Source: http://sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=B9037704-1
Timestamp: 2017-11-24 20:10:57
Document Index: 420701344

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4']

ARCHIVED - Species at Risk Public Registry - Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (Vol. 146, No. 16)
Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (Vol. 146, No. 16)
Vol. 146, No. 16 -- April 21, 2012
Issue: A growing number of wildlife species in Canada face pressures and threats that put them at risk of extirpation or extinction. Many serve important biological functions or have intrinsic, recreational and existence value to the Canadian public and require conservation and protection to ensure healthy ecosystems for future generations.
Description: This proposed Order would add 18 terrestrial species to Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and reclassify seven terrestrial species already listed on Schedule 1. These amendments are being proposed on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment. There are also three species that are not being proposed for addition to Schedule 1 to SARA. The addition of species to Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered or threatened invokes prohibitions in Canada to protect those species from extinction or extirpation. SARA also requires the preparation of recovery strategies and action plans to provide for the recovery and survival of these species. When a species is added to Schedule 1 as a species of special concern, SARA requires the preparation of a management plan to prevent the species from becoming endangered or threatened.
Performance measurement and evaluation plan: Environment Canada has put in place a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and a Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) for the Species at Risk Program. The specific measurable outcomes for the program and the performance measurement and evaluation strategy are described in the Species at Risk Program RMAF-RBAF. The next program evaluation is scheduled for 2011–2012.
A growing number of wildlife species in Canada face pressures and threats that put them at risk of extirpation or extinction. Canada’s natural heritage is an integral part of Canada’s national identity and history. Wildlife, in all its forms, has value in and of itself and is valued by Canadians for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual, recreational, educational, historical, economic, medical, ecological and scientific reasons. Canadian wildlife species and ecosystems are also part of the world’s heritage, and the Government of Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity.
The purpose of the proposed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act is to add 18 species to Schedule 1, the List of Wildlife Species at Risk (the List), and to reclassify 7 listed species, pursuant to subsection 27(1) of SARA. This amendment is made on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment based on scientific assessments by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and on consultations with governments, Aboriginal peoples, stakeholders and the Canadian public.
Species proposed to be added to Schedule 1 of SARA (18)
Species proposed to be reclassified in Schedule 1 of SARA (7)
Species not being proposed for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA (3)
As required in the Species at Risk Act, once COSEWIC submits assessments of the status of the species to the Minister of the Environment, there are only regulatory options available.
Benefit and costs
This analysis looks qualitatively at the incremental impacts of the proposed Order to list or reclassify species. For species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened, this includes an assessment of any costs and benefits associated with implementing the SARA prohibitions and the cost to Government to develop a recovery strategy. For species of special concern, the prohibitions do not apply and the analysis would only look at the cost to Government of developing a management plan. Further analysis would be necessary to evaluate the benefits and costs that would result from actually implementing recovery strategies, action plans, and management plans. This analysis cannot be done until the plans have been developed.
Protecting species at risk can provide numerous benefits to Canadians beyond the direct economic benefits. Many species at risk serve as indicators of environmental quality, while some may be culturally important, such as the Swift Fox and Whitebark Pine due to their symbolism, popularity or role in the cultural history of Canada. Various studies (see footnote 2) indicate that Canadians place value on preserving species for future generations to enjoy and from knowing the species exist. Furthermore, the unique characteristics and evolutionary histories of many species at risk may also be of special interest to the scientific community.
When seeking to quantify the economic benefits to society provided by a species, the most commonly used framework is the Total Economic Value (TEV). The TEV of a species can be broken down into active and passive use values.
Direct Use -- consumptive uses of a resource, such as hunting;
Indirect Use -- non-consumptive activities, such as bird watching or recreational value; and
Option Use Value -- preserving a species for future direct and indirect use.
Passive use values include
Bequest value -- value of preserving a species for future generations; and
Existence value -- altruistic value represents the value individuals derive from simply knowing that a given species exists, regardless of potential for any future use. (see footnote 3)
Passive values tend to dominate the TEV for species at risk, (see footnote 4) due to the scarcity of these species and the value that is accordingly attributed to their existence. Even if a given species is not readily accessible to society, existence value may be the most significant or only known benefit of a particular species. (see footnote 5) These passive values can be estimated using the willingness to pay methodology, which is the amount an individual is willing to pay to preserve a species.
Given that the costs of listing and reclassifying the proposed species are estimated to be low, Environment Canada has not undertaken this type of benefit analysis, nor has it attempted to transfer the benefits from existing studies into the context of protecting these species in Canada.
The analysis of the proposed Order examines costs attributed to this regulatory action only. Most of the costs attributed to the proposed Order would be borne by existing federal government resources. These costs would include promoting compliance with the prohibitions, enforcing them, and evaluating performance. They would also include the resources required to develop recovery strategies and management plans. Costs that could arise from the application of SARA, in particular for the implementation of recovery strategies, action plans, or management plans depending on the classification of the species, would be evaluated at the time they would be developed.
Costs arising from the enforcement activities associated with the listing recommendations under this Order are anticipated to be low. This would mainly be due to limited distribution of species on federal lands and the fact that some already benefit from different levels of protection under different statutes such as the MBCA, the Canada National Parks Act and the Wildlife Area Regulations.
There are a number of costs associated with developing recovery strategies and management plans under SARA, including the costs of consulting relevant stakeholders. The cost of a routine recovery strategy or a management plan ranges from $10,000 to $200,000. Should recovery strategies and management plans be required for all the newly assessed species proposed for listing and the seven reclassified species, efforts would be made to group species in order to reduce the overall cost. These costs are covered by existing program funding; therefore, no incremental costs are expected.
The analysis presented hereafter is limited in scope for all species, using mostly qualitative information, proportional to anticipated impacts.
Under SARA, the scientific assessment of species status and the decision to place a species on the list of wildlife species at risk are comprised of two distinct processes. This separation guarantees that scientists may work independently when making assessments of the biological status of wildlife species and that Canadians have the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process in determining whether or not species will be listed under SARA.
Environment Canada began initial public consultations on December 2, 2010, with the posting of the response statements on the SAR Public Registry. Stakeholders and the general public were also consulted by means of a document titled Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act, Terrestrial Species, November 2010.
The consultation document included 24 of the 28 terrestrial species assessments from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) that were presented to the Governor in Council (GIC) and for which it acknowledged receipt on October 27, 2011. The consultation document outlined the reasons for considering listing and the implications of listing species. The document was posted on the SAR Public Registry in December 2010 and members of the public were invited to comment. The consultation process also included the distribution of the consultation document to, and direct consultation with, approximately 1 740 identified stakeholders. Stakeholders included various industrial sectors, provincial and territorial governments, federal departments and agencies, Aboriginal organizations, wildlife management boards, resource users, landowners and environmental non-governmental organizations.
The four species not covered in the consultation document (the Short-eared Owl, the Red Knot rufa subspecies, the Red Knot islandica subspecies, and the Peregrine Falcon anatum/tundrius subspecies) were handled through separate consultation processes that followed a similar approach. Fifty-five comments were received with regard to these four species. Further details are included in the descriptions of the species below.
Out of the 69 comments, 7 expressed opposition to listing: 1 opposed listing Bert’s Predaceous Diving Beetle, 1 opposed listing Bicknell’s Thrush, 2 opposed listing Chestnut-collared Longspur, 1 opposed down-listing Redroot, 1 opposed down-listing Swift Fox, and 1 opposed down-listing Tubercled Spike-rush.
Concerns were raised by a number of people regarding listing of migratory birds and the recovery activities that would ensue from listing. Migratory birds are already protected by the MBCA, which provides them with strong protections, closely comparable to SARA’s general prohibitions. Listing a species under SARA also provides for the development of recovery measures. Recovery strategies are developed through consultation and cooperation with stakeholders affected by their implementation.
Terrestrial species being proposed for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA (18)
Costs are expected to be minimal, as the species exists in only two fens in Ontario. It is listed as endangered on the Species at Risk in Ontario List and is subject to a recovery strategy. Costs related to potential mitigation measures would be contained in the federal recovery strategy/action plans and would be evaluated at that time.
In the 1970s, the Rusty-patched Bumble Bee was common. Dramatic declines were noticed by the mid-1990s in Canada. However, despite extensive targeted searches from 2005–2009, only three specimens were observed -- one in 2005 and two in 2009.
There is presently no legal protection in Canada and listing it may prevent the species from becoming extirpated.
COSEWIC assessed Bert’s Predaceous Diving Beetle as endangered in November 2009. Despite extensive searches, this Canadian endemic species is known from only two locations in southern Alberta, of which one location has been destroyed and the insect could not be found. It is limited to springs and seepage areas along steep cliff edges or river bends. According to the COSEWIC status report of this species, its habitat is declining due to trampling by livestock and lowering of the water table stemming from withdrawals for irrigation.
COSEWIC assessed Wallis’ Dark Saltflat Tiger Beetle in November 2009 as endangered. This distinctively marked beetle is historically known from five locations in southern British Columbia, a region where urban and agricultural expansions have reduced and continue to reduce habitat. In general, tiger beetles appear to be sensitive to soil disturbances such as beach groomers and soil compaction from vehicles. Although these beetles are not particularly shy of humans, conversion of their habitat to paved roads or residential housing would undoubtedly result in population declines. Extensive recent searches have failed to find the beetle and it may occur at only a single location. The index of area of occupancy is small and there is potential future decline in habitat and in number of individuals due to development.
The Peregrine Falcon has become an icon of the environmental movement in North America and elsewhere. The collapse of Peregrine Falcon populations in southern Canada and the United States helped galvanize the public in general into shifting its attitude toward better environmental stewardship.
Red Knots have long been regarded as a flagship species for shorebird conservation because of their enormously long, inter-continental migrations and their vulnerability owing to their concentration in large numbers (involving a large proportion of the population) at a limited number of key sites. Conservation of sites used by Red Knots would also benefit many other shorebird species.
This subspecies is a medium-sized Arctic breeding shorebird that migrates to wintering grounds in Europe. Forty percent of the breeding population of this subspecies is found in Canada. The population of this subspecies has declined by 17% over the last three generations (15 years). There are no identified threats to individuals in Canada. Habitat on the Canadian breeding grounds is likely stable, but shellfish harvesting on the wintering grounds in Europe presents an ongoing threat.
Costs are expected to be minimal, as there would be no incremental increase in enforcement activities. Costs related to mitigation measures would be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and would be evaluated at that time. Incremental costs of the proposed Order are also expected to be low due to existing protection by the MBCA.
The provincial department also referenced data that was not included in the status report. The data provided was a population count from a specific location with high quality habitat. While the data indicate that the species is doing well at this location, no trend information was provided. It would therefore not alter the trend analysis upon which COSEWIC based its assessment and does not warrant referring this assessment back to COSEWIC.
COSEWIC balanced BBS and GBM data and other appropriate survey data in reaching its conclusions; therefore, additional consultations were not necessary.
Incremental costs of the proposed Order are expected to be low due to existing protection by the MBCA.
COSEWIC assessed the Bicknell’s Thrush as threatened in November 2009. This species has one of the most restricted breeding ranges among the forest birds of North America. It inhabits the forests of montane and cool coastal zones, as well as high elevation regenerating forests over 600 m in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the northeastern United States. It winters in the Greater Antilles, where the bulk of its population appears to be in the Dominican Republic. Despite the difficulty of adequately monitoring the species, all the available indices on trends point to significant declines in population and area of occupancy.
According to the COSEWIC status report, the species is at risk in Canada due to its low numbers, patchy distribution, low reproductive potential, and range-wide habitat pressure. Large tracts of Bicknell’s Thrush habitat in Canada are vulnerable to future forestry operations, or are in various stages of regeneration following clear cutting. Extensive logging of primary habitat on the Gaspé Peninsula and the Parc des Laurentides region north of the city of Québec is causing particular concern.
Four comments were received regarding the Bicknell’s Thrush. Two comments were provided by Aboriginal organizations. One supported its listing and the other noted and did not oppose its listing. A third comment came from a provincial government organization that noted and does not oppose its listing but would like to be included in the recovery consultations. The fourth comment was from a New Brunswick business that opposed listing. The company is concerned with potential economic losses and other impacts of listing on its industry and contends that the species is difficult to monitor, stating that the reasons for the population decline are unclear, and a large part of the threat toward the species may occur on its wintering grounds outside of Canada.
Every program monitoring this species has shown a decline. Difficulty of monitoring and uncertainty as to cause of decline would not be reasons not to list a species under SARA. Furthermore, many species at risk are inherently difficult to monitor because of their very scarcity. Reliable surveys can and have been conducted for this species nevertheless.
Finding Bicknell’s Thrush is a challenge for birdwatchers and ornithologists because of its remote high elevation and impenetrable forest habitat. This species also qualifies as a potential, long-term indicator of the health of subalpine forest habitats and its avian populations.
Oldgrowth Specklebelly Lichen is confined in Canada to coastal temperate rainforests older than 200 years old. Here, it is further restricted to the branches and trunks of conifers growing in nutrient hotspots. Because such habitat types are restricted to very old forest ecosystems, it is clear that oldgrowth is critical to the long-term survival of Oldgrowth Specklebelly Lichen. Hence, any human activity or natural process that results in a loss or significant reduction in old growth constitutes a major threat to this species. In one of the site areas in British Columbia, nearly half of the original oldgrowth forest land base within the horizontal and elevational range of Oldgrowth Specklebelly Lichen has been harvested, most of it within the past 25 years. In a rainforest region where wildfire is rare, industrial scale forestry is by far the most important cause of decline in Oldgrowth Specklebelly Lichen, both as a result of habitat loss and the ongoing fragmentation of the remaining oldgrowth islands.
The species is of no known socio-economic or cultural significance. It contributes to the biodiversity of the rich, extraordinary arboreal communities supported by Bigleaf Maples. At suitable moist sites, epiphytic mosses, liverworts, lichens, ferns, and other vascular plants drape large old maples, in turn providing habitat for a variety of fungi, invertebrates, and other organisms. The ecological roles and services of the different components of these arboreal communities, including the Threaded Vertigo, are yet to be elucidated.
COSEWIC reassessed the Queensnake as endangered in April 2010; it was previously assessed as threatened in 1999 and 2000. This species has a restricted and shrinking distribution in southwestern Ontario. As outlined in COSEWIC’s status report, loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat and decline in prey abundance represent the most significant threats to Queensnakes in Ontario.
The Queensnake reaches the northern limit of its range in southern Ontario, and therefore snakes in this region may have genetic characteristics distinct from more centrally located populations. In the few Ontario watersheds where the Queensnake occurs, the species may serve as an indicator of environmental quality because its aquatic habits and specialized diet may make it particularly susceptible to water and prey contamination. In addition, its crayfish prey is vulnerable to contamination and increased silt in the water, and declines in crayfish numbers will be reflected in the viability of Queensnake populations. The highly specialized feeding behaviour of the Queensnake makes it an interesting species from ecological and evolutionary perspectives.
Stewardship and outreach activities designed for children ages 12 and under, include “Meet the Fowler’s Toad night,” and school curriculum lesson plans. To secure the recovery of Fowler’s Toad populations, landowners are provided with information on stewardship practices as well.
Fowler’s Toad fact sheets, landowner contact pamphlets, photo stickers, identification CDs and provincial park displays have been developed and are available to the public at Ontario Parks offices. Furthermore, the existing parks system is being used to improve and expand the public’s understanding of species at risk and the Fowler’s Toad.
Habitat enhancement, restoration, and monitoring of these efforts are underway. The main areas of interest for concentrating efforts on Fowler’s Toad conservation are the dunes and breeding ponds in public and private lands of Morgan’s Point, Rock Point Provincial Park, Nickel Beach, Lakewood (formerly Easter Seal Camp) in Wainfleet, and James N. Allan Provincial Park.
This species has been the subject of the longest (>30 years) population and demographic study of a Canadian amphibian. This research has elucidated much of the nature of demographic, intrinsic and extrinsic factors on population fluctuations and abundance in an anuran species. In addition, the impacts of humans on the species are now becoming understood.
COSEWIC re-assessed Lewis’s Woodpecker as threatened in April 2010; it was previously assessed as a species of special concern. In Canada, this woodpecker breeds only in British Columbia. Its population is small, with fewer than 1 000 individuals, and there is evidence of ongoing declines in parts of its Canadian range where it has been monitored over time. The global population (Canada and the United States) is also showing significant declines. Threats include habitat loss and degradation from increasing urban and agriculture development, and fire suppression, as outlined in the COSEWIC status report.
Costs related to mitigation measures would be contained in recovery strategy/action plans and would be evaluated at that time. Incremental costs of the proposed Order are expected to be low due to existing protection by the MBCA.
COSEWIC re-assessed the Swift Fox as threatened in November 2009; it was previously assessed as endangered. This species was extirpated from Canada in the 1930s. Following reintroduction programs in Alberta and Saskatchewan initiated in 1983, they have re-established populations in these areas and in northern Montana. Population numbers and distribution have increased since that time, with the current estimate in Canada having doubled to 647 since the last COSEWIC assessment in 2000. Connectivity between populations has also improved during this time, particularly through northern Montana.
Costs are expected to be minimal as the change in classification from threatened to special concern would result in no prohibitions to enforce under SARA. Therefore, the costs of listing would be limited to the preparation of a management plan.
Costs are expected to be minimal, as the change in classification from threatened to special concern would result in no prohibitions to enforce under SARA. Therefore the costs of listing would be limited to the preparation of a management plan.
Costs are expected to be minimal, as the change in classification from threatened to special concern would result in no prohibitions to enforce under SARA. Therefore, the costs of listing would be limited to the preparation of a management plan.
One comment was received from a federal department for Laura’s Clubtail. It noted and did not specifically oppose its listing.
This species has an extremely small range in Canada and in light of the limited contribution that recovery efforts in Canada would make to its conservation, it is not being recommended for addition to Schedule 1 so that available resources can be allocated more efficiently to species where Canada can make a difference. Furthermore, this species has an apparently secure status globally and there is no evidence that Canada’s contribution to this species’ global status is significant. Globally, the species’ extent of occurrence encompasses about 1.5 million square kilometres, while the limited Canadian population occupies an area less than 22 km2. COSEWIC acknowledged that a close estimation of population size and population trend information is not available.
COSEWIC assessed the Four-leaved Milkweed as endangered in April 2010. Only two small extant populations are known in Canada at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, each with very low numbers of individuals. Historic populations within the Niagara Falls region are believed extirpated. Extant populations are in very rare limestone deciduous woodland communities where plants are at risk from shading by invasive Common Buckthorn shrubs and from native shrubs and trees expanding in the absence of ground fires. Residential development is a potential threat at the largest site. Future development on this site remains a reasonable possibility. According to COSEWIC’s status report, this species is mainly threatened by habitat conversion, habitat degradation, and invasive species.
There are minimal environmental costs to not listing, because this species has a small distribution of two extant populations in Canada, with one population probably extirpated from Canada, and a secure status globally. Therefore, Canada can make a limited contribution to its recovery.
COSEWIC’s assessment of this species indicates that there is no information on recent trends in extant Canadian populations, although limited observations do not suggest any declines since 2006–2007. This species has an extremely small range in Canada and in light of the limited contribution that recovery efforts in Canada would make to its conservation, it is not being recommended for addition to Schedule 1 so that available resources can be allocated more efficiently to species where Canada can make a difference. Furthermore, this species has secure status globally and there is no evidence that Canada’s contribution to this species’ global status is significant.
4. Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the English version of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “REPTILES”:
5. Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “ARTHROPODS”:
Marble, Island (Euchloe ausonides) Marbré insulaire
7. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “MAMMALS”:
8. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “MAMMALS”:
9. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “BIRDS”:
10. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “AMPHIBIANS”:
11. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “AMPHIBIANS”:
12. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “REPTILES”:
13. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “REPTILES”:
14. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “FISH”:
15. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “FISH”:
16. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “MOLLUSCS”:
17. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “MOLLUSCS”:
18. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “ARTHROPODS”:
19. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “ARTHROPODS”:
20. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “PLANTS”:
21. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “PLANTS”:
22. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “LICHENS”:
23. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “MAMMALS”:
24. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “BIRDS”:
25. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “AMPHIBIANS”:
26. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “REPTILES”:
27. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “REPTILES”:
Ratsnake, Gray (Pantherophis spiloides) Great Lakes/ St. Lawrence population
28. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “FISH”:
29. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “FISH”:
30. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “PLANTS”:
31. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “PLANTS”:
32. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “BIRDS”:
33. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “AMPHIBIANS”:
34. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “AMPHIBIANS”:
35. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “REPTILES”:
36. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “REPTILES”:
37. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “MOLLUSCS”:
38. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “MOLLUSCS”:
39. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “PLANTS”:
40. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “LICHENS”:
41. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “LICHENS”: