids) present in pollen and/or nectar can have lethal or sub-lethal affects at the individual or colony levels in bumble bees (Rundolf et al., 2015; Morandin et al., 2005; Franklin et al., 2004). Fungicides may also impact populations as studies show sub-lethal impacts on bee health and behaviour though studies have been mostly in laboratory thus far (e.g., Elston et al., 2013; Sprayberry et al., 2013). Given the growing number of studies on other bee species, it is likely extant populations of the Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee and its hosts can be negatively impacted by exposure to a variety of pesticides and combinations of pesticides. (pp. 6 – 7)
‘Minimizing the effects of insecticides and minimizing the impact of herbicides on potential pollen/nectar sources’ (lines 207-208) are not sufficient actions to prevent the further decline of the target and host species. Instead, the GRS should aim to prevent the use of insecticides and herbicides in habitats used by the gypsy cuckoo bumble Bee and host species.
Recommendation 14: Clearly state the negative effects of agricultural pesticide use (neonicotinoids) on the species and its habitat. Outline actions to address these impacts, in accordance with sections 9 and 10 of the ESA which prohibit harm to a threatened or endangered species and its habitat.
3. Failure to acknowledge of the importance of recovery sites
As stated in the recovery strategy, there are places where Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee has by sighted in recent years, including Pinery Provincial Park, Presqu’ile Provincial Park, Dunks Bay and Oliphant Fen. However, the GRS only includes the Pinery for the government- supported Habitat and Threat Management (lines 179-182), failing to acknowledge the other sites. The objective states that “additional sites if occupied or identified for recovery purposes” would be considered (line 182). The recovery strategy clearly mentions the other sites as critical areas that need to be monitored.

Map from the recovery strategy outlines the historical range of the Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee that should be considered and included in monitoring efforts.
Recommendation 15: Include in the GRS all areas cited in the recovery strategy (Pinery Provincial Park, Presqu’ile Provincial Park, Dunks Bay and Oliphant Fen) as sites where habitat will be maintained or improved to reduce threats to Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee and its host species.
4. Missing critical and necessary actions
While most actions outlined in the recovery strategy were included in the GRS, some critical and necessary actions were omitted. These two missing actions need to be included in the GRS for the successful recovery of the species:
• 2.1 Protect (through stewardship) sites with extant populations of Yellow-banded Bumble Bee or the Rusty-patched Bumble Bee from habitat loss and fragmentation.
• 3.1 Initiate or continue restoration efforts in habitat where Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee and its hosts have been found.
Recommendation 16: Include all critical and necessary actions from the recovery strategy in the GRS, with timelines and targets to drive and assess progress.

DRAFT GRS FOR KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE
1. Weak goal statement
The recovery goal in the draft GRS is vague and thoroughly unambitious. As seen throughout the entirety of the draft GRS, the use of terms such as ‘where feasible’ and ‘as appropriate’, especially in the goal statement indicates the government’s lack of commitment to take the necessary actions to support the recovery of species at risk.

Recommendation 17: Revise the GRS recovery goal so that it reflects a clear intent to improve the status of the species.

2. “Feasibility” and “appropriateness” are undefined, inviting delay and inaction.
GRS (e.g., lines 21, 102, 118-122, 127-130, 202-204, 214-217, 220-222, 239-241, 286-287). The underlying assumptions about what is feasible and appropriate are not discussed, yet are frequently associated with aspects of the species’ biology, for example:

As Kentucky Coffee-tree is limited by low rates of dispersal, germination and sexual reproduction, it is likely to remain vulnerable to both natural and human-induced environmental changes even where protection and recovery efforts are undertaken. As a result of these limiting factors, approaches to recovery may include, where appropriate and feasible, increasing the number of populations that are capable of sexual reproduction through augmentation efforts. (lines 98-103)

Develop guidance and, where feasible and appropriate, undertake actions to increase the number of, and successful reproduction in, sexually-reproducing populations. (lines 239-241)

While we agree that low rates of sexual reproduction, germination and seed dispersal are challenges to the species’ recovery, we do not agree that these factors should be used as a reason for inaction. With only 4 of the 15 extant populations known to be mixed-gender and sexually-reproducing, augmenting the single-sex populations to establish sexually-reproducing population is vital to improve genetic diversity and increase seed production (i.e., sexual reproduction).

Recommendation 18: Remove or revise any statements in the GRS which indicate recovery action should be undertaken ‘where feasible and appropriate’.

4. Failure to adequately address high priority threats
The recovery strategy identifies double-crested cormorant nesting colonies and cutting or removal of Coffee-trees in floodplains, on roadsides and/or in fencerows as high priority threats. These threats are not adequately addressed. GRS inadequately addresses the threat of cormorant populations stating a government-led action to simply monitor the impact of cormorants without any action to alleviate or eliminate the threat.

The GRS does not address the threat of cutting or removal of Coffee-trees that exist in floodplains, on roadsides in fencerows, even though this is identified in the recovery strategy as a widespread threat. There are no actions associated with addressing this threat.

Recommendation 19: Identify as an action in the GRS the development of a management strategy for nesting double-crested cormorants.

Recommendation 20: Identify actions in the GRS specific to addressing the threat of cutting and removing trees.

DRAFT GRS FOR BLUE ASH
1. Inadequate government-led actions
The government-led actions outlined in the GRS are ambiguous and lack timelines. Not only do the actions identified only loosely align with the protection and recovery objectives, there is also no government accountability for meeting short- and long-term objectives.

Stating that the government will “continue to implement” plans and projects that are already in place such as the Ontario Invasive Species Strategic Plan (2012) and the Natural Heritage Information Centre will not help to recover this species. These projects have been in place for many years and during that time Blue Ash has continued to experience declines. If we are to ensure the recovery of this species it will require that the government take an active role in driving change. This recovery strategy provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the existing conservation efforts for this species and advance creative new ideas informed by science. Why does the Ontario government insist on maintaining the status quo?

For example, two of the main threats to the survival and recovery of Blue Ash explicitly identified in the recovery strategy are (1) the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and (2) browsing by White-tailed Deer (pg. 6-8). While the impact of these threats have been studied, current gaps in knowledge and the need for more research and monitoring are identified as a critical priority in the recovery strategy. Improving our knowledge of these threats is essential for prioritizing recovery efforts and determining future actions with measurable outcomes. Further, it is imperative that the government take a leadership role in guiding research and monitoring efforts and enforcing management regulations.

Recommendation 22: Ensure that the government takes a leadership role in completing actions that follow standardized methods for monitoring recovery with clear, measurable timelines.

2. Lack of detail in government-supported actions

The three focal areas in the GRS and their associated objectives and actions are well aligned with the recovery strategy, including their relative priority (e.g., critical or high). Although many of the recovery approaches outlined in section 2.3 of the recovery strategy (pg. 13-16) are addressed, more detail is required. Weak wording throughout undermines clarity and invites inaction. Use of words such as “feasible/feasibility,” and “appropriate/appropriateness” (pp. 7,9) are not defined. Collaborative actions with partners including Indigenous peoples and the sharing of Traditional Ecological Knowledge, are only necessary if “feasible” and “appropriate” (lines 271-272). Similarly, the use of tentative verbs such as “should be” and “may include” (p. 8) and open-ended expressions like “as opportunities arise” (p. 9) indicates that actions are optional, not required or to be actively pursued.

Recommendation 23: Clarify targets with measurable outcomes.

Recommendation 24: Eliminate the use of vague language that undermines commitment and action.

In closing, I trust that these 24 recommendations will be seriously considered as the government proceeds to finalize the GRSs. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this submission.

Yours sincerely,

Tanya Pulfer,
Conservation Science Manager
Ontario Nature
tanyap@ontarionature.org