Five-Year Review of Progress Towards the Protection and ......researchers, local stewardship groups and others for natural heritage systems planning and to help protect and study Ontario’s

BLEED

Five-Year Review of Progress Towards the Protection and Recovery of

Ontario’s Species at Risk

2015

ontario.ca/speciesatrisk

http://ontario.ca/speciesatrisk

Cette publication est également disponible en français.

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015

Recommended Citation

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Five-Year Review of Progress Towards the Protection and Recovery of Species at Risk. Species Conservation Policy Branch, Peterborough, Ontario. + 215 pp.

ISSN 2369-6974 (Online)

ISBN 978-1-4606-6944-0 (PDF)

MNRF 62923

Cover photos L-R: Brian Ratcliff, Project Peregrine, Thunder Bay Field Naturalists; Wasyl Bakowsky, NHIC Archives; Jennifer McCarter; JD Taylor

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

American Badger ................................................................................ 21

Barn Owl ............................................................................................. 36

Deerberry ............................................................................................ 48

Eastern Flowering Dogwood ............................................................... 64

Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid ............................................................ 79

Englemann’s Quillwort ......................................................................... 93

Few-flowered Club-Rush ................................................................... 104

Jefferson Salamander ....................................................................... 116

Ogden’s Pondweed ........................................................................... 133

Peregrine Falcon ............................................................................... 143

Redside Dace ................................................................................... 164

Spotted Wintergreen ......................................................................... 185

Wood Turtle ...................................................................................... 199

Page 1 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk

Introduction to the Five-Year Review of Progress

1. OverviewThe Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”) is the Government of Ontario’s legislative commitment to protecting and recovering the province’s most vulnerable species and their habitats. Through the Species at Risk Program, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF or “the Ministry”) provides leadership and support in implementing the ESA and other tools that contribute to the protection and recovery of species at risk and their habitats. Collectively, these initiatives aim to protect species at risk and their habitats, promote the recovery of species, and promote stewardship activities to assist species at risk in Ontario.

Under the Act, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Minister”) is required to conduct a review of progress towards the protection and recovery of species at risk. The review must be conducted not later than five years after the actions that the Government of Ontario identifies to protect and recover a species at risk have been published in a government response statement.

This document describes the government’s commitments and efforts to support Ontario’s species at risk, and reports on progress toward the protection and recovery of the 13 species whose government response statements were finalized in 2010. Supporting information about the legislative requirements and relevant policies and procedures that help to protect and recover species at risk in Ontario are provided in sections 2 to 4 of this chapter.

Photo: Joe Crowley

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07e06

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk


2. Government Efforts to Support the Protection and Recovery of Ontario’s Species at Risk2.1. Species Assessments and Reassessments The government supports an independent body of experts called the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) to assess and reassess species that may be at risk or declining. COSSARO uses the best available scientific information, including community knowledge and Aboriginal traditional knowledge, to determine which plants and animals are “at risk” in Ontario.

The ESA requires that species designated as extirpated, endangered, threatened or special concern be listed in regulation under the Act within three months of COSSARO delivering an assessment report to the Minister. The list is called the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List and is filed under Ontario Regulation 230/08. Under the previous Endangered Species Act, the Minister had discretion as to which species were listed, but the current legislation requires that all species designations by COSSARO be automatically added to the SARO List. All species listed as endangered or threatened on the SARO List automatically receive both species and habitat protection under the Act.

COSSARO uses a prioritized list to publicly communicate its upcoming species assessments. Priority species for assessment by COSSARO typically include any Ontario species that have recently been assessed by its national counterpart, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), and any other Ontario species that may be experiencing significant declines. COSSARO may, at any time, reassess any species currently listed on the SARO List as new information becomes available to determine if the species’ status has changed. As COSEWIC reassesses federally listed species at risk every 10 years (or earlier if warranted), COSSARO also reassesses provincially listed species approximately every 10 years.

Including the results of the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario’s most recent report to the Minister (December 2014), there are currently 104 endangered, 57 threatened, 50 special concern and 15 extirpated species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List.

104

57

50

15

species of special concern

extirpated species

endangered species

threatened species

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/classifying-species-risk#section-1



http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080230_e.htm


Photo: Joe Crowley

2.2. Maintaining the Provincial Record of Species at RiskMaking an informed decision during the species assessment (or reassessment) process requires high quality and reliable data and information. The Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) tracks Ontario’s species at risk through collecting, reviewing and managing species-specific information in a comprehensive provincial database. A large network of partners all across Ontario send species observations to the NHIC for safe-keeping and to add to the provincial record, which is used extensively by governments, municipalities, researchers, local stewardship groups and others for natural heritage systems planning and to help protect and study Ontario’s natural heritage.

The provincial database (referred to as Land Information Ontario, or “LIO”) contains over 156,000 observations and information on over 26,000 occurrences of species at risk in Ontario. The Ministry encourages everyone to submit observations of species at risk to the NHIC for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/natural-heritage-information-centre

http://www.ontario.ca/page/land-information-ontario


2.3. Species and Habitat ProtectionThe Act provides protection for individual members of species at risk and their habitats. It protects Ontario’s most vulnerable species from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken. Individuals of endangered, threatened or extirpated species receive these protections automatically when they are listed on the SARO List. This is commonly referred to as “species protection” and, along with the provision for habitat protection, is one of the key sections of the Act (see section 9 of the ESA). Under the previous Endangered Species Act, only the 42 species that were declared in regulation to be threatened with extinction received species and habitat protection.

Today, species protection is provided to all 176endangered, threatened and extirpated species listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List.The Act automatically protects the habitat of all species listed as

endangered or threatened on the SARO List from being damaged or destroyed. This is commonly referred to as “habitat protection” and, along with the species protection provision discussed above, is one of the key sections of the Act (see section 10 of the ESA). Habitat, as defined in the Act, includes areas on which a species depends, directly or indirectly to carry on its life processes. To provide additional direction on exactly what areas are protected as habitat under the Act, the Ministry develops species-specific habitat guidance (e.g., general habitat descriptions and habitat regulations).

Not every activity that occurs within or near protected habitat will kill, harm or harass a species at risk or damage or destroy its habitat. In fact, many day-to-day activities can take place without adversely affecting a protected species or its habitat. If the activity will not contravene the Act, it can proceed without an ESA authorization and without the need to follow the requirements of a regulatory provision. If impacts to a species at risk cannot be avoided, the activity will require an authorization (e.g., permit) or, if eligible, may follow the requirements of a regulatory provision. ESA authorizations and regulatory provisions may allow activities that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act to occur if certain requirements can be met, such as minimizing adverse effects on the species and providing an “overall benefit” for the species. These provisions help to reduce the impacts of human activity on species at risk and their habitat while balancing social and economic considerations.

161 species’ habitats are protected under the ESA

The government has more clearly defined the habitats for nearly 1/3rd

of these species

Habitat protection is currently afforded to all 161 endangered and threatened species listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List. To provide enhanced clarity on what areas are protected as habitat under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA), the government has to-date developed 32 habitat regulations and 15 general habitat descriptions, providing species-specific direction for nearly 1/3rd of the species that receive ESA habitat protection.



https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/how-ontario-protects-species-risk



2.4. Recovery Strategies and Management PlansThe Ministry coordinates the preparation of species-specific recovery strategies for species listed as endangered or threatened and management plans for species listed as special concern. These documents are prepared for government by external experts using the best available scientific knowledge to provide advice on recommended approaches to recovering species listed as endangered or threatened. In the case of a special concern species, the advice to government is intended to prevent the species from becoming endangered or threatened. Recovery strategies and management plans were not required under the previous Endangered Species Act.

Upon listing of species as endangered or threatened on the SARO List, recovery strategies are required within one year for endangered species and two years for threatened species. Similarly, once a species is listed as special concern, a management plan is required to be prepared for the species within five years, unless a recovery strategy or management plan is prepared for the species under the federal Species at Risk Act. Recovery strategies for endangered or threatened species that were listed at the time the Act came into force (i.e., “transition species”, which is a species listed under schedule 1, 3 or 4 of the ESA) were not due until 2013.

In some circumstances, publication of recovery strategies and management plans can occur outside of the above-mentioned timelines. Publication may be delayed in cases where the Minister is of the opinion that additional time is required to prepare a recovery strategy or management plan because of 1) the complexities of the issues, 2) the desire to prepare the recovery strategy/management plan with one or more other jurisdictions, or 3) the desire to give priority to the preparation of recovery strategies or management plans for other species. Taking additional time to prepare a recovery strategy or management plan helps the Ministry to consider the needs of all species at risk and develop the best quality products for their protection and recovery.

Since 2008, the Government of Ontario has successfully completed development of recovery strategies for 100 species at risk. Sixty of the published recovery strategies are for species that were listed at the time the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) came into effect (i.e., transition species) and 40 are for species newly-listed since 2008. Progress is also being made toward the development of recovery strategies for an additional 62 endangered and threatened species in accordance with provisions of the ESA. To support timely and efficient development of these strategies, the Government of Ontario is cooperating with federal agencies on the development of approximately half of these strategies and strategically prioritizing development of recovery strategies for the remaining species.

The Government of Ontario has also developed management plans for 10 special concern species since 2008, with management plans for four still required. These management plans will be prepared under the federal Species at Risk Act if the species are listed federally and their management plans can be completed prior to when they are due under the ESA. Management plans are not required for 35 special concern species currently on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, as a recovery strategy or management plan will be prepared for these species under the federal Species at Risk Act.


Photo: Brian Ratcliff, Project Peregrine, Thunder Bay Field Naturalists

Although not required under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA), some special concern species have recovery strategies. For example, a recovery strategy was prepared for Peregrine Falcon when it was listed as a threatened species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List. Since that time, it has been re-classified as a special concern species and therefore a recovery strategy is no longer required under the ESA. The existing recovery strategy serves as the management plan for the species.

In another example, to support efficiencies, the components of a management plan for the special concern Common Five-lined Skink (Southern Shield population) were incorporated into the recovery strategy that was required for the endangered Common Five-lined Skink (Carolinian population). This recovery strategy provides advice and information on both populations.

Recovery strategies and management plans outline the biology and habitat needs of the species, threats to the species’ survival and recovery, recommendations on protection and recovery objectives for the species (for recovery strategies), recommendations on management objectives for the species (for management plans), and approaches for achieving those objectives. In addition, recovery strategies provide recommendations on the areas of habitat that the government should consider in developing a habitat regulation for the species.


2.5. Government Response Statements The Ministry develops government response statements (GRS) to identify and communicate how the Government of Ontario will support the recovery of each species at risk. These statements are the government’s policy response to the scientific advice provided in the recovery strategy or management plan, and are completed within nine months of a recovery strategy or management plan being finalized. Government response statements include the government’s recovery goal for the species and the actions it intends to lead or support to help achieve that goal. Under the previous Endangered Species Act, the government was not required to publicly state the actions that it would lead or support in the protection and recovery of species at risk.

Species Classified by COSSARO(Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern)

To date, the government has published government response statements for 91 endangered, threatened and special concern species currently listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List.

Species Added to SARO List (Endangered and Threatened species as well as their habitat, are automatically protected)

Recovery Strategy

RecoveryStrategy

Habitat Regulation

5-Year Review*

5-Year Review*

Habitat Regulation

Government Response Statement

Management Plan


GovernmentResponseStatement

9 months

Endangered Species Threatened Species Special Concern Species

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

YEAR

9 months

9 months

90days

Schematic of the protection and recovery process under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

COSSARO – Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario SARO List – Species at Risk in Ontario List

* 5-year reviews are required for endangered and threatened species, and occur within 5 years of publishing the government response statement


Government response statements are based on the information in the recovery strategy and input from stakeholders, other jurisdictions, Aboriginal communities and members of the public. They reflect the best available traditional, local, and scientific knowledge, and may be adapted if new information becomes available. When identifying protection and recovery actions in a government response statement, the Ministry also considers what is feasible, taking into account social and economic factors.

Common actions for the government to lead as it works toward achieving a species’ recovery goal include:

� Educating others on the legal requirements to protect the species and its habitat;

� Encouraging individuals to submit observations of the species to the Natural Heritage Information Centre (the provincial repository for species at risk observations);

� Undertaking communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario;

� Protecting individual members of the species and their habitat through the ESA;

� Supporting others (e.g., through funding or by prescribing conditions on ESA authorizations that align with the GRS) to take actions to help protect and recover the species; and

� Establishing and communicating annual priority actions for government support in the annual Species at Risk Stewardship Fund call for proposals to encourage collaboration and reduce duplication of efforts.

Common actions for the government to support include:

� Research and monitoring to increase knowledge of species population trends, biology, habitat and threats;

� Education and outreach to increase public awareness about threats to a species and its habitat; and

� Engaging others in species protection and habitat management actions.


2.6. Reviewing Progress on the Protection and Recovery of Species at Risk Under section 11(11) of the Act, the Minister is required to ensure that a review of progress towards the protection and recovery of a species is conducted not later than five years from the publication of the government response statement for that species.

The review provides an opportunity for the government to report on its progress in supporting the protection and recovery of a species, which includes a review of the progress on implementing actions within the government response statement for the species. The 13 species at risk reviewed in this document had government response statements finalized in 2010 and are: American Badger, Barn Owl, Deerberry, Eastern Flowering Dogwood, Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid, Engelmann’s Quillwort, Few-flowered Club-rush, Jefferson Salamander, Ogden’s Pondweed, Peregrine Falcon, Reside Dace, Spotted Wintergreen and Wood Turtle.

The five-year reviews of progress contained in this report examine projects and activities that were undertaken between 2007 and 2014. The reviews are informed by the assessment of data on projects and activities for which the Ministry has consistent and comprehensive access. This includes, but is not limited to: projects undertaken by recipients of the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario; activities for which an ESA authorization has been issued or activities that have been registered under Ontario Regulation 242/08; MNRF enforcement activities; and, NHIC data about the species. It is important to acknowledge that many agencies, organizations, communities and individuals may be engaged in stewardship activities that are not communicated to the Ministry, and thus, the contributions of these activities toward species’ protection and recovery were not incorporated into this review. Additional protection and recovery actions may contribute to the achievement of the recovery goal for the species, but the scope of this review is focused on those actions for which the Ministry has direct access to data and information.

Photo: JD Taylor

The first reviewon the government’s

progress toward the

protection and recovery of

a species was published

in 2014 – the State of the Woodland Caribou Resource Report.

http://www.ontario.ca/page/woodland-caribou


Photo: Rob Tervo

It is helpful to note two challenges in conducting a five-year review of progress, the first of which is the relatively short timeframe that is subject to review. Biological restoration is not a quick process. Protection and recovery actions generally require a timeframe much longer than five years (e.g., multiple decades for the Peregrine Falcon) for the effects on a species to be measurable. The second challenge is that effectiveness monitoring varies across projects and the variability in the types of activities undertaken often make it difficult to draw broader conclusions from the available data to interpret the effects of protection and recovery efforts on a species and its habitat.

Nevertheless, a key benefit of conducting a review of progress after five years of GRS implementation is that the recommendations provided for each of the species reviewed will be available to help support and inform future decisions regarding the protection and recovery of the species.

2.7. Research and MonitoringThe Ministry conducts research and monitoring on aquatic and terrestrial species at risk in Ontario to inform policy and resource management decision-making. Information about the results of research and monitoring activities that have been led or supported by the Ministry has informed the five-year review of progress for the species featured in this document. Examples of recent aquatic research and monitoring projects include testing the effectiveness of environmental DNA detection for monitoring the distribution of Redside Dace and studying the habitat requirements of Channel Darter to help develop recommendations for the amount of water flow that the species requires during its spawning period. Recent terrestrial research has focussed on studying areas that are habitat to a variety of species at risk to learn more about their distribution, movement and breeding patterns. Some of the associated findings include the discovery that Common Five-lined Skinks from northern populations move among isolated patches of habitat and use the forested areas between rock barrens (previously thought inhospitable) during dispersal.


|

2.8. Compliance and Enforcement The Ministry is responsible for administering and enforcing the ESA and its regulations. Compliance monitoring and enforcement are critical to successful implementation of the Act, which is a government-led action that is common to all government response statements. Ministry enforcement officers undertake a variety of activities to ensure compliance with Ontario’s natural resource laws. The Act sets out specific actions that enforcement officers are authorized to undertake in response to observed or suspected non-compliance. The Ministry emphasizes the importance of education for supporting compliance by ensuring that individuals and organizations understand their obligations under the legislation and associated regulations.

Between 2008, when the Endangered Species Act came into force, and February 1, 2014, there were 23 convictions under the Act resulting in fines ranging from $300 to $20,000 and jail time up to 90 days. In addition, as of February 1, 2014, approximately 61 charges were before the court and enforcement officers had issued more than 10 stop work orders to individuals who were carrying out, or were about to carry out, an activity that was likely to contravene the species or habitat protection provisions of the Act.

The Ministry encourages everyone to report illegal activities against Ontario’s species at risk, fish and wildlife, shore lands, forests, provincial parks and conservation reserves, petroleum, aggregate resources and public lands. In the context of species at risk, illegal activities include:

� Killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking a species at risk without appropriate authorization;

� Possessing, transporting, collecting, buying, selling, leasing or trading a species at risk without appropriate authorization;

� Damaging or destroying the habitat of a species at risk without appropriate authorization; or

� Not complying with the conditions of an authorization.

Illegal activities can be reported to:Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry:

1-877-TIPS-MNR 1-877-847-7667

Crime Stoppers (anonymous): 1-800-222-TIPS (8477)

1-877-TIPS-MNR is not an emergency response number. If your call is about a matter of public safety, please call 911 or the police.


3. Working With OthersProtecting and recovering species at risk is a shared responsibility. No single agency or organization has the knowledge, authority or financial resources to individually protect and recover all of Ontario’s species at risk. Successful protection and recovery requires the collective involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Below are some of the ways that the provincial government supports and works with others to help protect and recover Ontario’s species at risk.

3.1. Supporting Public Participation in Species at Risk Stewardship Activities The Ministry promotes and supports strong public participation in the stewardship of species at risk through the Species at Risk Stewardship Program. This program provides financial support to enable individuals and organizations to get involved in protecting and recovering Ontario’s species at risk. Since its establishment in 2007, the Species at Risk Stewardship Program has supported over 2,420 projects, including: habitat restoration and enhancement initiatives; management actions that reduce threats to species; species-specific research; surveys and inventories; and education and outreach activities.

The Species at Risk Stewardship Program is comprised of three smaller programs: the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario, and the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. Each year, the Ministry determines the types of projects that will be given priority for funding under the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario. The Ministry communicates this information in the fall through its call for project proposals, which is announced on the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund website and through notification letters sent to Aboriginal communities and organizations, conservation authorities, academic institutions, non-government organizations, citizens, and municipal governments, among others. The Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program is funded by the Ministry and administered by the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. The program provides a variety of funding levels to eligible projects that are designed to help protect and recover species at risk on privately-owned Ontario farms.

Since the Species at Risk Stewardship Program was established, Ontario has provided funding to over 2,420 projects that have supported the protection and recovery of the province’s species at risk. Ontario’s stewardship partners reported that the Ministry’s support helped them to involve 24,300 individuals who volunteered 50,750 hours of their time toward the projects, which contributed to the restoration of over 10,000 hectares of habitat. In total, stewardship partners identified that over one million people have been reached through education and outreach activities.

10,000 hectares of habitat restored

Outreach provided to over

PEOPLE

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-stewardship-fund

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/grants-protecting-species-risk


Photo: Jon Butterhill

3.2. Supporting Public Engagement The Ministry recognizes that public engagement is critical to informing the development of comprehensive and robust ESA policies, permits, government response statements, recovery strategies, management plans and habitat regulations. Accordingly, the Ministry regularly posts draft versions of these documents on Ontario’s Environmental Registry for all interested individuals, stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities to comment upon, as well as to seek additional scientific information, community knowledge, and Aboriginal traditional knowledge. The Ministry considers all comments received when finalizing each document.

The Ministry is committed to meeting its constitutional obligations with respect to Aboriginal peoples in implementing the Act, and to working collaboratively towards the protection and recovery of species at risk. The Ministry’s approach to engagement with Aboriginal communities and organizations is dependent on the species and the type of document being developed.

The Ministry also seeks advice on the protection and recovery of species at risk from various advisory groups. For example, under the Act the Minister established the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee, which is comprised of a broad group of members with expertise in resource use, land use, and the protection and recovery of species at risk. This committee makes recommendations to the Minister on matters relating to species at risk in Ontario. Other advisory groups have been established to provide advice on specific species at risk, and include groups such as the Provincial Caribou Technical Committee and the Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark Round Table.

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/basicSearch.jsp?clearForm=true&menuIndex=1_2&language=en

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/how-species-risk-are-protected




Photo: Parks Canada Agency

3.3. Working with Other Areas of Government Ontario is a signatory to the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. This agreement acknowledges Ontario’s commitment to working together with other provinces and the federal government to provide legal protection to endangered and threatened species and their habitats. The signing of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Species at Risk in 2011 further confirmed Ontario’s commitment to working collaboratively with the federal government and other jurisdictions to protect and recover species at risk.

Ministry staff participate in multi-lateral and bi-lateral working groups to meet these commitments by working cooperatively with other provinces, territories, and the federal government. This includes sharing information and best practices, providing advice on how to increase consistency in policy approaches, and coordinating work planning. These working groups focus on topics related to recovery planning, habitat policy, permitting, funding and consultation. Where possible, the Ministry works cooperatively with the federal government in the development and review of status reports, recovery strategies, management plans, government response statements, and habitat direction for species at risk. The Ministry has also achieved great efficiencies through the development of a process with the federal government that allows each agency to adopt recovery documents that have been prepared by the other agency, in order to meet their respective legislative requirements.


The Ministry also supports inter-jurisdictional cooperation on species at risk through initiatives such as the Canadian Wildlife Directors Committee, which includes federal, provincial and territorial representatives that provide leadership in the development and coordination of policies and programs on species at risk. Another example is the Ontario Species at Risk Working Group, through which management from the Ministry and federal government departments work cooperatively to support the coordination of programs and activities related to the protection and recovery of species at risk in Ontario. Within the province, MNRF works with the Endangered Species Act Inter-Ministerial Committee to engage other ministries on the development and implementation of species at risk policies and programs.

In addition to the formal working groups described above, MNRF also frequently works with other provincial ministries, levels of government and planning authorities to educate them on the requirements of the ESA. For example, Ministry staff correspond and meet with partners, such as municipalities and conservation authorities, to provide guidance on how best to consider the biological requirements of species at risk in the planning stage of activities, and to answer questions about ESA policies and legislation.

3.4. Supporting Efforts to Avoid Adverse EffectsThe Ministry and proponents regularly work together to identify ways for proposed activities to proceed in manners that avoid adverse effects to species at risk and their habitat. For this reason, the Ministry strongly encourages proponents to contact their local MNRF office as early as possible when planning and designing a proposed activity. Ministry staff may be able to help proponents to identify alternatives that would avoid adverse effects on species at risk and their habitat, and thus eliminate the need for an ESA authorization or use of a regulatory provision. Avoidance alternatives may include, but are not limited to:

� Conducting the activity in an alternate location away from any protected species or habitat;

� Using alternative methods, equipment and technical designs for carrying out the activity that do not adversely affect any protected species or their habitat; and

� Adjusting the timelines for carrying out all or parts of an activity to avoid periods when protected species are present or are sensitive to disturbance.

Photo: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry


3.5. Supporting Efforts to Minimize Adverse EffectsAs noted above, the Ministry primarily encourages people to carry out their activities in ways that will avoid any adverse effects on a species at risk or its habitat. If avoidance is not possible, the ESA and Ontario Regulation 242/08 include provisions to allow individuals to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by the Act if specific legislative and regulatory requirements are met. Provisions in the Act enable the Minister to issue permits and enter into agreements to authorize activities that would otherwise be prohibited, and the regulation sets out conditional exemptions from prohibitions under the ESA for eligible activities.

ESA authorizations and regulatory provisions include conditions that proponents are responsible for fulfilling to minimize adverse effects on individual members of species at risk and their habitat. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, restrictions regarding the:

� Location or timing of the activity;

� Duration and frequency of adverse effects on protected species or habitat; and

� Design or operation of the activity.

The following are examples of conditions that the Ministry has included within previously issued permits in order to minimize adverse effects. These conditions required the permit holder to:

� Fence and mark off-site Butternut trees during construction to avoid harming retainable trees on adjacent lots;

� Restrict activities to occur after Chimney Swifts have migrated south in the fall and before they return in the spring; and

� Restrict in-water works to avoid the fisheries timing window for Black Redhorse from April 1 until June 30.

Photo: Glenn Desy


Photo: Rose Fleguel

3.6. Supporting Efforts to Create an Overall Benefit for Species at Risk The Minister may issue an “overall benefit permit” (i.e., 17(2)(c) permit) to authorize a proponent to carry out an activity that would otherwise contravene the Act as long as all conditions of the permit are satisfied. This includes the Minister being of the opinion that an overall benefit to the species (that is named in the permit) will be achieved within a reasonable time. The Minister must also be of the opinion that reasonable alternatives have been considered (and the best alternative has been adopted) and that reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects are required by the permit. For example, the conditions related to overall benefit may require the permit holder to:

� Restore or enhance habitat areas;

� Reduce threats that impact the species’ population; or

� Remove barriers that limit distribution of the species within its natural range.

Examples of conditions that the Ministry has included within previously issued permits in order to achieve an overall benefit to the species have required the permit holder to:

� Plant, tend and monitor prescribed numbers of Butternut seedlings and companion trees (native deciduous and coniferous species) within a minimum number of hectares of suitable Butternut habitat to emulate natural Butternut habitat conditions and avoid a monoculture of disease-prone trees;

� Restore a chimney (larger than the one to be removed) at a nearby heritage site, as enhanced Chimney Swift habitat that will accommodate a much larger population of Chimney Swifts; and

� Construct a prescribed number of fish habitat structures that will augment habitat function for Black Redhorse, and reduce the amount of silt entering the river to enhance habitat by improving water quality and reducing stress factors.

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-overall-benefit-permits


4. Policies and Resources Regarding Species at Risk4.1. Species and Habitat Protection PoliciesIn 2012, the government published a policy to guide consistent implementation of the Act’s habitat protection provision. The policy, entitled Categorizing and Protecting Habitat under the Endangered Species Act, is used by Ministry staff and proponents to assess whether a proposed activity is likely to damage or destroy the habitat of an endangered or threatened species. The policy recognizes that some areas of habitat are more sensitive to disturbance than others, and includes a framework for categorizing the different areas of a species’ habitat based on how much alteration can occur in that area before its usefulness to the species becomes impaired or eliminated. To determine whether an activity is likely to damage or destroy habitat, the details of the activity must be examined, including the categories of habitat that may be affected by the activity and how the activity may affect the species’ ability to use its habitat.

In 2014, the government published a policy to guide consistent implementation of the Act’s species protection provision. Policy Guidance on Harm and Harass under the Endangered Species Act is used by Ministry staff and proponents to assess whether a proposed activity is likely to kill, harm or harass a member of a protected species. It clarifies that making this determination is generally done on a case-by-case basis and requires consideration of the details of the proposed activity, the biology and behaviour of the species, and how the activity may affect the species’ ability to carry out its life processes.

4.2. Permitting PoliciesIn 2012, the Ministry finalized Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits, which provides a policy explanation of the term “overall benefit” and guiding principles for the evaluation of overall benefit actions and permits. The Ministry has also published resources to help guide proponents through the first three phases of the application process for an overall benefit permit.

Photo: Joe Crowley

http://www.ontario.ca/document/categorizing-and-protecting-habitat-under-endangered-species-act

http://www.ontario.ca/document/policy-guidance-harm-and-harass-under-endangered-species-act

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-guides-and-resources

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-overall-benefit-permits


4.3. Species at Risk Reference Guides and Resources The Ministry provides over 250 guides and resources on its website to offer the public, stakeholders, industries, governments and others information on the biological and habitat requirements of each species at risk in Ontario, as well as guidance on how to avoid or minimize adverse effects on these species and their habitats. Information sources include both species-specific and general policies, guidance, and best management practices such as:

� Links to recovery strategies, management plans, government response statements, general habitat descriptions and habitat regulations;

� Policies to assess whether an activity is likely to damage or destroy the habitat of a protected species, or result in the killing, harming or harassment of a protected species;

� Policies on how to apply for an overall benefit permit under the ESA;

� Guidelines for reducing the impacts of windpower facilities on bats and birds;

� Guidelines for reducing erosion and sedimentation near aquatic areas;

� Protocols for the detection and relocation of mussel species at risk in Ontario;

� Best management practices for the use of reptile and exclusion fencing;

� General information about bats in Ontario;

� Best management practices for mineral exploration and development activities, renewable energy, infrastructure and transmission activities, and tourism activities to avoid negative impacts on Woodland Caribou and its habitat; and

� Manuals for handling species at risk for clients with ESA authorizations.

In addition to the numerous resources included in the electronic library of guides and resources, the Ministry has created and maintains the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website. The Ministry has also provided a variety of species at risk communications and outreach support products to partners including stickers and colouring books for children, fact sheets highlighting the different species at risk found in specific areas, and posters providing information on the habitat and biological characteristics of featured species, as well as suggestions for protection and recovery actions for individual species at risk.



Photo: Gary M. Allen

4.4. Policy Harmonization Ministry staff work regularly with internal and external partners to develop and revise policies that involve species at risk to help ensure a consistent and coordinated approach for protecting these species across Ontario. For example, in 2014 the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was harmonized with the ESA to clarify that development and site alteration in the habitat of endangered and threatened species are not permitted under the PPS, except in accordance with the ESA and federal requirements. As well, the PPS now aligns with the terminology used in the ESA (e.g., the definition of “habitat”).

The chapters that follow contain detailed information on progress that has been made toward the protection and recovery

of the 13 SPECIESwhose government response statements were published in 2010.

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx

Progress Towards the Protection and Recovery of

American Badger

Photo: JD Taylor


BLEED


Page 22 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | AMERICAN BADGER

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of the American Badger in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description The American Badger (Taxidea taxus) is a medium-sized carnivorous mammal which is a member of the weasel family. The species is grey with black and white stripes on their face and head. Individuals have a long body with short legs, long strong claws, and transparent eyelids to protect their eyes from dirt; all of these traits allow them to dig dens and prey out of burrows. This species is primarily nocturnal.

There are two populations of the American Badger that are recognized on the Species at Risk in Ontario List. The American Badger Southwestern Ontario population (Taxidea taxus jacksoni) occurs in southwestern Ontario, mainly along the north shore of Lake Erie, while the American Badger Northwestern Ontario population (Taxidea taxus taxus) occurs in northwestern Ontario near Rainy River and Fort Frances. American Badgers occupy habitats such as grasslands, open forests, hedgerows and field edges. Soil is a major factor influencing their distribution and areas of sandy or loamy soils are preferred by the species in Ontario. They do not typically inhabit cultivated fields. A map of the provincial distribution of the American Badger is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

The American Badger faces several threats to its survival and recovery, including habitat loss, road mortality, predation by domestic dogs or coyotes, killing and persecution, incidental trapping and disease such as canine distemper. The loss of native and human-maintained grassland habitats has been extensive throughout the historical range of the American Badger.

The survival and recovery of the American Badger is influenced by other factors as well. As stated above, the species prefers areas with sandy deposits. This preference may constrain the American Badger to specific areas, therefore limiting its ability to disperse. Additionally, limited food availability and small population sizes may result in larger home ranges for the American Badger to find prey and reproduce, which may result in an elevated risk of road mortality.

Both populations of the American Badger are listed as endangered at the provincial level (Species at Risk in Ontario List). At the federal level, the American Badger jacksoni subspecies is listed as endangered (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) and the American Badger taxus subspecies has been assessed as special concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Globally, the American Badger is considered to be secure; this rank takes into account multiple subspecies of American Badger.

Photo: JD Taylor

http://www.ontario.ca/page/american-badger


http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080230

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-15.3/


3. Provincial StatusPrior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”) the American Badger was assessed by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). American Badger was listed as endangered on the Species at Risk in Ontario List in 2004, but was not regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act. The species retained its endangered status when the ESA came into force in 2008. The American Badger was recently reassessed by COSSARO, at which point COSSARO identified two geographically distinct populations of the species, the Northwestern population (Taxidea taxus taxus) and the Southwestern population (Taxidea taxus jacksoni). Both of these populations have been listed as endangered. The Species at Risk in Ontario List was amended on March 31, 2015 to include both populations of the species. Recent genetic studies (Ethier et al. 2012) have indicated apparent genetic isolation of the Southwestern population from other Canadian badgers warranting their recognition as a geographically distinct population. It is also recognized that the Northwestern population is more closely grouped to American Badger taxus subspecies in Manitoba. In future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.

Photo: JD Taylor

https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-species-risk-are-listed


ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting the American Badger and enforcing the protection of the habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the ESA and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. Both populations of the American Badger are listed as endangered and have been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken under the ESA since it came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of the American Badger has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when the government developed a habitat regulation for the species. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

Although the ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition species such as American Badger, the government developed the regulation to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as American Badger habitat (Ontario Regulation 242/08, Section 24). The habitat regulation was developed based on consideration of the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation.

In 2015, the American Badger was split into two newly-listed populations on the Species at Risk in Ontario List. Both populations are still protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken under the ESA. However, as a result of splitting the species into two populations, the existing habitat regulation for American Badger no longer legally applies to the species. Instead, the habitat of both populations of American Badger now receive protection from being damaged or destroyed based on the general habitat definition in the ESA. Although the habitat regulation no longer applies, it still reflects best available scientific information, which can be used when applying the general habitat definition to both newly-listed populations.

Any person who negatively impacts the American Badger or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

1 A “transition species” is a species listed under schedule 1, 3, or 4 of the ESA that has not changed in status since June 2008.

As endangered species, both populations of American

Badger have been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken under the ESA since it came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of the

American Badger has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when the government developed a habitat regulation for the species.

5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for the American Badger was completed on February 18, 2010, which was in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of the American Badger and the threats it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080242#BK50



6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for the American Badger on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeline required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of the American Badger.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of American Badger is to achieve a reproductively sustainable and secure population throughout its current range in Ontario.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving the species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of the document. The GRS for American Badger also outlines 11 actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Address knowledge gaps on American Badger ecology, distribution, population dynamics and habitat use in the species’ Ontario range;

� Identify and reduce or eliminate known human-related threats to American Badgers in Ontario; and

� Increase public awareness of and appreciation for the American Badger and its ecological role in grassland and agricultural ecosystems.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for the American Badger.

Species

in 2008PROTECTED

through a habitat regulation in 2010, and then through the general habitat definition in 2015


FINALIZED in 2010

5 YEAR Review FINALIZED in 2015

HABITAT PROTECTED

Recovery StrategyFINALIZED in 2010

in 2015

Species listed as endangered in 2004 and then two populations

of American Badger were listed asendangered



27,029

7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for the American Badger is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of 29 projects designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of the American Badger. Four of these projects ($307,149) focused exclusively on the species, while the other 25 projects ($1,452,886) focused on multiple species at risk, including American Badger. In addition to the funding provided through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, partners focusing exclusively on the American Badger reported that they were successful in securing additional funding ($53,665) from other sources, as did partners with projects designed to benefit multiple species at risk, including the American Badger ($1,660,819).These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated value of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners also reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve six individuals who volunteered 1,150 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities that focused exclusively on the American Badger, which has an estimated value of $11,000. As well, a total of 2,091 individuals volunteered 25,879 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including the American Badger which has an estimated value of $622,850. The Ministry’s stewardship partners reported providing focused outreach on the American Badger to 111,200 individuals through media coverage (e.g., newspapers, television and website visits) and community events. Ecosystem-based outreach on multiple species (including the American Badger) was delivered to 30,515 individuals.

The Ministry also supports proponents to conduct research that addresses important knowledge gaps for species at risk. Through the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario, the Ministry provided funding to a total of four projects to conduct research on American Badger movement, dispersal, distribution and genetics.

Outreach provided to

29 Projects4 projects focusedexclusively on the species2,097

hours

volunteers

A total of

people

Additional Funding and In-kind Support

$1,714,484

Species at Risk Stewardship Fund

$307,149 for American Badger exclusively

$1,452,886 for multi-species projects that included American Badger.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/grants-protecting-species-risk


In order to gain a greater understanding of the American Badger’s ecology, stewardship partners combined public outreach with research and monitoring by inviting members of the public to report sightings of the species. Sightings reported by the public allowed the partners to first identify areas of recent American Badger activity and then focus field monitoring and research efforts in these areas. These projects grew and built upon previous work with each year of funding. The remainder of this section highlights these and other projects that were supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario, as well as their corresponding government-supported recovery actions.

To increase awareness and appreciation of the American Badger, stewardship partners wrote numerous newspaper and magazine articles, distributed flyers, brochures and posters and gave several presentations at schools and stakeholder events. Outreach material was strategically distributed to relevant interest groups such as: landowners, farmers, hunters, taxidermists, naturalists, municipal road workers, rehabilitators, conservation authorities, and provincial parks. As an example, partners engaged private landowners with suspected American Badger activity directly by talking to them personally or leaving information at their residence. In Ontario, most of the species’ habitat occurs on private land and engaging with landowners directly increases the landowner’s knowledge of badgers, while invoking a sense of involvement and pride. Farmers were further engaged through articles in farming magazines and local newspapers, as well as targeted mail-outs. A website was also created in 2009 and has been updated accordingly to provide information on American Badgers and details on how to identify and report sightings. Visitation to the website has seen dramatic increases in traffic since its inception. The website is estimated to receive roughly 30 visits per day, of which half are from Ontario. This project supported the GRS action to develop outreach and monitoring materials for distribution to a variety of stakeholder groups.

An American Badger hotline was also maintained to allow the public to report sightings; this is an action identified within the GRS. Through the hotline, email and the use of the website, approximately 423 suspected American Badger sightings were reported between 2009 and 2013. These reports have helped to determine areas where American Badgers may be residing and have increased awareness of the species.

Stewardship partners from 2009 to present analyzed the DNA of road killed and trapped specimens as well as scat and hair samples from American Badgers in order to determine the number of individuals within a certain area. This project has led to new information regarding the population size of American Badger in this study area as well as information on possible methods of monitoring the size of American Badger populations. This project aligned with the GRS action to develop and implement monitoring and reporting protocols to improve understanding of American Badger’s distribution and abundance.



Stewardship partners also examined knowledge gaps on the distribution and habitat use of American Badgers by using radio-telemetry to track nine American Badgers in 2012 and 2013. This research led to important new information regarding the species habitat use including home range size as well as daily and seasonal changes in the species’ movement. The study also identified a possible indicator for determining whether a landscape is suitable for American Badger habitat. This work directly links to the GRS action to determine the species’ habitat use and movement through radio-telemetry studies.

Major advances have been made towards the GRS action to investigate the connectivity and genetic similarities between populations of American Badger, which improved knowledge of barriers to the species’ dispersal and gene flow. One partner used DNA analysis of recognized badger subspecies in Canada to examine the genetic structure of Ontario’s badger population. Results from the study showed that the range of the Taxidea taxus jacksoni may be more segregated and restricted than was previously thought and that American Badgers in the northwest were more closely associated with Taxidea taxus taxus than Taxidea taxus jacksoni. The results of this study indicated that there were two genetically different populations of American Badger occurring in Ontario. Additionally, by examining connectivity between populations, the partners found that the Strait of Mackinac is likely a significant barrier to dispersal for badgers, while the St. Clair River appeared to have a less substantial impact on dispersal. This implies that the Southwestern population may be at an elevated risk due to genetic isolation and low effective population size (Ethier et al. 2012). The results of this research were instrumental in the reassessment of the American Badger and link with the GRS action to investigate the connectivity and genetic similarities between populations of American Badger to improve knowledge on barriers to movement and gene flow.


8. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on American BadgerSupporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the American Badger, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. There have been four ‘protection and recovery permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit) issued, exclusively for the American Badger. Protection and recovery permits are issued if the purpose of the activity is to assist the protection or recovery of a species at risk. The focus of these permits was to conduct monitoring and scientific research on the American Badger. Research involved radio-telemetry to track the movement of American Badgers and to collect hair, claw, tissue and fecal samples for genetic testing. A condition of the permits was that animal care protocols for the American Badger be followed. Several of these permits implemented government-supported actions identified in the GRS such as determining the species’ habitat use and movement, improving knowledge of the species’ distribution and abundance, and investigating connectivity and genetic similarities.

There have been seven activities that may affect the American Badger or its habitat that have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA since 2013. Six of the activities are registered under ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18), while one is registered under ‘Wind facilities’ (section 23.20). Activities registered under ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18) require the registered person to comply with all conditions of the regulation, such as:

� Taking immediate steps to minimize adverse effects on the species and its habitat; and

� Creating and implementing a mitigation plan developed by an expert on the affected species for more complex activities.

Activities registered under ‘Wind facilities’ (section 23.30) require the registered person to comply with all conditions of the regulation, such as:

� Taking immediate steps to minimize adverse effects on the species and its habitat;

� Creating and implementing a mitigation plan developed by an expert on the affected species and ensuring the plan is updated at least once every five years;

� Reporting any sightings of rare species; and

� Using an expert to monitor the effects of operations on a species and how effective steps to minimize the impact have been.

protection& RECOVERY

PERMITS

REGISTRATIONS

REGISTRATIONS

4

7REGISTRATIONS



9. Occurrences of American Badger in Ontario9.1. Natural Heritage Information Centre The American Badger is separated into two populations in the province: the Southwestern Ontario population and Northwestern Ontario population. In southwestern Ontario, there are 19 local populations2 where the species has been documented by breeding evidence. Sixteen local populations are determined to be extant (i.e., have been observed within the past 20 years) and one American Badger population was reported in late 1800s and is believed to be extirpated (i.e. no longer exists). There are also two historical3 populations of American Badger (i.e., species has not been reported to have been observed within the last 20 years).

2 A local population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., American Badger) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations and the area has a practical conservation value as it is important to the conservation of the species.

3 A population is considered historical if it has not been recorded within the last 20 years. Historical populations may still exist, but updated information is not available.

Since 2008, nine new local populations of American Badger have been identified in southwestern Ontario and recently submitted observations of the species made prior to 2008 have identified an additional five local populations for a total of fourteen new populations. The identification of these new local populations is likely a result of increased search effort and education about the American Badger. In 2012, COSEWIC estimated that the Southwestern Ontario population contained fewer than 200 adults. The overall distribution of the species remains mostly unchanged.

American Badgers have historically occurred in northwestern Ontario and establishment is thought to reflect a series of colonization and extirpation events rather than representing a permanent viable population (COSEWIC 2012). Species observations in northwestern Ontario are limited to a 3000 square kilometre area between Rainy River and Fort Frances (COSEWIC 2012). An occupied denning site was observed in 2014 (J. Van den Broeck pers. comm. 2015) confirming the species’ recent presence.

Since 2008, when the American Badger became protected under the ESA, the Ministry has received 75 records of the species. These records are based on observations documented between 1957 and 2014 and have come from a variety of sources. Records submitted have helped to redefine where the species is known and has been known to occur within the two populations, and can provide additional information on the species’ habitat and threats. For instance, since 2008, observations of the species have been made at two previously known American Badger populations. It is possible that there are observations of the American Badger that have not been submitted to the Ministry. Encouraging the submission of American Badger observations is included in the GRS as a government-led action.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of the American Badger, as well as every other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations. 75 observations of this

species were submitted to the NHIC since 2008.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/natural-heritage-information-centre


Photo: JD Taylor

Progresshas been made toward all government-led actions and the majority of government-supported actions in the government response statement.

10. Summary of Progress Towards Meetingthe Recovery Goal and Recommendations

10.1. Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all government-led actions and the majority of government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for the American Badger. As indicated in this chapter, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of the American Badger data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made towards all of the government-supported recovery objectives, and most of the associated actions, that are identified in the GRS for the American Badger.

Under the objective to address knowledge gaps on American Badger ecology, distribution, population dynamics and habitat use in the species’ Ontario range, progress has been made towards all four of the actions. These actions have been implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, through the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario, as well as through authorizations. The actions under this objective are:

� Determine the species’ habitat use and movement through radio-telemetry studies and an assessment of habitat availability (Action No. 1; High Priority);

� Investigate the diet of American Badgers and the ecology of their prey species (Action No. 2; High Priority);

� Develop and implement monitoring and reporting protocols to improve understanding of American Badger distribution and abundance. This may include collecting and analyzing road killed and trapped specimens as well as scat and hair samples (Action No. 3; High Priority); and

� Investigate the connectivity and genetic similarities between populations of American Badger to improve knowledge on barriers to movement and gene flow (Action No. 4).


Under the objective to identify and reduce or eliminate known human-related threats to American Badgers in Ontario, projects enabled through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund have supported progress on one of the recovery actions listed, specifically:

� Investigate the cause of death for all samples found (Action No. 6).

Under the objective to increase public awareness of and appreciation for the American Badger and its ecological role in grassland and agricultural ecosystems, progress has been made towards all three recovery actions. These actions were implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and are:

� Develop outreach and monitoring materials for distribution to rural communities, farmers, trappers and aggregate sectors and conduct information workshops for stakeholder groups (Action No. 9);

� Co-operate with recovery initiatives that target grassland ecosystems and species at risk to share information and seek opportunities to build on existing activities (Action No. 10); and

� Maintain a badger hotline for the reporting of sightings by the public (Action No. 11).

For the Southwestern Ontario population, there has been an increase in the number of local populations of American Badger since 2008. The identification of these new local populations is likely the result of increased survey effort and education taking place within the species’ range. It is difficult to estimate the total number of American Badgers; however, results suggest that the population is fewer than 200 adults (COSEWIC 2012). The existence of the Northwestern Ontario population is thought to be the result of a series of colonization and extirpation events (COSEWIC 2012). A recent observation made in 2014, indicates that the species is still present.

Further information is needed to determine whether the American Badger is trending towards its goal to achieve a reproductively sustainable and secure population; however, the identification of nine new local populations within southwestern Ontario since 2008 is encouraging. Implementing monitoring and reporting protocols, which is identified as a government-supported action, and continuing to submit observations of American Badger to the Natural Heritage Information Centre will help track progress towards this goal.


10.2. Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering the American Badger can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for the American Badger should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendation for the implementation of the GRS is suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of the American Badger:

� Actions for which progress has been limited should be supported in future implementation planning, such as developing and implementing, where feasible, options to reduce road mortality and incidental trapping (Action No. 5); developing and implementing protocols for dealing with injured animals, reporting on injured or orphaned American Badgers and maintaining working relationships with wildlife rehabilitation centres (Action No. 7); and as opportunities arise, support the securement of habitat of American Badger through existing land securement and stewardship programs (Action No. 8).

Moving forward, protecting and recovering the American Badger will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario or the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering the American Badger in Ontario.


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of the American Badger in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � American Badger was classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) when

came into effect. The species was reassessed and split into two newly-listed populations, both with the status of endangered on March 31, 2015. American Badger has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2008, and its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2010. Species and habitat protection continue to apply to both of the newly–listed populations.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for the American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in Ontario (2010)

� American Badger: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� American Badger Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2010)

Government-supported stewardship projects: � Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the

Ministry”) has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of 29 projects that have supported the protection and recovery of the American Badger. Four projects ($307,149) focused exclusively on American Badger, while the other 25 projects ($1,452,886) focused on multiple species at risk, including American Badger.

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 2,097 individuals who volunteered 27,029 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including American Badger. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions and other in-kind support is $1,714,484.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk, including the American Badger to 141,715 individuals.

� Through the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario the Ministry has supported a total of five projects that address important monitoring gaps for the species.

Supporting human activities while ensuring appropriate support for species recovery: � The Ministry has issued four ‘protection and recovery permits’ under clause 17(2)(b) of the ESA.

� Seven activities have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA for this species. Activities are registered under ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18) and ‘Wind facilities’ (section 23.20).

Occurrences and distribution:� Two populations of American Badger occur in Ontario, one in the southwest and another in the northwest.

American Badgers have been documented at 19 local populations within southwestern Ontario and establish sporadically in northwestern Ontario. Most recently, American Badgers have been observed in 2014 in northwestern Ontario and at nine new local populations in southwestern Ontario since 2008.







References and Related Information

Categorizing and Protecting Habitat under the Endangered Species Act http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-guides-and-resources

COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American Badger Taxidea taxus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. iv + 63 pp.

Ethier, D.M., A. Laflèche, B.J. Swanson, J.J. Nocera., and C.J. Kyle. 2012. Population subdivision and peripheral isolation in American Badgers (Taxidea taxus) and implications for conservation planning in Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 90:630-639.

Natural Heritage Information Centre https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/natural-heritage-information-centre

Ontario’s Endangered Species Act http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07e06

Ontario’s Endangered Species Act Regulation 242/08 http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080242

Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for the American Badger http://www.ontario.ca/page/american-badger

Policy Guidance on Harm and Harass under the Endangered Species Act http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-guides-and-resources

Species at Risk in Ontario List http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080230

Species at Risk Stewardship Fund https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-stewardship-fund










Barn Owl

Photo: JD Taylor


BLEED


Page 37 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | BARN OWL

Photo: JD Taylor

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Barn Owl in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Barn Owl (Tyto alba) is a distinct looking owl that is easily identified by its white heart-shaped face, black eyes, golden-coloured wings and long legs. It is considered a mid-sized owl, growing to a height of 35-45 centimetres. Barn Owl can be distinguished from other species of owls in Ontario because they lack the “ear tufts” commonly found on other owls and their call consists of hisses, screams, cries and other strange noises instead of the typical hoot or whistle.

In Canada, two distinct populations of Barn Owl are recognized: an Eastern population (Ontario) and a Western population (British Columbia). In Ontario, the Eastern population of Barn Owl is at the northernmost limit of its North American range. Most sightings and nesting records of Barn Owl in the province have been within 50 kilometres of the north shore of Lake Erie and the adjacent Lake Ontario shoreline. Barn Owl often nests and roosts in barns and abandoned buildings, though may also use natural cavities in trees or holes in cliff faces. A map of the provincial distribution of Barn Owl is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

Habitat loss is considered the major reason for Barn Owl’s decline in Canada. However, harsh winters, predation, road mortality and the use of rodenticides may have also affected populations. The Eastern population is particularly at risk due to historic and ongoing losses of foraging habitat, resulting from agricultural intensification and urban sprawl along the north shore of Lake Erie. This population is also limited by poor adaptability to cold winter temperatures and high amounts of snowfall.

Barn Owl is listed as endangered at both the provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and federal (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) levels with regard to the Eastern population. Globally, the species is considered to be secure.

3. Provincial StatusPrior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”) the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Barn Owl as endangered. It was listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as endangered in 2004, but was not regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act. The species retained its endangered status when the ESA came into force in 2008. In its future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.

http://www.ontario.ca/page/barn-owl






https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-species-risk-are-listed


ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Barn Owl and enforcing the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the ESA, and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. As an endangered species, all Barn Owls have been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Barn Owl has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when the government developed a habitat regulation for the species. Barn Owls also receive general protection as a Specially Protected Bird (Raptor) under Schedule 7 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 (FWCA) (e.g., no hunting/trapping, approvals required for buying/selling, etc.). In addition, all nests and eggs of birds are generally protected under section 7 of the FWCA. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

Although the ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition species1 such as Barn Owl, the government developed the regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08, section 24.1) to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as Barn Owl habitat. The habitat regulation was developed based on consideration of both the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation.


Any person who negatively impacts Barn Owl or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

As an endangered species, all

Barn Owls have been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Barn

Owl has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when

the government developed a habitat

regulation for the species.

5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Barn Owl was completed on February 18, 2010, which was in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of Barn Owl and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.




6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Barn Owl on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Barn Owl.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of Barn Owl is to protect and conserve the species and its habitat.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. The GRS for Barn Owl also outlines nine actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Identify, protect and conserve suitable habitat, including increasing the availability of nest sites in existing or historic locations;

� Improve understanding of Barn Owl distribution and abundance, as well as the factors that may limit recovery of the species; and

� Increase public awareness and support for the protection of Barn Owl and grassland habitat.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Barn Owl.

through a habitat regulation in 2010


FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


in 2004

Species listed as

endangered

Species

in 2008PROTECTED





25 Projects25 Projects

ours

213,152

7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for Barn Owl is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of 25 projects ($1,067,442) designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Barn Owl. All of these projects targeted multiple species at risk (including Barn Owl) and partners reported that they were successful in securing additional funding ($1,684,591) from other sources. These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated value of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners also reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 2,017 individuals who volunteered 21,209 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Barn Owl, which has an estimated value of $503,105. The stewardship partners also reported that through their efforts and the efforts of their volunteers to implement actions contained in the GRS, they were successful in enhancing 191 hectares of habitat expected to benefit multiple species at risk, including Barn Owl. In addition, the partners reported providing outreach to multiple species at risk (including Barn Owl) to 213,152 individuals. The remainder of this section highlights two projects that were supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and their corresponding government-supported recovery actions.

A stewardship partner organized and ran a reoccurring outreach and education event for six consecutive years. Among other stewardship-related activities, this event focused on raising awareness of Barn Owl and its habitat requirements among grade six and seven students in southern Ontario. The event has featured over 30 interactive activity stations including stations aimed at teaching students about bird species at risk in Ontario, including Barn Owl. Stations were run by industry professionals, educators, and high school student volunteers who delivered fun, hands-on lessons and activities created to complement the grade six and seven curricula. Each year, biodiversity and species at risk have been a main theme of the event. Through several activities, students were taught about the importance of

2,017volunteers

hours

A total of

ha


$1,684,591

21,209


$0 for Barn Owl exclusively

$1,067,442 for multi-species projects that included Barn Owl

people

of habitat restored191



Photo: Amanda Fracz

grassland and savanna ecosystems in southern Ontario and how Barn Owl has adapted to these habitats, the challenges that Barn Owls face in finding food and raising young, and the major threats affecting the species such as habitat loss and fragmentation. Students were even able to meet a live Barn Owl thanks to a partnering group with specific expertise on the species. This project implemented the GRS action that focuses on developing and delivering targeted communication products to promote public awareness of protection, conservation, reporting opportunities and habitat requirements of Barn Owl in Ontario.

Surveying for Barn OwlOne stewardship partner surveyed areas that are considered to be suitable habitat for multiple species at risk, including Barn Owl, and monitored areas of known habitat for these species. To do this, the project engaged local naturalists and specialists with scientific knowledge of the species and its habitat requirements. The surveys targeted historic breeding locations and wintering sites where the species had been documented within the past three years as well as locations listed in the 2nd Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, which documents the distribution of Barn Owl between the years 2001 and 2005. During the first survey, a Barn Owl was heard calling for two minutes. The surveyors also noted hearing a second Barn Owl call but, because the call was only heard once, it could not be confirmed as a Barn Owl. The coordinates of these encounters were noted and these locations were later re-surveyed to check for further activity; however, no evidence of Barn Owl was found during the later surveys.

In 2008, another stewardship partner worked with various stakeholders, including numerous farmers, agricultural organizations, and a conservation authority to implement best management practices for protecting Barn Owls and their habitat. The main objective of this project was to restore tallgrass prairies in southern Ontario, which Barn Owls use to hunt for prey. To meet this objective, the partner implemented a voluntary program offering farmers incentives to convert marginal farm land to grasslands. In addition, the partners hosted workshops and tours of grasslands that had been created through the program to promote participation, to explain the importance of the work, and to demonstrate how the grass planting is done. This project resulted in the creation of approximately 200 acres of native tallgrass prairie and native warm season grassland habitat. This project aligns with the GRS action that focusses on developing best management practices for protecting Barn Owls and their habitat and promoting the implementation of these practices to landowners, farmers and conservation partners.


REGISTRATIONS

REGISTRATIONS

4REGISTRATIONS

8. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on Barn OwlSupporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Barn Owl, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. Although Barn Owl is known to nest in human-created structures, it is very rare in Ontario and therefore, to-date, no permits have been issued for the species. Four activities that may affect Barn Owl or its habitat have been registered under Ontario Regulation 242/08 of the ESA: one under ‘Possession for educational purposes, etc.’ (section 23.15), two under ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18), and another under ‘Wind facilities’ (section 23.20). These registrations require the registered proponent to comply with all conditions of the regulation, such as:

� Having a species expert develop a mitigation plan and following the actions outlined in the plan in order to mitigate potential effects to the species;

� Carrying out the activity in a manner that is unlikely to damage or destroy its habitat;

� Creating or enhancing habitat for the species elsewhere in the species’ ecoregion, if reasonable;

� Ensuring that any observations of the species are submitted to the Natural Heritage Information Centre within three months of the observation; and

� Preparing an annual report which documents any encounters with the species and affects the activity may have had on the species, as well as the steps taken to minimize adverse effects on the species.




23 observations of this species were submitted to the NHIC since 2008

9. Occurrences of Barn Owl in Ontario9.1. Natural Heritage Information CentreBarn Owl is found in southwestern Ontario, mostly within 50 kilometres of the lower Great Lakes. While there have been occasional sightings of Barn Owls in Ontario in the past ten years, there are only a few locations2 where breeding has been considered confirmed or probable. Barn Owl adults and offspring were observed in Haldimand County in 2007 and a pair of adult Barn Owls were observed in Norfolk County in 2014. Previous to that, in 2005 and 2006, Barn Owls were observed breeding in two other locations in the Hamilton and Chatham-Kent areas, however the viability of these populations are unknown. Barn Owls are considered historical3 at 15 locations. The species has not been reported at these locations within the past 20 years despite searches that have occurred at four of the locations. There are three additional locations where Barn Owl previously occurred, but the species has been considered extirpated (i.e., no longer in existence) at these locations since the late 1990s; observations of the species at these locations were either reported before 1933 or the habitat is now deemed to be unsuitable.

2A location is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., Barn Owl) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations. It also has a practical conservation value as the area is important to the conservation of the species or community.

3A population is considered historical if it has not been recorded within the last 20 years. Historical populations may still exist, but updated information is not available.

Since 2008, when Barn Owl became protected under the ESA, the Ministry has received 23 observation records. These records are based on observations of the species that occurred between 2001 and 2014. Information obtained from these records has helped to redefine where the species is and was known to occur, and can provide additional information on the habitat and threats. It is possible that there are observations of Barn Owl that have not been submitted to the Ministry. Encouraging the submission of observations of Barn Owl to the Ministry is included in the GRS as a government-led action.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Barn Owl, as well as every other species at risk to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.



Photo: JD Taylor

Progress has been made toward all of the government-led and several of the government-supported actions in the government response statement.

10. Summary of Progress Towards Meeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations

10.1. Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all government-led actions and several government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for Barn Owl. As indicated in this report, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Barn Owl sightings to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made toward most of the government-supported recovery objectives and several of the associated actions that are identified in the GRS for Barn Owl. Under the objective to identify, protect and conserve suitable habitat, including increasing availability of nest sites in existing and historic locations, progress has been made toward two of the four actions, including one high priority action. The actions have been implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund. Specifically, these actions are:

� Develop best management practices for protecting Barn Owls and their habitat and promote the implementation of these practices to landowners, famers and conservation partners (Action No. 1; High Priority); and

� Evaluate the effectiveness of nest boxes and continue to implement this program if deemed appropriate (Action No. 4).

Under the objective to increase public awareness and support for the protection of Barn Owl and grassland habitat, progress has been made toward both of the actions, including substantial progress towards the action focused on promoting public awareness. Collectively, these two actions have been implemented through numerous projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund. The actions are:

� Develop and deliver targeted communication products to promote public awareness of protection, conservation, reporting opportunities and habitat requirements for Barn Owl in Ontario (Action No. 8); and


Photo: Amanda Fracz

� Co-operate with recovery initiatives that target grassland ecosystems and species at risk to share information and seek opportunities to build on existing activities (Action No. 9).

According to the provincial record of observations, Barn Owl continues to persist in Ontario. The continuing persistence of Barn Owl in Ontario is consistent with the GRS recovery goal to protect and conserve the species and its habitat. In addition, several government-led and government-supported GRS actions that have been carried out have also contributed to the protection and conservation of the species and its habitat.

10.2. Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Barn Owl can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Barn Owl should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendations for the implementation of the GRS are suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Barn Owl:

� Actions for which progress has been limited should be supported in future implementation planning, such as identify priority sites to engage landowners in the stewardship of Barn Owl habitat and associated grassland areas (Action No. 2; High Priority); as opportunities arise, support the securement of Barn Owl habitat through existing land securement and stewardship programs (Action No. 3); develop and implement a survey protocol for Barn Owl sightings and reports of active nest sites that engages volunteers (e.g., through the use of surveys, the Web, or a hotline) (Action No. 5; High Priority); evaluate the effects of factors that may limit recovery of the species and develop potential mitigation approaches (Action No. 6); and investigate the tolerance level of Barn Owls to winter severity (Action No. 7).

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Barn Owl will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario or the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Barn Owl in Ontario.


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Barn Owl in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Barn Owl is classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Prior to its

transition to the ESA, Barn Owl was listed as endangered on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, but was not regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act. The species has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2008, and its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2010.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for the Barn Owl in Ontario (2010)

� Barn Owl: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Barn Owl Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2010)

Government-supported stewardship projects: � Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

(“the Ministry”) has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of 25 projects ($1,067,442) that have supported the protection and recovery of multiple species at risk, including Barn Owl.

� Ontario’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 2,017 individuals who volunteered 21,209 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Barn Owl. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions and in-kind support is $1,684,591.

� Stewardship partners reported that through their actions 191 hectares of habitat were enhanced for Barn Owl and other species at risk that inhabit the same ecosystems.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk, including Barn Owl to 213,152 individuals.

Supporting human activities while ensuring appropriate support for species recovery: � Four activities have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA

for this species. The four activities are registered under three activity types, including ‘Possession for educational purposes, etc.’ (section 23.15), ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18) and ‘Wind facilities’ (section 23.20).

Occurrences and distribution:� Barn Owl is found in southwestern Ontario, mostly within 50 kilometres of the lower Great Lakes.

There are a few locations where breeding has been considered confirmed or probable; in Haldimand County and Norfolk County. The viability of Barn Owls at two additional locations is unknown. Barn Owls are considered historical (i.e., species has not been reported within the past 20 years) at 15 locations. It is considered extirpated (i.e., no longer exist) at three additional locations.






References and Related Information Categorizing and Protecting Habitat under the Endangered Species Act http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-guides-and-resources

COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Barn Owl Tyto alba (Eastern population and Western population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Xiv + 34 pp.




Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Barn Owl http://www.ontario.ca/page/barn-owl













Deerberry

Photo: Rob Tervo


BLEED


Page 49 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | DEERBERRY

Photo: W. Bakowsky, NHIC

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Deerberry in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum) is a colonial shrub in the genus Vaccinium, which includes blueberries and cranberries. It rarely grows over one metre tall. Deerberry has leaves that alternate on the stem and are oval-shaped with smooth edges. Young twigs have very small hairs, but develop a papery bark as the plants age. In early summer, clusters of pendant, white flowers bloom on long slender stalks. The fruit is a greenish-blue berry.

In Canada, Deerberry occurs naturally in a small number of populations located in the Niagara and Thousand Islands regions in Ontario. Deerberry can grow well in a variety of habitat types and soils. The species grows in vegetation types that are usually associated with past fires and are in an intermediate successional stage. A map of the provincial distribution of Deerberry is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

Deerberry faces several threats to its survival and recovery, including lack of available habitat due to fire suppression and natural succession (which help to maintain the habitat conditions that the species requires), trampling, erosion and soil slumping, browsing and invasive species (which outcompete and displace many native species). Additionally, urbanization of suitable recovery habitat is also considered a threat to the species. Pathogens are a threat for related shrubs such as blueberries, but it is unknown if, and to what extent, pathogens may affect Deerberry.

The survival and recovery of Deerberry is influenced by other factors as well. Deerberry has low reproductive success and it is suspected that members of this species may require a favourable sequence of weather to produce seedlings. Furthermore, Deerberry may also require suitable germination conditions that include the presence of a particular fungus to colonize its roots.

Deerberry is listed as threatened at both the provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and federal (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) levels. Globally, it is considered to be secure.

3. Provincial Status Prior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”), the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Deerberry as threatened. Following this assessment, Deerberry was listed as threatened in 2000 and retained this status when the ESA came into force in 2008. In its future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/deerberry






https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/classifying-species-risk


ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Deerberry and applying habitat protection provisions are key components in the implementation of the ESA and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the species’ government response statement. As a threatened species, Deerberry has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Deerberry has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since June 30, 2013, based on the general habitat definition in the ESA. Prior to its transition to the ESA, there was no species or habitat protection for Deerberry. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

The ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition species1 such as Deerberry.


Any person who negatively impacts Deerberry or its habitat without prior authorization or through the use of a regulatory exemption may be prosecuted under the ESA.

As a threatened species, Deerberry

has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008.In addition, the habitat of Deerberry

has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since June 30, 2013, based on the general

habitat definition in the ESA.

5. Recovery StrategyA recovery strategy for Deerberry was completed on February 18, 2010, in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified Deerberry’s habitat needs and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.



6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Deerberry on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Deerberry.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery

of Deerberry is to ensure it persists in its natural habitat at known sites in both regions with increases in population sizes until they are self-sustaining.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. The GRS for Deerberry also outlines 11 actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Ensure the persistence of Deerberry in its current habitat at all natural and viable reintroduction sites with population sizes remaining stable or increasing;

� Identify measures necessary to mitigate threats to the species and its habitat and implement mitigation measures, as appropriate;

� Augment existing populations and restore historical populations into suitable habitat where they can occur within protected areas; and

� Complete research and monitoring needed to document and assess habitat requirements, genetic diversity, life history and population trends.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Deerberry.

Species

in 2008PROTECTED

through the general habitat definition in 2013


FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


Species listed as

in 2000

THREATENED



7. Supporting our PartnersSupporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Deerberry through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund as well as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. To date, no authorizations or regulatory provisions have been issued or registered for the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, the Ministry has supported a total of six projects designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Deerberry. One project, which occurred over two years ($42,240), focused exclusively on Deerberry, while the other five projects, two of which were over multiple years, ($265,768) focused on multiple species at risk, including Deerberry. In addition to the funding provided through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, the partner who focused exclusively on Deerberry reported that they were successful in securing additional funding ($38,750) from other sources, as did partners with projects designed to benefit multiple species at risk, including Deerberry ($387,222). These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated value of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners also reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve three individuals who volunteered 74 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities that focused exclusively on Deerberry, which has an estimated value of $1,170. As well, a total of 918 individuals volunteered 11,497 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Deerberry, which has an estimated value of $227,995.

of habitat restored


6 Projects1 project focusedexclusively on the species921

volunteers

hours

A total of

8ha


$42,240 for Deerberry exclusively

$265,768 for multi-species projects that included Deerberry


$425,972

people



Photo: Niagara Parks Commission

The Ministry’s stewardship partners reported that through both their efforts and the efforts of their volunteers to implement actions contained in the GRS, they were successful in enhancing eight hectares of habitat that will benefit multiple species at risk, including Deerberry. In addition, stewardship partners reported providing focused outreach on Deerberry to 35 individuals, and ecosystem-based outreach on multiple species at risk (including Deerberry) to 15,596 individuals.

The remainder of this section highlights a multifaceted project that was supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund in 2011 and its corresponding government-supported recovery actions.

In 2011, fences were erected to prevent access to an area with the largest population of Deerberry in Ontario. Trails were replanted with native vegetation to restore the natural environment and prevent trail use. These actions directly addressed the following two GRS actions: support the continued protection of existing sites and erect barriers and signage and re-route trails where possible to keep park visitors away from Deerberry locations. Additionally, plans were made to prevent access and re-route the trail near the Niagara Whirlpool Gorge population. These actions will have direct impacts on mitigating the threat of trampling to the few naturally occurring Deerberry populations in Ontario.


Trail Closures and Erosion Control in Thousand Islands National Park and the Niagara RegionTwo populations of Deerberry in Thousand Islands National Park have been protected by area closures along with educational signage about the closure. The area closure at one site in the park required a large section of trail to be closed to visitation. These closures mitigate threats at Canada’s two largest populations of Deerberry. In the Niagara Whirlpool Gorge area, a pre-existing trail that ran directly adjacent to Deerberry plants was re-routed by the Niagara Parks Commission in 2013. A lookout platform with railings was also installed to direct trail users to a single lookout point to assist in the protection of Deerberry habitat and minimize the threat of trampling. The installation of the lookout platform has also slowed erosion and runoff considerably in the area (C. Burant pers. comm. 2015). Additionally, efforts have been made to mitigate erosion at the Niagara Whirlpool Gorge area through native plantings to stabilize banks that support Deerberry. Overall, these actions have led to a reduced risk of trampling at the only three naturally occurring populations where Deerberry is extant (i.e., has been observed within the past 20 years).



The Deerberry populations in theThousand Islands area are located within a unique corridor that connects the Algonquin Park area in the north to the Adirondack Mountains in the south. One partner who received funding reached out to an environmental group which focuses on maintaining connectivity between these two park areas to assist with spreading information about Deerberry throughout their network. This action provides the first steps in supporting the GRS action to collaborate with organizers of landscape initiatives to identify and protect habitats for species dispersal.

Outreach was also conducted with a member of the public who expressed interest in completing stewardship actions to help mitigate threats to the species. Continuing to work on stewardship is a high priority action identified within the GRS.

One of the objectives in the GRS is to identify measures necessary to mitigate threats to the species and its habitat and implement mitigation measures. Invasive species may be considered a threat to Deerberry when they occur in close proximity to the plants. In 2011, invasive plant species inventories were conducted and mapped at four Deerberry locations. Invasive species such as Garlic Mustard, Tartarian Honeysuckle and Common Buckthorn were removed in 2011 and 2012 at two locations in Thousand Islands National Park (previously known as St. Lawrence Islands National Park), by a stewardship partner that supported mitigation of the impact of this threat. Eradication of invasive species will take several years; however, these efforts represent an important start to mitigating threats.

Two site-specific management plans were created for both the Niagara region and the St. Lawrence River-Thousand Islands area where Deerberry occurs. These plans address threats faced by the populations and mitigation approaches that have been undertaken or could be completed in the future. Creating and implementing site-specific management plans within the two regions where the species is found is identified as a government-supported action within the GRS.

Common Buckthorn Photo: Jessica Buttery

Invasive Species Threat Mitigation

Invasive species have the potential to outcompete native plants such as Deerberry. Removal of invasive species such as Garlic Mustard, Tartarian Honeysuckle and Common Buckthorn can improve habitat for Deerberry. Thousand Islands National Park conducted intensive invasive species removal within 50 metres of Deerberry populations in 2013 and 2014 (J. VanWieren pers. comm. 2015). The park’s ongoing goal is to remove all invasive plants within a 50 metre buffer of the Deerberry populations on the two islands where it naturally occurs, and eventually remove all invasive plants from park property at both locations (Parks Canada Agency 2015). The Niagara Parks Commission has been taking steps to remove invasive species in the Niagara Whirlpool Gorge area since 2005; targeted efforts were completed in 2011 by treating invasive species to prevent them from re-establishing. The need for removal of invasive species has declined substantially since 2011, but invasive species removal continues in this area as appropriate (C. Burant pers. comm. 2015).


In 2011, the existing monitoring protocol for Deerberry was improved and implemented where the species occurs. This allowed a consistent approach for monitoring Deerberry. The GRS lists this as a government-supported action.

One of the GRS actions is to continue research on the species’ habitat requirements, the conditions required for successful seedling establishment, the effects of fire on the propagation of the species, and maintenance of habitat. In response to this GRS action, a stewardship partner worked with Thousand Islands National Park to assist in monitoring introduced populations of Deerberry at a post-burn and pre-burn monitoring site.

Introductions and Prescribed Burns in Thousand Islands National ParkDeerberry plants have been introduced to multiple areas in Thousand Islands National Park since 1994. This propagation and introduction program is a partnership between Thousand Islands National Park and Queen’s University. Introducing Deerberry within protected areas can increase our understanding of factors affecting its survival. Deerberry has low reproductive success and lessons learned from introductions may allow existing populations to be augmented or increased. Management techniques such as examining the impact of prescribed burns on the propagation of the species can also be examined at introduced populations without the risk of applying such techniques to the natural populations. Thousand Islands National Park has introduced Deerberry into post-burn habitats and areas that were identified through a habitat suitability exercise. These populations are doing well with some of the plants starting to flower and produce fruit (J. VanWieren pers. comm. 2015). Introduced populations are subject to the same threats and stresses that the natural populations experience. Some introduced plants have not survived due to competition or stresses such as being shaded out by other Vaccinium species or grazing by White-tailed Deer (Parks Canada Agency 2010). These re-introductions continue to provide insight into Deerberry’s habitat requirements and how to effectively manage naturally occurring populations.

Photo: Rob Tervo


52 observations of this species were submitted

to the NHIC since 2008

8. Occurrences of Deerberry in Ontario8.1. Natural Heritage Information CentreDeerberry is found in the Niagara region and the St. Lawrence River-Thousand Islands area. There are two populations2 within the Niagara region, located near the Niagara Whirlpool Gorge and a section of the Bruce Trail. The species has been documented in other areas of this region, but is considered to be extirpated (i.e., no longer exist) at these locations due to changes to the landscape, such as extensive urbanization that occurred before the species was listed. The Niagara Whirlpool Gorge population was observed in surveys completed in 2009, 2010 and 2015. This population continues to be in fair to good health (C. Burant pers. comm. 2015). The Bruce Trail population is now considered historical3 as it has not been reported to have been observed within the last 20 years.

2A population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., Deerberry) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations and the area has a practical conservation value as it is important to the conservation of the species.3A population is considered historical if it has not been recorded within the last 20 years. A change from extant to historical reflects our knowledge of the population and may not be indicative of a change to the population itself. Historical populations may still exist, but updated information is not available.

Investigating the Genetic Diversity of Deerberry Populations An independent study by Yakimowsky and Eckert (2008), examined the genetic diversity of Deerberry across North America. They found no evidence of reduced viability or lower genetic diversity in populations at the northern range margins (including a population occurring in Ontario) of the species, compared to other populations of Deerberry closer to the centre of its range. This study provides valuable information on the genetic variability of Deerberry populations at a landscape level.

There are three natural populations in the St. Lawrence River-Thousand Islands area which are found on three islands. Surveys are completed annually within Thousand Islands National Park (J. VanWieren pers. comm. 2015). Within the park, a total of 378 stems were observed on Endymion Island and a total of 1,103 stems were observed at a subset of sites on Grenadier Island in 2012. The Grenadier Island population has good estimated viability, indicating that the population is likely to persist for the foreseeable future in its current condition or better. The Endymion Island population has an estimated viability ranking of fair indicating that there is some uncertainty with respect to the long-term persistence of the population. The population on the remaining island is now considered historical as it has not been reported within the last 20 years.


Encouraging the submission of observations of Deerberry to the Ministry is included in the GRS as a government-led action. The Ministry has received 52 records of Deerberry since 2008, when it became protected under the ESA. These records are based on observations of the species documented as early as 1891, while the majority were observed between 2004 and 2015. These records have helped to redefine where the species is and was known to occur and have provided additional information on the habitat and threats for these populations.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Deerberry, as well as every other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.

Enhancing the Niagara Whirlpool Gorge Population In the fall of 2010, 18 Deerberry seedlings were transplanted to two areas within the Niagara Whirlpool Gorge area. The seedlings were part of a Niagara Parks Commission - Thousand Islands National Park seed collection partnership with Queen’s University. In 2011/2012, plants in one of the areas were small, but in good health. A survey completed in 2015 identified many of the transplanted seedlings from 2010 as well as the native populations, which continue to be in fair to good health. The seedlings occur in an area that is difficult to monitor due to the presence of poison ivy; however, monitoring is ongoing (C. Burant pers. comm. 2015).



9. Summary of Progress TowardsMeeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations9.1. Summary of Progress

Progress has been made toward all of the government-led and government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for Deerberry. As indicated in this chapter, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Deerberry data to the NHIC; protect the species through the ESA and apply habitat protection provisions of the Act; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made toward all of the government-supported recovery objectives and all of the associated actions that are identified in the GRS for Deerberry.

Under the objective to ensure the persistence of Deerberry in its current habitat at all natural and viable reintroduction sites with population sizes remaining stable or increasing, progress has been made towards the three actions. Collectively, the actions have been implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, through independent efforts by government partners such as Thousand Islands National Park and the Niagara Parks Commission, or a combination of both. The actions under this objective are:

� Support the continued protection of existing sites (Action No. 1, High Priority);

� Continue to work with private landowners on stewardship of non-park populations (Action No. 2, High Priority); and

� Collaborate with organizations of landscape initiatives to identify and protect habitats for species dispersal (Action No. 3).


Progress hasbeen made toward all of the government-led and government-supported actions in the government response statement.



Under the objective to identify measures necessary to mitigate threats to the species and its habitat and implement mitigation measures, projects enabled through the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario, through independent efforts by government partners such as Thousand Islands National Park and the Niagara Parks Commission or a combination of both, have supported progress on all three of the actions, specifically:

� Erect barriers and signage and re-route trails where possible to keep park visitors away from Deerberry locations (Action No. 4);

� Investigate techniques used successfully in the past to reduce erosion and implement actions to mitigate this threat where possible (Action No. 5); and

� Create (or update) and implement site-specific management plans within the two regions where the species is found (Action No. 6).

Under the objective to augment existing populations and restore historical populations into suitable habitat where they can occur within protected areas, progress has been made towards both recovery actions. The following actions have been implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and/or independent efforts completed by government partners such as Thousand Islands National Park and the Niagara Parks Commission:

� Review and update criteria developed for augmenting and restoring populations in St. Lawrence Islands National Park (now named Thousand Islands National Park) and establish similar criteria for use with the Niagara populations (Action No. 7); and

� Using experience gained from past and ongoing introductions in St. Lawrence Islands National Park (now named Thousand Islands National Park), enhance or augment existing populations and begin efforts in the Niagara region (Action No. 8).

Under the objective to complete research and monitoring needed to document and assess habitat requirements, genetic diversity, life history and population trends, progress has been made toward all three actions. The actions were implemented through a project supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund as well as through independent efforts completed by the federal government and an academic researcher, which includes:

� Improve and implement the existing monitoring protocol for the St. Lawrence Islands population and implement the same protocol at the Niagara site (Action No. 9);

� Continue research on the species’ habitat requirements, the conditions required for successful seedling establishment, and the effects of fire on the propagation of the species and maintenance of habitat (Action No. 10); and

� Investigate the genetic variability of Deerberry populations at a landscape and site level (Action No. 11).


The provincial record of observations indicates that Deerberry in Ontario is exhibiting trends that are consistent with the GRS recovery goal at two populations. Deerberry continues to persist in its natural habitat at three known populations. It is possible that Deerberry is still present at the two other remaining populations, despite the age of the population records. Trends in abundance and the size of the populations are difficult to extract from the available information.

9.2 Recommendations

As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Deerberry can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Deerberry should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. Supporting the continued protection of existing sites and continuing to work with private landowners on stewardship will continue to be critical to the recovery of Deerberry. The following recommendations for the implementation of the GRS are suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Deerberry:

� As the trails have been re-routed, barriers erected and signage put in place to keep park visitors away at all of the extant naturally occurring Deerberry populations with public access, future threat management could focus on naturalizing and enforcing closed trails and replacing signage as appropriate (Action No. 4); and

� Since site-specific management plans have been created within the two regions where this species is found, the focus should now be to continue to implement the plans and update them as appropriate (Action No. 6).

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Deerberry will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund or the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Deerberry.


Page 62 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | DEERBERRYPage 62 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | DEERBERRY

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Deerberry in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Deerberry is classified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Prior to

its transition to the ESA, Deerberry was listed as threatened. The species has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2008, and its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2013.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for Deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum) in Ontario (2010)

� Deerberry: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

Supporting our partners: : � Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Forestry (“the Ministry”) has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of six projects that have supported the protection and recovery of Deerberry. One of the projects focused exclusively on Deerberry ($42,240), while five have supported the protection and recovery of multiple species at risk, including Deerberry ($265,768).

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 921 individuals who volunteered 11,571 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Deerberry. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions and other in-kind support is $425,972.

� Stewardship partners reported that through their actions eight hectares of habitat were enhanced for Deerberry and other species at risk that inhabit the same ecosystem.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk, including Deerberry to 15,631 individuals.

Supporting human activities while ensuring appropriate support for species recovery:

� No ESA authorizations have been issued for Deerberry.

� There have been no registrations of activities for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08under the ESA for this species.

Occurrences and distribution:� Deerberry has been documented in the Niagara and Thousand Islands regions in Ontario.

Two populations are historical as they have not been reported to have been observed in the last 20 years. Deerberry is considered extant (i.e., reported within the past 20 years) in its natural habitat at three populations.

http://www.ontario.ca/page/deerberry





References and Related Information Burant, Corey. Personal communication. 2015. Parks Stewardship Coordinator. The Niagara Parks Commission.


Natural Heritage Information Centre https://www.ontario.ca/page/natural-heritage-information-centre



Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Deerberry http://www.ontario.ca/page/deerberry

Parks Canada Agency. 2010. Recovery Strategy for Deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Parks Canada Agency. Ottawa. iv+15 pp.

Parks Canada Agency. 2015. Multi-species Action Plan for Thousand Islands National Park of Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa. vi+33 pp.



Species at Risk Stewardship Fund https://www.ontario.ca/page/grants-protecting-species-risk

VanWieren, Josh. Personal communication. 2015. Park Ecologist. Thousand Islands National Park, Parks Canada.

Yakimowski, S. B., and Eckert, C. G. 2008. Populations do not become less genetically diverse or more differentiated towards the northern limit of the geographical range in clonal Vaccinium stamineum (Ericaceae). New Phytologist, 180(2): 534-544.










Eastern Flowering Dogwood

Photo: W. Bakowsky, NHIC Archives


BLEED


Page 65 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | EASTERN FLOWERING DOGWOOD


1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Eastern Flowering Dogwood in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Eastern Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) is a small (3-10 metres in height), showy tree with a layered branching pattern and simple, oval leaves that are arranged in pairs along the branch. The bark of larger trees is brownish-grey in colour and separated into scales, giving it the appearance of alligator skin. Tiny yellow flowers grow in clusters of two to six at the ends of small branches and are surrounded by four conspicuous white leaves that look like petals. Their berries turn bright red in late summer.

In Canada, Eastern Flowering Dogwood is found only in southwestern Ontario in the Carolinian Zone (the small area of Ontario that extends southwest of Toronto towards Sarnia and down to the shores of Lake Erie). A total of 180 populations have been documented in the province. It occurs in a variety of vegetation communities, and is often found under taller trees in mid-age to mature deciduous or mixed forests; it is also found along fencerows and roadsides. The species prefers lighter, acidic sandy-loam soils with good drainage. The species shows some adaptation to forest fire, and is able to re-sprout profusely from its rootstock following fire. A map of the provincial distribution of Eastern Flowering Dogwood is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

Across its North American range, Eastern Flowering Dogwood is undergoing a steep population decline due to the dogwood anthracnose fungus (Discula destructiva). In Ontario, the rate of decline has been estimated at seven to eight percent annually. Other threats include forest succession, herbivory by White-tailed Deer, habitat loss, and insects and pests. These probably exacerbate the species’ decline, but are relatively minor in comparison to the impact of the aggressive anthracnose fungus.

Eastern Flowering Dogwood is listed as endangered at both the provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and federal (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) levels. Globally, it is considered to be secure.

3. Provincial StatusThe Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO)assessed Eastern Flowering Dogwood as endangered. Following this assessment, it was added to the Species at Risk in Ontario List in 2009. In future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/eastern-flowering-dogwood

http://www.ontario.ca/page/eastern-flowering-dogwood




http://www.ontario.ca/page/how-species-risk-are-listed


ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Eastern Flowering Dogwood and enforcing the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”) and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. As an endangered species, Eastern Flowering Dogwood has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since it was listed in 2009. In addition, the habitat of Eastern Flowering Dogwood is protected from being damaged or destroyed; habitat protection has been in place since 2009. Habitat protection was initially based on the general habitat definition in the ESA. The habitat of Eastern Flowering Dogwood is now protected through a habitat regulation that was developed in 2011. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

The government developed the habitat regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08, section 24.2) for Eastern Flowering Dogwood within the timeframe required by the ESA. It provides clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as Eastern Flowering Dogwood habitat, and was developed based on consideration of both the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation.

Any person who negatively impacts Eastern Flowering Dogwood or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

As an endangered species, Eastern Flowering Dogwood has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2009.In addition, the habitat of Eastern Flowering Dogwood is protected from being damaged or destroyed; habitat protection has been in place since 2009. Habitat protection was initially based on the general habitat definition in the ESA. The habitat of Eastern Flowering Dogwood is now protected through a habitat regulation that was developed in 2011.

5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Eastern Flowering Dogwood was completed on February 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of Eastern Flowering Dogwood and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.




6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Eastern Flowering Dogwood on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Eastern Flowering Dogwood.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of Eastern Flowering Dogwood is to protect and conserve existing populations, reduce its rate of decline, and where possible, restore populations of the species across its range in southern Ontario.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. The GRS for Eastern Flowering Dogwood also outlines 11 actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the four objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Develop, implement and assess management approaches for dogwood anthracnose and other threats in natural stands;

� Undertake monitoring of health, threats and possible resistance to dogwood anthracnose;

� Identify and protect existing populations of Eastern Flowering Dogwood across their range in southern Ontario; and

� Where possible, restore habitat and/or populations of Eastern Flowering Dogwood.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Eastern Flowering Dogwood.

Species

in 2009PROTECTED

through the general habitat definition in 2009, and then a habitat regulation in 2011


FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


Species listed as

in 2009

endangered



7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for Eastern Flowering Dogwood is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of 24 projects designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Eastern Flowering Dogwood. Three of these projects ($63,461) focused exclusively on the species, while the other 21 projects ($862,139) focused on multiple species at risk, including Eastern Flowering Dogwood. In addition to the funding provided through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, partners focusing exclusively on Eastern Flowering Dogwood reported that they were successful in securing additional funding and in-kind support ($69,630) from other sources, as did partners with projects designed to benefit multiple species at risk, including Eastern Flowering Dogwood ($1,701,263). These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated value of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners also reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 39 individuals who volunteered 570 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities that focused exclusively on Eastern Flowering Dogwood, which has an estimated value of $15,760. As well, a total of 1,214 individuals volunteered 19,625 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Eastern Flowering Dogwood, which has an estimated value of $499,650.

Research EffortResearch at the University of Guelph and funded by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry helped gain a better understanding of dogwood anthracnose, a fungal disease caused by the pathogen Discula destructiva, which is a primary threat to Eastern Flowering Dogwood in Ontario. A major outcome of the study was the development of a “Dogwood Disease Symptom Guide” for practical use in distinguishing dogwood anthracnose from other foliar diseases (Stanescu 2013).

of habitat restored


24 Projects3 projects focusedexclusively on the species

1,253volunteers

hours

A total of

1,061ha

people


$63,461 for Eastern Flowering Dogwood exclusively

$862,139 for multi- species projects that included Eastern Flowering Dogwood


$1,770,893

20,195




Stewardship partners reported that through both their efforts and the efforts of their volunteers to implement actions contained in the GRS, they were successful in enhancing 1,061 hectares of habitat that will benefit multiple species at risk, including Eastern Flowering Dogwood. In addition, stewardship partners reported providing focused outreach on Eastern Flowering Dogwood to 172 individuals, and ecosystem-based outreach on multiple species (including Eastern Flowering Dogwood) to 38,782 individuals. The remainder of this section highlights three projects that were supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and their corresponding government-supported recovery actions.

One stewardship partner implemented and monitored the effects of different techniques to manage dogwood anthracnose fungus. This included undertaking prescribed burns and thinning a white pine plantation, in which Eastern Flowering Dogwood occurred with subsequent monitoring of the health of known Eastern Flowering Dogwood populations to help assess the effectiveness of these techniques for managing the fungus. The partner’s ongoing monitoring and evaluation work will provide valuable information on the effects of different techniques for managing dogwood anthracnose fungus. In addition to their investigation into the effects of different management techniques, the partner engaged numerous volunteers and raised awareness of the threats to Eastern Flowering Dogwood and communicated management options that can be implemented to promote its recovery. This project supports the GRS action to consider habitat management within the range of Eastern Flowering Dogwood such as the removal of some conifers in former conifer plantations in order to promote natural seeding, growth and dispersal of Eastern Flowering Dogwood and other native species.


In another project, a stewardship partner engaged landowners, land stewards, volunteers and university students in the improvement and restoration of Eastern Flowering Dogwood habitat in order to share best management practices and document their effectiveness. Methods included prescribed burns, managing invasive species, volunteer-led monitoring and hands-on restoration opportunities. The results of the project included sharing knowledge of habitat management techniques, distributing habitat management protocols and sharing information related to habitat management techniques with stewardship partners. This project supported the high priority GRS action that focusses on developing and distributing best management practices for Eastern Flowering Dogwood stands.

Another stewardship partner conducted a research study that supports the high priority GRS action to develop and implement a monitoring program that includes identifying significant or anthracnose resistant populations and potentially resistant trees or stands of the species in Ontario. The partner compared genetic data from Eastern Flowering Dogwood at sites that showed little to no infection by anthracnose with data from sites that have suffered from anthracnose. Based on the data for the trees at sites showing little to no infection, the partner found that overall, genetic diversity was high within populations and comparable between young and mature trees, and that populations showed little sign of genetic isolation. Although the partner’s results indicated that none of the sampled trees were from the anthracnose-resistant Appalachian Spring cultivar, it was found that Eastern Flowering Dogwood in Ontario comprises two genetic lineages. The partner plans to investigate the possibility that one of the lineages may be more resistant to anthracnose infection than the other. The partner also plans to analyze ecological and environmental data to identify factors that may increase susceptibility to anthracnose infection and to generate a database that will classify the perceived threat level for each population of Eastern Flowering Dogwood that was assessed. The results of the study are important to help inform future recovery efforts, such as to reduce the rate of decline and, where possible, assess possible sources for restoring populations of the species across its range in southern Ontario.


8. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on and Create an Overall Benefit for Eastern Flowering Dogwood Supporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Eastern Flowering Dogwood, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. A total of three permits have been issued for Eastern Flowering Dogwood since the species has been protected under the ESA, including one ‘health or safety permit’ (i.e., 17(2)(a) permit) related to maintenance of hydro corridors. One ‘protection or recovery permit’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit) was issued for collection of specimens for public herbaria during an inventory of plant species at risk that occur along the Lake Erie shoreline; the inventory also included surveys that endeavoured to determine population size, distribution, health and reproductive status of Eastern Flowering Dogwood and other plant species at risk, as well as type, quality and extent of suitable habitat. Lastly, one ‘overall benefit permit’ (i.e., 17(2)(c) permit) was issued related to the construction of a private residence. Several of the conditions attached to these permits implement government-supported actions identified in the GRS for Eastern Flowering Dogwood, including:

� Restoring habitat by implementing a five-year Habitat Improvement Plan that creates and maintains gaps in the overhead canopy of a specified number of hectares of forested area to promote Eastern Flowering Dogwood growth and reproduction;

� Keeping unauthorized recreational vehicles off the property to avoid damage to the habitat of Eastern Flowering Dogwood; and

� Testing best management practices through tending and monitoring of six transplanted/newly planted Eastern Flowering Dogwood trees for five years and reporting the results.

overallBENEFITPERMIT

1protection& RECOVERYPERMIT

1

1

REGISTRATIONS

REGISTRATIONS

6

15

REGISTRATIONS

AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

HEALTH

OR SAFTEY

PERMIT


Photo: Shutterstock

Other conditions designed to minimize adverse effects included, but are not limited to:

� Transplanting Eastern Flowering Dogwood trees to suitable habitat on site to protect them from adverse effects;

� Planting additional Eastern Flowering Dogwood trees; and

� Ensuring no soil disturbance within 20 metres of Eastern Flowering Dogwood trees that do not interfere with hydro transmission lines.

Further information regarding ‘overall benefits permits’ is available through Ontario’s Environmental Registry.

A total of 15 agreements were entered into for Eastern Flowering Dogwood. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment). Conditions of the agreements involve implementing actions in the mitigation plan, including, but not limited to:

� Minimizing adverse effects (e.g., measures to minimize disturbance to trees and herbaceous plants such as identifying and marking individuals, establishing a buffer area and avoiding compaction of soil);

� Monitoring, collecting and maintaining information on the species and the mitigation measures taken; and

� Submitting an annual report summarizing the results and the effectiveness of the work.

Since 2013, six activities that may affect Eastern Flowering Dogwood or its habitat have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA. The six activities are registered under ‘Possession for educational purposes, etc.’ (section 23.15), ‘Ecosystem protection’ (section 23.11), ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18) or ‘Wind facilities’ (section 23.20) of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA. These registrations require the registered individual to comply with all conditions of the regulation, such as:

� Taking immediate steps to minimize adverse effects on the species and its habitat (e.g., establishing protective zones around habitat areas);

� Implementing the actions in a mitigation plan developed by an expert on the species (e.g., habitat restoration or improvement actions); and

� Preparing documentation that includes all observations of the species and describes the steps taken to minimize adverse effects on the species.

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchNoticeRefine.do?actionType=performRefine




9. Occurrences of Eastern Flowering Dogwood in Ontario9.1. Natural Heritage Information Centre There are 180 populations1 of Eastern Flowering Dogwood that have been documented in Ontario. Ninety-four of the 180 populations are considered extant (i.e., have been observed within the past 20 years) and 86 populations are considered historical2 (i.e., have not been reported to have been confirmed within the past 20 years). One population has changed from an extant rank to historical as a result of the date that the species was last observed. Field visits to sites across Eastern Flowering Dogwood’s range in Ontario have indicated that mortality due to anthracnose fungus exists at most sites where the species occurs; it is estimated that the fungus is responsible for an annual decline of seven to eight percent of Ontario’s populations of Eastern Flowering Dogwood (COSEWIC 2007).

1 A population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., Eastern Flowering Dogwood) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations. It also has a practical conservation value as the area is important to the conservation of the species.2 A population is considered historical if it has not been recorded within the last 20 years. A change from extant to historical reflects our knowledge of the population and may not be indicative of a change to the population itself. Historical populations may still exist, but updated information is not available.

Since Eastern Flowering Dogwood became protected under the ESA, the Ministry has received 783 records of the species. These records are based on observations documented between 1883 and 2014 and have come from a variety of sources. The Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) has received numerous submissions from individuals who recorded observing Eastern Flowering Dogwood prior to 2008, but had not notified the NHIC at the time of the sighting. Ninety-eight populations have been identified based on the submissions of sightings made prior to 2008, of which 47 populations are extant. Twenty-six populations of Eastern Flowering Dogwood have been newly identified since 2008. The newly identified populations are likely the result of increased search effort and education about Eastern Flowering Dogwood and may not represent increases to the total population, but rather increased knowledge on the distribution of the species. In addition to the newly identified populations, monitoring conducted since 2008 has confirmed the species’ presence at 26 other populations, six of which were previously thought to be historical. The records submitted to the Ministry have helped to redefine where the species is known and has been known to occur and can provide additional information on its habitat and threats.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of the Eastern Flowering Dogwood, as well as every other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.

http://www.ontario.ca/page/natural-heritage-information-centre



Progress has been made toward all of the government-led and a majority of the government-supported actions in the government response statement.

10. Summary of Progress Towards Meeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations10.1. Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all government-led actions and the majority of government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for Eastern Flowering Dogwood. As indicated in this report, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Eastern Flowering Dogwood data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made toward all of the government-supported recovery objectives, and the majority of the associated actions, that are identified in the GRS for Eastern Flowering Dogwood. Under the objective to develop, implement and assess management approaches for dogwood anthracnose and other threats to the species, progress has been made toward one of the two actions. The action has been implemented through a project supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and the conditions of an authorization. This action is:

� Develop and distribute best management practices for Eastern Flowering Dogwood stands (e.g., methods to slow the spread of dogwood anthracnose, habitat restoration opportunities) for use by landowners and land stewards (Action No. 2, High Priority).

Under the objective to undertake monitoring of health, threats and possible resistance to dogwood anthracnose, various projects enabled through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund have supported progress on the sole action under this objective, which is to develop and implement a monitoring program. The aspects of the action that have been supported include:

� Identifying significant and/or resistant populations across a representative range and across habitat types (Action No. 3, High Priority);

� Monitoring tree health, the impacts of other threats, and identification of potentially resistant trees or stands (Action No. 3, High Priority); and

� Comparing the health of open-grown trees with those from more heavily shaded forests in Ontario (Action No. 3, High Priority).


Photo: Shutterstock

Under the objective to identify and protect existing populations of Eastern Flowering Dogwood across their range in southern Ontario, progress has been made towards three of the four recovery actions. The actions were implemented through numerous projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, and one action was also implemented through the conditions of an authorization. The three actions are:

� Identify and describe typical vegetation communities in which Eastern Flowering Dogwood occurs across its southern Ontario range (Action No. 4, High Priority);

� Develop educational materials for landowners and land stewards to help them identify Eastern Flowering Dogwood and the dogwood anthracnose fungus (Action No. 5); and

� Encourage collaboration and stewardship among partners to implement habitat protection for the species (Action No. 6).

Under the objective to restore, where possible, habitat and/or populations of Eastern Flowering Dogwood, progress has been made toward one of the recovery actions. Various projects enabled through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and the conditions of an authorization have supported progress on an action, which is:

� Consider habitat management within the range of Eastern Flowering Dogwood (e.g., removal of some conifers in former conifer plantations in order to promote natural seeding, growth and dispersal of Eastern Flowering Dogwood and other native species) (Action No. 9).

The provincial record of observations indicates that Eastern Flowering Dogwood in Ontario is exhibiting trends that are consistent with the aspect of the GRS recovery goal to protect and conserve existing populations. Since 2008, one population has changed from an extant rank to historical; however, monitoring efforts have resulted in changes to the rankings of six populations from historical to extant. Additionally, 26 previously unknown populations have been identified since 2008. Although these populations are likely the result of increased search effort and education about Eastern Flowering Dogwood and therefore may not represent increases to the total provincial population, knowing the location of all existing populations of the species is critical to ensuring that they are protected and conserved. Also consistent with this aspect of the recovery goal, stewardship partners have conducted numerous projects designed to manage threats and habitat, and to protect existing populations of the species.


10.2. Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Eastern Flowering Dogwood can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Eastern Flowering Dogwood should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority, such as conducting research and developing best management practices to control dogwood anthracnose fungus. The following recommendation for the implementation of the GRS is suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Eastern Flowering Dogwood:

� Actions for which progress has been limited should be supported in future implementation planning, such as conduct research to identify potentially successful techniques of controlling dogwood anthracnose fungus in natural forest settings (Action No. 1; High Priority); support the securement of habitat with anthracnose resistant populations of Eastern Flowering Dogwood through existing land securement and stewardship programs (Action No. 7); co-operate with existing initiatives to connect and expand forest fragments to increase suitable habitat (Action No. 8); develop a source of seeds and/or seedlings for restoration plantings that are potentially resistant to dogwood anthracnose and define the maximum distance from the source that the seeds may be planted (Action No. 10); and consider re-establishing Eastern Flowering Dogwood in suitable habitat at previously documented locations using local, potentially resistant seeds, and manage the habitat to maintain open conditions and limit the infection and spread of dogwood anthracnose (Action No. 11). Supporting actions 10 and 11 would help to restore populations of the species across its range in southern Ontario, which is an aspect of the GRS recovery goal for Eastern Flowering Dogwood.

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Eastern Flowering Dogwood will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario or the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Eastern Flowering Dogwood in Ontario.


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of the Eastern Flowering Dogwood (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Eastern Flowering Dogwood is classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA).

The species has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2009. Its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2009, and in 2011 the government developed a habitat regulation for the species.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for Eastern Flowering Dogwood in Ontario (2010)

� Eastern Flowering Dogwood: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Eastern Flowering Dogwood Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2011)

Government-supported stewardship projects: � Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”)

has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of 24 projects that have supported the protection and recovery of Eastern Flowering Dogwood and other species at risk. Three projects ($63,461) focused exclusively on Eastern Flowering Dogwood, while the other 21 projects ($862,139) focused on multiple species at risk, including Eastern Flowering Dogwood.

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 1,253 individuals who volunteered 20,195 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for species at risk, including Eastern Flowering Dogwood. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions, as well as additional funding and in-kind support is $1,770,893.

� Stewardship partners reported that through their actions 1,061 hectares of habitat were enhanced for Eastern Flowering Dogwood and other species at risk that inhabit the same ecosystem.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk, including Eastern Flowering Dogwood to 38,782 individuals.

Supporting human activities while ensuring appropriate support for species recovery: � The Ministry has issued three permits for this species: one ‘human health or safety permit’ was issued under

clause 17(2)(a), one ‘protection and recovery permit’ was issued under clause 17(2)(b), and one ‘overall benefit permit’ was issued under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA.

� A total of 15 agreements were entered into for Eastern Flowering Dogwood. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment).

� Six activities have been registered for this species. The activities were registered under ‘Possession for educational purposes, etc.’ (section 23.15), ‘Ecosystem protection’ (section 23.11), ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18), or ‘Wind facilities’ (section 23.20) under Ontario Regulation 242/08 of the ESA.

Occurrences and distribution:� There are 180 populations of Eastern Flowering Dogwood that have been documented in the Carolinian Zone of

southwestern Ontario. Currently, 94 of these populations are extant, whereas the remaining 86 are considered historical. Since 2008, the status of one population changed from extant to historical based on the date that it was last observed, while six populations changed from historical to extant as their existence was confirmed through monitoring efforts. Additionally, 26 populations of Eastern Flowering Dogwood have been newly identified since 2008.








COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) in Canada. Committee of the Status of Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Vi + 22 pp.




Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Eastern Flowering Dogwood http://www.ontario.ca/page/eastern-flowering-dogwood

Policy Guidance on Harm and Harrass under the Endangered Species Act http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-guides-and-resources



Stanescu, M. 2013. Dogwood Anthracnose Caused by Discula destructiva on Cornus spp. in Canada. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.










Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid

Photo: M.J. Oldham, NHIC Archives


BLEED


Page 80 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED-ORCHID

Photo: M.J. Oldham, NHIC Archives

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) is a rare perennial plant that grows to about 50-100 centimetres in height and displays fringed, white flowers. These flowers have a distinctive ‘lip’ that serves as a landing platform for pollinating insects. Each flower has a very deep ‘nectar spur’ that contains a large quantity of nectar, into which only large insects with long probosci (mouthparts) can reach.

In Canada, 30 occurrences of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid have been reported, all in southern and eastern Ontario. The availability of suitable habitat for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid is limited due to its specific habitat needs. The species requires open sites such as fens, moist old fields and tallgrass prairies that provide full sunlight, moist soils and very limited woody vegetation. A map of the provincial distribution of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid faces several threats to its survival and recovery. These threats include habitat loss, suppression of natural fire regimes (which help to maintain required habitat conditions for the species), invasive species (which outcompete and displace many native species, including Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid) and hybridization with other similar species of orchid. In some areas, plants also face trampling or being run over by recreational vehicles.

The survival and recovery of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid is influenced by other factors as well. Because this orchid does not begin reproducing (flowering) until 3-7 years of age, any individual plant that dies before then is unable to contribute to the survival of its population. Individual orchids may also lie dormant for many years between flowerings. This makes it critical to ensure that surveys are repeated over several years to confirm the presence or absence of orchids at a particular site, as the species is much less visible during its dormant stage.

Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid is listed as endangered at both the provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and federal (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) levels. Globally, it is considered to be imperiled.

3. Provincial StatusPrior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”) the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid as endangered. It was listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario list as endangered in 2004, but was not regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act. The species retained its endangered status when the ESA came into force in 2008. In future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.

http://www.ontario.ca/page/eastern-prairie-fringed-orchid







ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid and enforcing the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the ESA and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. As an endangered species, Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when the government developed a habitat regulation for the species. Prior to its transition to the ESA, there was no species or habitat protection for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

Although the ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition1 species such as Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid, the government developed the regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08, section 25) to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid habitat. The habitat regulation was developed based on consideration of both the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation.


Any person who negatively impacts Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

As an endangered species, all Eastern

Prairie Fringed-orchids have been

protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Eastern Prairie

Fringed-orchid has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when



5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid was completed on February 18, 2010, which was in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid’s habitat needs and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.


http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/eastern-prairie-fringed-orchid


6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid is to protect populations and habitat and to reverse the declining population trend at existing locations. The government also supports investigating the feasibility of restoring occurrences at historic locations within the Ontario range.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. The GRS for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid also outlines six actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the three objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Protect Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid populations, habitat and habitat functionality at all existing locations by reducing or eliminating threats;

� Determine the distribution, abundance and associated trends of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid and its habitat; and

� Address knowledge gaps and determine the feasibility of restoration.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid.

Species

in 2008PROTECTED



FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


in 2004

Species listed as

endangered

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/eastern-prairie-fringed-orchid


7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of 26 projects designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. Four of these projects ($77,004) focused exclusively on the species, while the other 22 projects ($560,816) focused on multiple species at risk, including Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. In addition to the funding provided through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, partners focusing exclusively on Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid reported that they were successful in securing additional funding and in-kind support ($183,760) from other sources, as did partners with projects designed to benefit multiple species at risk, including Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid ($835,242). These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated value of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 15 individuals who volunteered 397 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities that focused exclusively on Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid, which has an estimated value of $19,860. As well, a total of 345 individuals volunteered 4,628 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid, which has an estimated value of $147,630.

The Ministry’s stewardship partners also reported that through both their efforts and the efforts of their volunteers to implement actions contained in the GRS, they were successful in enhancing 177 hectares of habitat that will benefit multiple species at risk, including Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. In addition, stewardship partners reported providing focused outreach on Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid to 500 individuals, and ecosystem-based outreach on multiple species (including Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid) to 2,416 individuals.

The remainder of this section highlights three projects that were supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and their corresponding government-supported recovery actions.

of habitat restored



5,025

,

hours

360volunteers

A total of

177ha

people


$77,004 for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid exclusively $560,816 for multi- species projects that included Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid


$1,019,002



Photo: S.R. Brinker

One stewardship partner conducted a project over six years to improve populations and the habitat of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid in southwestern Ontario. On a yearly basis, the partner used prescribed burns and invasive species management techniques to enhance tallgrass prairie habitat in areas where the species is known to occur. After implementing these actions, the partner’s evaluation efforts indicated that Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid was growing at sites where it had not previously been found, and the number of flowering (reproducing) orchids generally increased from year to year. In addition, the prevalence of invasive species, one of the primary threats to the survival and recovery of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid, has decreased in these areas. This project supported the GRS action to develop and implement management actions to improve the populations and habitat of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid.

Another stewardship partner surveyed areas that are considered to be suitable habitat for the species. The partner used the results of a habitat suitability modelling exercise to identify areas that could potentially be occupied by the species. With the help of volunteers that the partner had trained in species identification and survey methods, Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid was discovered at two of the three areas surveyed. These new records were submitted to the Natural Heritage Information Centre to inform the Ministry’s work to protect and recover Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid in Ontario. This project aligned with the GRS action that focuses on conducting surveys to locate new populations of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid.

In a different project, a partner conducted research in order to determine the degree of genetic variation among six Ontario populations of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. In this project, the stewardship partner assessed the genetic variation within and among several populations of the species, as well as the extent of hybridization between Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid and a related orchid species at sites where they co-occur. The partner found relatively low genetic diversity and high inbreeding in the surveyed populations, as well as evidence of hybridization with a related species of orchid. This project supported the GRS action to address knowledge gaps related to the degree of genetic variation among the Ontario populations of the species. As well, the results of the project are important for addressing the action to investigate the feasibility and appropriateness of reintroducing the species into historic habitat areas.


8. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on and Create an Overall Benefit for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid Supporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. A total of three permits have been issued for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid since the species has been protected under the ESA. Of these, two ‘protection and recovery permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit) related to a survey and research on threat assessment and one ‘overall benefit permit’ (i.e., 17(2)(c) permit) related to the Detroit River International Crossing have been issued for the species. Several of the conditions attached to these permits implement government-supported actions identified in the GRS for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid, including:

� Enhancing orchid habitat in areas not being adversely affected by the activity by undertaking efforts to control invasive species and the encroachment by woody vegetation through prescribed burning and mowing; and

� Conducting regular surveys, by qualified individuals, to monitor the number, location and health status of orchids, the number of transplanted individuals, the area occupied by invasive species, the area occupied by woody species, the status and effectiveness of mitigation techniques and habitat enhancement efforts, and reporting results to the Ministry.


� Identifying which orchids may be adversely affected by an activity;

� Transplanting individual orchids from impacted sites to other nearby areas of suitable habitat to reduce their potential for being killed or harmed; and

� Requiring training for all people who will be carrying out construction, mitigation, or monitoring actions on the activity site, to ensure that each person knows how to identify Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid and is aware of the legislated requirements to protect and minimize impacts on the species and its habitat.

Further information regarding ‘overall benefit permits’ is available through Ontario’s Environmental Registry.

overallBENEFITPERMIT

1


PERMITS

2

REGISTRATIONS

REGISTRATIONS

3REGISTRATIONS

AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

9



A total of nine agreements were entered into for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment). Conditions of the agreements involve implementing actions in the mitigation plans, including, but not limited to:

� Minimizing adverse effects (e.g., identifying sensitive areas based on known occurrences);



Three drainage maintenance activities that may affect Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid or its habitat have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA since 2013. All three activities are registered under ‘Drainage works’ (section 23.9) of Ontario Regulation 242/08, which requires the registered person to comply with all conditions of the regulation, such as:

� Taking immediate steps to minimize adverse effects on the species and its habitat (e.g., establishing protective zones around habitat areas);

� Implementing the actions in a mitigation plan developed by an expert on the species (e.g., habitat restoration or improvement actions);

� Reviewing and updating mitigation plans every five years to adjust/strengthen mitigation actions as required; and

� Preparing an annual report to record all observations of the species and describe the steps taken to minimize adverse effects on the species.



9. Occurrences of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid in Ontario9.1. Provincial Status There are 30 populations2 of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid that have been documented in Ontario. Sixteen of these populations are determined to be extant (i.e., have been observed within the past 20 years). A report by Brownell and Catling (2000) and information from the provincial record of observations indicate that many of these populations are extremely small. Five populations are considered historical3 (i.e., have not been reported to have been confirmed within the past 20 years) and nine populations are considered extirpated (i.e., no longer exist). Since 2008, one new population of 11 plants has been identified, while another population has changed from extant to historical as a result of the date that the species was last observed.

2 A population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations and the area has a practical conservation value as it is important to the conservation of the species.

3 A population is considered historical if it has not been recorded within the last 20 years. A change from extant to historical reflects our knowledge of the population and may not be indicative of a change to the population itself. Historical populations may still exist, but updated information is not available.

Beginning in 2008, when Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid became protected under the ESA, the Ministry has received 621 records of the species. These records are based on observations of the species documented from 1984 to 2012 and have come from a variety of sources. Records submitted have helped to redefine where the species is known or has been known to occur, and can provide additional information on the species’ habitat and threats. For example, in addition to the new location where Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid is now known to occur, observations of the species have been made at five of the populations since 2008, confirming the plants’ continued persistence and providing indications of the population’s size and condition. It is possible that there are observations of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid that have not been submitted to the Ministry. Encouraging the submission of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid observations is included in the GRS as a government-led action.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid, as well as every other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.




Photo: S.R. Brinker

Progress has been made toward all of the government-led actions and a majority of the government-supported actions in the government response statement.

10. Summary of Progress Towards Meeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations10.1. Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all of the government-led actions and a majority of government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. As indicated in this chapter, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (section 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made toward all of the government-supported recovery objectives, and a majority of the associated actions, that are identified in the GRS for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. Under the objective to reduce or eliminate threats to the species, progress has been made toward one of the two actions. The action has been implemented through numerous projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and through conditions of authorizations. The action is:

� Develop and implement management actions to improve populations and their habitat at existing locations, which may include prescribed burns and invasive species control. Evaluate the success of any management actions to inform future adaptive management approaches (Action No. 1; High Priority).


Under the objective to determine the distribution, abundance and trends of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid, various projects enabled through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund have supported progress on one of the two actions, specifically:

� Conduct surveys to locate new populations in areas that are considered to be suitable habitat (Action No. 4).

Under the objective to address knowledge gaps and determine the feasibility of restoration, progress has been made toward the two recovery actions. Collectively, portions of the actions were implemented through several projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund. The actions are:

� Conduct research to determine the effects of environmental changes such as fire, disturbance, and fluctuations of the water table on Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. Also determine the current role of pollinators and the degree of genetic variation among the Ontario populations of this species. This research will inform recovery efforts and support adaptive management approaches (Action No. 5); and

� Investigate the feasibility and appropriateness of reintroducing the species into historic habitat areas (Action No. 6).

The provincial record of observations indicates that Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid in Ontario is generally exhibiting trends that are consistent with the aspect of the GRS recovery goal to protect populations and habitat. Since 2008, the status of one population of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid has changed from extant to historical due to the date that it was last observed, however the overall number of extant populations remains unchanged due to the discovery of a previously unknown population. In addition, numerous activities have been undertaken to reduce or eliminate threats to the species, which is also consistent with the first aspect of the recovery goal, and are intended to reverse any declining population trends at existing locations.


Photo: S.R. Brinker

10.2. Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendations for the implementation of the GRS are suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid:

� Actions for which progress has been limited should be supported in future implementation planning, such as support the securement of habitat (Action No. 2) and develop and implement a monitoring program to assess changes in populations and habitat over time (Action No. 3; High Priority).

� In addition to continuing to support work on the degree of genetic variation among populations (Action No. 5), which can help to identify any changes in genetic diversity and inbreeding, it would be helpful to assess any changes in hybridization rates to determine the degree of threat that hybridization may pose to Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid.

� The action to investigate the feasibility and appropriateness of reintroducing the species into historic habitat areas (Action No. 6) should be further supported. Supporting this action will ensure that the second aspect of the GRS recovery goal for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid is addressed, which is to investigate the feasibility of restoring occurrences at historic locations within the Ontario range.

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario or the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid in Ontario.


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid is classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA).

Prior to its transition to the ESA, Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid was listed as endangered on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, but was not regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act. The species has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2008, and its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2010.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) in Ontario (2010)

� Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2010)

Government-supported stewardship projects: � Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”)

has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of 26 projects that have supported the protection and recovery of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. Four projects ($77,004) focused exclusively on the species, while the other 22 projects ($560,816) focused on multiple species at risk, including Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid.

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 360 individuals who volunteered 5,025 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid and other species at risk. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions and in-kind support is $1,019,002.

� Stewardship partners reported that through their actions 177 hectares of habitat were enhanced for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid and other species at risk that inhabit the same ecosystem.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk, including Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid to 2,916 individuals.

Supporting human activities while ensuring appropriate support for species recovery: � The Ministry has issued three permits for this species: two ‘protection and recovery permits’ were issued under

clause 17(2)(b) and one ‘overall benefit permit’ was issued under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA.

� A total of nine agreements were entered into for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment).

� Three activities have been registered under the ESA for this species. All three activities are registered under ‘Drainage works’ (section 23.9) under Ontario Regulation 242/08.

Occurrences and distribution:� Thirty populations of Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid have been documented in southern and eastern

Ontario. Sixteen of these populations are extant, whereas five are considered historical and nine are extirpated. Since 2008, one new population of 11 plants has been identified, while another population has changed from extant to historical as a result of the date that the species was last observed.








Brownell, V.R., and P.M. Catling. 2000. Update Status Report on Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid (Platanthera leucophaea). Funded by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 32 pp.


COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the eastern prairie fringed-orchid Platanthera leucophaea in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 27 pp.




Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid http://www.ontario.ca/page/eastern-prairie-fringed-orchid

Paul, J., C. Budd, J.R. Freeland. 2013. Conservation genetics of an endangered orchid in eastern Canada. Conservation Genetics 14(1): 195-204.













Engelmann’s Quillwort

Photo: Daniel Brunton


BLEED


Page 94 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | ENGELMANN’S QUILLWORT


1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Engelmann’s Quillwort in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Engelmann’s Quillwort (Isoëtes engelmannii) is a perennial plant with thin, hollow leaves that are green to yellow-green in colour. Individuals within the Canadian range are among the smallest of the species and rarely exceed 20 centimetres in length. The leaves are soft, but stand-up from the base of the plant, giving them a grass-like appearance. Engelmann’s Quillwort looks very similar to other species of quillwort.

In Canada, there are two populations of Engelmann’s Quillwort, both of which occur along rivers in central Ontario. At these locations the species is usually found submerged in shallow waters, generally in areas that are relatively protected from strong currents and waves, though during the dry season it may also be found amongst boulders on wet beaches. In Ontario, it typically grows in sand or silty-sand that is atop a clay substrate. A map of the provincial distribution of Engelmann’s Quillwort is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

There are two primary threats to the survival and recovery of Engelmann’s Quillwort in Ontario: mechanical damage (e.g., from boat traffic, strong waves or ice movement) and herbicide application (for control of aquatic vegetation or from land runoff). Engelmann’s Quillwort may also be negatively impacted by several potential threats, including nutrient enrichment, unusual fluctuating water levels, invasive species (e.g., Zebra Mussels), predators (e.g., muskrats and waterfowl), erosion and competition from other species.

Engelmann’s Quillwort is listed as endangered at both the provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and federal (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) levels. Globally, it is considered to be widespread and apparently secure.

3. Provincial StatusPrior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”), the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Engelmann’s Quillwort as endangered. Following this assessment, it was added to the Species at Risk in Ontario List in 2004, although the species was not regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act. The species retained its endangered status when the ESA came into force in 2008. In its future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/engelmanns-quillwort







ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Engelmann’s Quillwort and enforcing the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the ESA, and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. As an endangered species, all Engelmann’s Quillworts have been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Engelmann’s Quillwort has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when the government developed a habitat regulation for the species. Prior to its transition to the ESA, there was no species or habitat protection for Engelmann’s Quillwort. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

Although the ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition1 species such as Engelmann’s Quillwort, the government developed the regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08, section 26) to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as Engelmann’s Quillwort habitat. The habitat regulation was developed based on consideration of both the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation.


Any person who negatively impacts Engelmann’s Quillwort or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

As an endangered species, all

Engelmann’s Quillwort have been

protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008.

In addition, the habitat of Engelmann’s

Quillwort has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when the government

developed a habitat regulation for

the species.

5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Engelmann’s Quillwort was completed on February 18, 2010, which was in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of Engelmann’s Quillwort and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.


https://www.ontario.ca/page/engelmanns-quillwort


6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Engelmann’s Quillwort on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Engelmann’s Quillwort.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of Engelmann’s Quillwort is to ensure the sustainability of the populations on the Severn and Gull Rivers.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. The GRS for Engelmann’s Quillwort also outlines four actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Improve understanding of the extent of each threat to Engelmann’s Quillwort and establish threat-specific mitigation techniques;

� Increase public awareness and promote stewardship of Engelmann’s Quillwort and its habitat in Ontario; and

� Improve understanding of population size and distribution, population viability, and genetic affinity to other populations.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Engelmann’s Quillwort.

Species

Species listed as

in 2004

in 2008PROTECTED

endangered



FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED




7. Supporting Our PartnersSupporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Engelmann’s Quillwort through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, as well as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. No authorizations or regulatory provisions have been issued or registered for this species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of two complementary projects ($83,689) designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Engelmann’s Quillwort. Both of these projects targeted multiple species at risk (including Engelmann’s Quillwort) and the partner reported that they were successful in securing additional funding and in-kind support ($35,016) from other sources. This value for additional funding and in-kind support includes the estimated values of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

The stewardship partner reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 26 individuals who volunteered 37 hours of their time, which has an estimated value of $1,090. The remainder of this section highlights the two projects and the government-supported recovery action that they implemented.


$0 for Engelmann's Quillwort exclusively

$83,689 for multi-species projects that included Engelmann's QuillwortAdditional Funding

and In-kind Support

$35,016


people

2 Projects

hours

26volunteers

A total of

37




For the first project, the partner developed species at risk communications and educational materials for use by organizations and schools. In particular, the partner developed and printed a poster and brochures that identify Engelmann’s Quillwort and the other species at risk that inhabit the local landscape, while also providing advice on actions that the public can take to help protect and recover these species. As well, the partner developed a species at risk section on its website which includes a page specifically on Engelmann’s Quillwort that provides information on the biological characteristics of the species and the threats that it faces. The website directs viewers to other resources on species at risk, such as educational videos and best management practices. In addition, the partner conducted three workshops to present these communication products to members of the construction industry. This project supported the GRS action that focuses on developing communication products and tools to engage the public in stewardship activities for Engelmann’s Quillwort.

The objective of the second project was to raise awareness among residents on the biology and habitat requirements of Engelmann’s Quillwort and other local species at risk, inform residents of resources available, and encourage participation in conservation actions. The partner presented displays at four open house events and conducted 13 community workshops for various local groups and schools. Through these efforts, the partner was able to contact 810 people. As well, the partner accomplished further outreach through local news releases on species at risk and distributing resource materials through conservation networks and direct mailings. The partner also met with and provided resources to a local educators’ network to assist with integrating information on species at risk into curricula. By the end of the project’s funding period, the partner had already assisted area residents with submitting 35 reports of species at risk to the Ministry. This project also supported the GRS action to develop communication products and tools to engage the public.



8. Occurrences of Engelmann’s Quillwort in Ontario8.1 Natural Heritage Information Centre

Engelmann’s Quillwort was first documented in Ontario in the 1970s and has two extant (i.e., has been observed within the past 20 years) populations2 in the province: the Severn River and the Gull River. On the Severn River, the overall population size is estimated to be 1,094 individuals (Heydon and Pidgen, 2005), and on the Gull River the population estimate is 375 individuals (Heydon, 2006).

2 A population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., Engelmann’s Quillwort) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations and the area has a practical conservation value as it is important to the conservation of the species.

Since 2008, when Engelmann’s Quillwort became protected under the ESA, the Ministry has received 40 records of the species. These records are based on observations documented between 1988 and 2005 and have come from a variety of sources. These records have helped to redefine where the species is known to occur at the two locations, and can provide additional information on the habitat and threats. Engelmann’s Quillwort has not been reported to have been discovered at any new locations. It is possible that there are observations of Engelmann’s Quillwort that have not been submitted to the Ministry. Encouraging the submission of observations of Engelmann’s Quillwort to the Ministry is included in the GRS as a government-led action.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Engelmann’s Quillwort, as well as every other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.




Progress has been made toward all of the government-led and one of the government-supported actions in the government response statement.

9. Summary of Progress Towards Meeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations9.1 Summary of Progress

Progress has been made toward both government-led and government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for Engelmann’s Quillwort. As indicated in this chapter, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Engelmann’s Quillwort data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made toward one of the government-supported recovery objectives and the associated action that is identified in the GRS for Engelmann’s Quillwort.

Specifically, under the objective to increase public awareness and promote stewardship of Engelmann’s Quillwort and its habitat, progress has been made toward the recovery action (Action No. 2). The action was implemented through two projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund. At the time of reporting, progress had not been made toward the other two recovery objectives for the species.

There is no recent (post 2005) information available from the provincial record of observations to indicate any change in the two populations of Engelmann’s Quillwort in Ontario, which makes it difficult to assess whether the species is exhibiting trends that are consistent with the GRS recovery goal of ensuring the sustainability of the populations on the Severn and Gull Rivers.



9.2 Recommendations

As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Engelmann’s Quillwort can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Engelmann’s Quillwort should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for the action identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendation for the implementation of the GRS is suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Engelmann’s Quillwort:

� Actions for which progress has been limited should be supported in future implementation planning, such as identify factors negatively impacting populations and research and implement mitigation measures where necessary (Action No. 1; High Priority); identify priority sites for long-term monitoring (Action No. 3); and implement a long-term monitoring program at priority sites to determine population trends (Action No. 4). Implementing a long-term monitoring program at priority sites will provide information to assess if the species is exhibiting trends consistent with the GRS recovery goal.

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Engelmann’s Quillwort will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund or the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Engelmann’s Quillwort in Ontario.

Page 102 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | ENGELMANN’S QUILLWORTPage 102 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | ENGELMANN’S QUILLWORT

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Engelmann’s Quillwort in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Engelmann’s Quillwort is classified as endangered under the Endangered Species

Act, 2007 (ESA). Prior to its transition to the ESA, Engelmann’s Quillwort was listed as endangered on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, but was not regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act. The species has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2008, and its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2010.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for the Engelmann’s Quillwort (Isoëtes engelmannii) in Ontario (2010)

� Engelmann’s Quillwort: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Engelmann’s Quillwort Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2010)

Supporting our partners: � Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Forestry (“the Ministry”) has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of two projects ($83,689) that have supported the protection and recovery of multiple species at risk, including Engelmann’s Quillwort.

� The Ministry’s support helped a stewardship partner to involve 26 individuals who volunteered 37 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Engelmann’s Quillwort. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions, as well as additional funding and in-kind support is $35,016.

� A stewardship partner reported providing public outreach on Engelmann’s Quillwort and other species at risk to 810 individuals.

� The Ministry has not issued any permits for Engelmann’s Quillwort and no activities have been registered under any ESA regulation.

Occurrences and distribution:� Two populations (Severn River and Gull River) of Engelmann’s Quillwort are known in

Ontario. Since 2008 the Ministry has received 40 records of the species, all of which are based on observations from 1988 to 2005 and pertain to the two known populations.








COSEWIC. 2001. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Engelmann’s quillwort Isoëtes engelmannii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 18 pp.

Heydon, P.A. 2006. Environmental Variables that Affect the Distribution of Engelmann’s Quillwort. Unpublished Report. Parks Canada.

Heydon, P.A. and K.L. Pidgen. 2005. Engelmann’s quillwort (Isoëtes engelmannii) eco logical study in the Trent-Severn Waterway and the Gull River, Ontario. Unpublished Report. Parks Canada.




Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Engelmann’s Quillwort https://www.ontario.ca/page/engelmanns-quillwort








https://www.ontario.ca/page/engelmanns-quillwort





Few-flowered Club-rush

Photo: Bill Crins


BLEED


Page 105 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | FEW-FLOWERED CLUB-RUSH

Photo: Bill Crins

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Few-flowered Club-rush in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Few-flowered Club-rush (Trichophorum planifolium) is a perennial sedge with short, grass-like leaves, which form small clumps. They have triangular, solid stems with a small solitary spike at the end of each stalk. In July and August, when the species disperses its seeds, the leaves become flattened and matted on the forest floor. The species is also commonly referred to as Bashful Bulrush and Shy Bulrush.

Few-flowered Club-rush has been documented in two areas of Ontario: within the Cootes Paradise Nature Sanctuary in Hamilton and in Rouge Park in Toronto. The species is found commonly in oak deciduous forest and is restricted to sunny openings. The soils are typically dry, well drained sands or loamy sands. The species is found in association with oak woodland species, indicating that it may also occur in oak woodland habitats. A map of the provincial distribution of Few-flowered Club-rush is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

Few-flowered Club-rush faces several threats to its survival and recovery, including canopy closure due to succession and fire suppression (which may limit the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor), excessive disturbance (such as the use of hiking trails near the species), deer browsing on the species, as well as competition from native and introduced plants.

The survival and recovery of Few-flowered Club-rush is influenced by other factors as well. Few-flowered Club-rush is extremely inconspicuous and is associated with gap-phase succession, which is a dynamic process of regeneration that occurs in small forest openings. The persistence of the species may be naturally limited by the amount of forest openings which may influence the colonization of new sites.

Few-flowered Club-rush is listed as endangered at both the provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and federal (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) levels. Globally, it is considered to be apparently secure to secure.

3. Provincial StatusPrior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”), the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Few-flowered Club-rush as endangered and it was regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act in 2001. Few-flowered Club-rush has retained its status as endangered under the ESA. In its future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/few-flowered-club-rush







ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Few-flowered Club-rush and enforcing the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the ESA and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. As a species that was regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act, Few-flowered Club-rush has received species and habitat protection since 2001. The species is currently protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken under the ESA. In addition, the habitat of Few-flowered Club-rush is currently protected from being damaged or destroyed under the ESA; habitat protection has been in place under the ESA since 2008 when the Act came into force. Habitat protection under the ESA was initially based on the general habitat definition in the Act. The habitat of Few-flowered Club-rush is now protected through a habitat regulation that was developed in 2010. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

Although the ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition1 species such as Few-flowered Club-rush, the government developed the regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08, section 27) to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as Few-flowered Club-rush habitat. The habitat regulation was developed based on consideration of both the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation.


Any person who negatively impacts Few-flowered Club-rush or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

As a species that was regulated under

the previous Endangered Species

Act, Few-flowered Club-rush has

received species and habitat protection since 2001. The

species is currently protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken under the ESA.

In addition, the habitat of Few-flowered

Club-rush is currently protected from being damaged or destroyed under the ESA; habitat

protection has been in place under the

ESA since 2008 when the Act came into

force. Habitat protection under the ESA

was initially based on the general habitat

definition in the Act. The habitat of Few-

flowered Club-rush is now protected

through a habitat regulation that was

developed in 2010.

5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Few-flowered Club-rush was completed on February 18, 2010, which was in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of Few-flowered Club-rush and the threats it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.


http://www.ontario.ca/page/few-flowered-club-rush


6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Few-flowered Club-rush on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Few-flowered Club-rush.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of Few-flowered Club-rush is to ensure the long-term survival of existing Ontario populations.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. The GRS for Few-flowered Club-rush also outlines six actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Manage habitat to maintain the conditions necessary to sustain existing populations and maintain genetic diversity;

� Evaluate population trends, threats and the impact of management actions; and

� Address knowledge gaps and clarify the threats posed to the species in its Ontario range.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Few-flowered Club-rush.

Species

since 2001PROTECTED

beginning in 2001 under previous Endangered Species Act; then through general habitat definition in 2008; then

the habitat regulation in 2010


FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


Species listed as

in 2001

endangered



7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for Few-flowered Club-rush is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of five projects ($232,959) designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Few-flowered Club-rush. All of these projects targeted multiple species at risk (including the Few-flowered Club-rush) and partners reported that they were successful in securing additional funding and in-kind support ($318,821) from other sources. This value for additional funding and in-kind support includes the estimated values of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners also reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 216 individuals who volunteered 3,094 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Few-flowered Club-rush. This voluntary contribution has an estimated value of $62,280. MNRF’s stewardship partners reported that through both their efforts and the efforts of their volunteers to implement actions contained in the GRS, they were successful in enhancing 15 hectares of habitat that will benefit multiple species at risk, including Few-flowered Club-rush. The remainder of this section highlights a few projects that were supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and their corresponding government-supported recovery actions.

To support two high priority GRS actions which were to develop site-specific plans for managing existing populations and restoring their habitats as well as mitigating site-specific threats that impeded the survival of Few-flowered Club-rush, a stewardship partner installed deer exclosure fencing in areas where disturbances caused by deer trampling and browsing were noted as threats to the species. Vegetation plot surveys were completed within and outside of the exclosures to monitor the response of the species. Additionally, unauthorized use of closed trails presents a threat to Few-flowered Club-rush. Over multiple

of habitat enhanced

5 Projects

15ha


$318,821

hours

216volunteers

A total of

3,094


$0 for Few-flowered Club-rush exclusively

$232,959 for multi-species projects that included Few-flowered Club-rush



years of funding, a partner has managed trails in the area of Few-flowered Club-rush to prevent trampling. The management has included plantings on the closed trail, blocking access with debris, using educational tools such as signage and revised trail maps, and monitoring the effectiveness of these actions. Invasive species removal has also occurred to improve habitat for the species. These actions to mitigate threats are critical to providing protection to the only existing population of Few-flowered Club-rush in Ontario.

Photo: W. Bakowsky

Implementing protocols to monitor Few-flowered Club-rush population trends, threats and response to management at existing sites is a government-supported action identified in the GRS. One partner supported this action by completing surveys for the species in Rouge Park and in Cootes Paradise Nature Sanctuary. At Rouge Park, the locations where Few-flowered Club-rush previously occurred were determined to no longer be suitable for the species. At Cootes Paradise Nature Sanctuary, surveys took place over multiple years to monitor any changes to the population. Sub-sampling also occurred in order to obtain more specific population data (e.g., the number of shoots and number of flowering stems) while minimizing disturbance to the population directly. By examining the results of the surveys, the partner determined that overall the Few-flowering Club-rush population was stable; however, threat management may continue to be required to ensure the species persists.




PERMITS

PERMITS

48. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on Few-flowered Club-rushSupporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Few-flowered Club-rush, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. A total of four permits have been issued for Few-flowered Club-rush since the species has been protected under the ESA; all four permits were ‘protection and recovery permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit). ‘Protection and recovery permits’ are issued if the purpose of the activity is to assist the protection or recovery of a species at risk. One permit focused on addressing knowledge gaps on the development of the species by conducting DNA studies. Two permits were for the collection of Few-flowered Club-rush seeds to examine the best method of propagation and to maintain diversity in case of a catastrophic loss of plants. The remaining permit was for habitat creation and restoration within the Rouge Park in 2010.

In order to minimize adverse effects when conducting seed collection and propagation, a condition on the permit stated that only 10 percent of the seed heads could be removed from each individual wild plant for seed collection.

No activities that pertain to Few-flowered Club-rush have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 of the ESA since the registry was established in 2013.



88 observations of this species were submitted to the NHIC

since 2008

9. Occurrences of Few-flowered Club-rush in Ontario9.1. Natural Heritage Information CentreFew-flowered Club-rush has been documented in two areas of Ontario: Cootes Paradise Nature Sanctuary in Hamilton and Rouge Park in Toronto. Within these areas, Few-flowered Club-rush occurs in one population2 in Cootes Paradise Nature Sanctuary and has occurred in two populations in Rouge Park.

2 A population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., Few-flowered Club-rush) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations and the area has a practical conservation value as it is important to the conservation of the species.

The species was first observed in Rouge Park in 1976 and subsequently a second population was discovered in 1981. The last observation of the species within the park occurred in 2001 and consisted of a single plant. Despite search efforts, including an intensive search in 2008, Few-flowered Club-rush has not been confirmed within either population. Similar nearby habitat in the area was also searched with negative results. Surveyors indicated that the habitat had changed dramatically from previous surveys and invasive species such as Dog-strangling Vine and browsing by White-tailed Deer was noticeable in the area. These two populations were determined to be extirpated (i.e., no longer exist) in 2008.

Within Cootes Paradise Nature Sanctuary, surveys have occurred from 2007- 2010. While some individual plants could not be located, new plants have been found and surveys showed no substantial signs of decline in the total population during this time period. Overall the population was estimated to be approximately 1,100 plants in 2010. A survey completed in 2014 discovered a new sub-population within this population and most of the plants were recorded to be fairly large, healthy and well-established. This population of Few-flowered Club-rush is estimated to have good viability, indicating that this population is likely capable of living successfully under the current environmental conditions. However, current and future threat management at this population (e.g., the removal of Dog-strangling Vine) may play a critical role in the population’s long-term survival.

Since 2008, when Few-flowered Club-rush became protected under the ESA, the Ministry has received approximately 88 records of the species. These records are based on observations between 1955 and 2014 and come from a variety of sources. Records submitted have helped to redefine where the species is known to occur and have provided additional information on the habitat and threats to the species. It is possible that there are observations of the Few-flowered Club-rush that have not been submitted to the Ministry. Encouraging the submission of observations of Few-flowered Club-rush to the Ministry is included in the GRS as a government-led action.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Few-flowered Club-rush, as well as every other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.



Photo: Bill Crins


10. Summary of Progress Towards Meeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations10.1. Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all of the government-led and a majority of government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for Few-flowered Club-rush. As indicated in this chapter, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Few-flowered Club-rush data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made towards all of the government-supported recovery objectives, and a majority of the associated actions, that are identified in the GRS for Few-flowered Club-rush.

Under the objective to manage habitat to maintain conditions necessary to sustain existing populations and maintain genetic diversity, progress has been made towards all of the actions. These actions have been implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund as well as through authorizations. The actions under this objective are:

� Develop site-specific plans for managing existing populations of Few-flowered Club-rush populations and restoring their habitats (Action No. 1; High Priority); and

� Clarify and mitigate site-specific threats that impede the survival of Few-flowered Club-rush populations (Action No. 2; High Priority).

Under the objective to evaluate population trends, threats and the impact of management actions, projects enabled through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund have supported progress on the recovery action listed, specifically:

� Develop and implement protocols to monitor Few-flowered Club-rush population trends, threats and response to management techniques at existing sites in Ontario (Action No. 3).


Photo: W. Bakowsky

Under the objective to address knowledge gaps and clarify the threats posed to the species in its Ontario range, progress has been made towards one of the three recovery actions. This action was implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund as well as through authorizations. The action under this objective is:

� Explore the need for a seed bank to conserve location genetic diversity, as required (Action No. 6).

Out of the three populations where Few-flowered Club-rush has been documented to occur, two of the populations were deemed to be extirpated (no longer exist) in 2008. The remaining population is estimated to have good viability and while fluctuations have occurred at individual sites, surveys and monitoring suggest that the total population is stable, which is consistent with the recovery goal for the species of ensuring long-term survival of the species.

10.2. Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Few-flowered Club-rush can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Few-flowered Club-rush should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendation for the implementation of the GRS is suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Few-flowered Club-rush:

� Actions for which progress has been limited should be supported in future implementation planning, such as identifying the type and level of disturbance that promotes persistence of Few-flowered Club-rush populations in Ontario (Action No. 4) and assessing the role and significance of other potential threats to the species and its habitat (Action No. 5).

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Few-flowered Club-rush will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund or the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Few-flowered Club-rush.


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Few-flowered Club-rush in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Few-flowered Club-rush is classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act,

2007 (ESA). It was also listed under the previous Endangered Species Act, and has retained the same status since transition to the ESA. Few-flowered Club-rush has received species and habitat protection since 2001.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for Few-flowered Club-rush (Trichophorum planifolium) in Ontario (2010)

� Few-flowered Club-rush: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Few-flowered Club-rush Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2010)

Government-supported stewardship projects: � Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Forestry (“the Ministry”) has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of five projects ($232,959) that have supported the protection and recovery of multiple species at risk, including Few-flowered Club-rush.

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 216 individuals who volunteered 3,094 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for species at risk, including Few-flowered Club-rush. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions, as well as additional funding and in-kind support is $318,821.

� Stewardship partners reported that through their actions 15 hectares of habitat were enhanced for Few-flowered Club-rush and other species at risk that inhabit the same ecosystem.


� The Ministry has issued four ‘protection and recovery permits’ under clause 17(2)(b) of the ESA.

� There have been no registrations of activities for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA for this species.

Occurrences and distribution:� Few-flowered Club-rush has been documented in three populations occurring in Cootes

Paradise Nature Sanctuary in Hamilton and Rouge Park in Toronto. One population is considered extant (i.e., reported within the past 20 years). Two of the populations were deemed to be extirpated (i.e., no longer exist) in 2008.








Natural Heritage Information Centre http://www.ontario.ca/page/natural-heritage-information-centre



Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Few-flowered Club-rush http://www.ontario.ca/page/few-flowered-club-rush



Species at Risk Stewardship Fund http://www.ontario.ca/page/grants-protecting-species-risk


http://www.ontario.ca/page/natural-heritage-information-centre



http://www.ontario.ca/page/few-flowered-club-rush



http://www.ontario.ca/page/grants-protecting-species-risk


Jefferson Salamander

Photo: Leo Kenney, Vernal Pool Association


BLEED


Page 117 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | JEFFERSON SALAMANDER


1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Jefferson Salamander in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) is a long lived and relatively large salamander which may live up to 30 years and grow 12-20 centimetres in length. It has a grey or brown coloured back, with lighter underparts and may have blue flecks on its sides and limbs. Young Jefferson Salamanders (larvae) look like miniature adults, but with external gills. The species is found only in North America, with Ontario being the northern limit of its range.

In Canada, Jefferson Salamander is found only in southern Ontario, mainly along the Niagara Escarpment. A total of 45 populations have been documented in the province. Adult Jefferson Salamanders spend most of their lives in deciduous or mixed-wood forests. A map of the provincial distribution of Jefferson Salamander is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

In the winter, individuals reside in deep cracks in rock or in rodent burrows that extend below the frost line. Come spring, adult Jefferson Salamanders are often required to travel through a variety of habitat types and across roads to locate woodland ponds in which they breed and lay their eggs. Adults then head into the surrounding forest for the summer and fall, typically living under logs or rocks, in leaf litter, or in soil that is moist and loose. After hatching, the young live underwater until they lose their gills in mid-summer and then move into nearby forest.

Major threats to the survival and recovery of Jefferson Salamander include habitat loss and degradation, fragmentation of woodlands and breeding ponds, road-related threats (e.g., vehicles and pollutants) and introduction of carnivorous fish to breeding ponds, which can prey upon the egg, juvenile and adult stages of the species.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/jefferson-salamander



The survival and recovery of Jefferson Salamander is also influenced by other factors. In particular, the specific habitat requirements of Jefferson Salamander mean that suitable habitat for the species is often limited. For breeding, the species requires woodland ponds that lack fish (while providing adequate amounts of food and sites for egg attachment), but many forested wetlands are connected to streams, through which fish can gain access to breeding ponds. As well, populations of Jefferson Salamander can be affected by ponds freezing or drying during breeding or development of the young. Importantly, the terrestrial habitat must have appropriate features to support feeding, moisture retention and predator avoidance.

Jefferson Salamander is listed as endangered at the provincial level (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and is listed as threatened at the federal level (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act). Globally, the species is ranked as apparently secure, as it is considered uncommon but is not rare throughout its entire range as a whole.

3. Provincial StatusPrior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”), the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Jefferson Salamander as threatened. The species was listed as threatened in 2004 and retained this status when the Act came into force in 2008. In 2011, COSSARO reassessed the status of Jefferson Salamander and, in that same year, its listing was changed from threatened to endangered on the Species at Risk in Ontario List. In future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.






ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Jefferson Salamander and enforcing the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the ESA and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. As a previously threatened and now endangered species, Jefferson Salamander has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Jefferson Salamander is protected from being damaged or destroyed; habitat protection has been in place since 2010 when the government completed a habitat regulation for the species. Prior to its transition to the ESA, there was no species or habitat protection for Jefferson Salamander. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

Although the ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition species1 such as Jefferson Salamander, the government developed the regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08, section 28) in 2010 to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as Jefferson Salamander habitat. The habitat regulation was developed based on consideration of both the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation. The habitat regulation continues to apply to Jefferson Salamander under its current listing status.


Any person who negatively impacts Jefferson Salamander or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

All Jefferson Salamanders have been

protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Jefferson

Salamander has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when



5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Jefferson Salamander was completed on February 18, 2010, which was in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of Jefferson Salamander and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.




6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Jefferson Salamander on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Jefferson Salamander.


of Jefferson Salamander is to ensure that threats to populations and habitat are addressed, in order to allow for the long-term persistence and expansion of the species within its existing Ontario range.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. A specific action for the government to lead to help protect and recover Jefferson Salamander is:

� Ensure appropriate timing windows for activities undertaken in and around Jefferson Salamander habitat are considered in the application of the ESA.

The GRS for Jefferson Salamander outlines 10 actions in which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the four objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Identify and monitor populations of the Jefferson Salamander in Ontario;

� Evaluate and implement threat mitigation and habitat restoration techniques;

� Address knowledge gaps on the species’ movements and habitat use to inform protection of habitat; and

� Raise awareness and promote stewardship of Jefferson Salamanders and their habitat in Ontario.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Jefferson Salamander.

Species

in 2008PROTECTED



FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


in 2011

Species listed as threatened in 2004 and then

endangered



ours

7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for Jefferson Salamander is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of 40 projects designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Jefferson Salamander. Three of these projects ($42,999) focused exclusively on the species, while the other 37 projects ($1,438,056) focused on multiple species at risk, including Jefferson Salamander. In addition to the support provided through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, partners focusing exclusively on Jefferson Salamander reported that they were successful in securing additional funding and in-kind support ($31,975) from other sources, as did partners with projects designed to benefit multiple species at risk, including Jefferson Salamander ($2,425,924). These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated values of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 13 individuals who volunteered 136 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities that focused exclusively on Jefferson Salamander, which has an estimated value of $3,670. As well, a total of 2,559 individuals volunteered 33,887 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Jefferson Salamander. These voluntary contributions have an estimated value of $825,785.

The Ministry’s stewardship partners reported that through both their efforts and the efforts of their volunteers to implement actions contained in the GRS, they were successful in enhancing 1,113 hectares of habitat expected to benefit multiple species at risk, including Jefferson Salamander. In addition, stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk (including Jefferson Salamander) to 207,303 individuals.

of habitat restored


40 Projects3 projects focusedexclusively on the species2,572

volunteers

hours

A total of

1,113ha


$42,999 for Jefferson Salamander exclusively $1,438,056 for multi-species projects that included Jefferson SalamanderAdditional Funding

and In-kind Support

$2,457,899

34,023

people



Photo: Jennifer McCarter

The Ministry also supports proponents in conducting research that addresses important knowledge gaps for species at risk. Through the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario, the Ministry provided funding to a partner to conduct research on a new survey technique for Jefferson Salamander.

The remainder of this section highlights three projects that were supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund or the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario and their corresponding government-supported recovery actions.

A partner conducted a project in three different years to support a long-term project on the Oak Ridges Moraine. The project has included surveys for Jefferson Salamander (using minnow traps and genetic testing), which identified a new breeding site of the species. The partner also undertook activities to reduce threats to these populations and restore habitat, such as using erosion control measures to decrease siltation of a breeding pond, constructing a boardwalk to prevent damage to pond habitats and identifying road mortality sites for mitigation. In addition, the partner expanded its public tour program, through which 257 students and members of the public were taught about the habitat of Jefferson Salamander and other species at risk from 2009-2011. This project supported several GRS actions, including those focused on documenting the locations of populations, conducting threat mitigation, as well as awareness and promoting stewardship of the species and its habitat.


Work carried out by a partner in the Niagara region provides an additional example of the stewardship projects that have been conducted for Jefferson Salamander. Consistent with the high priority GRS action to document the locations of populations, the partner conducted field surveys for the species and its habitat, which confirmed (through genetic testing) seven occurrences of Jefferson Salamander and a vernal pool breeding site used by the species. The partner used this information to update biological inventories, as well as to install a viewing platform and interpretive signs next to the breeding site to protect it from visitor-related impacts while providing the public with an opportunity to observe and learn about this important habitat. A press release and an article in the partner’s newsletter helped to inform the public about this new educational opportunity. These activities implemented the GRS actions that focus on conducting threat mitigation and raising awareness and promoting stewardship of the species and its habitat.

Through the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario a partner developed and tested the effectiveness of a rapid survey protocol that could be used to better understand the distribution and occurrence of Jefferson Salamander across its range in southern Ontario. In particular, the purpose of the project is to assess whether environmental DNA and sequencing can be used to determine if Jefferson Salamander can be detected from water samples collected from within habitats where the species is known to occur. Early testing results indicate that the technique is effective for detecting environmental DNA of Jefferson Salamander and the partner is proceeding to later-stage testing. This project supports development of the GRS action to implement a standardized monitoring protocol to measure the presence or absence of Jefferson Salamander.

Protecting Jefferson Salamanders Crossing the RoadBeginning in 2012, in an exemplary demonstration of stewardship the City of Burlington has implemented a temporary road closure each spring to protect migrating Jefferson Salamanders from traffic. As the salamanders emerge from their winter burrows and begin their journey to locate woodland ponds in which to breed and lay their eggs, the City closes a three kilometre section of road for about three weeks. Reports indicate that the temporary road closure, during this particularly sensitive period, is having a positive effect on the local population of Jefferson Salamander.


8. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on and Create an Overall Benefit for Jefferson Salamander Supporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Jefferson Salamander, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. A total of 60 permits have been issued for Jefferson Salamander since the species has been protected under the ESA. This includes 58 ‘protection and recovery permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit), of which the majority pertained to Jefferson Salamander exclusively, while five included additional species at risk. ‘Protection and recovery’ permits are issued if the purpose of the activity that they would enable is to assist in the protection or recovery of the species specified in the permit. These permits enabled a variety of organizations to undertake activities such as conducting surveys to verify and document the locations of populations, as well as restoring habitat by reducing erosion, planting natural cover, controlling invasive species and installing a boardwalk and fencing to minimize human interference with the species. In addition, two ‘overall benefit permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(c) permit) have been issued for Jefferson Salamander. Several of the conditions attached to these two permit types implement government-led and government-supported actions identified in the GRS for Jefferson Salamander, including:

� Undertaking construction outside of the spring breeding season to avoid the potential for impacting migrating salamanders;

� Planting suitable trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants to restore foraging habitat and create connected dispersal corridors between existing wooded areas and other appropriate habitats, including potential breeding ponds, which will facilitate interaction between two populations of Jefferson Salamander;

� Increasing community awareness of Jefferson Salamander and discouraging encroachment into regulated habitat by installing signage and developing a stewardship brochure to distribute to local residents; and

� Reporting all observations of Jefferson Salamander to the Ministry.

overallBENEFIT

PERMITS


PERMITS

REGISTRATIONS

REGISTRATIONS

2

58

2REGISTRATIONS

3AGREEMENTSAGREEMENTSAGREEMENTS



� Requiring installation of adequate erosion and sediment control measures before construction may commence;

� Protecting the habitat of Jefferson Salamander by installing surface water and ground water management systems to maintain existing water flows to breeding ponds;

� Installing permanent fencing and an exclusion wall to prevent Jefferson Salamander from entering residential lots and to limit access by humans and pets to regulated habitat;

� Monitoring Jefferson Salamander use of enhanced/restored habitat areas and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, which will improve knowledge of effective recovery techniques; and

� Addressing any deficiencies in restored habitat areas and mitigation measures prior to the next Jefferson Salamander migration period.


A total of three agreements were entered into for Jefferson Salamander. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment). Conditions of the agreements involve implementing actions in the mitigation plan, including, but not limited to:

� Minimizing adverse effects (e.g., identifying sensitive time periods for the species based on life history characteristics);





Photo: Joe Crowley

Since 2013, two activities that may affect Jefferson Salamander or its habitat have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA. Both activities are registered under ‘Species protection, recovery activities’ (section 23.17) of Ontario Regulation 242/08, and include work such as surveys to document the locations of potential populations of Jefferson Salamander. These registrations require the registered individual to comply with all conditions of the regulation, such as:

� Implementing the actions in a mitigation plan developed by an expert on the species to help minimize or avoid any adverse effects;

� Ensuring that any person carrying out any part of the activity receives training on how to identify the species and its habitat, potential threats posed to the species and its habitat by the activity, and the steps that must be taken to minimize any adverse effects;

� Updating mitigation plans every five years to include information obtained while monitoring the effects of the activity;

� Reporting observations of the species to the Ministry using the Rare Species Reporting Form; and

� Preparing a report following completion of the activity that provides a summary of the outcome of the activity, including a detailed assessment of the extent to which the activity achieved its purpose.



9. Occurrences of Jefferson Salamander in Ontario9.1. Natural Heritage Information CentreForty-five populations2 of Jefferson Salamander have been documented in Ontario, of which 21 are extant (i.e., have been observed within the past 20 years). It is important to note that species confirmation of Jefferson Salamander is challenging and time intensive, as it requires genetic testing to distinguish surveyed individuals from other species of salamander.

2 A population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., Jefferson Salamander) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations. It also has a practical conservation value as the area is important to the conservation of the species.

Twenty-four of the 45 populations are historical3 (i.e., have not been reported to have been confirmed within the past 20 years). Sixteen of these populations have recently (since 2008) changed to historical as a result of the date the species was last observed at the location. The 2010 Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) report on Jefferson Salamander indicated that the majority of sites surveyed in 1990 and 1991 no longer supported populations of Jefferson Salamander when follow-up surveys were conducted in 2003 and 2004. At sites where the species was present in 2003 or 2004, there was a notable reduction in the number of egg masses compared to earlier surveys.


Since 2008, when Jefferson Salamander became protected under the ESA, the Ministry has received 262 records of the species. These records are based on observations documented between 1937 and 2014, and have helped to redefine where the species is and was known to occur, and provided additional information on habitat and threats. Although the majority of records submitted did not include genetic testing, there was a subset that did and these helped to identify and determine the current status of eight of the 45 populations where Jefferson Salamander is now considered extant (four populations) or historical (four populations); these eight records are based on observations documented prior to 2008. Encouraging the submission of observations of Jefferson Salamander to the Ministry is included in the GRS as a government-led action.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Jefferson Salamander, as well as every other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.




10. Summary of Progress Towards Meeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations10.1. Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all government-led actions and several of the government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for Jefferson Salamander. As indicated in this chapter, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: ensure appropriate timing windows for activities undertaken in and around Jefferson Salamander habitat are considered; encourage submission of Jefferson Salamander data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made toward most of the government-supported recovery objectives, and several of the associated actions, that are identified in the GRS for Jefferson Salamander.

Under the objective to identify and monitor populations of the species, considerable progress has been made toward the first of the two actions and initial progress has been made toward the second action. The first action has been implemented through numerous projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund or through conditions of authorizations, whereas a project undertaken through the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario and development of a survey protocol have supported progress toward the second action. The respective actions under this objective are:

� Verify and document the locations of historic, existing and potential populations and the characteristics of their habitat (Action No. 1; High Priority); and

� Implement a standardized monitoring protocol to measure the presence or absence of salamanders, the site-specific and cumulative impacts at the locations, and trends in habitat condition. The monitoring frequency of the locations should be prioritized on the basis of current and potential threats. Each year, monitoring should include both unaltered sites and sites under threat, in order to allow for comparison of impacts (Action No. 2; High Priority).

Progress has been made toward all of the government-led and several of the government-supported actions in the government response statement.



Photo: Jennifer McCarter

Under the objective to evaluate and implement threat mitigation and habitat restoration techniques, various projects enabled through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and activities enabled through authorizations have supported strong progress on one of the five actions, specifically:

� Where appropriate, implement habitat restoration and threat mitigation techniques at priority sites (Action No. 6).

Under the objective to raise awareness and promote stewardship of Jefferson Salamander and its habitat, substantial progress has been made toward the recovery action. The action was implemented through numerous projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and through a condition of an authorization, and is:

� Develop communication products and tools to provide information to landowners, property managers, industry, local stewardship councils, conservation authorities and other stakeholders to assist in the recovery of the species and promote land stewardship (Action No. 10).

As stated above, the government’s goal for the recovery of Jefferson Salamander is to ensure that threats to populations and habitat are addressed, in order to allow for the long-term persistence and expansion of the species within its existing Ontario range. Several government-led actions address threats to populations and habitat. Partners have also addressed threats to the species by carrying out the government-supported action of implementing habitat restoration and threat mitigation techniques at priority sites. These government-led and government-supported actions have made progress towards meeting the recovery goal, and it continues to be important to mitigate threats to this species. This can be achieved by continuing to implement habitat restoration and threat mitigation, while also carrying out several of the GRS actions for which progress has been limited.


10.2. Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Jefferson Salamander can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Jefferson Salamander should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendations for the implementation of the GRS are suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Jefferson Salamander:

� Actions for which progress has been limited should be supported in future implementation planning, such as investigate the tolerance of the species to stressors and potential approaches to mitigate these threats (Action No. 3; High Priority); at sites where Jefferson Salamander used to occur, identify factors that likely caused the loss of the population (Action No. 4); identify currently unoccupied sites where the species used to occur and where the habitat has the potential to be enhanced or restored (Action No. 5); as opportunities arise, support the securement of habitat of the Jefferson Salamander through existing land securement and stewardship programs (Action No. 7); continue research on the species’ use of habitat with a focus on gaining information about fall movements, overwintering areas and juvenile dispersal (Action No. 8); and conduct research on the hydrology of breeding habitat to determine the sensitivity of breeding habitat to changes in the quantity and quality of water (Action No. 9).

� Although initial progress has been made toward development of the action to implement a standardized monitoring protocol (Action No. 2; High Priority), further work is required to fully implement this action.

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Jefferson Salamander will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario or the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Jefferson Salamander in Ontario.


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Jefferson Salamander in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Jefferson Salamander has been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) since

2011. Prior to its transition to the ESA, Jefferson Salamander was listed as threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, and retained this status when the ESA came into force. The species has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2008, and its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2010.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for the Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) in Ontario (2010)

� Jefferson Salamander: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Jefferson Salamander Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2010)


Ministry”) has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of 40 projects that have supported the protection and recovery of Jefferson Salamander and other species at risk. Three projects ($42,999) focused exclusively on Jefferson Salamander, while the other 37 projects ($1,438,056) focused on multiple species at risk, including Jefferson Salamander.

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 2,572 individuals who volunteered 34,023 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for Jefferson Salamander and other species at risk. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions and in-kind support is $2,457,899.

� Stewardship partners reported that through their actions 1,113 hectares of habitat were enhanced for Jefferson Salamander and other species at risk that inhabit the same ecosystem.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on Jefferson Salamander and other species at risk to 207,303 individuals.

� Through the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario the Ministry supported a research partner to develop and assess the effectiveness of a rapid survey protocol.

Supporting human activities while ensuring appropriate support for species recovery: � The Ministry has issued 60 permits for this species: 58 ‘protection and recovery’ permits were issued under

clause 17(2)(b) and two ‘overall benefit permits’ were issued under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA.

� A total of three agreements were entered into for Jefferson Salamander. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment).

� Two activities have been registered for this species. Both activities were registered under ‘Species protection, recovery activities’ (section 23.17) of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA.

Occurrences and distribution:� Forty-five populations of Jefferson Salamander have been documented in southern Ontario, primarily along

the Niagara Escarpment; of the 45 populations, 21 are extant and 24 are historical. Of the 24 populations that are now considered historical, 16 were considered extant prior to 2008.









COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 38 pp.




Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Jefferson Salamander https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/jefferson-salamander








https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/jefferson-salamander





Ogden’s Pondweed

Photo: Davis Lock, Department of Agriculture


BLEED


Page 134 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | OGDEN’S PONDWEED

Photo: Davis Lock, Department of Agriculture

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Ogden’s Pondweed in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Ogden’s Pondweed (Potamogeton ogdenii) is an underwater annual plant with branching, thread-like stems. It has narrow, greenish-brown leaves five to seven centimetres long. It can be difficult to identify as its appearance is very similar to eight other narrow-leaved pondweed species in Ontario. Because of difficulty in identifying the species, it may be less rare and more widespread in Ontario than currently thought.

Ogden’s Pondweed has been documented at three locations in southeastern Ontario. It grows in lakes, ponds and slow moving streams and is often associated with water with high alkalinity. The species is often associated with other pondweed species and is thought to have originated as a hybrid between Hill’s Pondweed and Flat-stem Pondweed. A map of the provincial distribution of Ogden’s Pondweed is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

Potential threats to Ogden’s Pondweed include habitat loss such as shoreline development or loss of beaver ponds, competition from invasive plants such as Eurasian Water-milfoil and excessive nutrient input into aquatic habitats. The survival and recovery of the species may also be limited as natural disturbances or random events may result in significant losses to the low number of known populations in Ontario. Reproduction may also be limited by low population numbers as there are a low number of plants available to reproduce.

Ogden’s Pondweed is listed as endangered at both the provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and federal (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) levels. It is globally rare and considered to be critically imperiled to imperiled.

3. Provincial StatusThe Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Ogden’s Pondweed as endangered. Following this assessment, it was added to the Species at Risk in Ontario List in 2009. In future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/ogdens-pondweed




https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/how-species-risk-are-listed


ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Ogden’s Pondweed and enforcing the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. As an endangered species, Ogden’s Pondweed has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since it was added to the Species at Risk in Ontario List in 2009. In addition, the habitat of Ogden’s Pondweed has been protected from being damaged or destroyed; habitat protection has been in place since 2009. Habitat protection was initially based on the general habitat definition in the ESA. In 2011, the government developed a habitat regulation for the species, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA, to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as Ogden’s Pondweed habitat (Ontario Regulation 242/08, section 28.1). The habitat regulation was developed based on consideration of both the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation. Prior to 2009, there was no species or habitat protection for Ogden’s Pondweed. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

Any person who negatively impacts Ogden’s Pondweed or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

As an endangered species, Ogden’s

Pondweed has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2009.

In addition, the habitat of Ogden’s

Pondweed has been protected from being damaged or destroyed; habitat protection has been in place since 2009. Habitat protection was

initially based on the general habitat

definition in the ESA. The habitat of

Ogden’s Pondweed is now protected


developed in 2011.

5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Ogden’s Pondweed was completed on February 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. It represents the best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of Ogden’s Pondweed and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering it. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.




6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Ogden’s Pondweed on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that identifies the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Ogden’s Pondweed.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of Ogden’s Pondweed is to ensure the persistence of populations where they exist in Ontario.

To help achieve this goal, the government has committed to leading a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. The GRS for Ogden’s Pondweed also outlines three actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Confirm existence of Ogden’s Pondweed in Ontario and determine its extent and abundance.

� Monitor population size and specific threats to the species and its habitat at confirmed sites.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has committed to leading or supporting to help achieve the recovery goal for Ogden’s Pondweed.

Species listed as

in 2009

in 2009PROTECTED

endangered

through general habitat definition in 2009, and then a habitat regulation in 2011


FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


Species



Photo: Ontario Parks

7. Supporting Our PartnersSupporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Ogden’s Pondweed through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, as well as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. No authorizations or regulatory provisions have been issued or registered for this species. One stewardship partner who received funding through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund identified Ogden’s Pondweed as a target species (along with a variety of other species at risk) for BioBlitzs. BioBlitzs are volunteer-based biological inventories completed over a short period of time, where a group of volunteers, experts, and naturalists count and identify the total number of species in a specific area. Inventories were completed on private land in the same counties where Ogden’s Pondweed has been documented to occur. No Ogden’s Pondweed observations were reported during the BioBlitz; however, the stewardship partner reported involving 116 individuals who volunteered 1,178 hours of time to the project.

116hours

A total of

volunteers

1,178



8. Occurrences of Ogden’s Pondweedin Ontario8.1. Natural Heritage Information Centre Ogden’s Pondweed has been documented at three populations1 in southeastern Ontario. The species was first documented to occur in Hastings County in 1873, but due to a vague description of where the species was located, the population was not able to be re-confirmed. The species was identified at Murphys Point Provincial Park in 1974 and Davis Lock on the Rideau Canal in 1987. All populations have been determined from specimen samples of the species.

1A population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., Ogden’s Pondweed) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations and the area has a practical conservation value as it is important to the conservation of the species.

Nothing is known about the abundance or population extent at any of the three populations in Ontario. Surveys for the species were undertaken in 2005 and 2006 at Murphys Point Provincial Park and Davis Lock and the species could not be found. A two day survey occurred for Ogden’s Pondweed at Murphys Point Provincial Park in 2009 which also produced negative search results. Despite search efforts, no observations have been reported for any population of Ogden’s Pondweed within the past 20 years. Ogden’s Pondweed is difficult to identify in the field due to its close similarity to several other pondweed species and its rarity, therefore negative search results should not indicate the species’ absence. The habitat was considered to be suitable in the vicinity of where the two Ogden’s Pondweed populations were identified and there was little observed impact of invasive plant species on the suitability of the habitat. As a result, expert opinion maintains that the species is likely still present in Ontario (COSEWIC 2007). Encouraging the submission of Ogden’s Pondweed observations is included in the GRS as a government-led action.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Ogden’s Pondweed, as well as other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observation.

Surveys for Ogden’s PondweedIn 2009, Ontario Parks completed surveys for Ogden’s Pondweed in Murphys Point Provincial Park in areas in close proximity to where the species was first documented. Mapping of aquatic vegetation communities was also completed to take an inventory of potential habitat. Although Ogden’s Pondweed was not identified during the surveys, ten other pondweed species were recorded.





9.1 Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all government-led actions and a single government-supported action outlined in the GRS for Ogden’s Pondweed. As indicated in this chapter, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Ogden’s Pondweed data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Little progress has been made towards the government-supported recovery objectives for this rare and difficult to identify species. In light of this, the government has taken steps toward one of the objectives and one of its associated actions that is identified in the GRS for Ogden’s Pondweed. Under the objective to confirm existence of Ogden’s Pondweed in Ontario and determine its extent and abundance, progress has been made towards the one action listed through work completed by Ontario Parks:

� Conduct surveys in suitable habitat at and in close proximity to the most recent known sites (Murphys Point and Davis Lock), and document information about each occurrence (Action No. 1; High Priority).

Confirming the species presence is a challenging task due to difficulties in identification and the rarity of the species. Although Ogden’s Pondweed was not identified during surveys completed by Ontario Parks, it is suspected that the species is likely still persisting in Ontario due to the presence of suitable habitat in the vicinity of where the species has been documented. This is consistent with the recovery goal for Ogden’s Pondweed.

Progresshas been made toward all of the government-led actions and one of the government-supported actions in the government response statement.



Page 140 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | OGDEN’S PONDWEEDPage 140 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | OGDEN’S PONDWEED

9.2 RecommendationsAs stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Ogden’s Pondweed can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Ogden’s Pondweed should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for the action identified in the GRS as high priority.

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Ogden’s Pondweed will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund or the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Ogden’s Pondweed.

Members of the public, organizations and Aboriginal groups with an interest in ensuring the persistence of Ogden’s Pondweed in Ontario are encouraged to contact MNRF to find out more about the resources that the Ministry can provide to assist with stewardship and research efforts to recover Ogden’s Pondweed.

Page 141 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | OGDEN’S PONDWEEDPage 141 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | OGDEN’S PONDWEED

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Ogden’s Pondweed in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Ogden’s Pondweed is classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act,

2007 (ESA). The species has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2009, and its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2009.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for Ogden’s Pondweed (Potamogeton ogdenii) in Ontario (2010)

� Ogden’s Pondweed: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Ogden’s Pondweed Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2011)

Supporting our partners: � The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s (“the Ministry”) support helped a

stewardship partner to involve 116 individuals who volunteered 1,178 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Ogden’s Pondweed.

� The Ministry has not issued any authorizations for Ogden’s Pondweed and no activities have been registered under the ESA.

Occurrences and distribution:� Ogden’s Pondweed has been documented in three populations in southeastern

Ontario. Surveys have occurred at two populations since 2005 and the species could not be found. However, suitable habitat is present in the vicinity of where the species has been documented and the species is likely still present in Ontario.






COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Ogden’s Pondweed Potamogeton ogdenii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 19 pp.




Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Ogden’s Pondweed http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/ogdens-pondweed













Peregrine Falcon



BLEED


Page 144 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | PEREGRINE FALCON


1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of the Peregrine Falcon in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description The Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) is a crow-sized bird with a bluish-grey back and a cream-coloured chest with blackish markings. A dark colouration on their heads gives a hooded or “helmeted” appearance and adults have a prominent black “moustache”. Peregrine Falcons also have bright yellow feet and legs and long, pointed wings. Females are 15 to 20 percent larger than males.

The majority of Peregrine Falcon nests occur within the Lake Superior basin in northwestern Ontario, although they also nest in urbanized areas in southern Ontario. Peregrine Falcons often nest in one of two types of habitat: steep cliff faces close to water and forests or on ledges in urban areas, including on tall buildings or bridges. They can also nest in quarries and open-pit mines. The species demonstrates strong fidelity to nest sites and typically returns to the habitat types in which they were raised. A map of the provincial distribution of the Peregrine Falcon is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

The Peregrine Falcon faces several threats to its survival and recovery. One of their largest threats is environmental contamination. Peregrine Falcons are predators at the top of the food chain and contaminants can accumulate in the species as a result of consuming contaminated prey. The use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), which was widely used in the 1950s and 1960s on agricultural crops to kill insects, caused the eggshells of Peregrine Falcons to be abnormally thin and resulted in reduced breeding success. DDT was banned from use in Canada in the 1970s; however, Peregrine Falcons continue to be exposed to DDT in some of their migratory and overwintering grounds. New and emerging chemicals such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are a class of additive flame retardants, are also a concern for this species. Additional threats to the species include disturbance (human disturbances in or around nest sites), collisions with inanimate objects (such as buildings or automobiles), and habitat loss or change.

The Peregrine Falcon is listed as special concern at both the provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and the federal (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) levels. Globally, it is considered to be apparently secure.

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/peregrine-falcon





Acknowledgment of Past Recovery Efforts for the Peregrine FalconWhile many factors have contributed to the success of its recovery, the elimination of a primary threat to the species (i.e., DDT) and the remediation of the Peregrine Falcon population through captive breeding efforts have been instrumental in the recovery of the species. These efforts began in the 1970s and progress towards recovery has been ongoing for this species for over 40 years. Successful recovery takes time, effort and knowledge of key threats and methods to effectively address them. The Ministry recognizes that there have been substantial efforts towards Peregrine Falcon recovery completed since the 1970s; however, this review largely focuses on progress towards protection and recovery from 2007 to 2014 as identified in section 2.6 of the introductory chapter of this document.

3. Provincial StatusIn 1973, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry” or MNRF) recommended that the Peregrine Falcon be designated as endangered and regulated under Ontario’s previous Endangered Species Act. The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) reassessed the species as threatened and it was down-listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List in 2006. The Peregrine Falcon was reassessed by COSSARO as special concern and the Species at Risk in Ontario List was amended to reflect the change from threatened to special concern on January 24, 2013. In future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionA government-led action identified in the government response statement is to protect the Peregrine Falcon and enforce the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species. Peregrine Falcon and its habitat were protected under the previous Endangered Species Act from 1973 until 2006 when the species’ status was changed to threatened and the species was removed from Ontario Regulation 328 under the previous Endangered Species Act. As a threatened species, the Peregrine Falcon received protection from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken when the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”) came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Peregrine Falcon was protected from being damaged or destroyed in 2010, when the Ministry developed a habitat regulation for the species.

Although the ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition species such as Peregrine Falcon,1 the government developed the regulation to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas were protected as Peregrine Falcon habitat. After the species’ status was changed to special concern on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, the protection afforded to Peregrine Falcon and its habitat by the ESA is no longer necessary to facilitate recovery. However, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 (FWCA) provides protection to the Peregrine Falcon, as it is listed as a specially protected raptor. The FWCA prohibits hunting and trapping of Peregrine Falcons and prohibits the destruction or possession of Peregrine Falcon nests or eggs.


The Peregrine Falcon and its habitat were protected under the previous Endangered Species Act from 1973-2006.

As a threatened species, the Peregrine Falcon received protection from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken when the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Peregrine Falcon was protected from being damaged or destroyed in 2010, when the Ministry developed a habitat regulation for the species.



ESA timeline

DUE

5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for the Peregrine Falcon was completed on February 18, 2010, which was in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified Peregrine Falcon’s habitat needs and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.

Historical Recovery Efforts for the Peregrine FalconThe Peregrine Falcon population began rapidly declining in the 1950s. In the 1960s, there was no evidence of breeding and the species was considered extirpated in Ontario. A national captive rearing program was established in 1972 to aid in the recovery of the species. In order to restore Peregrine Falcon populations, the program bred Peregrine Falcons in captivity and released their young into the wild with the objective that they would establish nest sites and breed naturally. From 1977 until 1996, approximately 600 Peregrine Falcons were released in Ontario. The first reappearance of a Peregrine Falcon nest site in Ontario was documented in 1986 and the population has continued to increase in Ontario every year since as a result of these initial and current recovery efforts (Chikoski and Nyman 2011).



6. Government Response Statement The Ministry published the government response statement (GRS) for the Peregrine Falcon on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of the Peregrine Falcon.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of the Peregrine Falcon is to ensure a viable and self-sustaining population in Ontario throughout its current range.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. Specific actions for the government to lead to help protect and recover the Peregrine Falcon are as follows:

� Continue to participate in province-wide population surveys every five years as part of the national survey program to determine population trends;

� Review and improve current approaches to the storage and management of Peregrine Falcon-related data to reduce duplication and increase consistency in the associated collection and reporting requirements; and

� Ensure appropriate timing windows for activities undertaken in and around Peregrine Falcon habitat are considered in the application of the ESA.

Species

in 1973-2006

and 2008-2013PROTECTED

from 1973-2006, and then through a habitat regulation from 2010-2013


FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


Species listed as endangered in 1973, species listed as threatened in 2006,

and then species listed as

in 2013

SPECIAL CONCERN



Photo: Brian Ratcliff, Project Peregrine, Thunder Bay Field

The GRS for Peregrine Falcon also outlines nine actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Identify and, where feasible, reduce or eliminate known threats to the Peregrine Falcon population and habitat in Ontario;

� Gain a better understanding of the Peregrine Falcon’s use of habitat in its current and historic range to facilitate the protection of habitat;

� Monitor and inventory Peregrine Falcon population status and trends and ensure that the information is stored and maintained in a consistent manner; and

� Raise awareness and promote stewardship of Peregrine Falcons in Ontario.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for the Peregrine Falcon.


7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for the Peregrine Falcon is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of 31 projects designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of the Peregrine Falcon. Eight projects ($100,844) focused exclusively on the species, while the other 23 projects ($636,965) focused on multiple species at risk, including the Peregrine Falcon. In addition to the funding provided through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, partners focusing exclusively on the Peregrine Falcon reported that they were successful in securing additional funding ($189,035) from other sources, as did partners with projects designed to include multiple species at risk, including the Peregrine Falcon ($621,029). These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated value of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners also reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 84 individuals who volunteered 4,654 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities that focused exclusively on the Peregrine Falcon, which has an estimated value of $117,460. As well, a total of 680 individuals volunteered 7,241 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk including the Peregrine Falcon, which has an estimated value of $146,535.

The Ministry’s stewardship partners reported providing focused outreach on the Peregrine Falcon to 10,093 individuals, and ecosystem-based outreach on multiple species, including the Peregrine Falcon, to 226,941 individuals.

The remainder of this section highlights several projects that were supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and their corresponding government-supported recovery actions.


764volunteers

hours

A total of

people


$100,844 for Peregrine Falcon exclusively

$636,965 for multi-species projects that included Peregrine Falcon


$810,064

11,895




n=127

One partner has coordinated annual monitoring of Peregrine Falcons in the Lake Superior Basin for more than 10 years and has received stewardship funding for five consecutive years to support monitoring in Ontario. This included surveying historical nesting sites, identifying new territories, determining prey selection and productivity of the Peregrine Falcon nests. Surveys took place in the Lake Superior Basin, where more than 60 percent of known Peregrine Falcon territories occur in Ontario. Survey results from 2010 were added to the 2010 provincial and national Peregrine Falcon survey program. Over the other four years of annual surveys that were funded through the stewardship fund, a total of 276 surveys were completed at 94 sites. While the number of sites surveyed varied slightly each year, the number of occupied territories documented annually ranged from 48-62. Furthermore, the number of young fledged that were documented by the partner annually ranged from 22 to 65. This is likely an under-representation because some sites were not confirmed a second time to confirm breeding success. This contributed progress towards the GRS action to implement a standardized monitoring protocol and survey methodology for annual monitoring of Peregrine Falcon nest sites. Additionally, a total of 51 sites were accessed to complete bird banding between 2009 and 2013. Of these sites, 127 chicks were banded (46 of these were female and 81 of these were male).

Monitoring Terminology for the Peregrine FalconIn order to monitor the Peregrine Falcon population, monitoring focuses on identifying nesting or potential nesting sites. The surveyors report observations for each nest site documenting the highest level of activity which can be described in four categories: occupied territory, territorial pair, confirmed nesting attempt and successful nest. A site is determined to be an occupied territory if a single adult Peregrine Falcon is observed in suitable habitat throughout part or all of the breeding season. If a pair of Peregrine Falcons is observed during the breeding season at a site, this is recorded as a territorial pair. A confirmed nesting attempt is described as confirmation of breeding activity indicated by an adult sitting on a scrape or the presence of eggs and nestlings. Lastly, a successful nest is determined by confirmation of breeding activity demonstrated by the presence of chicks at least 21 days old or fledged (Chikoski and Nyman 2011). This terminology is used in the five year surveys completed in Ontario, is consistent with terminology used in the national Peregrine Falcon surveys, and is often used by volunteers or the Ministry during annual surveys.

Between 2009-2013, a stewardship partner banded 127 Peregrine Falcon chicks in the

Lake Superior Basin. Bands are used to identify individual Peregrine Falcons, and

provide important information on a bird’s movement, annual reproduction and life span.


Photo: Glenn Desy, MNRF

To understand the level of tolerance Peregrine Falcons have for adjacent human disturbances, including acute and regular disturbances, another partner in southern Ontario monitored 12 urban nest sites and recorded information on the behaviour of the respective resident adult pair as it related to disturbances. The partner observed that acute disturbances (e.g., sudden appearance of people or objects in close proximity to the nest site itself) had the most negative impact on the resident pair. Regular activities within the territory (e.g., rising of a lift bridge) did not seem to elicit a fear response from the adults or the juveniles. However, it was noted that the species will not tolerate any of these activities on the building or ledge where nests are located. It was additionally observed that during particular times, such as during courtship, egg production or during the fledging period, disturbances were more likely to have a negative effect on Peregrine Falcons. This project aligned with the GRS action to conduct research to improve understanding of what level of tolerance Peregrine Falcons have for adjacent human disturbances. At the same time, observations were made on characteristics of the nest site and how Peregrine Falcons utilize their habitat such as roosting spots, food cache sites as well as foraging direction and distances. Information collected through these observations helped contribute to progress on the high priority action to improve our understanding of Peregrine Falcon habitat use including providing information for priority focus areas. They found that the use of surrounding areas played a significant role in determining the success of the offspring. Adults were observed to roost, prepare and cache food in purposeful locations to guide the future actions of their young as they learned to fledge and trained to hunt. Use of habitat also varied depending on the prey availability and the stage of reproduction. For example, adults were observed to alter their roost sites as fledglings began moving around the territories in order to maintain the best view of perceived threats.

The same partner also contributed to the following two GRS actions: to promote monitoring and reporting by volunteers and to educate landowners, land managers and the general public about stewardship activities for the Peregrine Falcon. The partner recruited volunteers into their Fledge Watch Rescue Program, which provided information on the behaviour and habitat use of fledglings, and rescued juveniles that were in imminent danger of death. Volunteers who participated in this program increased survival of young Peregrine Falcons from 47 to 79 percent in one year. In addition, the partner engaged building managers and the general public by providing regular communications on Peregrine Falcon observations through their website, printed material, the local media and while engaged in onsite observation of the falcons. Banding of nestlings also provided an opportunity for the public to experience the species on a personal level while collecting critical data.


protection& RECOVERYPERMITS

5

1

3AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

HEALTH

OR SAFETY

PERMIT

8. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on Peregrine Falcon Supporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the Peregrine Falcon, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. From 2008-2013, a total of six permits were issued for the Peregrine Falcon under the ESA; during this time the species and its habitat were still receiving protection under the ESA. Of these six permits, one was a ‘health or safety permit’ (i.e., 17(2)(a) permit) and the remaining five were ‘protection and recovery permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit).

The ‘health or safety permit’ was issued to allow the removal of unstable rock on a roadside cliff. The nest site was monitored at all times while the work was taking place and the rock removed was deposited outside Peregrine Falcon habitat to reduce disturbance and to minimize adverse effects. One Peregrine Falcon chick was observed at the nest site located near the activity, but did not appear to be impacted. Peregrine Falcons have subsequently returned to this nest site.

Of the five ‘protection and recovery permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit) issued, three were for the Peregrine Falcon exclusively and two included additional species. ‘Protection and recovery permits’ are issued if the purpose of the activity is to assist the protection and recovery of a species at risk. The majority of these permits were issued to conduct monitoring and banding for Peregrine Falcons, while one was to remove a tracking device that had previously been used to monitor Peregrine Falcon movement. A condition of the permits was that all individuals participating in banding had to be trained in bird handling procedures and banding had to be conducted by a certified Ontario bird bander. Several of these permits implemented government-supported actions identified in the GRS such as implementing monitoring of Peregrine Falcon nest sites, participating in the banding program in order to analyze results and promoting monitoring and reporting by volunteers.


A total of three agreements were entered into for Peregrine Falcon. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment). Conditions of the agreement involve implementing actions in the mitigation plan, including, but not limited to:

� Minimizing adverse effects (e.g., ensure training on the species and its requirements to persons completing operational activities);

� Monitoring, collecting, and maintaining information on the species and the mitigation measures taken; and


No activities have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA for this species. Further, the exemption provisions provided by Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA do not apply to Peregrine Falcon, as the regulation came into force after the species’ status changed from threatened to special concern.

The Ministry continues to implement prescriptions developed for forest operations under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act that provide measures for the protection of Peregrine Falcon and its habitat. Such measures include ensuring appropriate timing windows for activities and specific restrictions on harvest, tending and renewal to ensure the protection of Peregrine Falcon habitat. These measures address multiple government-led actions, including ensuring appropriate timing windows for activities undertaken in and around Peregrine Falcon habitat.

Peregrine Falcon BandingWhen surveying territories, efforts are undertaken to identify adult birds by the presence or absence of coloured leg bands and, if possible record the band number to identify the bird’s origin. The colour of the leg bands can indicate if the bird is a wild-banded bird from Canada or the United States or if it originated in a captive-breeding facility. Captive raised young were last released into Ontario in 1996 from the Wainwright Facility in Alberta that was operated by the Canadian Wildlife Service. Banding in 2010 suggested that all adult Peregrine Falcons surveyed were wild reared birds. This implies that natural raised birds make up most, if not all, of the breeding population in Ontario and that the population is in recovery. If a Peregrine Falcon is found dead or injured, the band number can also provide a history of the bird and provides a method to track the species. Where feasible, banding of young Peregrine Falcons occurs across Ontario, following established protocols. From 1995 to 2010, 761 Peregrine Falcon chicks were banded in the province (Chikoski and Nyman 2011).


9. Efforts to Minimize Peregrine Falcon Exposure to ContaminantsPesticides for the purpose of exterminating birds and rodents considered as pests (e.g., pigeons and starlings) pose a threat to the Peregrine Falcon. Consumption of prey by Peregrine Falcons that have ingested such pesticides may result in shock or death. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, in association with MNRF has issued a Pesticide Memorandum requesting that only non-pesticide bird control methods be used within a 7.5 kilometre radius around areas identified as supporting Peregrine Falcons. The memorandum is in effect throughout the breeding season as well as for other portions of the year for as long as adult birds remain in the vicinity of the area. Pest control methods such as exclusion methods and trapping are described as alternatives.

Spotlight on Research Investigating Contaminant Levels in Peregrine FalconIn 2004-2005, blood samples were collected from Peregrine Falcon chicks by the Ecotoxicology and Wildlife Health Division of Environment Canada in order to examine levels of flame retardants (e.g., polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Fernie and Letcher (2010) found that total PBDE concentrations in Peregrine Falcon chicks in northern Ontario are higher than in southern Ontario. The spatial difference in contaminant levels is likely the result of dietary differences among chicks and may also reflect differences in exposure to local sources of PBDEs. Peregrine Falcon eggs that failed to hatch were collected between 2007 and 2009 and contaminant analysis was conducted by Guerra et al. (2011). By analyzing the eggs, Guerra et al. (2011) found that two other flame retardants such as Declorane Plus and Mirex (a pesticide banned in the 1970s) were accumulated and in some cases, metabolized by Peregrine Falcons. The effects that these flame retardants may have on falcons’ eggs or on their development are unknown.

Photo: Jenn Chikoski, MNRF

http://www.ontario.ca/document/pest-bird-control-and-peregrine-falcon-recover-program-ontario


10. Occurrences of the Peregrine Falcon in Ontario

Support and Participation in the Peregrine Falcon National Survey ProgramThe Ministry has played a key role in participating in the nation-wide surveys for the Peregrine Falcon since the surveys began in 1970. This was initiated by the National Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, in which the Ministry has participated. These surveys occur on a five year cycle and are listed as a government-led action in the GRS for the species. The surveys provide a coordinated and systematic approach allowing the data to be evaluated for status designations, to determine the effectiveness of past management actions, to monitor the recovery of the species and to determine what management actions are required in the future by providing a benchmark. Additionally, the surveys not only contribute to providing information on the Peregrine Falcon for Ontario, but also contribute to providing information that could be compared at a national level. In 2010, the Ministry dedicated approximately 58 hours to surveying Peregrine Falcon nests through helicopter surveys (Chikoski and Nyman 2011). Additional time and effort was dedicated by Ministry staff, volunteers and naturalists’ organizations to complete surveys from the ground or by boat to survey all known and potential Peregrine Falcon nesting habitat. Funding for the surveys was provided from a variety of Ministry programs, federal programs, local field naturalist groups and in-kind contributions from a number of government, non-government organizations and volunteers. In 2010, the Ministry and federal programs contributed over an estimated $62,000 in time and resources to complete the survey. Overall, the surveys as well as the monitoring and management of the data collected have been vital for monitoring long-term population trends, tracking the recovery of the Peregrine Falcon, and contributing information that led to a change in status of the species from threatened to special concern.

10.1. Breeding Status of the Peregrine Falcon2

2 For the purpose of this section and discussion of the results, confirmed nesting attempt and successful nest are reported as confirmed nesting attempts. This is consistent with reporting in the Ontario Peregrine Falcon Summary Reports associated with the five year national survey program.

The Peregrine Falcon has been recovering in Ontario over the past 40 years and has demonstrated an increase in the number of territories it occupies since the five year Peregrine Falcon surveys began (Figure 1). The most recent survey results available are for surveys conducted in 2005 and 2010 (Table 1). Results of the 2010 survey identified 119 territories which is the highest number to be confirmed in the province during any five year survey. The 119 sites were comprised of 71 confirmed nesting attempts, 29 territorial pairs and 19 occupied territories (Chikoski and Nyman 2011). Of the 71 nest attempts, 50 (70 percent) were considered successful in fledging with an estimated 140 chicks. This was the highest number of successful breeding pairs ever recorded in Ontario and nine percent more chicks are assumed to have fledged in 2010 than 2005. Productivity was estimated at 2.8 fledged young per successful nest in 2010 as compared to 2.72 fledged young per successful nest in 2005 (Chikoski and Nyman 2011).


Figure 1: Trend in the number of Peregrine Falcon territories in Ontario based on the five year surveys, 1970-2010 (Modified from Chikoski and Nyman 2011).

Table 1: Summary results of the 2005 and 2010 Ontario Peregrine Falcon Survey presenting the highest level of activity documented at each site (Chikoski and Nyman 2011).

Breeding Status 2005 Survey 2010 Survey

Confirmed Nesting Attempts 54 71

Territorial Pairs 13 29

Occupied Territories 11 19

Total 78 119

Eight previously documented territories were not active in 2010 and some sites were not feasible to be surveyed. Forty-one new sites were located in 2010 compared to the 2005 survey. Three historical cliff sites are now re-occupied, two of which were discovered to be active since the 2005 survey, indicating that there has been some re-occupation of historical territories. Five of the 119 territories were located in Quebec, Michigan or New York, but significant parts of their territory were in Ontario (Chikoski and Nyman 2011).

120906030

2010

Num

ber o

f Ter

ritor

ies

20052000199519901985198019751970


Annual surveys of Peregrine Falcon nesting have been completed at a lower intensity since 2010 by volunteers and the Ministry (Ratcliff 2015). Surveys on an annual basis are used to fill gaps of knowledge or to apply appropriate protection measures for the Peregrine Falcon. A total of 408 surveys have been completed between 2011 and 2014 at 148 sites throughout Ontario. One hundred and six of these sites had confirmed nesting in at least one year within this time frame. While evidence of the highest level of breeding status is always sought, confirmation of nesting may not always be possible due to remoteness of nesting sites and difficulty accessing the site. In addition, since 2010, 37 new territories have been occupied by Peregrine Falcons.

Considered comprehensively, survey results indicate that the Peregrine Falcon population in Ontario continues to expand and recover. There continues to be many historical nest sites and potential natural cliff habitat un-occupied in Ontario suggesting that there is suitable habitat for Peregrine Falcons to further establish new territories.

Encouraging the submission of Peregrine Falcon observations is included in the GRS as a government-led action. Submission of records helps to redefine where the species is known and has been known to occur and can provide additional information on the species’ habitat and threats. Everyone is encouraged, or may have been required by an authorization or approval to submit observations of the Peregrine Falcon, as well as other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations. The provincial record of observations provides a comprehensive, authoritative and secure documentation of species observations and occurrences. Incorporation of Peregrine Falcon information in the provincial record contributes to the government-led action of managing the storage of Peregrine Falcon related data to reduce duplication and increase consistency in the associated collection and reporting requirements.

Photo: Glenn Desy, MNRF




11.1. Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all government-led and the majority of government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for the Peregrine Falcon. As indicated in this chapter, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage the submission of Peregrine Falcon data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; review and improve current approaches to the storage and management of Peregrine Falcon-related data to reduce duplication and increase consistency in the associated collection and reporting requirements; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation while the species was protected under the ESA; ensure appropriate timing windows for activities undertaken in and around Peregrine Falcon habitat are considered; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (section 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3). An additional government-led action is to participate in province-wide population surveys every five years as part of the national survey program to determine population trends. The Ministry has participated in and supported the national survey program since its inception in 1970 and progress on this action has been made up to and including surveys completed in 2010.

Progress has been made towards all of the government-supported recovery objectives, and most of their associated actions, that are identified in the GRS for the Peregrine Falcon.

Progress has been made towards all government-led and the majority of government-supported actions in the government response statement.


Progress has been made towards all government-led and the majority of government-supported actions in the government response statement.


Under the objective to identify and, where feasible, reduce or eliminate known threats to the Peregrine Falcon population and habitat in Ontario, progress has been made towards two out of three actions. These actions have been implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, independent efforts of academic researchers and Environment Canada. The actions under this objective are:

� Conduct research to improve understanding of what level of tolerance Peregrine Falcons have for adjacent human disturbances and the cumulative impacts of multiple human activities. In particular, this research should consider both acute disturbances such as noise, mechanical infrastructure and permanent features (e.g., condominiums, apartment buildings, wind turbines) (Action No. 1; High Priority); and

� Monitor and evaluate the levels of contaminants, including polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in Peregrine Falcons (Action No. 3).

Under the objective to gain a better understanding of the Peregrine Falcon’s use of habitat in its current and historic range to facilitate the protection of habitat, projects enabled through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and by Ministry staff have supported progress on the recovery actions listed, specifically:

� Compile existing habitat data across the province and conduct additional research as necessary to improve understanding of Peregrine Falcon habitat use. Priority focus areas for this research include foraging distances, nest site selection, home range sizes, and trends in habitat use over time (Action No. 4; High Priority); and

� Develop and test criteria and protocols for identifying potential habitat areas to help prioritize areas for surveying (Action No. 5).


Photo: Jenn Chikoski, MNRF

Under the objective to monitor and inventory Peregrine Falcon population status and trends and ensure that the information is stored and maintained in a consistent manner, progress has been made towards the three recovery actions. These actions were implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Ministry staff, as well as through authorizations and are:

� Develop and implement a standard monitoring protocol and survey methodology for annual monitoring of Peregrine Falcon nest sites. Focus areas for the survey should be a subset of known nest sites and priority sites that have been identified as having potentially suitable habitat (Action No. 6);

� Analyze results of the ongoing banding program to understand its effectiveness as a monitoring tool and how it may be enhanced (Action No. 7); and

� Promote monitoring and reporting of Peregrine Falcon observations and nest sites by volunteers (Action No. 8).

Under the objective to raise awareness and promote stewardship of Peregrine Falcon in Ontario, progress has been made towards the recovery action. This action was implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund as well as through authorizations and is:

� Engage landowners, land managers, stakeholders and the general public in stewardship activities for Peregrine Falcon (Action No. 9).

Results from the nationwide surveys for Peregrine Falcon indicate that the Peregrine Falcon is exhibiting trends that are consistent with the GRS recovery goal. The total number of Peregrine Falcon territories in Ontario has increased since 2005 and has substantially increased from the 1960s when the species was believed to be extirpated. Monitoring in 2010 recorded 119 territories, the highest amount recorded in the province. Three historical sites, two of which were discovered since 2005, are known to be re-occupied, demonstrating the potential for historical nest sites to be re-utilized and supporting the goal to have the species exist throughout its current range. Additionally, surveys completed since 2010, have identified 37 new territories for Peregrine Falcons. Results from banding in 2010 indicate that most of, if not all of the breeding population in Ontario is made of wild birds supporting the goal to have a self-sustaining population in Ontario.


11.2. Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering the Peregrine Falcon can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for the Peregrine Falcon should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendations for the implementation of the GRS are suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of the Peregrine Falcon:

� While banding continues to inventory and monitor Peregrine Falcons, further analyzing the results of the banding to understand its effectiveness as a monitoring tool and how it may be enhanced will continue to be equally valuable (Action No. 7).

� Promoting monitoring and reporting of Peregrine Falcon observations and nest sites by volunteers will continue to be important to monitoring trends of the Peregrine Falcon population (Action No. 8).

Protecting and recovering the Peregrine Falcon will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario or the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the FWCA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering the Peregrine Falcon in Ontario.

Photo: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of the Peregrine Falcon in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � The Peregrine Falcon is classified as special concern under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA).

Prior to transition to the ESA, the Peregrine Falcon was listed as threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario List. It retained the status of threatened under the ESA from 2008 until the Peregrine Falcon was reassessed and down-listed to special concern on January 24, 2013.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for The Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) in Ontario (2010)

� Peregrine Falcon: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Peregrine Falcon Habitat Regulation (in effect from 2010 to 2013)


Ministry”) has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of 31 projects that have supported the protection and recovery of species at risk including the Peregrine Falcon. Eight projects ($100,844) focused exclusively on the species, while the other 23 projects ($636,965) focused on multiple species at risk, including the Peregrine Falcon.

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 764 individuals who volunteered 11,894 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for the Peregrine Falcon and other species at risk. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions and other in-kind support is $810,064.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk including the Peregrine Falcon to 237,034 individuals.

Supporting human activities while ensuring appropriate support for species recovery: � The Ministry has issued six permits for this species: one ‘health or safety permit’ was issued under

clause 17(2)(a) and five ‘protection and recovery permits’ were issued under clause 17(2)(b) of the ESA.

� A total of three agreements were entered into for the Peregrine Falcon. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment).

� No activities have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA for this species.

Occurrences and distribution:� The increasing number of Peregrine Falcon territories located in Ontario since 1970 suggests that the

population continues to recover and expand across Ontario. Surveys in 2010 identified the highest number of territories yet to be confirmed within the province. Additionally, since 2010, 37 new territories for Peregrine Falcons have been identified in Ontario.




http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080242?search=242%2F08+



Chikoski, J. and L. Nyman. 2011. The 2010 Ontario Peregrine Falcon Survey- A Summary Report. Unpublished report, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay, 36pp.

Fernie, K. J. and R. J. Letcher. 2010. Historical contaminants, flame retardants, and halogenated phenolic compounds in peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) nestlings in the Canadian Great Lakes basin. Environmental Science & Technology 44: 3520-3526.

Guerra, P., K. Fernie, B. Jiménez, G. Pacepavicius, L. Shen, E. Reiner, E. Eljarrat, D. Barceló and M. Alaee. 2011. Declorane Plus and related compounds in peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) eggs from Canada and Spain. Environmental Science & Technology 45: 1284-1290.




Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for the Peregrine Falcon http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/peregrine-falcon

Pesticides Memorandum: Pest Bird Control and the Peregrine Falcon Recovery Program in Ontario http://www.ontario.ca/document/pest-bird-control-and-peregrine-falcon-recover-program-ontario


Ratcliff, B. 2015. Peregrine Falcon Database. Excel file prepared for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.








http://www.ontario.ca/document/pest-bird-control-and-peregrine-falcon-recover-program-ontario





Redside Dace

Photo: A. Dunn, Conservation Halton


BLEED


Page 165 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | REDSIDE DACE

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Redside Dace in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) is a small, brightly coloured minnow that reaches a maximum length of 12 centimetres. Adults have a red stripe along their side, and a bright yellow stripe above it that extends to its tail. These colours intensify during spring and fade during late summer and fall. Redside Dace can be distinguished from other minnows by its protruding jaw and its large mouth which extends from below the pupil of its eye.

In Canada, Redside Dace is known to occur in small, isolated populations in southern Ontario and St. Joseph’s Island in northeastern Ontario. The species is found in pools and slow-flowing sections of small streams and headwaters, and is often associated with gravel bottoms. Preferred habitat for Redside Dace has riparian vegetation with overhanging grasses or shrubs, in-stream cover and clear, cool water with minimal cloudiness. A map of the provincial distribution of Redside Dace is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

Redside Dace face several threats to its survival and recovery with one of the most significant threats being the loss of suitable habitat due to urban development. The range of Redside Dace overlaps with intensive urban development and pressure from urbanization is expected to continue with population growth. Agricultural activities that result in habitat modification are also considered a threat as intensive crop production and livestock access to streams can contribute to siltation and changes in channel structure.

The survival and recovery of Redside Dace is influenced by other factors as well. Its diet consists primarily of terrestrial insects and the species relies on a visual search of prey at the water’s surface, potentially making the species more visible to predators. Redside Dace are typically sexually mature at two years, but spawning may not occur until their third year. This may limit their ability to rebound from low population levels as their life span is typically three to four years.

Redside Dace is listed as endangered at the provincial level (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and is listed as special concern at the federal level (Schedule 3 under the Species at Risk Act). Globally, it is considered to be vulnerable to apparently secure.

3. Provincial Status Prior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”), the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Redside Dace as threatened. Following this assessment, it was listed as threatened in 2000 and retained this status when the ESA came into force in 2008. COSSARO reassessed Redside Dace as endangered and the status of the species was altered on the Species at Risk in Ontario List in 2009. In its future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions.


http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/redside-dace






ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Redside Dace and enforcing the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the ESA and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. Redside Dace have been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Redside Dace is protected from being damaged or destroyed; habitat protection has been in place since 2009, based initially on the general habitat definition in the ESA. Prior to its transition to the ESA, there was no species or habitat protection for Redside Dace. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

In 2011, within the timeframe required by the ESA, the government developed a habitat regulation for the species to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as Redside Dace habitat (Ontario Regulation 242/08, section 29.1). The habitat regulation was developed based on consideration of both the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation.

Any person who negatively impacts Redside Dace or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

Redside Dace has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Redside

Dace is protected from being damaged or destroyed; habitat protection has been in place

since 2009. Habitat protection was

initially based on the general habitat

description in the ESA. The habitat

of Redside Dace is now protected


developed in 2011.

5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Redside Dace was completed on February 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of Redside Dace and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.




6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Redside Dace on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Redside Dace.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of Redside Dace is to protect existing populations and their habitats and where feasible, restore degraded habitats to allow for increased distribution adjacent to occupied reaches.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. Specific actions for the government to lead to help protect and recover Redside Dace are as follows:

� Maintain a database of Redside Dace distribution and ensure that information on the currently occupied range of the species is available to appropriate planning authorities;

� Develop urban development guidelines to provide guidance where there is an interest in developing urban areas within Redside Dace habitat, as protected under the ESA;

� Ensure appropriate timing windows for activities in and around Redside Dace habitat are considered in the application of the ESA; and

� Finalize and implement the “Framework for Managing Commerical Baitfish Harvest to Protect Redside Dace Populations”.

Species

in 2008PROTECTED

through the general habitat definition in 2009 and a habitat regulation in 2011


FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


Species listed asthreatened in 2000; then

in 2009

ENDANGERED

http://www.ontario.ca/page/redside-dace


The GRS for the species also outlines 10 actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Maintain the current geographical distribution and abundance of Redside Dace through habitat protection, including habitat in urban areas, and ensuring protection of water quality and stream hydrology;

� Rehabilitate degraded Redside Dace habitats in areas adjacent to occupied reaches;

� Establish a long-term monitoring program to continue to determine the distribution, abundance, and associated trends of Redside Dace and its habitats; and

� Increase awareness regarding the significance of Redside Dace and protection and stewardship of its habitat.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Redside Dace.



7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for Redside Dace is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of 40 projects designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Redside Dace. Nineteen projects ($310,803) focused exclusively on the species, while the other 21 projects ($875,095) focused on multiple species at risk, including Redside Dace. In addition to the funding provided through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, partners focusing exclusively on Redside Dace reported that they were successful in securing additional funding ($421,528) from other sources, as did partners with projects designed to benefit multiple species at risk, including Redside Dace ($1,337,062). These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated value of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners also reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 1,625 individuals who volunteered 5,259 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities that focused exclusively on Redside Dace, which has an estimated value of $68,183. As well, a total of 1,618 individuals volunteered 9,976 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Redside Dace, which has an estimated value of $296,455.

The Ministry’s stewardship partners reported that through both their efforts and the efforts of their volunteers to implement actions contained in the GRS, they were successful in enhancing 120 hectares of habitat that will benefit multiple species at risk, including Redside Dace. In addition, stewardship partners reported providing focused outreach on Redside Dace to 1,875 individuals, and ecosystem-based outreach on multiple species (including Redside Dace) to 195,815 individuals.

The remainder of this section highlights several projects that were supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and their corresponding government-supported recovery actions.

One partner received stewardship funding in 2007-2013 and completed several projects that contributed to progress on multiple GRS actions for Redside Dace. Evaluating the current condition of Redside Dace habitat and populations in order to identify where habitat is degraded is a high priority action listed in the species’ GRS. To implement this action, the partner conducted surveys for fish species, benthic


of habitat restoredha

people


$310,803 for Redside Dace exclusively

$875,095 for multi-species projects that included Redside Dace


$1,758,590

40 Projects19 projects focused

exclusively on the species

volunteers

hours

A total of



invertebrates and temperature data at multiple sites in the Rouge River, Don River, Fourteen Mile Creek and Humber River watersheds. Monitoring indicated whether the species was present, while data collected on temperature and benthic invertebrates provided an indication of the quality of the habitat. In total, 17,775 metres of stream were mapped and assessed to determine the quality of habitat available and make recommendations for degraded habitat. Once this occurred, rehabilitation work began to take place in recommended locations. This contributes to progress on the GRS high priority action of continuing riparian and in-stream work on top priority areas. Rehabilitation involved planting 15,453 trees and shrubs in the riparian zone to help stabilize the banks and provide cover for the species, as well as increase the amount of food available for Redside Dace. In-stream rehabilitation efforts included the removal of various obstructions such as garbage and debris to improve flow and connectivity, as well as the creation of in-stream structures such as cabled log jams to stop bank erosion and stream sedimentation. In order to promote the protection of Redside Dace the partner had volunteers assist with the rehabilitation work. In total 1,460 people contributed approximately 5,067 hours of time contributing to Redside Dace rehabilitation. Many conferences, trade shows, festivals, schools and community events were also attended by the partner where information about the project and Redside Dace was distributed. These actions helped to increase awareness of Redside Dace and its habitat which is listed as a high priority action in the species’ GRS.

To increase awareness of Redside Dace and its habitat, a partner conducted a project over five years to develop and deliver curriculum-based interactive outreach for students in Grades 1, 2, 7, 8 and 11 about the Great Lakes, local fish species and aquatic species at risk, including Redside Dace. The aim of the program was to inspire students to take an interest in nature and motivate them to participate in conservation. Throughout the years of funding, the program grew to include additional grades, became bilingual and developed new interactive content. This partner gave over 2,000 presentations and reached over 2,000 classes to provide information to a total of 68,324 students. Additional presentations were given at libraries, summer camps and community events throughout the Greater Toronto Area, reaching over 15,000 people. Materials for public events were also translated into Mandarin for use at community functions and to reach a wider audience. This project supported the GRS action to increase awareness of interested stakeholders of Redside Dace and protection of the species and its habitat.

Photo: W.N. Roston, AFS Fish Slide Catalog


The Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program (SARFIP) provides support to agricultural landowners interested in completing habitat creation and best management practices (BMPs) that support species at risk. By addressing risks identified through the Environmental Farm Plan workbook and Action Plan, farms can implement practices that are beneficial for species listed as at risk in Ontario. SARFIP and Environmental Farm Plans are funded and supported through the Ministry and the Government of Canada through the federal Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. Between 2009 and 2013, SARFIP helped protect the aquatic habitat and water quality of 200 streams by addressing eroding streambanks, building 300 kilometres of fencing along rivers and streams, preventing 53,000 grazing livestock from entering streams and posing risks, as well as updating and creating 100 new water crossings to carry livestock and machinery across streams without damaging streambeds. These activities benefit aquatic ecosystems and are likely to have a positive effect on the species at risk that inhabit them, including Redside Dace. The activities align with the government-supported action to encourage development and use of Environmental Farm Plans to incorporate best management practices for rural streams and drains that restore a healthy riparian zone and reduce livestock access.

Ministry Research on Redside Dace The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry conducts aquatic research and monitoring on species at risk, including Redside Dace. This work provides important science support for implementing the ESA by contributing to species status assessments, addressing priority actions identified in GRS, and in defining the habitat needs of species.

Detection of rare or endangered species such as Redside Dace can be challenging. To achieve the government-supported objective to establish a long-term monitoring program to determine the distribution, abundance and associated trends of Redside Dace and its habitats, effective methods for monitoring are needed. In a study published in 2008, Ministry science staff evaluated the effectiveness of a low-effort and cost-effective form of sampling (i.e., single-pass electrofishing) compared to a more intensive method (i.e., multiple-pass depletion electrofishing) for Redside Dace at 40 sites across Lake Ontario (Reid et al. 2008). They found that the single-pass electrofishing method was appropriate for monitoring the distribution and relative abundance of Redside Dace populations, as results were in agreement with data collected using the more intensive method. This method could be used as part of a defensible and cost-effective monitoring program for Redside Dace. Additionally, the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) is a recent technique being used to detect rare or at risk species in water samples. The use of eDNA provides the opportunity to detect species at lower abundances than would be possible using traditional sampling approaches. Ministry science staff have designed 36 short DNA sequences (i.e., primer pairs) for eDNA detection for multiple aquatic species, including Redside Dace (Bronnenhuber and Wilson 2013). The primers are designed to be species-specific and bind only to DNA from the particular species of interest. The design of the primer for Redside Dace will be able to confirm presence of the species and can help identify areas for traditional sampling methods so that information on abundance or distribution can be collected.

A government-supported action identified in the GRS is to investigate the feasibility and potential impacts of artificial propagation and wild fish transfers of Redside Dace. As populations of Redside Dace are often small and isolated, an analysis of local genetic diversity is an important aspect of any investigation into this action. Research conducted by a collaboration of academics and Ministry scientists developed and characterised eight genetic markers (i.e., microsatellite loci) to assess genetic variation and gene flow among populations of Redside Dace (Pitcher et al., 2009). This research is an important early step toward understanding the feasibility and potential impacts of artificial propagation and wild transfer of Redside Dace.


overallBENEFITPERMITS

26protection& RECOVERY

PERMITS

53

HEALTH OR

SAFETYPERMITS

2

REGISTRATIONS

REGISTRATIONS

53REGISTRATIONS

AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

6

8. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on and Create an Overall Benefit for Redside DaceSupporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Redside Dace, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. A total of 81 permits have been issued for Redside Dace since the species has been protected under the ESA. Of these, there have been two ‘health or safety permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(a) permit) issued for bridge repairs. Fifty-three ‘protection and recovery permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit) have been issued, with the majority of these exclusively targeting Redside Dace; however, five included additional species. These permits are issued if the purpose of the activity is to assist the protection or recovery of a species at risk. Within southern Ontario, the Ministry has established a long-term monitoring program for Redside Dace with the support of its partners, such as conservation authorities. A substantial amount of effort and a large number of permits have been issued to conservation authorities and others in order to conduct surveys for the species and evaluate the condition of Redside Dace populations. This has contributed to the establishment of baseline information on the range and some information on abundance of Redside Dace, and has allowed changes in the distribution over time to be documented. Permits were also issued to complete habitat creation or restoration and/or scientific research. One particular research project was undertaken in order to increase our understanding of habitat utilization and movement patterns for Redside Dace. There have also been 26 ‘overall benefit permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(c) permit) issued. Twenty-four of these permits focused exclusively on Redside Dace, while two of the permits included additional species. In addition to the government-led action to ensure appropriate timing windows for activities in and around Redside Dace habitat, several of the conditions attached to ‘health or safety permits’, ‘protection and recovery permits’ and ‘overall benefit permits’ have helped implement government-supported actions identified in the GRS for Redside Dace. These actions include, but are not limited to:

� Undertaking all in water and near water works within appropriate timing windows in order to prevent work when Redside Dace are particularly sensitive to disturbance;

� Rehabilitating degraded habitat through the removal of debris jams, stabilization of the stream bank, creation of woody debris habitat structures, planting of eroded slopes, and removal of garbage to enhance stream habitat;

� Enhancing riparian habitat by planting native riparian vegetation for the purpose of increasing insect production, cooling water temperatures through shading, filtering nutrients and sediments inputs from surface runoff;

� Installing signage to educate the public about Redside Dace, its habitat and efforts being made to support its recovery;


� Retrofitting existing irrigation/stormwater ponds that will reduce thermal impacts associated with the pond discharge water and monitoring and recording the effectiveness;

� Installing of fencing to exclude cattle from entering streams to prevent erosion and excess sedimentation; and

� Conducting surveys and monitoring, by qualified individuals, to assess the current condition of Redside Dace populations and their habitats and report results to the Ministry.


� Installing and maintaining effective sediment and erosion controls at all times during construction, with a qualified environmental inspector onsite during the construction;

� Maintaining existing flows to the watercourse during all stages of activities;

� Stabilizing disturbed areas during construction and all disturbed areas immediately stabilized and restored upon completion of the works; and

� Ensuring that a qualified professional geomorphologist oversees the construction of channel realignments.

In addition to the monitoring program in southern Ontario, the Ministry has also taken initial steps towards establishing a monitoring program in northeastern Ontario. Associated Redside Dace surveys are expected to begin in the summer of 2016. This work will be a positive step towards increasing our understanding of Redside Dace distribution and abundance in this region.


A total of six agreements were entered into for Redside Dace. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment). Conditions of the agreements involve implementing actions in the mitigation plans, including, but not limited to:

� Minimizing adverse effects (e.g., creating of a specially designed stormwater retention pond for long term water quality protection);






Since 2011, 49 mitigation reports have been approved in accordance with the requirements for ‘Development and infrastructure - redside dace’ (section 23.1) of Ontario Regulation 242/08. Additionally, since 2013, a total of 53 activities that may affect Redside Dace or its habitat have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA. The activities are registered under three sections of Ontario Regulation 242/08, including ‘Aquatic species’ (section 23.4), ‘Ecosystem protection’ (section 23.11) and ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18).

Thirty-seven activities are registered under ‘Aquatic species’ (section 23.4) of Ontario Regulation 242/08. This section requires the registered person to comply with the following conditions of the regulation:

� Having an expert on the species develop a mitigation plan for the registered activity and implementing the actions in a mitigation plan including steps to minimize adverse effects of the activity (e.g., avoiding work during reproduction season; keeping machinery and vehicles out of water);

� Providing a benefit to the species that is affected by the activity (e.g., removing barriers such as a perched culvert so that fish can move through waterways); and

� Monitoring the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and the beneficial actions for five years and documenting the results.

Seven activities are registered under ‘Ecosystem protection’ (section 23.11) of Ontario Regulation 242/08, for activities consisting of ecological conservation work that are carried out to protect, maintain, enhance or restore an ecosystem native to Ontario. This section requires the registered person to comply with all conditions of the regulation, such as:

� Implementing the actions in a mitigation plan developed by an expert on the species including steps to minimize adverse effects of the activity (e.g., preventing the species to enter the area);

� Reporting observations of the species to the Ministry using the Rare Species Reporting Form; and

� Creating and maintaining a final report that summarizes the results and the effectiveness of the work and provides recommendations on how similar work could be done in the future.





Nine activities are registered under ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18) of Ontario Regulation 242/08. Seven of the activities were registered to maintain, repair, remove or replace an existing structure or infrastructure, while two were to protect against drought. All activities require the registered person to comply with all conditions of the regulation, such as:

� Taking immediate steps to minimize adverse effects on the species and its habitat (e.g., controlling erosion and sediment); and

� Creating and implementing a mitigation plan developed by an expert on the affected species for more complex activities (e.g., removing a structure, full structure upgrades or replacements).

Innovative Approaches to Monitoring Development Activities in Redside Dace HabitatUrban development projects involve activities, such as land clearing that can significantly increase sediment loading on streams. Erosion control measures are put in place to minimize this impact and prevent sediment from entering watercourses. However, storm events or other circumstances may occur where control measures may become ineffective. When excess sediment enters a watercourse it can lead to reduced water clarity, damage to habitat and water quality degradation. For fish species, such as Redside Dace, reduced clarity and increased sedimentation can lead to limitations in fish visibility and movement, reduced quality of nursery habitat and spawning areas, or clogging and/or abrasion to fish gills. The Ministry along with the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and Fisheries and Oceans Canada have developed a protocol called Silt Smart that outlines erosion and sediment control effectiveness monitoring and a rapid response protocol for large urban development sites. Silt Smart is a real time continuous monitoring protocol that utilizes solar powered optical sensors and grab samples to monitor changes in turbidity and measure water.




9. Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected HabitatThe GRS for Redside Dace identified that urban development guidelines are important to provide direction where there is an interest in developing urban areas within Redside Dace habitat. In response, the Ministry has drafted “Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected Habitat” to provide direction to persons interested in developing areas of southern Ontario that contain Redside Dace habitat. The guidance describes when a permit is required, and provides a description of the permitting and registration process under the ESA. Additionally, it identifies best management practices for development activities to avoid or mitigate impacts to Redside Dace or its habitat.

10. Screening Maps for Redside Dace HabitatOne of the government-led actions in the GRS for Redside Dace is to maintain a database of Redside Dace distribution and ensure that information on the currently occupied range of the species is available to appropriate planning authorities. In order to lead this action, the Ministry, in cooperation with conservation authorities and the Redside Dace Recovery Implementation Team, creates screening maps to communicate important components of Redside Dace regulated habitat. The screening maps display regulated streams for Redside Dace under the ESA and identify areas of the watercourse that are occupied habitat or recovery habitat. The maps were first shared in 2013 with lower-tier municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area in addition to the regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham as well as the City of Toronto. Maps are also shared with local conservation authorities, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and, more recently, with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Updated screening maps are scheduled to be shared in 2015 to enable planning authorities access to the best available information on Redside Dace and allow planning of future activities to be done in a way that avoids impacting the species.

11. EnforcementThe Ministry protects Redside Dace and its habitat by ensuring compliance with the ESA. Ministry enforcement officers and other staff undertake regular outreach to help educate individuals on ESA compliance. However, preventative measures may not always be feasible and enforcement staff may issue warnings and direct actions that must be taken for proponents to be in compliance with the Act. From 2008 to December 2014, there were two documented offences under the ESA with respect to the protection of Redside Dace and its habitat. A conviction was made under section 10 of the ESA for destroying Redside Dace habitat. The offender received a penalty of fifteen days in jail. The second offence involved issuance of a warning under section 9 of the ESA for capturing Redside Dace. The Ministry encourages everyone to report illegal activities involving Ontario’s species at risk.



12. Occurrences of Redside Dace in Ontario12.1 Watershed TrendsRedside Dace occur predominantly in southern Ontario and are also found on St. Joseph’s Island in northeastern Ontario. Historically, the species was found throughout 251 watersheds in Ontario. It is now only known to remain in small tributaries of some of these rivers. Over the past 55 years, most of the populations have been restricted to, or have become fragmented into, smaller isolated sections of an earlier wider range. Today, there are 17 watersheds where Redside Dace are known to occur. Of these watersheds, 13 are experiencing declines (in range or abundance), while four are considered stable populations. Additional survey effort has found Redside Dace in a broader distribution of one sub-watershed than was previously known in 2008.

1 This includes a watershed known as a Niagara area stream that is not a reliable record.

Consistent with when the ESA came into effect, the species is considered likely extirpated from eight watersheds, which include Pringle Creek, Petticoat Creek, Highland Creek, Mimico Creek, Etobicoke Creek, Clarkson Creek, Morrison Creek and a Niagara area stream. These watersheds are considered a portion of the species’ historic range, and intensive urbanization and degradation of watercourses has resulted in the habitat no longer being suitable at many of these sites. Redside Dace are considered to be extirpated from the Urfe Creek sub-watershed in Duffins Creek and in the Levi Creek sub-watershed in the Credit River as there have been no observation records of the species within the past 20 years despite survey efforts. These areas are considered recovery habitat, where habitat protection applies, as other portions of the watershed support Redside Dace and the species may re-inhabit these areas with appropriate restoration.

Declines in Redside Dace (range or abundance) appear to be ongoing in 13 watersheds. These watersheds include: Lynde Creek, Duffins Creek, Fourteen Mile Creek, Humber River, Sixteen Mile Creek, Bronte Creek, Spencer Creek, Irvine Creek, Saugeen River, Don River, Rouge River, Holland River and Credit River. Despite surveys completed since 2008, the population status in Bronte Creek, Spencer Creek and the Holland River are suspected to be in significant decline, as the species has not been observed in the last 20 years. Large reductions were reported for these watersheds in a 2007 status report by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, however survey effort has been low in some of these watersheds since then.


In June 2008, a new population was discovered in South Gully Creek and it is considered stable. After the discovery of Redside Dace within this watershed and with the support of stewardship funding, a partner in 2011 surveyed areas within the watershed and nearby watercourses to determine if Redside Dace was present elsewhere. They found Redside Dace at additional sites within the South Gully watershed indicating a larger range of the species within this watershed than was previously known. In addition, based on the size of the fish captured, the stream currently supports a variety of age classes, which is an indication of a healthy population.

Two Tree River on St. Joseph’s Island, as well as Carruther’s Creek and Gully Creek watersheds are considered to have remained stable since 2007. While some sub-watersheds of the Credit River, Fourteen Mile Creek, Rouge River and the Humber River have had small populations which are believed to be stable, the general watershed trend is one of decline. Specifically, populations in tributaries of the West Humber River appear to have stabilized following a suspected expansion prior to 2007, while populations in the other watersheds seem to have stabilized following range reductions. This change in trend is likely the result of better information resulting from increased survey efforts rather than changes in populations. There are four watersheds where Redside Dace are currently considered to be stable.

An increased understanding of the range of Redside Dace at a sub-watershed of the Credit River known as Silver Creek is now known. In 2007, this sub-watershed was thought to be undergoing a range reduction; however, in 2014, underwater videography was used to detect the species in an area beyond its previously known distribution.

Information presented in this section is based on expert opinion and the best information that was available at the time of publication. It does not represent a formal determination of species’ status for these locations. Encouraging the submission of Redside Dace observations is included in the GRS as a government-led action. Submission of records helps to redefine where the species is known and has been known to occur and can provide additional information on the species’ habitat and threats. Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Redside Dace, as well as other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.

Of the 17 watersheds where Redside Dace is known to currently exist, there are 13 watersheds experiencing declines, four watersheds that are considered stable, while additional survey effort has found Redside Dace in a broader distribution of a tributary of the Credit River.



13. Summary of Progress Towards Meeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations13.1 Summary of ProgressProgress has been made towards the majority of government-led and government-supported actions in the GRS for Redside Dace. As indicated in this chapter, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Redside Dace data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; maintain a database of Redside Dace distribution and ensure that information on the currently occupied range of the species is available to appropriate planning authorities; develop urban development guidelines to provide guidance where there is an interest in developing urban areas within Redside Dace habitat; ensure appropriate timing windows for activities in and around Redside Dace habitat are considered; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (section 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3). An additional government-led action was to finalize and implement a framework for managing commercial baitfish harvest to protect Redside Dace populations. To date, a specific framework for Redside Dace has not been completed; however, shortly after the Redside Dace GRS was finalized, the Ministry initiated a comprehensive review of its current and potential provincial bait policies to help improve the management of bait used for the purposes of angling in Ontario. As part of this review, the Ministry is considering options that will minimize the impacts of bait harvesting operations on all aquatic species at risk in Ontario, including Redside Dace.

Progress has been made towards the majority of the government-supported recovery objectives, and a majority of the associated actions, that are identified in the GRS for Redside Dace.

Progress has been made towards the majority of government-led and government-supported actions in the government response statement.


been made towarProgress has

ds the majority of government-led and government-supported actions in the government response statement.

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTIxNTcz&statusId=MTgyMTM1&language=en


Under the objective to rehabilitate degraded Redside Dace habitat in areas adjacent to occupied reaches, progress has been made toward three high priority actions. Collectively, the actions have been implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund or through conditions of authorizations or registrations, or a combination of those, as well as through Ministry research and independent efforts of academic researchers. The actions under this objective are:

� Evaluate the current condition of all Redside Dace populations and habitats to identify degraded Redside Dace habitat (Action No. 2; High Priority);

� Encourage development and use of Environmental Farm Plans and Nutrient Management Plans to incorporate best management practices for rural streams and drains that restore a healthy riparian zone, reduce livestock access, establish manure storage and runoff collection systems, encourage conservation tillage and reduce the impact of drains (Action No. 3; High Priority);

� Investigate the effectiveness of habitat rehabilitation work that has been completed to date. Where appropriate, continue riparian and in-stream work on existing rehabilitation projects and initiate projects on top priority areas that are adjacent to occupied reaches (Action No. 4; High Priority); and

� Investigate the feasibility and potential impacts of artificial propagation and wild fish transfers of Redside Dace. This may require an analysis of the local genetic diversity of Redside Dace populations (Action No. 5).

Under the objective to establish a long-term monitoring program to continue to determine the distribution, abundance, and associated trends of Redside Dace and its habitats, projects enabled through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, conditions of authorizations and registrations, as well as through Ministry research and independent efforts of academic researchers, have supported progress on three of the four actions, specifically:

� Implement a standard two-part monitoring program. The first broad-scale component should assess and map the presence or absence of Redside Dace through time in streams throughout its Ontario range. The second component should be conducted at representative sites to assess changes through time in population abundance and habitat conditions that result from restoration actions, and to compare the conditions of disturbed and undisturbed sites (Action No. 6; High Priority);


� Conduct research to identify the habitat areas that are required for spawning, incubation and larval development, investigate what habitat the species uses seasonally, particularly in winter and investigate the movements and physiological tolerances of Redside Dace (Action No. 7); and

� To inform the development of impact thresholds, further investigate the mechanisms of how urban development, agricultural practices, aggregate operations, and water taking contribute to declines in Redside Dace populations and impact population dynamics (Action No. 8).

Under the objective to increase awareness regarding the significance of Redside Dace and protection and stewardship of its habitat, progress has been made towards the recovery action. This action was implemented through projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund as well as conditions of authorizations and is:

� Increase the awareness of planners, developers and other interested stakeholders of Redside Dace and protection of the species and its habitat (Action No. 10).

Due to the results of intensive survey efforts and new methods, the range and population size of Redside Dace within certain watersheds has been more accurately assessed. Since 2008, the species has not been determined to have been extirpated in any watersheds. However, the importance of protecting watersheds that are considered stable has not diminished, nor has recovering watersheds that are experiencing decline. The ESA continues to provide protection for Redside Dace and its habitat which is consistent with the GRS recovery goal. Where feasible, increases in the distribution of Redside Dace adjacent to occupied reaches continue to be an objective of Redside Dace recovery. Substantial efforts have been implemented to restore degraded Redside Dace habitat to contribute to this aspect of the GRS recovery goal.

Photo: A. Dextrase


13.2 Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Redside Dace can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Redside Dace should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendations for the implementation of the GRS are suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Redside Dace:

� Investigating the effectiveness of habitat rehabilitation work is an essential component of a high priority action outlined in the GRS (Action No. 4). As habitat rehabilitation work is important to the recovery of the species, more progress toward investigating the effectiveness of completed projects will inform and enhance the success of future habitat rehabilitation work for Redside Dace.

� While progress has been made towards the first component of implementing a standard two-part monitoring program at a broad scale, implementing actions that address the second component of the monitoring program to conduct monitoring at representative sites to assess changes through time in population abundance and habitat conditions that result from restoration action, and to compare the conditions of disturbed and undisturbed sites would be beneficial and is identified as a high priority action in the GRS (Action No. 6).

� Actions for which progress has been limited should be supported in future implementation planning, such as support the securement of lands within catchment areas that contain Redside Dace populations with a high likelihood of survival through existing land securement and stewardship programs (Action No. 1) and investigate the impacts that introduced fish species have on Redside Dace and the streams in which they occur (Action No. 9).

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Redside Dace will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario or the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Redside Dace in Ontario.


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Redside Dace in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � The Redside Dace is classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Prior to its

transition to the ESA, Redside Dace was listed as threatened. It was reassessed by COSSARO as endangered and its status was updated on the Species at Risk List in 2009. The species has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2008, and its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2009.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) in Ontario (2010)

� Redside Dace: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Redside Dace Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2011)

Government-supported stewardship projects: � Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”)

has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of 40 projects that have supported the protection and recovery of Redside Dace. Nineteen projects ($310, 803) focused exclusively on Redside Dace, while the other 21 projects ($875,095) focused on multiple species at risk, including Redside Dace.

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 3,243 individuals who volunteered 15,234 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Redside Dace. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions and other in-kind support is $1,758,590.

� Stewardship partners reported that through their actions 120 hectares of habitat were enhanced for Redside Dace and other species at risk that inhabit the same ecosystem.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk, including Redside Dace to 197,690 individuals.

Supporting human activities while ensuring appropriate support for species recovery: � The Ministry has issued 81 permits for this species: two ‘health or safety permits’ were issued under clause 17(2)

(a), 53 ‘protection and recovery permits’ were issued under clause 17(2)(b) and 26 ‘overall benefit permits’ were issued under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA.

� A total of six agreements were entered into for Redside Dace prior to the amendment of Ontario Regulation 242/08.

� Fifty-three activities have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA for this species. Activities are registered under ’Aquatic species’ (section 23.4), ‘Ecosystem protection’ (section 23.11) and ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18). Forty-nine mitigation reports have been approved in accordance with the requirements for ‘Development and infrastructure – redside dace’ (section 23.1).

Occurrences and distribution:� Redside Dace are thought to presently persist in 17 watersheds in Ontario. Of these, there are 13 watersheds

experiencing declines, four watersheds that are considered stable, while additional survey effort has found Redside Dace in a broader distribution of a tributary of the Credit River. Since 2008, Redside Dace have been recently discovered in an additional watershed in South Gully Creek, in Huron County.








Accommodating Species at Risk: How Ontario farmers provide habitat for wildlife in peril through the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program (SARFIP) http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/docs/accommodating_species_at_risk_english.pdf

Bronnenhuber, J.E and C.C. Wilson. 2013. Combining species-specific COI primers with environmental DNA analysis for targeted detection of rare freshwater species. Conservation Genetics Resources 5: 971-975.


Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected Habitat- DRAFT http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-at-risk/stdprod_082290.pdf

Environmental Farm Plan http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/en/programs/environmental_farm_plan.htm




Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Redside Dace http://www.ontario.ca/page/redside-dace

Pitcher, T. E., Beneteau, C. L., Walter, R. P., Wilson, C. C., Mandrak, N. E., and D. D. Heath. 2009. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in the redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus. Conservation Genetics Resources, 1(1): 381-383.


Provincial Bait Policy Review Information Notice on the Environmental Registry (EBR Registry Number 012-1043): http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/

Reid, S. M., Jones, N. E., and G. Yunker. 2008. Evaluation of single-pass electrofishing and rapid habitat assessment for monitoring redside dace. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 28(1): 50-56.

Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/en/programs/species_at_risk.htm



Wilson, C. and E. Wright. 2013. Using environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool in risk-based decision-making. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aquatic Research and Development Section, Aquatic Research Series 2013-01.

http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/docs/accommodating_species_at_risk_english.pdf


http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-at-risk/stdprod_082290.pdf

http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/en/programs/environmental_farm_plan.htm






http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/

http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/en/programs/species_at_risk.htm




Spotted Wintergreen

Photo: Allen Woodliffe


BLEED


Page 186 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | SPOTTED WINTERGREEN

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Spotted Wintergreen in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description Spotted Wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata) is a small, rhizomatous evergreen herb that can reach 10-50 centimetres in height and typically grows in large colonies or clones. Each shoot bears a whorl of smooth, dark green toothed leaves with prominent white stripes along the upper surface and a terminal cluster of five white or pinkish flowers. Due to its clonal nature, groupings of stems may actually represent clones of an individual rather than genetically-distinct individuals.

In Canada, Spotted Wintergreen currently occurs in five populations, within which there are nine sub-populations, all located in southwestern Ontario. Spotted Wintergreen is a woodland understory species, typically associated with dry oak-pine mixed forest and woodland habitats with semi-open canopies and sandy soils. Suitable habitat for this species may be limited by the specific microclimate conditions required by the species, such as mycorrhizal soil fungi, slightly acidic soils, and a climate moderated by nearby water bodies. A map of the provincial distribution of Spotted Wintergreen is available on the Government of Ontario’s species at risk website.

Spotted Wintergreen faces several threats to its survival and recovery, including habitat loss and alteration from forestry operations, trampling or soil compaction from recreational uses, and invasive species (which outcompete and displace many native species). In some areas, plants also face disturbance from animal browsing and collection for horticultural purposes.

The survival and recovery of Spotted Wintergreen is influenced by other factors as well. Little is known about the reproductive biology of this species and it is suspected that there are a limited number of pollinators that can aid in fertilization of plants. Poor genetic exchange due to the species’ tendency to reproduce clonally and fragmented, isolated populations also limit the species’ fitness and reproductive potential.

Spotted Wintergreen is listed as endangered at both the provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and federal (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act) levels. Globally, it is considered to be secure.

3. Provincial Status Prior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”), the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Spotted Wintergreen as endangered and it was regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act in 2003. Spotted Wintergreen has retained its status as endangered under the ESA. The species is scheduled to be reassessed by COSSARO in 2015. In its future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions. Photo: Allen Woodliffe

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/spotted-wintergreen

http://www.ontario.ca/page/spotted-wintergreen





ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Spotted Wintergreen and its habitat are key components in the implementation of the ESA, and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. As a species that was regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act, Spotted Wintergreen has received species and habitat protection since 2003. The species is currently protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken under the ESA. In addition, the habitat of Spotted Wintergreen is protected from being damaged or destroyed; general habitat protection, which is based on the general habitat definition in the ESA, has been in place since 2008 when the ESA came into force. The ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition species1 such as Spotted Wintergreen. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.


Any person who negatively impacts Spotted Wintergreen or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

As a species that was regulated

under the previous Endangered

Species Act, Spotted Wintergreen has

received species and habitat protection since 2003. The

species is currently protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken under the ESA. In addition, the habitat of Spotted

Wintergreen is currently protected from being damaged or destroyed under the ESA; habitat protection has been in place

under the ESA since 2008 based on the

general habitat definition in the Act.

5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Spotted Wintergreen was completed on February 18, 2010, which was in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of Spotted Wintergreen and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.



6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Spotted Wintergreen on November 18, 2010, which was within the legislated timeframe required under the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Spotted Wintergreen.

The government’s GOAL for the recovery of Spotted Wintergreen is to protect and enhance all existing populations to sustainable levels and to determine the feasibility of restoring historical populations where the habitat is appropriate.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. The GRS for Spotted Wintergreen also outlines six actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Develop, implement and assess approaches to mitigate threats at each population occurrence;

� Address knowledge gaps and determine the minimum viable population size for the species;

� Monitor populations to determine trends and habitat conditions; and

� Increase the awareness of landowners and land managers of Spotted Wintergreen and increase their level of engagement in stewardship programs.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Spotted Wintergreen.

Species

in 2003PROTECTED

under the previous ESA in 2003 and through the general habitat definition

under the current ESA since 2008


FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


Species listed as

in 2003

endangered



7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for Spotted Wintergreen is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of 12 projects ($671,019) designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Spotted Wintergreen. All of these projects targeted multiple species at risk including Spotted Wintergreen and partners reported that they were successful in securing additional funding ($518,538) from other sources. These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated value of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners also reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 581 individuals who volunteered 8,739 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Spotted Wintergreen, which has an estimated value of $193,570.

The Ministry’s stewardship partners reported that through both their efforts and the efforts of their volunteers to implement actions contained in the GRS, they were successful in enhancing 2,558 hectares of habitat that will benefit multiple species at risk, including Spotted Wintergreen. In addition, stewardship partners reported providing ecosystem-based outreach on multiple species (including Spotted Wintergreen) to 14,120 individuals. The remainder of this section highlights a comprehensive, multi-year project that was supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and its corresponding government-supported recovery actions.

8,739

12 Projects

581hours

volunteers

A total of


$518,538


$0 for Spotted Wintergreen exclusively

$671,019 for multi-species projects that included Spotted Wintergreen

of habitat restored


2,558ha

people




In particular, one stewardship partner conducted a project over four years to improve species at risk populations, including Spotted Wintergreen, within a protected area in southwestern Ontario. The partner improved habitat by closing 15 kilometres of all-terrain vehicle and bike trails in sensitive habitat, erected signage to depict which trails were authorized and for what type of use, and monitored illegal usage; all of these activities supported the GRS action to implement site-specific management approaches to mitigate threats. Monthly inspection of trails showed that unauthorized usage in sensitive areas had decreased following these efforts. These monitoring efforts also resulted in the discovery of a new sub-population of Spotted Wintergreen, which supports the GRS action to monitor existing populations. In addition, this partner undertook research to evaluate potential approaches to mitigate threats. Locations of 16 different invasive plant species were treated with herbicide and removed from the site; and, prescribed burns were applied to determine how Spotted Wintergreen would respond to disturbance. Monitoring of the post-burned areas showed increases in the number of Spotted Wintergreen plants observed. Finally, to complement their efforts to mitigate threats to Spotted Wintergreen, this partner developed a number of educational and outreach materials to provide to local landowners, including hosting an information session, publishing newspaper articles, launching a website, and distributing a new trail map. This supports the GRS action to develop and provide information and materials to increase awareness.



PERMIT

18. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on Spotted WintergreenSupporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Spotted Wintergreen, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. One ‘protection and recovery permit’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit) related to surveys and research was issued for Spotted Wintergreen since the species has been protected under the ESA. ‘Protection and recovery permits’ are issued if the purpose of the activity is to assist the protection or recovery of a species at risk. This permit was issued to allow the proponent to take a voucher specimen of Spotted Wintergreen if a population of greater than 10 individuals was re-discovered in an area where the species was historically known, which supports the action identified in the GRS to monitor existing populations.

No activities that pertain to Spotted Wintergreen have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 of the ESA since the registry was established in 2013.

Long-term Securement of Ecologically Sensitive LandsThe Southern Norfolk Sand Plain Natural Area is a biodiversity hotspot located along the north shore of Lake Erie. It is part of the Carolinian Life Zone, which is home to nearly 25 percent of species at risk in Ontario. Many of the remaining natural areas in this life zone are highly fragmented due to human use (Nature Conservancy of Canada 2015).

In 2011, the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) along with supporting partners secured over 875 acres of habitat for conservation purposes in the Norfolk Sand Plain area (Nature Conservancy of Canada 2011). Some of the properties acquired through this initiative provide an ecological corridor connecting two existing natural areas in the region: Backus Woods and St. Williams Conservation Reserve (Nature Conservancy of Canada 2015). As indicated in section 9.1 of this chapter, Spotted Wintergreen has been observed in the region adjacent to the acquired property and may benefit from this land securement.




9. Occurrences of Spotted Wintergreen in Ontario9.1. Natural Heritage Information CentreAs of 2008, it was estimated that there were seven extant (i.e., observed within the last 20 years) populations2 of Spotted Wintergreen in Ontario, with a number of sub-populations. Five other populations in Ontario were considered to be extirpated (i.e., no longer in existence).

2 A population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations and the area has a practical conservation value as it is important to the conservation of the species.

The long-term viability of some of these populations and sub-populations is uncertain. Spotted Wintergreen is a cryptic plant that can be misidentified as another type of native plant (Common Pipsissewa), which occupies similar habitats (Ursic et al. 2010). The population sizes of Spotted Wintergreen can also fluctuate widely from year-to-year, which creates challenges in determining overall abundance and trends. Recent records of Spotted Wintergreen have shown both increases and decreases of the species in Ontario since 2008. Surveys completed in 2010 and 2014 at the St. Williams Forest resulted in the discovery of two new sub-populations within the larger population. In addition, since 2008 seven new sub-populations within the Turkey Point population have been documented. The data has also shown that several sub-populations within larger populations of Spotted Wintergreen have either decreased since 2008 (Turkey Point and St. Williams Forest) or are small populations that may be vulnerable to disturbance from nearby human activities (Ojibway Prairie Complex and Wainfleet).


Since 2008, when Spotted Wintergreen became protected under the ESA, the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) has received 112 observation records of the species, some as recent as 2014. These records, combined with information from survey efforts, have helped to redefine where the species is known or has been known to occur, and can provide additional information on the species’ habitat and threats. Since 2008, two populations in the Turkey Point area, which were previously considered to be separate and distinct, were determined to be a single population. In addition, two previously extant populations are now considered to be historical3, one in Norfolk County and one in Simcoe County; however, it is believed that suitable habitat is still present at these locations and it is possible that the species may be re-confirmed through future surveys (COSEWIC 2000). In June 2014, a previously unknown population of Spotted Wintergreen was discovered near the Ojibway Prairie Complex in Windsor.


As a result of these changes, Spotted Wintergreen is currently found in five populations in southwestern Ontario. Overall, the recent submission of Spotted Wintergreen records has shown that three out of the five extant populations are considered to be relatively stable and/or to have good long-term viability (Fisher’s Glen, St. Williams Forest and Turkey Point), whereas the remaining two extant populations are considered to have poor estimated viability (Ojibway Prairie Complex and Wainfleet). It is possible that there are observations of Spotted Wintergreen that have not been submitted to the Ministry. Encouraging the submission of observations of Spotted Wintergreen to the Ministry is included in the GRS as a government-led action.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Spotted Wintergreen, as well as every other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations.



10. Summary of Progress Towards Meeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations10.1. Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all government-led actions and the majority of government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for Spotted Wintergreen. As indicated in this report, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Spotted Wintergreen data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect Spotted Wintergreen and its habitat through the ESA; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made toward most of the government-supported recovery objectives, and nearly all of the associated actions, that are identified in the GRS for Spotted Wintergreen. Under the objective to develop, implement and assess approaches to mitigate threats at each population, progress has been made toward the two high priority actions identified in the GRS. Collectively, these actions have been implemented through a number of projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, and through the conditions of the ‘protection and recovery’ permit issued for Spotted Wintergreen. The actions under this objective are:

� Conduct research to identify threats, evaluate their impacts and develop potential approaches to mitigate them (Action No.1; High Priority); and

� Implement site-specific management approaches to mitigate threats (Action No.2; High Priority).


Photo: Allen Woodliffe




Under the objective to monitor populations to determine trends and habitat conditions, various projects enabled through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund have supported progress on the action to monitor the number of individuals and the general habitat conditions of existing populations (Action No. 5). In fact, one of these projects resulted in the discovery of a new population in the Niagara region.

Under the objective to increase awareness and engagement in stewardship programs of landowners and land managers of Spotted Wintergreen, progress has been made toward the action to develop and provide information and materials to stakeholders to increase awareness (Action No.6). This action was implemented through various projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund.

The provincial record of observations indicates that Spotted Wintergreen in Ontario is exhibiting trends that are consistent with the aspect of the GRS recovery goal to protect and enhance all existing populations to sustainable levels. Since the species was listed in 2008, one additional population has been discovered, and all five extant populations have been monitored at least once as a result of continued survey efforts. Where possible, these surveys have documented the number of individuals at a particular site, and for multi-year surveys, have contributed to the Ministry’s understanding of increases or decreases within populations. Information on the habitat types in which Spotted Wintergreen has been found, as well as local threats, has also been documented.


10.2. Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Spotted Wintergreen can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Spotted Wintergreen should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendations for the implementation of the GRS are suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Spotted Wintergreen:

� Although the majority of current Spotted Wintergreen populations occur within provincially or municipally-owned lands, further progress could be made towards protecting the habitat of Spotted Wintergreen through land securement and stewardship programs (Action No. 3).

� An important aspect of the GRS recovery goal is to determine the feasibility of restoring historical populations where the habitat is appropriate. Further progress could be made towards the action to conduct research to determine the reproductive biology, habitat, and disturbance requirements, and the minimum viable population level for Spotted Wintergreen (Action No.4). There have been limited projects that have addressed this action.

Moving forward, protecting and fully recovering Spotted Wintergreen will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario or the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Spotted Wintergreen in Ontario.


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Spotted Wintergreen in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Spotted Wintergreen is classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007

(ESA). It was also listed under the previous Endangered Species Act, and has retained the same status since transition to the ESA. Spotted Wintergreen has received species and habitat protection since 2003.

� COSSARO is scheduled to reassess the status of this species in December 2015.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for the Spotted Wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata) in Ontario (2010)

� Spotted Wintergreen: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

Government-supported stewardship projects: � Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Forestry (“the Ministry”) has enable its stewardship partners to conduct a total of 12 projects ($671,019) that have supported the protection and recovery of multiple species at risk, including Spotted Wintergreen.

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 581 individuals who volunteered 8,739 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Spotted Wintergreen. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions and other in-kind support is $518,538.

� Stewardship partners reported that through their actions 2,558 hectares of habitat were enhanced for Spotted Wintergreen and other species at risk that inhabit the same ecosystem.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk, including Spotted Wintergreen to 14,120 individuals.


� The Ministry has issued one ESA permit for this species. The permit was issued under clause 17(2)(b) of the ESA. The permit was issued to conduct surveys of species at risk, including Spotted Wintergreen.

� There have been no registrations of activities for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA for this species.

Occurrences and distribution:� As of 2008, the species was known to occur in seven populations, all located in southern

Ontario. Since 2008, one new population was discovered and two previously extant populations are now considered to be historical. In addition, two previously separate populations were combined into one population. As a result of these changes, there are currently five extant populations in Ontario.








COSEWIC. 2000. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Spotted Wintergreen Chimaphila maculata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 12 pp.


Nature Conservancy of Canada. 2015. Southern Norfolk Sand Plain Natural Area. http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/where-we-work/ontario/our-work/southern-norfolk-sand-plain-natural-area.html

Nature Conservancy of Canada. 2011. The Nature Conservancy of Canada 2010-2011 Report. Toronto, Ontario. http://support.natureconservancy.ca/annualreport2011/NCC_Financials_2011.pdf



Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Spotted Wintergreen http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/spotted-wintergreen




Ursic, K., T. Farrell, M. Ursic and M. Stalker. 2010. Recovery strategy for the Spotted Wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. vi + 28 pp.



http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/where-we-work/ontario/our-work/southern-norfolk-sand-plain-natural-area.html

http://support.natureconservancy.ca/annualreport2011/NCC_Financials_2011.pdf








Wood Turtle

Photo: Joe Crowley


BLEED


Page 200 | Protecting and Recovering Ontario’s Species at Risk | WOOD TURTLE

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides a review of progress toward protection and recovery of Wood Turtle in Ontario from 2007 to 2014.

2. Species Description The Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) is a rare, medium-sized turtle that can grow up to 25 centimetres in carapace (top shell) length. The species gained its name for the wooden-like appearance of its carapace, which is typically brownish-grey with rough concentric ridges and grooves, giving it the appearance of wood. Its head and legs are dark brown, with lighter underparts ranging from yellow to orange to red in colour. Wood turtles typically do not reach sexual maturity until they are at least 10 years of age and females, on average, only lay one clutch of 8-12 eggs per year. Like many turtle species, the Wood Turtle is a long-lived species, potentially reaching more than 50 years of age.

In Canada, the Wood Turtle can be found in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In Ontario, this species occurs in southern and eastern Ontario, as well as the area north of Lake Huron. The availability of suitable habitat for Wood Turtle is limited due to its specific habitat needs. The species requires areas with rivers and streams that have moderate current, sand or sandy gravel substrates, and a mix of terrestrial habitats, such as forests, meadows, and shrub thickets.

Wood Turtle faces numerous threats to its survival and recovery, including habitat loss or degradation of its aquatic and terrestrial habitats, collision with vehicles, collection for the pet trade, and nest predation by subsidized predators (e.g., skunks and raccoons). Since many roads in Ontario run parallel to rivers or streams, female Wood Turtles seeking nesting sites are particularly threatened by collisions with road vehicles; however, both sexes have been affected by road mortality from collisions with both on and off-road vehicles.

The survival and recovery of Wood Turtle are influenced by other factors as well. Because this species requires more than a decade to reach reproductive maturity, any individuals that die before this time are unable to contribute to the survival of the population. In addition, Wood Turtles experience low rates of recruitment, which means that populations cannot rebound from declines very quickly. Finally, the Wood Turtle is at the northern limits of its range in Ontario and variable weather may negatively affect nest success rates in a given year.

Wood Turtle is listed as endangered at the provincial level (Species at Risk in Ontario List) and is listed as threatened at the federal level (Schedule 1 under the Species at Risk Act). Globally, it is considered to be vulnerable.

3. Provincial StatusPrior to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA or “the Act”) the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) assessed Wood Turtle as endangered. It was added to the Species at Risk in Ontario List as endangered in 2004, but was not regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act. The species retained its endangered status when the ESA came into force in 2008. In future assessments, COSSARO may consider information regarding the species’ threats and trends in population and distribution gained through protection and recovery actions. Photo: Joe Crowley

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/wood-turtle





ESA timeline

DUE

4. Species and Habitat ProtectionProtecting Wood Turtle and enforcing the regulation protecting the specific habitat of the species are key components in the implementation of the ESA and continue to be government-led actions, as identified in the government response statement. As an endangered species, all Wood Turtles have been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008. In addition, the habitat of Wood Turtle has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when the government developed a habitat regulation for the species. Prior to its transition to the ESA there was no species or habitat protection for Wood Turtle. Further information on species and habitat protection is provided in section 2.3 of the introductory chapter of this document.

Although the ESA does not require a habitat regulation to be developed for transition1 species such as Wood Turtle, the government developed the regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08, section 31) to provide clarity to the public and others on what areas are protected as Wood Turtle habitat. The habitat regulation was developed based on consideration of both the habitat needs of the species and comments received through public consultation.


Any person who negatively impacts Wood Turtle or its habitat without prior authorization may be prosecuted under the ESA.

As an endangered species, all Wood

Turtles have been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since the ESA came into force in 2008.In addition, the habitat of Wood

Turtle has been protected from being damaged or destroyed since 2010, when



5. Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy for Wood Turtle was completed on February 18, 2010, which was in advance of the date required by the ESA. It represents best science advice to government. The strategy identified the habitat needs of Wood Turtle and the threats that it faces, while recommending objectives and approaches for protecting and recovering the species. The recovery strategy also included recommendations on the areas of habitat to be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.




6. Government Response Statement The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“the Ministry”) published the government response statement (GRS) for Wood Turtle on November 18, 2010, which was within the timeframe required by the ESA. The GRS is government policy that contains the Government of Ontario’s goal for the recovery of Wood Turtle.


of Wood Turtle is to halt the decline of the species in Ontario and to restore and maintain viable self-sustaining populations throughout their current provincial distribution.

To help achieve this goal, the government leads and supports a number of recovery actions. Common actions for the government to lead as it works towards achieving a species’ recovery goal are provided in section 2.5 of the introductory chapter of this document. Two specific actions for the government to lead to help protect and recover Wood Turtle are:

� Ensure appropriate timing windows for undertaking activities in and around Wood Turtle habitat are considered in the application of the ESA; and

� Encourage the submission of Wood Turtle data to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s central data repository at the Natural Heritage Information Centre and ensure data sensitivity guidelines are put in place to improve information sharing as appropriate.

The GRS for Wood Turtle also outlines nine actions for which the Ministry is using a variety of methods to support others to undertake. These government-supported actions fall under the objectives identified in the GRS, which are:

� Reduce Wood Turtle mortality, illegal collection and other human-related threats to the species;

� Identify and protect existing Wood Turtle populations and their habitat throughout their current provincial distribution; and

� Increase awareness of Wood Turtles in Ontario.

The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a review of actions that the government has led or supported to help achieve the recovery goal for Wood Turtle.

Species

in 2008PROTECTED



FINALIZED in 2010


HABITAT PROTECTED


Species listed as

in 2004

endangered



7. Government Funded ProjectsAn important government-led action in the GRS for Wood Turtle is to support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund the Ministry has supported a total of 52 projects designed to contribute to the protection and recovery of Wood Turtle. Nine of these projects ($340,584) focused exclusively on the species, while the other 43 projects ($1,634,581) focused on multiple species at risk, including Wood Turtle. In addition to the funding provided through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, partners focusing exclusively on Wood Turtle reported that they were successful in securing additional funding and in-kind support ($488,135) from other sources, as did partners with projects designed to benefit multiple species at risk, including Wood Turtle ($3,567,188). These values for additional funding and in-kind support include the estimated value of the time and expertise provided by volunteers, which are outlined below.

Stewardship partners also reported that the province’s funding support helped them to involve 51 individuals who volunteered 1,461 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities that focused exclusively on Wood Turtle, which has an estimated value of $51,880. As well, a total of 3,446 individuals volunteered 31,201 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Wood Turtle, which has an estimated value of $745,800.

The Ministry’s stewardship partners reported that through both their efforts and the efforts of their volunteers to implement actions contained in the GRS, they were successful in enhancing 2,247 hectares of habitat that may benefit multiple species at risk, including Wood Turtle. In addition, stewardship partners reported providing focused outreach on Wood Turtle to 3,036 individuals, and ecosystem-based outreach on multiple species (including Wood Turtle) to 268,216 individuals.

of habitat restored



2,247ha

people


$340,584 for Wood Turtle exclusively

$1,634,581 for multi-species projects that included Wood Turtle


$4,055,323

3,497volunteers

hours

A total of

32,662



Photo: Rob Tervo

The Ministry also provides funding from the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario to support research that addresses important knowledge gaps for species at risk. For example, one partner used radio-telemetry to monitor habitat use, including species movement and use of various habitat features, within a Wood Turtle population in northern Ontario. In addition, the partner collected information on various environmental conditions the turtles experienced over the course of the study, including air and water temperature and relative humidity. The partner then analyzed the data to determine any relationships between environmental conditions and Wood Turtle behaviour, such as the distance they travel from various habitat features. Based on the findings from this analysis, the partner was able to estimate whether certain activities may pose a greater or lesser risk to Wood Turtle depending on environmental conditions. That is, the partners were able to estimate what environmental conditions are most ideal for carrying out certain activities in order to avoid impacting Wood Turtle. The partners then carried out extensive research and consultation with several people experienced in turtle protective measures in order to select appropriate measures for protecting nests and mitigating road mortality. This project provides an example of the development of best management practices for activities that occur in Wood Turtle habitat. This supports the high priority GRS action to evaluate the threat of activities that may negatively impact Wood Turtles and their habitat, as well as the action to develop best management practices for activities that occur in Wood Turtle habitat.

Survey Protocols for Wood TurtleIn order to help determine the number of existing populations of Wood Turtle and their spatial extent, a survey protocol for Wood Turtle has been created to provide proponents with a consistent methodology to determine presence or absence of the species.

The remainder of this section highlights two projects that were supported through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and their corresponding government-supported recovery actions.


A stewardship partner conducted a project to rehabilitate disturbed Wood Turtle habitat, study the over-wintering behaviour by means of radio-tracking, and develop an education and outreach program for the local area. Through field-based studies, this partner determined which native plant species were best suited for restoring Wood Turtle habitat and carried out restoration of over 122 hectares of land in a manner that will help to prevent future disturbance and harm to the species. Radio-tracking of Wood Turtles in the project area during the hibernation season resulted in new information on preferred habitat characteristics for hibernacula, as well as winter movement and activity levels. This partner also engaged local First Nations to develop education and outreach materials on the best management practices for reducing negative impacts to the Wood Turtle and its habitat, including worker training programs for particular sectors. This project supports the GRS actions to develop potential threat mitigation approaches and best management practices for activities that may occur in Wood Turtle habitat; the action to monitor populations to determine spatial extent; and the actions to produce educational materials and build partnerships with local agencies to protect Wood Turtle and its habitat.

Through a multi-year project, a stewardship partner undertook head-starting (the collection and incubation of eggs and rearing of young in captivity) to restore a small, recently declined population of Wood Turtle, as well as other populations along the same river, in southern Ontario. The partner has conducted head-starting for approximately 10 years and has received stewardship funding for three years. In one year, over 50 head-started juvenile turtles were incubated and hatched through this program, and over 15 additional individual turtles were released back into the population in the same year. To ensure that the local Wood Turtle population could continue to reproduce in the wild, this partner enhanced nesting habitat by clearing vegetation from suitable sites and installing fencing to deter predators. The partner also collected data on growth and living conditions of the turtles over multiple years. This data was used to improve captive rearing and conditioning protocols in order to improve the effectiveness of the head-starting program. This project supports the GRS action to evaluate the effectiveness of current Wood Turtle management activities (e.g., head-starting, nest protection, nest site enhancement), and update the protocols if necessary to increase their effectiveness as well as the action to implement a long-term Wood Turtle population monitoring program at representative sites.

Monitoring Wood TurtleIn addition to the efforts of partners, Ministry staff in Sault Ste. Marie district have been carrying out long-term monitoring of Wood Turtle populations within their district to assist in the protection and recovery of the species.


overallBENEFITPERMITS

3protection& RECOVERYPERMITS

23

1

REGISTRATIONS

REGISTRATIONS

7

35

REGISTRATIONS

AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

AGREEMENTS

HEALTH

OR SAFETY

PERMIT

8. Efforts to Minimize Adverse Effects on and Create an Overall Benefit for Wood Turtle Supporting partners to undertake activities to protect and recover Wood Turtle, such as through permits and their associated conditions, is an important government-led action identified in the GRS for the species. A total of 27 permits have been issued for Wood Turtle since the species has been protected under the ESA: three ‘overall benefit permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(c) permit) related to the extraction of aggregate resources, a lot severance, and residential development; one ‘human health or safety permit’ (i.e. 17(2)(a) permit) related to hydro corridor maintenance; and 23 ‘protection and recovery permits’ (i.e., 17(2)(b) permit), five of which focussed exclusively on Wood Turtle. Four of the five protection and recovery permits exclusive to Wood Turtle involved head-starting turtle hatchlings and rearing them in captivity for release into the wild at a later stage. Of the four protection and recovery permits involving head-starting, three were issued to the same proponent who carried out their head-starting project over three consecutive years. The majority of protection and recovery permits that focused on multiple species at risk, including Wood Turtle, involved conducting surveys of historical and current populations, tracking known individuals, and determining habitat use for future threat avoidance. Several of the conditions attached to these permits implement government-supported actions identified in the GRS for Wood Turtle, including:

� Evaluating the threat of activities that may negatively impact the species and its habitat as well as potential mitigation approaches to address threats;

� Evaluating the success of approaches to mitigation of traffic mortality;

� Surveying existing populations to determine spatial extent; and

� Monitoring Wood Turtle populations at representative sites to determine population trends and demographics.


Other conditions designed to help protect and/or recover the species included, but are not limited to:

� Ensuring appropriate timing windows for undertaking activities in and around Wood Turtle habitat;

� Requiring compliance with the Wood Turtle Captive Care Protocol for Headstart Wood Turtles, and an Animal Care Protocol for Wildlife approved by the Ministry’s Animal Care Committee to ensure safe handling and release;

� Translocating individual turtles from impacted sites to other nearby areas of suitable habitat, and/or use of exclusionary fencing to reduce their potential for being killed or harmed; and

� Requiring training for all people who will be carrying out construction, mitigation, or monitoring actions on the activity site to ensure that each person knows how to identify Wood Turtle and is aware of the legislated requirements to protect and minimize impacts on the species and its habitat.


A total of 35 agreements were entered into for Wood Turtle. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment). Conditions of the agreements involve implementing actions in the mitigation or implementation plan, including, but not limited to:

� Minimizing adverse effects (e.g. installing exclusion fencing to prevent individuals from entering active work areas);



http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchNoticeRefine.do?actionType=performRefine


Since 2013, there have been a total of seven activities that may affect Wood Turtle or its habitat registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA. Three of these activities are registered under ‘Pits and quarries’ (section 23.14); two of these activities are registered under ‘Species protection, recovery activities’ (section 23.17); and the remaining activities are registered under ‘Threats to health and safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18) and ‘Possession for educational purposes, etc.’ (section 23.15), respectively. These registrations require the registered proponent to comply with all conditions of the regulation, such as:

� Ensuring that reasonable steps are taken to minimize adverse effects on the species and its habitat (e.g., establishing protective zones around habitat areas; timing windows around nesting and hibernation seasons);

� Implementing the actions in a mitigation plan developed by an expert on the species (e.g., habitat restoration or improvement actions);

� Reviewing and updating mitigation plans every five years to adjust/strengthen mitigation actions as required;

� Documenting and maintaining records of interactions with the species;

� Engaging species experts, where necessary, to carry out and/or supervise certain activities;

� Ensuring that any species observations are submitted to the Natural Heritage Information Centre within three months of the observation; and

� Preparing an annual report to record all observations of the species and describe the steps taken to minimize adverse effects on the species.

The Ministry has developed prescriptions for forest operations under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act that provide protection to Wood Turtle and its habitat. Such measures include ensuring appropriate timing windows for activities, the implementation of a road use strategy to mitigate road mortality, and specific restrictions on harvest, tending and renewal to ensure the protection of Wood Turtle habitat. These measures address multiple government-led actions, including ensuring appropriate timing windows for activities undertaken in and around Wood Turtle habitat.

Photo: Pamela Wesley



9. EnforcementThe Ministry protects Wood Turtle and its habitat by ensuring compliance with the ESA. Ministry enforcement officers and other staff undertake regular outreach to help educate individuals on compliance with the ESA. However, preventative measures may not always be feasible and enforcement staff may issue warnings and direct actions that must be taken for proponents to be in compliance with the ESA. Since the Act came into effect, and until December 2014, there have been four documented offences under the ESA with respect to the protection of Wood Turtle and its habitat. One conviction was made under section 10 of the ESA for destroying Wood Turtle habitat. The offender was fined $3,000 and issued a court restoration order. Another conviction was made under section 9 of the ESA, for illegally possessing the species. This offender was fined $305. One offence under section 9 of the ESA was withdrawn for harming an individual turtle. Finally, a warning was issued under section 9 of the ESA for illegally capturing a Wood Turtle. The Ministry encourages everyone to report illegal activities against Ontario’s species at risk.

Photo: Joe Crowley


Over 3,200 observations of this species were submitted to the NHIC since 2008

10. Occurrences of Wood Turtle in Ontario10.1. Natural Heritage Information CentreForty-five populations2 of Wood Turtle in Ontario are currently classified as extant (i.e. observed within the last 20 years). Twenty-eight populations are considered to be historical3 and one population is considered to be extirpated.

2 A population is defined as an element occurrence which represents an area of land and/or water on/in which an element (i.e., Wood Turtle) is or was present. They are comprised of one or more observations and the area has a practical conservation value as it is important to the conservation of the species.


Since 2008, when Wood Turtle became protected under the ESA, the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) has received over 3200 newly-submitted observations of the species. Many of these newly-submitted observations took place after 2008 while a portion of these observations were reports of observations that happened prior to 2008, but had not been reported at the time of the sighting. These records have helped to broaden our understanding of where the species is known to occur and have contributed to assessments of population viability. For example, submissions of Wood Turtle observations have re-confirmed the existence of four populations in eastern Ontario, and have resulted in the addition of 15 newly-discovered, extant populations. The majority of these newly-discovered populations are located in north-central and eastern Ontario; only one new population was discovered in southern Ontario. Of the 15 newly-discovered populations, 11 have been discovered since 2008 when Wood Turtle gained species protection under the ESA. Recent data submissions have also identified two historical populations which were not previously known to the provincial database. In addition, six populations which were previously considered to be extant are now considered historical as they have not been reconfirmed in over 20 years. These populations are distributed evenly across north-central, eastern and southern Ontario. Encouraging the submission of observations of Wood Turtle to the Ministry is included in the GRS as a government-led action and enables the Ministry to track changes in the species’ distribution across the province.

Since the ESA came into force in 2008, no additional populations have become extirpated.

Everyone is encouraged, or may be required by an authorization or approval, to submit observations of Wood Turtle, as well as every other species at risk, to the Ministry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre for incorporation into the provincial record of observations. To ensure that sensitive and detailed species at risk data is only shared when appropriate, the NHIC has developed a protocol for distributing such data. In order to access this type of information, an individual or agency needs to demonstrate a legitimate need to know the information and complete data sensitivity training. According to the NHIC’s protocol, an individual or agency has a legitimate need to know if they require the information to inform resource management or land use plans, or to advance scientific studies or the understanding of natural heritage. If all requirements are met, the NHIC issues a Sensitive Data Use License which allows the individual or agency access to the requested information. This protocol aligns with the government-led GRS action to ensure data sensitivity guidelines are put in place to improve information sharing as appropriate.



11. Summary of Progress Towards Meeting the Recovery Goal and Recommendations11.1. Summary of ProgressProgress has been made toward all of the government-led and government-supported actions outlined in the GRS for Wood Turtle. As indicated in this report, the Government of Ontario has directly undertaken actions to: encourage submission of Wood Turtle data to the Natural Heritage Information Centre; protect the species through the ESA and its habitat through a habitat regulation; ensure appropriate timing windows for activities in and around Wood Turtle habitat; and support partners to undertake activities to protect and recover the species. Additionally, as indicated in the introductory chapter of this document, the government has established and communicated annual priority actions for support (section 3.1); educated other agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the protection of the species and its habitat (sections 3.3 and 4.4); and undertaken communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk in Ontario (section 4.3).

Progress has been made toward all of the government-supported recovery objectives and all of the associated actions that are identified in the GRS for Wood Turtle. Under the objective to reduce Wood Turtle mortality, illegal collection and other human-related threats, progress has been made towards all of the actions, which include three high priority actions. Collectively, the actions have been implemented through numerous projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund or through conditions of authorizations, or a combination of both. The actions under this objective are:

� Evaluate the threat of activities that may negatively impact Wood Turtles and their habitat as well as potential mitigation approaches to address these threats (Action No. 1; High Priority);

� Evaluate the effectiveness of current Wood Turtle management activities (e.g., head-starting, nest protection, nest site enhancement), and update the protocols if necessary to increase their effectiveness. Continue to implement these actions, where appropriate (Action No. 2; High Priority);

� Evaluate the success of current and potential new approaches to mitigate traffic mortality and at priority sites, apply those techniques that have been found to be most effective (Action No. 3; High Priority); and

� Develop best management practices for activities that may occur in or around Wood Turtle habitat (Action No. 4).

Progress has been made toward all of the government-led and government-supported actions in the government response statement.

Photo: Larry Watkins

Progress has been made toward all of the government-led and government-supported actions in the government response statement.


Under the objective to identify and protect Wood Turtle populations and their habitat, various projects enabled through the Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario and/or through conditions of authorizations have supported progress on two of the three actions, including one high priority action. Specifically, these actions are:

� Finalize and implement a standardized Wood Turtle survey protocol in areas with known occurrences or highly probable occurrences to help determine the number of existing populations and their spatial extent (Action No. 5; High Priority); and

� Develop and implement a long-term Wood Turtle population monitoring program at representative sites to determine population trends and demographics (Action No. 6).

Additionally, as a result of a partner acquiring a parcel of land and Ontario’s Living Legacy project, a number of areas of Wood Turtle habitat now fall within protected areas (Wood Turtle Recovery Team 2010). This supports the third action under this objective:

� As opportunities arise, support the securement of habitat for Wood Turtles through existing land securement and stewardship programs (Action No. 7).

Under the objective to increase awareness of Wood Turtles in Ontario, progress has been made toward both recovery actions. These actions were implemented through various projects supported by the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, and are:

� Produce and distribute educational materials, specifically regarding illegal trade in turtles (Action No. 8); and

� Maintain communications and build partnerships among government agencies, academia and non-government organizations regarding Wood Turtle protection and recovery efforts (Action No. 9).

Several government-led and government-supported GRS actions discussed above have made progress towards meeting the recovery goal of reducing threats and maintaining viable populations of Wood Turtle. For example, many stewardship projects have made progress on evaluating threats to Wood Turtles and their habitat as well as identifying potential mitigation approaches to address these threats. By investigating and mitigating threats, these projects are helping to halt the decline of the species. Stewardship projects, such as those that implemented head-starting, have also made progress toward restoring and maintaining self-sustaining populations of Wood Turtle. In addition to these actions, reports of newly-observed Wood Turtle populations may also indicate that progress is being made toward meeting the recovery goal for the species. Although six populations of Wood Turtle in Ontario have become listed as historical since 2008, 11 new populations have been discovered over this same timeframe.

Photo: Daryl Coulson


Photo: Joe Crowley

11.2. Recommendations As stated in the GRS, the review of progress towards protecting and recovering Wood Turtle can be used to help identify whether adjustments are needed to achieve the protection and recovery of the species. Based on progress to-date, the overall direction provided in the GRS for Wood Turtle should continue to guide protection and recovery actions for the species, particularly for those actions identified in the GRS as high priority. The following recommendations for the implementation of the GRS are suggested for moving forward with protection and recovery of Wood Turtle:

� Although progress has been made towards evaluating and implementing approaches to mitigate traffic mortality (Action No. 3) for turtles in general, work is still needed to fully address this action for Wood Turtle specifically.

� Further progress could be made toward the action to secure areas of suitable habitat through existing land securement and stewardship programs (Action No. 7). In Ontario, nearly half of all known Wood Turtle populations occur within a variety of provincial parks, conservation reserves, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, and conservation lands owned by non-governmental organizations. However, these protected lands are least represented in southern Ontario.

Moving forward, protecting and recovering Wood Turtle will continue to be a shared responsibility that will require the involvement of many individuals, organizations and communities. Financial support for the implementation of actions may be available through the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Research Fund for Ontario or the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program. The Ministry can also advise if any authorizations under the ESA or other legislation may be required to undertake a project. By working together, progress can continue to be made towards protecting and recovering Wood Turtle in Ontario.


SUMMARY OF PROGRESS Toward the Protection and Recovery of Wood Turtle in Ontario (2007 to 2014)

Provincial status: � Wood Turtle is classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Prior to its

transition to the ESA, Wood Turtle was listed as endangered on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, but was not regulated under the previous Endangered Species Act. The species has been protected from being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken since 2008, and its habitat has been protected from damage or destruction since 2010.

Species-specific documents and guidance published by the government: � Recovery Strategy for the Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) in Ontario (2010)

� Wood Turtle: Ontario Government Response Statement (2010)

� Wood Turtle Habitat Regulation (Ontario Regulation 242/08; 2010)


Ministry”) has enabled its stewardship partners to conduct a total of 52 projects that have supported the protection and recovery of Wood Turtle. Nine projects ($340,584) focused exclusively on Wood Turtle, while the other 43 projects ($1,634,581) focused on multiple species at risk, including Wood Turtle.

� The Ministry’s support helped its stewardship partners to involve 3,497 individuals who volunteered 32,662 hours of their time toward protection and recovery activities for multiple species at risk, including Wood Turtle. The estimated value of these voluntary contributions and in-kind support is $4,055,323.

� Stewardship partners reported that through their actions 2,247 hectares of habitat were enhanced for Wood Turtle and other species at risk that inhabit the same ecosystem.

� Stewardship partners reported providing outreach on multiple species at risk, including Wood Turtle to 271,252 individuals.

Supporting human activities while ensuring appropriate support for species recovery: � The Ministry has issued 27 permits for this species: One ‘human health or safety permit’ was issued

under clause 17(2)(a), 23 ‘protection and recovery permits’ were issued under clause 17(2)(b), and three ‘overall benefit permits’ was issued under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA.

� A total of 35 agreements were entered into for Wood Turtle. These agreements were enabled through Ontario Regulation 242/08 (prior to the July 1, 2013 amendment).

� Seven activities have been registered for the purposes of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA for this species. Three activities are registered under ‘Pits and quarries’ (section 23.14); two activities are registered under ‘Species protection or recovery activities’ (section 23.17); and the remaining activities are registered under ‘Threats to human health or safety, not imminent’ (section 23.18) and ‘Possession for scientific or educational purposes’ (section 23.15) under Ontario Regulation 242/08.

Occurrences and distribution:� Since 2008, eleven new populations have been discovered and six populations, which had previously

been considered extant, are now classified as historical. In total, there are currently 45 extant, 28 historical and one extirpated population in Ontario.









COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Wood Turtle, Glyptemys insculpta, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 42 pp.

Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) in Canada [Draft]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. v + 54 pp.




Ontario Recovery Strategy and Government Response Statement for Wood Turtle http://www.ontario.ca/page/wood-turtle








http://www.ontario.ca/page/wood-turtle




Documents

Five-Year Review of Progress Towards the Protection and ......researchers, local stewardship groups and others for natural heritage systems planning and to help protect and study Ontario’s