To Whom It May Concern,…

To Whom It May Concern,
Please accept the following comments regarding the discussion paper about the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

A large number of species are in decline, most of which due to anthropogenic impacts to habitat or the species directly. In some cases, near catastrophic habitat loss has already occurred (ie Essex County, Perth County), though in other circumstances, mortality and/or habitat loss has not yet reached critical levels (ie parts of Muskoka, northern Ontario, etc.). Whether it is acute impacts, or chronic long-term losses, the result is clear, we are losing wild plant and animals at an alarming rate. Both COSEWIC and COSSARO assessments show how dire the situation is for many plants and animals in the province, and beyond. Maintaining only representative subpopulations is not enough, we need to ensure large-scale protection of species and habitats into the future. Habitat is not static, it changes due to environmental conditions, anthropogenic threats, and natural succession. We need to, at the very least, maintain current protections offered by the provincial ESA, but at best increase protections, increase charges for violations, better enforce current laws and provide more funding for protection, research and enforcement. Without proactive efforts, we will continue to lose or harm Ontario’s biodiversity. Ensuring Ontario is seen as the gold standard for species protection will influence other provinces and countries to keep up. I have worked with Species At Risk for over 25 years and the threats are increasing. In general, the bulk of Ontario’s human population exists within the most important habitat for wildlife in the province. Allowing business, infrastructure, and other opportunities that negatively impact our environment to proceed without extremely strict guidelines and enforcement of Endangered Species legislation is both careless and short-sighted. Once an area is lost to development, it does not return. Compromising important plant and wildlife habitat results in decreased viability of populations, loopholes that benefit more development over ecosystem health and long-term impacts that not only affect plants and wildlife, but the human population as well.

Area of Focus 1 – Landscape Approaches
Recovery activities that can assist a community of species can be beneficial, though single-species needs may not always be met during landscape approaches. Species protection needs to be addressed on a case by case basis, and when opportunities for a landscape approach make sense, they can be put into practice. Approaches that increase overall habitat availability, link natural habitats and reduce significant threats are generally efforts that can benefit a large diversity of species. However, single species threats may need separate approaches. Additionally, it must be made abundantly clear that the protection of species across their range is necessary, not just representative populations. Species protection across the range is necessary to ensure long-term survival as threats increase. It is essential to promote ecologically sound recovery and conservation practices that include the protection of multiple populations, even those that may be isolated. Under no circumstances should changes be made to the ESA that would weaken Species At Risk protections, or make it easier for proponents to fragment, harm or destroy habitat, or result in injury or mortality of Species At Risk.

The species listed as at risk are under intense pressures already, many of which continue to decline due to not enough protection being offered. If changes are to be made the ESA, they should be based on increasing protections for Species At Risk, increasing enforcement of the ESA, increasing funding opportunities for research and stewardship activities and ensuring COSSARO is able to function efficiently and effectively. With regard to “overall benefit” during development, it should be noted that further protections for Species At Risk need to be addressed, since what looks good on paper, is not necessarily what is best in practice. Overall benefit has the potential to reduce true protections for Species At Risk under certain circumstances, so a more thorough review of the destruction to SAR needs to be completed, and increased protections and more appropriate overall benefit options need to be investigated. For example, putting in ecopassages without fencing is not appropriate, putting in turtle nesting mounds without a permanent management plan for upkeep is pointless, removing established habitat and replacing it with unproven alternative habitat is detrimental. Many more examples exist.

Area of Focus 2 – Listing Process
No changes to the automatic listing of SAR after review by COSSARO should be made. This is an important aspect of the ESA, one that ensures listing is based on the best available scientific information, not political pressure. Additionally, the automatic protection of habitat for newly-listed Threatened and Endangered species should not change. The species is being listed because it is in decline, and thus quick action is necessary to slow current threats. Ministerial removal or delay of protections could be detrimental to the species in need of protection and could reduce the integrity of the listing process and the Act itself. If a delay is necessary, this could be vetted through COSSARO to ensure significant harm to the species will not occur based on the best available information.
In some cases, there may be no way around limited public access to location information due to data sensitivity. Due to the risk of illegal collection, the location of many species is unknown to most residents of Ontario, until issues of habitat destruction or other issues of species impact occur. To better inform the public, a detailed fact sheet on data sensitivity may be necessary and may need to include all of the species that may be included (i.e., ginseng, spotted turtle, etc.). This information sheet would need to be linked whenever a data sensitive species is up for assessment. On a species by species basis, general range information may be provided, without specific location information (i.e., Carolinian Zone, Niagara Escarpment, Oxford County, etc.). There is no perfect solution for all species, and educational materials need to illustrate this. Letting the public know how the process works, and why some species need additional safeguarding is important.
In materials available to stakeholders and the public, it should be made clear that the majority of reports have already been peer reviewed through the COSEWIC process. COSEWIC provides a rigorous IUCN-based assessment that is vetted by biologists, government, First Nations and independent members. By the time COSSARO reviews these documents, they have been heavily scrutinized, and COSSARO provides an additional level of assessment, revision and peer review of the information. The process used by IUCN, COSEWIC and COSSARO is nationally and internationally recognized and adopted, after decades of fine tuning. If there is new, emerging information that could affect status, COSSARO should be tasked with ensuring this is addressed.

Area of Focus 3 – Species Recovery Policies
Habitat protection is necessary for all species. Regulated habitat is necessary for species that require a range expansion in order to be down-listed, as well as species with limited distributions to ensure enough habitat is available for future movement and protection. We need to see wildlife habitat as a living entity, one that changes over time, and in doing so wildlife need to move in order to survive. River channels can move considerably over a century, prairies can turn into forests, ponds can become meadows, meadows turn into fields and so on and so forth. Humans often see natural areas as permanent, assuming the natural area will always be similar. This is not the case, so we need to allow room for species to move when habitats change. The changes to habitats are increasing rapidly due to anthropogenic issues (ie invasive species, climate change, pollution etc), so this issue continues to be relevant.

Area of Focus 4 – Authorization Processes
Various permits are available under the ESA, with the most common being the C permit (Overall Benefit Permit). The potential for the overall benefit not to be overly beneficial is high. What looks good on paper is not always what works on the ground. Expert review of such permits must be carried out by species specialists, especially in cases where important habitat could be lost, or mortality of individuals could occur. Also, allowing the proponent too much leeway in how these activities are carried out has the potential to limit effectiveness or appropriateness of the actions. Consulting firms are often heavily influenced by the proponent and thus appropriate efforts are not always carried out. When combined with lack of enforcement due to funding limitations, problems facing Species At Risk could increase, or at the very least not be addressed to the extent necessary to protect, conserve or recover the species.

Having consultants hired by the proponent, and the proponent in charge of activities to benefit Species At Risk, is obviously a backwards approach to species protection. With regard to monitoring of overall benefit: long term benefits can not be observed over a few month or few year period for many species. Animals such as turtles may take decades to show increases or losses due to changes in their environment. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks must ensure enforcement, review and follow-up with the proponent over many years. Without this, how is there proof that benefit has occurred? Most Species At Risk don’t show rapid changes in populations, so the damage that may be done today, may not truly be understood for many years. Since alteration of habitat and potential mortality of individuals is occurring in many areas across the province, we do not have a true sense of the overall impact it will have. For example, adding a culvert under a road to compensate for destroying habitat may not be a true benefit, and should not simply be seen as a checkmark on a permit application review. Overall benefit reports (other than for data sensitive species) should be made available to the public, to ensure benefit has been achieved through peer review.

Significant Social or Economic Benefit Permits (D permits) have the potential to be used inappropriately, and cause large-scale damage to Species At Risk and their habitats. The use of these permits should never become a tool to circumvent laws to protect Species At Risk without appropriate justification. The acceptance of this permit should only occur after rigorous review, and only truly significant benefits should trigger their use. In essence, this should be an extremely rare occurrence. Even under such rare circumstances, if a permit is granted, the overall benefit to Species At Risk should also be significant to compensate for losses. Additionally, big industry, including Forestry should not be exempt from the ESA, and needs to be enforced on all lands, including Crown Land.

I would also like to support the following information provide through the Canadian Herpetological Society:
“Other changes to the ESA should also be made to truly strengthen the protection of SAR in Ontario:
1) It is time to repeal the 2013 exemptions for the forestry, hydro, mining and development industries. These exemptions can allow the widespread destruction of SAR habitat.
2) Amend section 57 (1)1 of the ESA so that exemptions will only be allowed if they do not jeopardize the survival and recovery of Endangered and Threatened species.
3) Proper enforcement of the ESA must also occur. Too often there is no government monitoring of development projects, which can lead to violations of ESA permit conditions, and especially a lack of follow-through on required overall benefit activities. Even when charges are laid under the ESA, the penalties have often been lax. Fines simply become the price for doing business, rather than a deterrent.
Protection for SAR also requires stable, long-term funding. We strongly encourage the government to continue to fund the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, and the Species at Risk Research Fund. Both of these funding programs leveraged a significant amount of funding from the private sector, providing valuable extra funding for protecting SAR informed through scientific research, and making the investment from the provincial government very cost effective. Cutting these funding programs would greatly harm the recovery of SAR.”

Conclusion
While there may be opportunities to streamline permitting and other ESA-related tasks, they must not weaken the protections provided to Species at Risk. We are facing a critical moment for wildlife losses around the world, and Ontario is not immune. Threats are increasing each year, and there is little chance of relief from these pressures (human population growth, pollution, invasive species, climate change, etc.). Without quick and effective action now, we will continue to observe declines for species across the province. Without maintaining or increasing protections, either recovery will not be possible, or it will be exponentially more expensive to achieve. With the current legislation, we are not witnessing drastic increases in most SAR populations, but the efforts are helping to at least slow declines. With any weakening of the act, we run the very likely risk of increasing rates of decline, increasing costs to recover species and increasing the number of species that become at risk. Ontario needs to be an example of what true species protection looks like in Canada, and around the world. If we limit protections in the ESA, we will continue to dismantle the ecosystem through the loss of habitat and species diversity. In the end, this will impact us all. As someone that has studied wildlife and worked to recover populations of species at risk for over two decades, I can state with full confidence that we are not doing enough, but we are on the right track with the ESA. There is little room for error, so protections for SAR must be maintained or increased.