[GREN-Exec] Fwd: Jefferson Salamander concerns. Written response requested please.

Fri Sep 8 10:12:19 EDT 2017

Lulu asked me to forward this to you.

John

------------------------------
John Jackson
17 Major Street
Kitchener N2H 4R1
519-744-7503

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Lanteigne <water.lulu at yahoo.ca>
> Subject: Fw: Jefferson Salamander concerns. Written response requested please.
> Date: September 7, 2017 at 11:23:49 PM EDT
> To: John Jackson <jjackson at web.ca>
> Reply-To: Lanteigne <water.lulu at yahoo.ca>
> 
> Hi John
> 
> If you can relay this to the GREN executives and Gord Nicholls I'd appreciate it. 
> 
> It is such an amazing blessing to have had Daphne draw me into that Hidden Valley issue. I've been following the path of logic on the salamander issues for years and the scope kept expanding so much. that it exposed the intrinsic flaws of the policies themselves and the conflicts that existed within the creation of policies. The closer we get to the root of the problem, the closer we get to the solutions we need to see.  Hidden Valley has far reaching implications. I am optimistic good changes can come from this. 
> 
> If I do manage to get a written response, I'll fill you in on the details. This issue is currently under review with an oversight agency. I'll fill you in on the details in the days ahead. 
> 
> Daphne planted ideas like seeds of love and the fruits and flowers are blooming like crazy! 
> 
> Have a good one!  
> 
> Lulu 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Lanteigne <water.lulu at yahoo.ca>
> To: "mnr.nric.mnr at ontario.ca" <mnr.nric.mnr at ontario.ca> 
> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 7:41 PM
> Subject: Jefferson Salamander concerns. Written response requested please.
> 
> Dear Minister McGarry
> 
> I require assistance to help answer the questions listed below and I'm not sure exactly who to send this to but I'll trust your judgement on that. Your help is great appreciated. 
> 
> My name is Louisette Lanteigne and I'm a resident of Waterloo who was a registered delegate of the Enbridge Line 10 National Energy Board hearings that took place in October 2016. 
> (NEB case OH-001-2016)
> 
> I submitted a letter of comment regarding the need to protect Jefferson Salamander habitats in the area where Enbridge Line 10 crosses. The known habitat areas were verified by Enbridge and I included all the details with my sworn affidavit which can be viewed on the NEB website here: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/3025064 <https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/3025064>
> 
> For many years I have worked on issues to specifically protect Jefferson Salamanders. I won protections for them at the OMB regarding the West Side Lands appeal case PL071044. I am working to protect them at Hidden Valley in Kitchener as well. Jefferson Salamanders live on primary recharge areas where our regional water supply comes from. 75% of Waterloo Region's water supply is from wells but the high water recharge areas providing for those wells are not always in close proximity to wellheads therefore the Source Water Protection Act fails to protect them. For the West Side Lands I used the Jefferson Salamander to win protection for the water recharge areas and by protecting them we protect our water volumes and water quality for the long term. This is beneficial for our local our economy, citizens, farmers our municipal growth etc. It's a miracle to me how something so small has the legislative power to protect such areas but they do so when I learn of them being in a location, I do everything I can to protect them and it's all pro bono. It's my way of giving back to community. I've been doing this for 15 years. 
> 
> Years ago I secured a review for the need of a Waterloo Moraine Protection Act using the Environmental Bill of Rights and my request was paired with a review of the Galt Paris Moraine system. Although the government did not feel there was a need to build a Waterloo Moraine Act, it did help create policy used in the Source Water Act.  Later on I learned that  Enbridge wanted to replace Line 10 and I got involved because the proposed pipeline replacement crosses over top sensitive primary recharge areas of the Galt Paris Moraine which flows into the Grand River and to Lake Ontario. I went to the NEB Line 10 hearing to better protect the water and in reviewing the data I found reports where Enbridge admits they are along the route. So I included that in my affidavit which is focused on the water and geological risks of that area. 
> 
> NEB's Reason for Decision addresses the issue of the Jefferson Salamanders and other Species at Risk on pages 111-113 of the decision (pages 127-130 of the online PDF version). I provide the three pages in the attachments and the full decision can be viewed at the NEB website at:  https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/3179214 <https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/3179214>
> 
> On page 111 of the NEB's Line 10 decision, it states:  
> 
> ...Enbridge must also include in the EPP any additional mitigation for species at risk as determined by the MNRF and the Conservation Authorities for working in wetlands and woodlands. The EPP condition (Section 58 Condition 8) contains wording that reflects these additional requirements. 
>  
> On page 112 it states: 
> 
> HDD will be used to install two sections of the Replacement Line 10 PIpeline through potential amphibian habitat: the Westover Wetland (527 m) and at the Copetown Woods Golf Club (750 M)
> 
> Additional  pre-construction field surveys are proposed to confirm habitat for Jefferson Salamander where land access was not previously obtained. In the event that confirmed habitat for Jefferson Salamander is affected by the Project, Enbridge will continue to consult with the MNRF regarding mitigation. Further, Enbridge agreed in its reply evidence to ECCC, that prior to conducting future amphibian breeding surveys, Enbridge would consult with ECCC to discuss methods and survey locations. 
> 
> Page 113 states:
> 
> Ms. Lanteigne observed that the Jefferson Salamander is listed as Endangered on the SARA Schedule 1 and noted that critical habitat mapping has not yet been completed for the entire Project. 
> 
> With the mitigation proposed by Enbridge, the Board's Section 58 Conditiosn 3 (Environmental Protection), 8 (EPP) and 30 (Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report) as well as the oversight of the MNRF and ECCC, the Board is of the view that serious harm to Jefferson Salamander and Western Chorus Frog or their habitat is no likely to occur, and that any adverse effects are not likely to be significant. 
> 
> In light of the above information, I have questions and I request that the responses be sent to me in writing please. 
> 
> 1. Enbridge is aware Jefferson Salamanders exist along Line 10. Why has there been no Critical Habitat delineation?   
> 
> 2. How can one reasonably plan mitigation and remediation or monitoring to protect Jefferson Salamanders and their habitats with the absence of critical habitat delineation? 
> 
> 3. The Ontario Endangered Species Act requires permits to destroy specimens and proof of net benefits to make up for that loss. What is  being done to assure that these processes are judiciously adhered to in regards to Enbridge Line 10?
> 
> 4. Why was the destruction of egg masses approved as a means to determine the presence of Jefferson Salamanders in a given area? 
>  
> Jefferson Salamanders are the only salamander breed that emerges and lays eggs in temperatures 4 degrees Celsius or higher, typically in the first warm rains of March.  Other breeds of mole salamanders including Blue Spotted and Yellow spotted salamanders can cross breed with Jeffersons but they only breed in mid April. Thus it is easy to visually distinguish Jefferson Salamander eggs from hybrid types because the larvae in them are larger. They were laid a month prior to the hybrid varieties and their egg masses are much smaller in size and shape. Here is a video to illustrate how easy it is to visually confirm the presence of Jefferson Salamanders based on observations of egg masses.   
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCkcdNyjPeU <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCkcdNyjPeU>
> 
> Another non lethal way to test Jeffersons involves a fabric fence between salamanders and their pond leading to containers that the animals can fall into for positive identification of species. If DNA is warranted toe and tail clips could be done. Salamanders are known to regrow these body parts. 
> 
>  5. Why doesn't the Province mandate the use of non lethal tests to confirm presence of Jefferson Salamanders? 
> 
> Ontario MNR issued a Wildlife Collector's Permit that allowed the harvesting of 60 eggs from Hidden Valley in Kitchener. Each egg was potentially an individual Jefferson Salamander but before we could confirm this,  they rotted. They were deemed "non viable" upon arrival by the time they reached Mr. James Bogart at the University of Guelph.  Had the non lethal methods been used this would not be an issue and it would not have resulted in the death of so many specimens. 
> 
> 6. Why did the Chair of the Jefferson Salamander Recovery team, give expert opinion based on assumptions rather than data?
> 
> Example: Hidden Valley Kitchener
> 
> In the attachment is a Memorandium to Don Drackley IBI group from Arnie Fausto ccd to Grant Kauffman, LGL Ltd. dated March 7, 2007 re: 2004 Salamanders Surveys Hidden Valley ESPA South Kitchener Transportation Corridor Study. 
> 
> On page three it states the following:
> 
> Egg Mass Surveys 
>  
> Detailed egg mass surveys of Hidden Valley vernal pools and ponds were conducted during April 15 and April 30, 2004.  Eggs from yellow spotted salamanders and blue spotted salamanders (Ambystoma laterale) were noted and identified.  Samples from the blue spotted salamanders were submitted to Dr. James Bogart for further analysis and testing.  Dr. Bogart indicated that to the best of his knowledge, this was the first known record for blue spotted salamanders in the area. 
>  
> Analysis of egg samples by Dr. Bogart indicated that the eggs are non viable and so enzymes and DNA extraction could not be done.  However, Dr. Bogart stated that he was 95% sure that the eggs are those of blue spotted salamanders (A. laterale) and not Jefferson salamanders (J. Bogart, pers. comm..).  He also stated that there is a very slim (5%) chance that they are LLJ hybrids (A. tremblayi), although this is highly unlikely.   Dr. Bogart stated that based on these findings, there is likely no Jefferson’s salamanders in the study area. 
>  
> Summary and Concluding Comments 
>  
> The previous findings made by Ecologistics Limited in 1979 did not confirm the presence of pure Jefferson salamanders in Hidden Valley ESPA.  Intensive surveys conducted by LGL Limited in 2004 confirms the presence of other mole salamanders in Hidden Valley, such as spotted salamanders (A. maculatum) and blue spotted salamanders (A. laterale), however, there continues to be no conclusive evidence of pure Jefferson salamanders inhabiting this area.
> 
> For an expert to give unsubstantiated opinion for approval purposes leaves the door open to liability and misunderstanding. City and Regional staff used his opinion statement as hard fact that the animals were not at Hidden Valley. Mr. Bogart is the Chair of the Jefferson Salamander Recovery Team. 
> 
> 7. Can we mandate the use of GPs and Video assure that tests are conducted in a scientifically reasonable and ethical manner? 
> 
> If there is video or photos taken at the point of actual testing and analysis, it could help verify that things were done appropriately at reasonable test times using proper methods. It serves to prevent unscrupulous practices while assuring a higher measure of professional accountability by those doing the study.    
>  
> I worked with Mr. Neil Taylor of the KW Field Naturalists to secure re-testing of Hidden Valley for salamanders.  We spoke with Waterloo Regional council and Regional staff to secure proper drop pit testing with toe and tail clip to verify DNA and it turns out Hidden Valley had one of the largest populations of Jefferson Salamanders in Ontario.  An article published in the KW Record is in the attachments for your reference speaking on our frustration of having to endure this process. Either way, I am happy to say our efforts helped secure the delineation of critical breeding habitat. I later initiated a Part II Order request which resulted in an MOE decision to secure additional salt mitigation strategies. That decision is in the attachments for your reference.
> 
> The Toe and tail DNA worked at Hidden Valley and visual testing can be done without the need to destroy specimens. It seems a far more reliable approach with less harm done. 
> 
> 8. Why did the Endangered Species Act only protect Jefferson Salamanders but not their hybrids?  
> 
> In the attachment is the 2009 Ontario Draft Recovery Strategy for Jefferson Salamanders. The document shows how the ministry was oddly focused on the idea of only protecting "true" Jefferson or "purebreed" types and demanded DNA analysis as a means to identify the species, negating protections for Jefferson Hybrid varieties. However, as of July 6 2017, Jefferson Salamander Hybrids were designated as a protected species in Ontario. The Environmental Registry Notice about this is in the Attachments. 
> 
> 9. Did flawed policies and practices result in the overall decline of Jefferson Salamanders and their Hybrids in Ontario?  
> 
> In the 2009 Ontario Draft Recovery Strategy for Jefferson Salamander on page 15 it states:
> 
> Many of the recovery team members are associated with or work for regional conservation groups or authorities. In May 2003, workshops were run by MNR in Halton Region and Waterloo Region. These workshops were attended by Recovery Team members and provided instruction on egg mass identification and outlined the protocol for obtaining samples for genetic analyses.
> 
> Aurora District MNR has produced a Guideline for Applicants for Wildlife Scientific Collectors Authorizations (2007). This guideline includes detailed direction on collection methodologies and study design requirements that are directly applicable to A. jeffersonianum. MNR and the recovery team have worked extensively with a number of consultants, the aggregates industry and conservation authorities in providing direction on collection methodologies and protocols.
> 
> 10. We don't see the names and agencies of the consultants. the aggregate industry and conservation authorities who "provided direction" on collection methodologies and protocols. Who are they and did any of them have conflicts of interest? 
> 
> 11. We don't see the names of the recovery team members who are associated with or work for regional conservation groups or authorities.  Who were they? Did they had conflicts of interest? 
> 
> There is a 2011 report by Cossaro in the attachments. JJ is referring to "true" Jefferson Salamanders, LJJ is referring to hybrid varieties. In the summery it states:  
> 
> Of 87 sites known to have JJ or LJJ salamanders, only about one third still have extant populations of Jefferson Salamanders (JJ), many have fewer individuals of Jefferson Salamanders than originally thought. Unisexual LJJ females outnumber Jefferson females, often by a wide margin. The absolute number and proportion of JJ to LJJ have declined in virtually all ponds where repeated tissue samples have conclusively identified JJ from unisexual LJJ.
> 
> This report seems to suggest it was the testing methods that killed them. 
> 
> 12. How many salamanders in total died as a result of DNA and Egg Mass in Ontario from 2003-2017 and how many by species type?  We can't plan recovery if we don't understand the scale of the damage done. 
> 
> 
> Many conservation authorities are sponsored by oil and pipeline companies, engineering firms, aggregate businesses and developers who may want to work in areas where there are endangered species. The possibility exists that someone may get bigger donations if they strive to reduce endangered species protections rather than protect them. 
> 
> 13. Where is the corporate incentive for conservation authorities to actually want to protect Jefferson Salamanders? 
> 
> In Ontario, conservation authorities lack an oversight body or Ministry overseeing their conduct. 
> Being an arm's length agency they fall outside the scope of review of the Ontario Ombudsman. so there is nobody to complain to when issues arise.  
> Often times their Board of Directors includes elected officials and industry reps who may or may not have direct conflict of interests. For example regional police departments and emergency services get big gifts from Enbridge who's pipeline projects cross rivers and habitats for endangered species. 
> We rely on conservation authorities for planning approvals for projects that are often being done by companies who are their sponsors. 
> We rely on conservation authorities as first responders to violations of fisheries and environmental laws when in some circumstances, the investigation may involve their own sponsors or even their own conduct.  
> 
> Example:  In 2005, Chris Firth-Eagland, head of the Hamilton Conservation Authority witnessed how someone stocked koi carp in two of the largest vernal pond habitats of Jefferson Salamanders in the Hamilton Area. In response, five years later in 2009, the conservation authority violated their own rules and poisoned both ponds.  The National Post covered the story which is titled: How a Team of Conservationists poisoned a pond of black-market fish to save a threatened salamander population, written by Adrian Humphreys published April 14, 2013. The article in the attachments. 
> 
> 14. Why did it take 5 years to remove fish from a known Jefferson Salamander Habitat in Hamilton Region?  
> 
> 15. Did the MOE or MNR permit the poisoning of the water at these ponds? 
> 
> 16. Has habitat been restored and has there been a net benefit provided to assure the recovery of Jefferson Salamanders at this location?
> 
> 17. Can the Province give the Ombudsman or a Ministry the power to review issues or complaints regarding the conduct of Conservation Authorities or potential conflicts of interest?  
> 
> My goal in this request for written answers is to simply to facilitate better understand of what happened so we can work on ways to prevent adverse impacts from putting Jefferson Salamanders and our water resources at risk. I don't care for courts and I have little interest on who or what is to blame personally speaking. My priorities is simply to better protect these animals and our water supply.  It's a stitch in time that saves nine. I hope this email helps. 
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Louisette Lanteigne
> 700 Star Flower Ave
> Waterloo Ont.
> N2V 2L2 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3pages NEBLine10 Decision.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 310247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: LGL Rotten Eggs.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1110271 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Jefferson article.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 252683 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: HiddenValleyPartIIDecision.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 10967570 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft Recovery Strartegy.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 668811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: hybrids endangered.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 821410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0005.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0006.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: COSSARO.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 41663 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0006.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0007.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: carp and salamanders.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1611909 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0007.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0008.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jeffersonmap.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1474129 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0008.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20170908/9740582f/attachment-0009.html>