Questions and considerations…

Questions and considerations for Redside Dace – ESA changes January 2024
• What are the factors driving the need for this change?

• Given that there are a number of watersheds that will be impacted by the proposed changes, how will MECP staff be directed to deal with records that are older than 10 years old in terms of occupancy?

• For reaches where occupancy is considered older than 10 years, how will MECP update occupancy across the species range considering the following:

• Limited monitoring occurs specifically for species at risk, including Redside Dace, due to limited resources as well as recent changes to the Conservation Authorities act. Conservation Authorities are now restricted to Category 1 services, unless identified under an MOU with Regional and Municipal entities, thereby limiting the amount of watershed based and/or targeted sampling for the species. This potentially limits the ability to conduct regular local monitoring, resulting in outdated records and observations in occupied and recovery habitat.

• When sampling for Redside Dace can occur, targeted sampling is no longer an activity that can be registered under the provincial Endangered Species Act, 2007. Instead, a 17(2)(b) permit is required with minister approval. This permit may result in significant delays which may impact sampling efficiency and project timelines. A few 17(2)(b) permit applications for Redside Dace monitoring were denied without reason in 2023. How will MECP address the increased need and short timelines for these permits?

• What level of sampling will be required to confirm occupancy? Sampling success for this species depends heavily on methodology, seasonality and gear types. In addition, multiple sampling events over years may be required to confirm occupancy due to the rarity and specific sampling required for the species.

• Prior 20-year occupancy limit was based on a North American standard established by NatureServe. Science based protocols/definitions should be used and should incorporate species specific sampling over an extended period before occupancy can be confirmed (e.g., occupancy definition for Jefferson Salamander). How was the 10-year occupancy limit determined?

• Will eDNA now be accepted as a means of confirming occupancy? How will the use of eDNA be incorporated to confirm the presence of the species in occupied/recovery habitat? As with physical sampling a specific protocol with repeatable eDNA collection should be required to confidently confirm occupancy (**leave this for CHRIS to expand on)

• For recovery habitat, what criteria will be used to determine whether a stream or watercourse is “directly adjacent” to occupied habitat? How will restoration opportunities, overall benefit projects etc. (e.g., barrier removals) influence/impact this criteria?

• For recovery habitat, what scientific criteria will be used to determine whether a reach is “currently suitable” to carry out the species life processes? What scientific monitoring or assessments will be used to determine this and who will conduct this work?

• How does the change to the act uphold and protect first nations treaties and rights? (**leave this for GARY to expand on)

• Redside Dace reaches and watersheds currently mapped as occupied or recovery habitat are consistent with mapping of Critical Habitat in the federal Recovery Strategy and Action Plan. Given the protections afforded to the species under the federal Species at Risk Act, how will MECP address inconsistencies in occupied and recovery habitat due to differences in the identification of these habitats between the tw