Source: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2019/2019-05-29/html/sor-dors145-eng.html
Timestamp: 2019-08-19 18:44:40
Document Index: 701275641

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

Canada Gazette, Part 2, Volume 153, Number 11: Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act
Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act: SOR/2019-145
SOR/2019-145 May 22, 2019
P.C. 2019-571 May 21, 2019
Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, pursuant to subsection 27(1) of the Species at Risk Act footnote a, makes the annexed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act .
1 Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act footnote 1 is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Birds”:
Crossbill percna subspecies, Red ( Loxia curvirostra percna )
2 Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Birds”:
Shearwater, Pink-footed ( Ardenna creatopus )
Swift, Black ( Cypseloides niger )
3 Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Birds”:
Shearwater, Pink-footed ( Puffinus creatopus )
4 Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Birds”:
Bunting, Lark ( Calamospiza melanocorys )
Longspur, McCown’s ( Rhynchophanes mccownii )
Plectrophane de McCown
Waterthrush, Louisiana ( Parkesia motacilla )
5 Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Birds”:
Longspur, McCown’s ( Calcarius mccownii )
Waterthrush, Louisiana ( Seiurus motacilla )
6 Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Birds”:
Auklet, Cassin’s ( Ptychoramphus aleuticus )
Grosbeak, Evening ( Coccothraustes vespertinus )
Phalarope, Red-necked ( Phalaropus lobatus )
7 This Order comes into force on the day on which it is registered.
Biodiversity is rapidly declining worldwide as species become extinct.footnote 2 Today’s extinction rate is estimated to be between 1 000 and 10 000 times higher than the natural rate.footnote 3 Biodiversity is positively related to ecosystem productivity, health and resiliencyfootnote 4 (i.e. the ability of an ecosystem to respond to changes or disturbances). Given the interdependency of species, a loss of biodiversity can lead to decreases in ecosystem function and services (e.g. natural processes such as pest control, pollination, coastal wave attenuation, temperature regulation and carbon fixing). These services are important to the health of Canadians, and also have important ties to Canada’s economy. Small changes within an ecosystem resulting in the loss of individuals and species can therefore result in adverse, irreversible and broad-ranging effects.
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), a non-government, independent body of scientific experts, has assessed the following nine migratory bird species as being at risk in Canada:
1.	Black Swift
2.	Cassin’s Auklet
3.	Evening Grosbeak
4.	Lark Bunting
5.	Louisiana Waterthrush
6.	McCown’s Longspur
7.	Pink-footed Shearwater
8.	Red Crossbill percna subspecies
9.	Red-necked Phalarope
Pursuant to section 27 of the Species at Risk Act (“SARA” or the “Act”), the Governor in Councilfootnote 5 is making the Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (the “Order”) to add five species to, and reclassify four species in, Schedule 1 of the Act.
Canada’s natural heritage is an integral part of its national identity and history. Wildlife is valued by Canadians for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual, recreational, educational, historical, subsistence, medical, ecological and scientific reasons. Canadian wildlife species and ecosystems are also part of the world’s heritage.footnote 6 Part of the mandate of the Department of the Environment (the “Department”) is to preserve and enhance the quality of the natural environment, including flora and fauna. Although the responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among governments, the Department plays a leadership role as federal regulator in order to prevent species from becoming extinctfootnote 7 or extirpatedfootnote 8 from Canada. The Parks Canada Agency contributes to the protection and conservation of these species within its network of protected heritage places,footnote 9 including national parks and national marine conservation areas.
The primary federal legislative mechanism for delivering on this responsibility is SARA. The purposes of SARA are to prevent wildlife species from becoming extirpated from Canada or extinct; to provide for recovery of wildlife species that are listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened; and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. At the time of the proclamation of SARA in 2003, the official list of wildlife species at risk (Schedule 1) included 233 species. Since then, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, the Governor in Council has amended the list on a number of occasions to add, remove or reclassify species. As of March 2019, there are 599 species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA, which classifies those species as being extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special concern.
With the proclamation of SARA in 2003, the Act established COSEWIC as the body responsible for providing the Minister of the Environment with assessments of the status of Canadian wildlife species that are potentially at risk of disappearing from Canada. The assessments are carried out in accordance with section 15 of SARA, which, among other provisions, requires COSEWIC to determine the status of species it considers and identify existing and potential threats. COSEWIC meets twice annually to review information collected on wildlife species and assigns each wildlife species to one of seven categories: extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, special concern, data deficient, or not at risk. Of note, COSEWIC must review the classification of each species at risk at least once every 10 years, or at any time if it has reason to believe that the status of the species has changed significantly.footnote 10
After COSEWIC provides its assessments of species at risk to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister has 90 days to post a response statement on the Species at Risk Public Registry (the “SAR Public Registry”) indicating how the Minister intends to respond to the assessment and related anticipated timelines. These statements outline the extent of consultations on proposed changes to Schedule 1 of SARA.
Subsequent to the consultations and analysis being carried out by Department officials, the Governor in Council formally acknowledges its receipt of the COSEWIC assessments. The formal acknowledgement then triggers a regulatory process through a proposed order whereby the Governor in Council may, within nine months of receipt, on the recommendation of the Minister
(1)	add a wildlife species to Schedule 1 of SARA according to COSEWIC’s status assessment;
(2)	not add the wildlife species to Schedule 1; or
(3)	refer the assessment back to COSEWIC for further information or consideration.footnote 11
If the Governor in Council does not make a decision within nine months of its formal receipt of the COSEWIC assessments, SARA states that the Minister shall amend Schedule 1 according to those assessments. This timeline does not apply to reclassifications or the removal of a listed species from Schedule 1 of the Act.
Reclassification allows Schedule 1 of SARA to be consistent with the assessments provided by COSEWIC, thus allowing for better decision-making regarding the species in terms of its conservation prioritization. Species can be proposed for up-listing when populations have declined since their last assessment. When species populations recover, they can be proposed for down-listing to ensure that the species are protected according to the purposes of SARA, while minimizing impacts on stakeholders and resources.
Upon listing, wildlife species benefit from various levels of protection, which vary depending on their status. All species in this Order are migratory birds protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA). The MBCA and its regulations protect migratory birds, their nests and their eggs against possessing, buying, selling, exchanging, giving or making them the subject of a commercial transaction, wherever they are found in Canada, regardless of land ownership, and including surrounding ocean waters. The MBCA and its regulations also prohibit depositing substances harmful to birds in waters or areas frequented by them. Additionally, the Migratory Birds Regulations (MBR) prohibit hunting migratory birdsfootnote 12 as well as disturbing, destroying or taking a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird. The protections under the MBCA remain in effect when a migratory bird is listed in Schedule 1 of SARA. The protections under SARA for individuals and residences are similar, albeit slightly broader, to existing protections for birds, nests and nest shelters under the MBR and the MBCA. Table 1 below summarizes the various protections afforded following listing to Schedule 1 of SARA.
Table 1: Summary of protections offered to migratory birds protected by the MBCA and their residences immediately upon their addition to Schedule 1 of SARAfootnote 13
General prohibitions under section 32 of SARA do not apply.
However, individuals and their eggs receive protection everywhere in Canada under the MBCA.
Residence protection under section 33 of SARA does not apply.
However, nests are protected everywhere in Canada under the MBCA.
Threatened, endangered and extirpated
Section 32 of SARA provides protection for individuals of the species everywhere they are found in Canada against being killed, harmed, harassed, captured or taken.
Section 32 of SARA also prohibits the possession, collection, buying, selling or trading of an individual of the species or any part or derivative of this individual.
Under the MBCA, individuals and their eggs receive protection everywhere they are found in Canada.
Section 33 of SARA prohibits the damage or destruction of the residence of one or more individuals of a threatened or endangered species everywhere they are found in Canada.
The residence of extirpated species is only protected if a recovery strategy recommends reintroduction into the wild.
Under the MBCA, nests and nest shelters are protected everywhere they are found in Canada.
On non-federal lands, listed species that are not an aquatic species or a migratory bird protected by the MBCA can only be protected under the general prohibitions of SARA by an order made by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment.footnote 14 The Minister of the Environment must recommend that such an order be made if the Minister is of the opinion that the laws of the province or territory do not effectively protect the species or the residences of its individuals.
I — Recovery planning
Listing a species as endangered, threatened or extirpated triggers mandatory recovery planning, by the competent minister,footnote 15 in order to address threats to the survival or recovery of the listed species.
SARA states that a proposed recovery strategy must be posted on the SAR Public Registry in accordance with the following timelines:
endangered species: within one year of listing;
threatened species: within two years of listing; and
extirpated species: within two years of listing.
In preparing the recovery strategy, the competent minister must determine whether the recovery of the listed wildlife species is technically and biologically feasible. If it is not feasible, the recovery strategy must include a description of the species’ needs and, to the extent possible, an identification of its critical habitat, and the reasons why its recovery is not feasible.
For wildlife species for which there has been a determination that recovery is feasible, recovery strategies include
a description of the species and its needs;
an identification of the threats to the survival of the species and threats to its habitat, and a description of the broad strategy to be taken to address those threats;
an identification of critical habitat (i.e. the habitat necessary for a listed wildlife species’ recovery or survival);
examples of activities that are likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat;
a schedule of studies to identify critical habitat where available information is inadequate;
a statement of the population and distribution objectives for the species (i.e. the number of individuals, populations and/or geographic distribution of the species required to successfully recover the species);
a general description of the research and management activities needed to meet those objectives; and
a statement of the time frame for the development of one or more action plans.
Recovery strategies must be prepared in cooperation with
appropriate provincial or territorial governments;
other federal ministers with authority over federal lands where the species is found;
relevant wildlife management boards authorized by a land claim agreement;
directly affected Aboriginal organizations; and
any other person or organization that the competent minister considers appropriate.
Recovery strategies must also be prepared in consultation with landowners (including provinces and territories) or other persons that the competent minister considers to be directly affected by the strategy.
The competent minister must prepare one or more action plans based on the recovery strategy. Action plans are also prepared in cooperation and consultation with the above-mentioned individuals or organizations. SARA does not mandate timelines for their preparation or implementation; rather, these are set out in the recovery strategy. Action plans must include
an identification of critical habitat, to the extent possible, if it is not already identified, that is consistent with the recovery strategy;
examples of activities likely to destroy critical habitat;
a statement of the measures that are proposed to protect the species’ critical habitat, including entering into conservation agreements under section 11 of SARA;
an identification of any portions of critical habitat that have not been protected;
methods to be used to monitor the recovery of the species and its long-term viability;
an evaluation of the socio-economic costs of the action plan and the benefits from its implementation; and
any other matters that are prescribed by the regulations in accordance with subsection 49(2) of the Act.
II — Protection of critical habitat
Requirements under SARA for the protection of critical habitat depend on whether the species are aquatic, migratory birds protected under the MBCA, or other species, as well as whether these species are found on federal lands, in the exclusive economic zone, on the continental shelf of Canada or elsewhere in Canada. For migratory birds that are protected under the MBCA, their nests and nest shelters are protected against destruction throughout Canada.
When critical habitat or portions of critical habitat have been identified on federal lands, in the exclusive economic zone of Canada or on the continental shelf of Canada, SARA requires that the critical habitat be legally protected within 180 days of its identification in the recovery strategy or action plan. Protection can be achieved through provisions in or measures under SARA or any other Act of Parliament, including conservation agreements under section 11 of the Act.
If critical habitat is located in a migratory bird sanctuary under the MBCA, in a national park included in Schedule 1 of the Canada National Parks Act , in the Rouge National Urban Park established by the Rouge National Urban Park Act , in a marine protected area under the Oceans Act , or in a national wildlife area under the Canada Wildlife Act , the competent minister must publish a description of that critical habitat in the Canada Gazette within 90 days of the date that the critical habitat was identified in a final recovery strategy or action plan. Subsection 58(1) of SARA, which prohibits the destruction of critical habitat, applies to the critical habitat described in the Canada Gazette 90 days after its publication.
In the case of critical habitat identified on federal land but not found in the protected areas listed above, the competent minister must, within 180 days following the identification of this habitat in a final posted recovery strategy or action plan, either make a ministerial order under subsection 58(5) of SARA to apply subsection 58(1) of SARA, prohibiting the destruction of this critical habitat, or publish on the SAR Public Registry a statement explaining how the critical habitat (or portions of it) is protected under another Act of Parliament, including conservation agreements under section 11 of the Act.
If the critical habitat of a migratory bird species protected by the MBCA is located outside federal lands, the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf of Canada or a migratory bird sanctuary under the MBCA , the critical habitat will be protected only once the Governor in Council has made an order to that effect, following recommendation from the competent minister.
For portions of critical habitat on non-federal lands, SARA contemplates the protection of the critical habitat by other governments (e.g. provinces and territories). In the event that critical habitat is not protected in these areas, the Governor in Council may, by order, apply the SARA prohibition against destruction of that critical habitat. In cases where the Minister of the Environment is of the opinion that critical habitat on non-federal lands is not effectively protected by the laws of a province or territory, by another measure under SARA (including agreements under section 11) or through any other federal legislation, the Minister must recommend an order to the Governor in Council. Before making the recommendation, the Minister must consult with the appropriate provincial or territorial minister. In all cases, the Governor in Council makes the final decision whether to proceed with the order to protect the critical habitat in question.footnote 16
Where the critical habitat of a migratory bird protected by the MBCA is identified in a recovery document and an order or statement explaining how the critical habitat is protected is published, the SARA prohibition against the destruction of critical habitat is broader than the protections offered under the MBCA to individuals, their eggs, nests and nest shelters.
III — SARA permits
A person intending to engage in an activity that is prohibited under SARA and that affects a listed species, any part of its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals may apply to the competent minister for a permit under section 73 of the Act. A permit may be issued if the Minister is of the opinion that
(c) affecting the species is incidental to the carrying out of the activity.footnote 17
In addition, the permit may only be issued if the competent minister is of the opinion that the following pre-conditions under subsection 73(3) of SARA are met:
(a) all reasonable alternatives to the activity that would reduce the impact on the species have been considered, and the best solution has been adopted;
Section 74 of SARA allows for a competent minister to issue permits under another Act of Parliament (e.g. the Canada National Parks Act or the MBCA) to engage in an activity that affects a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals, and have the same effect as those issued under subsection 73(1) of SARA, if the conditions set out in subsections 73(2) to 73(6.1) are met. This is meant to reduce the need for multiple authorizations.
For migratory birds protected by the MBCA and SARA, a SARA-compliant MBCA permit may be issued to authorize an activity affecting a listed migratory bird, instead of two separate permits being issued. In order for a single permit to be issued, all conditions set out in paragraphs 73(2) to 73(6.1) of SARA must be met. The permitting option for the particular activity must also be available under the MBCA.
Permits under SARA can be issued when an activity affects the residence of a migratory bird if that residence is not a nest or a nest shelter protected under the MBCA. Permits can also be issued under SARA for activities affecting the protected critical habitat of a listed migratory bird, because critical habitat is not protected under the MBCA.
IV — Management of species of special concern
The addition of a species of special concern to Schedule 1 of SARA serves as an early indication that the species requires attention. Triggering the development of a management plan at this stage supports the proactive management of the species, maximizes the probability of success, and could help avoid higher-cost measures in the future. SARA does not require that critical habitat be identified for species of special concern.
The management plan includes conservation measures deemed appropriate to manage the wildlife species and avoid a decline of its populations. It is developed in cooperation with the appropriate provincial and territorial ministers, other federal government ministers, wildlife management boards, and Aboriginal organizations, and in consultation with any other affected or interested stakeholders. The management plan for a species must be posted within three years of the species being listed.
V — New designatable units
Through the definition of wildlife species as a “species, subspecies, variety or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism,” SARA recognizes that conservation of biological diversity requires protection for taxonomic entities below the species level (i.e. designatable units), and gives COSEWIC a mandate to assess those entities when warranted. These designatable units and their proposed classification (e.g. endangered, threatened, species of special concern) are presented in COSEWIC assessments in the same way as with other wildlife species. In some cases, based on scientific evidence, wildlife species that were previously assessed may be reassessed and recognized to include fewer, additional or different designatable units. COSEWIC will publish assessments and classifications for any designatable units that may or may not correspond to the previously recognized wildlife species.
Should COSEWIC assess a newly defined designatable unit at the same classification level as the originally listed wildlife species, Schedule 1 may be amended to reflect this more current designatable unit, consistent with the best available scientific information. When classifications are at a different classification level than the originally listed wildlife species, Schedule 1 may also be amended to reflect this more current designatable unit and classification level.
The objectives of the Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act are to help maintain Canada’s biodiversity and the health of Canadian ecosystems by preventing wildlife species from becoming extirpated, endangered or threatened in Canada and contribute to their recovery or their management, as well as to respond to COSEWIC recommendations.
The Order pertains to nine wildlife species. Five species are additions to Schedule 1 of SARA and four species are being reclassified within Schedule 1 of SARA. A description of each species, its range and threats is found in Annex 1. Additional information on these species can be found in the COSEWIC status reports.footnote 18
Table 2 : Modifications to Schedule 1 of SARA
Legal Population Name
Species being added to Schedule 1 of SARA
Black Swift Cypseloides niger None Endangered British Columbia, Alberta
Cassin’s Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus None Special concern British Columbia, Pacific Ocean
Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus None Special concern Everywhere in Canada except Nunavut
Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys None Threatened Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus None Special concern Everywhere in Canada
Species being reclassified within Schedule 1 of SARA
Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla Special concern Threatened Ontario, Quebec
McCown’s Longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii Special concern Threatened Alberta, Saskatchewan
Pink-footed Shearwater Ardenna creatopus Threatened Endangered British Columbia, Pacific Ocean
Red Crossbill percna subspecies Loxia curvirostra percna Endangered Threatened Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador
The quantitative and qualitative incremental impacts (benefits and costs) of the Order were analyzed. Incremental impacts are defined as the differences between the baseline situation and the situation in which the Order is implemented over the same period. The baseline situation includes activities ongoing on federal lands where a species is found, and incorporates any projected changes over the next 10 years (2019−2028) that would occur without the Order in place.
An analytical period of 10 years was selected since the status of the species must be reassessed by COSEWIC at least every 10 years. Costs provided in present value terms are discounted at 3% over the period of 2019–2028. Unless otherwise noted, all monetary values reported in this analysis are in 2018 constant dollars.
Any decision about whether to take action to prevent a species from becoming extirpated involves three issues that do not usually occur simultaneously in most cost-benefit analyses:
(1)	There is uncertainty about whether the effort to prevent extirpation would be successful;
(2)	The benefits of protecting the species are known with less certainty than the costs, making a calculation of probable net benefits difficult due to limited information;
(3)	A decision to protect could be reversed in the future, if need be. However, a decision against protection that results in the loss of the species cannot be reversed.
To reflect these challenges, this cost-benefit analysis presents the best available information and economic analysis possible. Preventing the extirpation of these species would likely result from a combination of the Order and additional protection measures undertaken by various levels of governments, Indigenous peoples and stakeholders. Therefore, the benefits presented cannot be attributed to the Order alone. They are provided here for context.
Overall, the analysis did not reveal any major incremental impacts on Indigenous peoples and stakeholders.
Overall, the Order is expected to have both social and environmental benefits for Canadians.
Endangered, threatened and extirpated species will benefit from the development of recovery strategies and action plans that identify the main threats to their survival, as well as identify, when possible, the habitat that is necessary for their survival and recovery in Canada. Species of special concern will benefit from the development of a management plan, which includes measures for the conservation of the species. These documents will enable coordinated action by responsible land management authorities wherever the species are found in Canada. Improved coordination among authorities increases the likelihood of species survival. This process will also provide an opportunity to consider the impact of measures to recover the species and to consult with Indigenous peoples and stakeholders. These activities may be augmented by actions from local governments, stakeholders and/or Indigenous peoples to protect species and habitats. These may include projects funded through the Habitat Stewardship Programfootnote 19 and the Nature Legacy for Canada as announced in Budget 2018, which require support and matching funds from other sources. These projects enhance the ability to understand and respond effectively to the conservation needs of these species and their habitats.
The “special concern” designation will also serve as an early indication that a species requires attention due to a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. This helps to manage the species proactively, maximizing the probability of success and potentially preventing higher-cost measures in the future.
A benefit of reclassifying species from threatened to endangered, or vice versa, will be that the designation will be consistent with the best available scientific information, as provided by COSEWIC, therefore allowing for better decision-making regarding the species in terms of conservation prioritization. For the species being recommended for up-listing from threatened to endangered, this will also provide national recognition that these species are facing higher risks of extirpation or extinction.
It is also important to note that preventing the extinction or extirpation of a given species (via a diversity of actions, including those taken under SARA, such as this Order) is an integral part of maintaining biodiversity in Canada and conserving Canada’s natural heritage. More diverse ecosystems are generally more stable, and thus the benefits (i.e. goods and services) they provide are also more stable over time.
Using the total economic value framework, the analysis found that the birds in the Order provide many direct and indirect benefits to Canadians, for example:
1. Nutrient cycling and seed dispersal: Many bird species, including the migratory birds listed in this Order, distribute nutrients derived from the consumption of insects, fruit, seeds and fishfootnote 20 and disperse seeds within ecosystems;
2. Birding and ecotourism: According to the 2012 Canadian Nature Survey,footnote 21 4.7 million Canadians engage in birding activities yearly (18% of 2012 Canadian population.footnote 22 On average, birding participants spent 133 days and $201 (Can$ 2012) per participant engaging in this activity;
3. Pest and weed control: Many bird species, such as the ones listed in this Order, are also beneficial to plants and crops by controlling pests on agricultural land since a large percentage of their summer diet is composed of crop-damaging insects (i.e. caterpillars, grasshoppers, ants, wasps, flies, beetles, mayflies):footnote 23
(a)	For example, the McCown’s Longspur feeds its young almost exclusively with grasshoppers (90% of their diet). The Lark Bunting also relies heavily on grasshoppers for its diet. These species could act as a pest control. In the past, there have been programs with the federal government,footnote 24 in collaboration with academia and private industry, with extensive budgets for projects to encourage non-pesticide alternatives for grasshopper control in Alberta. This indicates there is a value to the agricultural industry of controlling the grasshopper population.
4. Existence value: Several studies estimate willingness to pay values for the preservation of iconic or charismatic species, concluding that rare species generally attract higher values than non-rare ones, and thus provide larger social benefits. A key meta-analysisfootnote 25 on threatened and endangered species has found that U.S. households are willing to pay, on average, between $25 and $134 per household per year to avoid the loss of one iconic bird species. These studies may be indicative of the value that Canadian individuals or households place on the species in this Order.
(a)	One studyfootnote 26 estimated that an average household in the Netherlands is willing to pay the equivalent of $25 annually for the protection of endangered migratory birds.
5. Co-benefits: Protection of one species can also provide additional protection of another species or valuable ecosystem. For example, the Louisiana Waterthrush requires an area-specific habitat that is especially pristine, with high fish abundance and high ecological status for anglers. Lark Bunting and McCown’s Longspurs share native grassland habitat with multiple other wildlife species. The protection measures put in place to protect these two birds will benefit other species who share the same habitat.
Finally, there is also an option value associated with these species, i.e. Canadian residents and firms may hold a value associated with the preservation of Canadian genetic information that may be used in the future for biological, medicinal, genetic engineering and other applications. Economic theory also suggests there is a benefit to erring on the side of avoiding an irreversible outcome (i.e. extinction).footnote 27
In terms of incremental costs associated with implementing the Order relative to baseline conditions, the following matters were considered:
Costs to Indigenous peoples and stakeholders of complying with general prohibitions;
Potential implications of a critical habitat protection order on federal lands, if one is required in the future;footnote 28
The analysis of potential changes to critical habitat protections on federal land resulting from the Order is illustrative, based upon best available information and reasonable assumptions at this stage;
Government costs of recovery strategy, action plan or management plan development, permit applications and issuance, compliance promotion and enforcement; and
Implications for environmental assessments.
As indicated above, if critical habitat is identified on federal land, it must be protected. This protection can be afforded by existing federal laws or by provisions under SARA, including conservation agreements, publication of the description of critical habitat where it is found in a protected area, or the issuing of a ministerial order to prohibit the destruction of critical habitat on federal lands.
It is important to note a distinction regarding critical habitat on non-federal lands. If any future critical habitat identified on non-federal lands and that is not covered under the MBCA is determined by the competent minister to be insufficiently protected, a decision to issue an order to protect that critical habitat could be made by the Governor in Council. Any such future decision is not considered as an incremental impact of this Order, but is an important potential downstream implication that is acknowledged.
Costs associated with general prohibition
As mentioned, the nine bird species included in the Order are migratory birds that are protected by the MBCA everywhere they are found in Canada.
Upon listing of a migratory bird species as threatened or endangered under SARA, currently active and future permits will need to also meet the requirements of subsections 73(2) to 73(6.1) and 73(7) of SARA. In most cases, the incremental effort to do so will essentially be limited to the applicant providing the necessary data to demonstrate that the three pre-conditions stated in subsection 73(3) of SARA have been met, and to some additional review by officials. There will be no change to permit applications on Parks Canada lands.
Therefore, minimal incremental costs associated with complying with the general prohibitions under SARA can be expected for Indigenous peoples or stakeholders because minimal additional compliance activities will result from adding the species to Schedule 1 of SARA where similar prohibitions are already in place under the MBCA.
Potential critical habitat protection
Critical habitat is defined as the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species. Not all of a species’ current habitat would necessarily be deemed critical habitat. The identification of critical habitat is a science-based process that uses the best available information and is guided by a frameworkfootnote 29designed to be flexible enough to adapt to the various situations encountered by recovery practitioners, but structured enough to provide consistency in how critical habitat is identified and presented. The identification of critical habitat in federal recovery documents is reviewed by affected Indigenous organizations, wildlife management boards, partners, stakeholders and jurisdictions and is also open to a public consultation process.
If critical habitatfootnote 30 for a listed species is identified during the creation of a recovery strategy or an action plan, and federal legislation does not already protect the habitat, the competent minister is obligated under subsection 58(4) of SARA to make a critical habitat protection order to put protections for that habitat in place. In the event that such an order is made, it would be considered an incremental impact of the decision to list a species. The analysis does not consider potential orders outside federal lands, i.e. orders made under subsections other than 58(5.1) of SARA, as these would require a separate Governor in Council (GIC) decision, and the incremental impacts of such an order would be examined at that time.
However, there is a great deal of uncertainty at the time of listing over whether any such order would ever occur and where it would apply, because critical habitat is only identified during the development of a recovery strategy (which establishes the population and distribution objectives for the species) or subsequently in an action plan. At the time of listing, the population and distribution objectives are unknown; therefore, the amount and location of critical habitat needed to meet those objectives is also unknown, as is whether critical habitat will be identified on federal lands. Nevertheless, for the reasons outlined below, the likely incremental cost impacts of potential future critical habitat protection orders on federal land for the species in this Order would be low. In the event such an order was made, further analysis would be presented in a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) accompanying the order.
Cassin’s Auklet, Evening Grosbeak and Red-necked Phalarope:
The listing of these species as special concern will not trigger critical habitat identification.
Pink-footed Shearwater and Red Crossbill percna subspecies:
The reclassification of these species from threatened to endangered or vice versa will not trigger any incremental impacts beyond those associated with the original decision to list the species.
Black Swift, Lark Bunting, Louisiana Waterthrush and McCown’s Longspur:
To address the uncertainty associated with the lack of defined critical habitat at the time of listing, the analysis assumed that all suitable land for breeding, nesting, feeding, foraging, and roosting on federal land within the range of each species could possibly be identified as critical habitat and consequently protected under a critical habitat protection order. This is a conservative approach, since the critical habitat to be identified in the future might only comprise a portion of the range of a species. Nonetheless, all hypothetical impacts of a critical habitat protection order on stakeholders active on federal lands within the range of the species have been examined. This ensures that any potential impacts to stakeholders have been considered for any scenario in which critical habitat protection could be put in place on federal land.
This analysis focused on economic activities occurring within the range of the species, specifically on federal lands. The definition of federal lands includes First Nations reserves and any other lands that are set apart for the use and benefit of a band under the Indian Act and all the waters on and airspace above those reserves and lands.
The analysis used Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to determine economic activities on federal land where the species occur. Databases of federal propertiesfootnote 31 and Indigenous landsfootnote 32 were overlaid with the ranges of the species. Combined with major known threats to survival in Canada, as identified by COSEWIC, this approach provides a conservative view on potential changes for stakeholders arising from critical habitat protection.
Despite this broad scope, and the uncertainties involved, analysis at this time did not reveal any major impacts. To date, the protections under SARA for individuals and residences have been considered to provide minimal incremental protection compared with existing protections for birds, nests and nest shelters under the MBR and the MBCA. Critical habitat protections under SARA are broader than protections offered to nests and nest shelters under the MBCA (e.g. protection can be provided for non-nest residences, against habitat conversion for agricultural land or oil and gas development). However, given the limited scope of these activities on federal lands, and the flexibilities inherent in defining critical habitat for species that exist across Canada, incremental costs associated with critical habitat protection on federal lands are likely to be low.
Specifically, the McCown’s Longspur and the Lark Bunting are grassland bird species. They already benefit from the integrated conservation work that has been under way for several years in specific “focal areas,” such as South of the Divide in southwestern Saskatchewan, or as part of multi-species recovery and action plans.
The GIS analysis showed that the McCown’s Longspur range is fully encompassed in the Lark Bunting range, and approximately 100% of the McCown’s Longspur and 83% of the Lark Bunting ranges are encompassed in the range of Chestnut Collared Longspur, another species at risk that has already been listed as threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA. Sprague’s Pipit is another species already listed as threatened whose range fully encompasses the ranges of McCown’s Longspur and Lark Bunting. Considering that Chestnut Collared Longspur and Sprague’s Pipit already have recovery strategies and partial identification of critical habitat, an analysis was done to identify any reasonable assumptions that could be made for the critical habitat to be identified for McCown’s Longspur and Lark Bunting based on the work that has been completed to date for these two listed species.
Sprague’s Pipit has similar biological attributes and potential threats as McCown’s Longspur and Lark Bunting, including habitat conversion for oil and gas development. It is assumed that when critical habitat identification occurs, there is a high likelihood that it will overlap with what has been identified for the Sprague’s Pipit. Therefore, any potential impacts to the oil and gas industry on federal land were not considered incremental to this Order.
Chestnut Collared Longspur has similar biological attributes and potential threats as McCown’s Longspur and Lark Bunting, such as habitat conversion for agricultural practices. It is assumed that when critical habitat identification occurs, there is a high likelihood that it will overlap with what has been identified for Chestnut Collared Longspur. Therefore, any potential impacts to the agricultural industry were not considered incremental to this Order.
Recovery strategy, action plan and management plan development
Some administrative costs for the development of recovery strategies, action plans and management plans will be incurred by the federal government. Recovery strategy and action plan development is estimated to cost $40,000 to $50,000 per species (undiscounted), for a total present value of $140,000 to $175,000 for the species in this group. The development of a management plan for the three species of special concern is expected to cost up to $10,000 per species (undiscounted), for a total present value of $27,000. Updates to recovery strategies and action plans are estimated to cost up to $10,000 per document per species, for a total present value of up to $35,000. While costs may be incurred in the implementation of recovery documents, it is not possible to estimate the exact costs at this time because stewardship actions that will help to recover the species have not yet been developed.
Enforcement and compliance promotion
The management regime for these birds under SARA is expected to be consistent with how they have been managed to date under the MBR. As a result, little additional enforcement effort is anticipated beyond existing efforts to enforce the MBCA; therefore, no additional costs are anticipated.
A compliance promotion plan has been drafted for the Order and it is anticipated that compliance promotion activities will cost approximately $1,000 to the Government of Canada during the year following the coming into force of the Order. Compliance promotion activities will include updates to the SAR Public Registry and notifications to federal land managers and to the Enforcement Branch of the Department of the Environment.
Although it is not certain that additional permit requirements will be triggered as a result of the Order, permits will be required for activities that would otherwise be prohibited under SARA. For the Parks Canada Agency, permits may be issued under the Canada National Parks Act (CNPA) that have the same effect as a permit issued under subsection 73(1) of SARA, as provided for by section 74 of SARA. In either case, the SARA permit or CNPA authorization contains terms and conditions considered necessary for protecting the species, minimizing the impact of the authorized activity on the species or providing for its recovery.
A review of existing MBCA permits indicated that no permit applications were received up until now for the species included in this Order. It is assumed that permit applications will come following listing because of increased interest for the species and eligibility to funding programs that support scientific research and recovery work following listing. None of the species nest in anthropogenic structures; therefore, it is expected that most permit applications will be for SARA-compliant MBCA permits or SARA-compliant CNPA permits.
It is estimated that up to 25 permits could be requested in the 10 years following the listing of the species by other levels of government, industry, First Nations and those conducting scientific research on the species. The incremental cost to applicants is estimated at $21,500 in labour (undiscounted). The incremental costs to the Government of Canada (including additional expenses and labour) associated with these permit requests in the 10 years following listing could be up to $19,000 (undiscounted). This includes costs associated with updating currently active permits and issuing new ones due to a possible increase in the number of scientific permits requested.
In general, the incremental costs to the Government of Canada for SARA-compliant permit applications are $500 per permit, including costs associated with reviewing permits, assessing applications, and communicating with applicants.
Applying for SARA permits for scientific or beneficial activities where a previous MBCA or CNPA permit was required usually involves incremental costs ranging from $300 to $600 per permit (undiscounted), depending on the level of familiarity of the applicant with the permitting process.
Other industry applicants that may be applying for a new SARA permit on federal land could assume a cost of up to $2,400 per species. footnote 33
For permits related to high-impact development projects, costs could rise to the tens of thousands of dollars. However, many such projects would undergo an environmental assessment process that requires proponents to gather large amounts of information on species at risk. In such cases, the costs associated with gathering this information are not fully attributable to the listing of the species under SARA.
There could be some implications for projects footnote 34 required to undergo an environmental assessment by or under an Act of Parliament (hereafter referred to as a federal EA). However, any costs are expected to be minimal relative to the total costs of performing a federal EA. Once a species is listed in Schedule 1 of SARA, under any designation, additional requirements under section 79 of SARA are triggered for project proponents and government officials undertaking a federal EA. These requirements include identifying all adverse effects that the project could have on the species and its critical habitat and, if the project is carried out, ensuring that measures are taken to avoid or lessen those effects and to monitor them. However, the Department of the Environment always recommends to proponents in environmental assessment guidelines (early in the environmental assessment process) to evaluate effects on species already assessed by COSEWIC that may become listed on Schedule 1 of SARA in the near future; therefore, these costs are likely already incorporated in the baseline scenario.
Given the analysis above, the overall costs to the Government of Canada of listing these species are anticipated to be low, and low costs are anticipated for Indigenous peoples and stakeholders. Costs will arise from the development of recovery strategies, action plans or management plans that are required when a species is listed under SARA, and from compliance promotion and enforcement activities.
Based on the list of species included in the Order, the overall cost to Government is estimated to be between $200,000 and $235,000 over 10 years (2019–2028), discounted at 3% to a base year of 2018.
For all permits, the administrative cost to the federal government is estimated at $21,500 (undiscounted). For all permits, the incremental cost to applicants (i.e. private industry, Indigenous peoples, other levels of government, research and science) is estimated at $19,000 (undiscounted).
The extent of future critical habitat protection is undetermined at this stage, but an analysis of species occurrences relative to land tenure and current protections suggests that minimal associated costs are expected.
Although the number of permit applications that will be triggered as a result of the Order is unknown, preparing the permit application will represent an administrative cost to the applicants. Therefore, the amendments are considered to be an “IN” under the Government of Canada’s “One-for-One” Rule.
Based on data from past permit applications, it is assumed that approximately 6 permits could be requested by businesses for the following species: Lark Bunting, Black Swift, Louisiana Waterthrush, and McCown’s Longspur. Up to 25 potential permit applications could be received from scientists/researchers, industry, and some levels of government in the 10 years following listing.
The six permit applications from businesses could give rise to one-time administrative costs that are estimated to be $975 on an annualized basis (2012 Canadian dollars, discounted at 7% to a base year of 2012) on the part of business applicants, or $162 in annualized administrative costs per business (2012 Canadian dollars, discounted at 7% to a base year of 2012). These estimates are based on the experience of SARA permit administrators and data from previously requested permits.
A new permit application is estimated to take approximately 27 hours of the applicant’s time, for activities such as familiarization with the application requirements, information collection/retrieval and application completion and submission. For properties that already require a permit under another Act of Parliament for an activity to take place (e.g. national parks, national wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries), the additional work required to make the permit SARA-compliant would require an estimated 7 hours, at an estimated cost of $596 per permit application.
The small business lens does not apply to this Order, as the nationwide cost impacts of the Order are below $1 million per year and costs for small businesses are not considered disproportionately high.
With the listing order in place, small businesses could seek a SARA permit under paragraph 73(2)(c) of SARA. Permits are assessed on a case-by-case basis and would be granted only where all reasonable alternatives are considered and the best solution is adopted, all feasible measures are taken to minimize the impact of the activity, and the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species. It is assumed that up to half of the permit applications for activities where the applicant is from a private industry could qualify as small businesses and as a result, up to three permit applications could be received from small businesses.
Under SARA, the independent scientific assessment of the status of wildlife species conducted by COSEWIC and the decision made by the Governor in Council to afford legal protection by placing a wildlife species on Schedule 1 of the Act are two distinct processes. This separation guarantees that scientists work independently when assessing the biological status of wildlife species and that Canadians have the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process of determining whether or not wildlife species will be listed under SARA to receive legal protections.
The Department begins initial public consultations with the posting of the Minister’s response statements on the SAR Public Registry within 90 days of receiving a copy of an assessment of the status of a wildlife species from COSEWIC. Indigenous peoples and organizations, stakeholders, and the general public are also consulted by means of a publicly posted document titled Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act: Terrestrial Species . Initial consultations with interested stakeholders and members of the public took place from January to May 2016 for Black Swift and Cassin’s Auklet; from January to October 2016 (extended consultations) for Red-necked Phalarope; from January to May 2017 for Louisiana Waterthrush, McCown’s Longspur and Red Crossbill percna subspecies; and from January to May 2018 for Evening Grosbeak, Lark Bunting and Pink-footed Shearwater.
The consultation documents provide information on the species, including the reason for their designation, a biological description and location information. They also provide an overview of the listing process. These documents were distributed directly to over 3 600 recipients, including Indigenous peoples and organizations, wildlife management boards, footnote 35 provincial and territorial governments, various industrial sectors, resource users, landowners and environmental non-governmental organizations.
Consultation results summary
The Department received 56 comments regarding the species included in this regulatory package. Comments were received from provinces, territories, environmental non-governmental organizations, individual First Nations, Indigenous organizations, wildlife management boards, individuals and municipalities. The vast majority of comments supported or did not oppose the modifications to Schedule 1 of SARA, while 3 comments opposed the listing of species or expressed concerns about the potential impacts of listing.
Evening Grosbeak and Red-necked Phalarope occur in areas in which a wildlife management board is authorized by a land claims agreement to perform functions in respect of a wildlife species. All wildlife management boards that had been identified in the response statements for the two species were consulted according to the processes outlined in the land claim agreements, and all expressed their support to the addition of the species to Schedule 1 of SARA.
The first opposing comment came from a province and pertained to the Red-necked Phalarope. The province indicated its opposition to the listing of the species as a species of special concern, indicating it has all the legislative and regulatory tools to protect the species.
Response from the Department: The preamble of the Species at Risk Act indicates that “responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among the governments in this country and that it is important for them to work cooperatively to pursue the establishment of complementary legislation and programs for the protection and recovery of species at risk in Canada.” The Department welcomes measures taken by provinces and territories to offer protection to species at risk within their jurisdictions; however, it is still necessary for the Government of Canada to take action, as provincial protections do not apply on federal land.
The second comment came from an individual who resides in southwestern Saskatchewan and who opposes the up-listing of McCown’s Longspur. They indicate in their letter that they have a large holding of native prairie grasslands and that a recent bird inventory on their land showed a large number of these birds. As their land is surrounded with thousands of acres of similar habitat, they feel there is little need of up-listing this bird and feel a more accurate method of inventorying species needs to be developed with landholders.
Response from the Department: The Department notes that the purpose of SARA is to prevent the extinction of species and provide for their recovery in Canada as a whole, as opposed to individual land holdings or jurisdictions. In order for a subspecies to be recognized, which could lead to different designations in different areas, populations have to be significant or discrete from those found in other regions of Canada, which is not the case for McCown’s Longspur. The COSEWIC assessment also states that the species has declined by at least 30% in the past 10 years and by 98% since 1970.
The third opposing comment came from a First Nation and was related to the Red Crossbill percna subspecies, which is proposed for down-listing from endangered to threatened following the discovery of a small subpopulation on Anticosti Island. The First Nation argues that the discovery of the new subpopulation does not justify down-listing the species, especially since the transfer of individuals (therefore gene transfer) between the newly discovered subpopulation and other populations has not been demonstrated.
Response from the Department: The Department acknowledges that there are significant uncertainties associated with the abundance and trends for this and many other species. However, the change in status as assessed by COSEWIC was based on the best available information and no new information has been provided that could be grounds for COSEWIC to change its assessment of the status of the species. In addition, a change from endangered to threatened does not result in any changes in the level of protection afforded the species. The final version of the recovery document is available, but would have to be amended to accommodate the discovery of the new subpopulation on Anticosti Island. Should the recovery strategy be amended, the Department will conduct consultations on the proposed amendments, thereby providing another opportunity for comments and feedback.
Many of the authors of the comments indicated their interest in participating in the recovery planning process.
Public comment period following publication in the Canada Gazette , Part I
The proposed Order and accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement were published in the Canada Gazette , Part I, on December 29, 2018, for a 45-day public comment period. Links to these documents were also posted on the SAR Public Registry and on social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) and a notice of the public comment period was sent to Indigenous peoples and stakeholders.
The Department of the Environment received 314 comments on the regulatory proposal during the public comment period from provinces, Indigenous peoples, environmental non-governmental organizations, businesses, academics and individuals. The vast majority of comments supported or did not oppose the proposed changes, while 9 opposing comments were received. Most comments (284 in total) originated from a letter-writing campaign initiated by an environmental non-governmental organization and supported the proposed modifications to Schedule 1 of SARA.
The nine opposing comments received during the 45-day public comment period originated from three different stakeholders: a municipality association, a province and an individual. Two of the comments are related to Evening Grosbeak, two to Red-necked Phalarope, one to all nine species, and one for each of the following species: Lark Bunting, McCown’s Longspur, Louisiana Waterthrush and Red Crossbill percna subspecies. These are discussed in turn below.
Existing protections under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994
One respondent opposed the listing of Evening Grosbeak, Lark Bunting, McCown’s Longspur and Red-necked Phalarope. They indicated that, in their view, the species should not be added to Schedule 1 of SARA because their habitat is already protected under the MBCA or through sharing habitat with other species that are listed under SARA.
Response from the Department: The benefits of listing a species under SARA go beyond the application of the protections of individuals and their residences. As mentioned in the “Background” section of this document, adding a species to Schedule 1 of SARA is the first step to allowing for a number of protection measures to be implemented, including the development of a recovery strategy and one or more action plans; the identification and protection of the species’ critical habitat; and the availability of funding for research to address the information gaps identified in a schedule of studies. Listing under SARA also provides the possibility of invoking SARA’s “safety net” mechanisms should the Minister be of the opinion that the laws of a province or territory do not effectively protect the species or the residences of its individuals.
Opposition from one province
One province indicated its opposition to the listing of Evening Grosbeak, Red-necked Phalarope, Louisiana Waterthrush and Red Crossbill percna subspecies, indicating that it has all the necessary legislative and regulatory tools to protect the species. It also indicated that socio-economic analyses should be performed to identify the impacts of adding Louisiana Waterthrush and Red Crossbill percna subspecies to Schedule 1 of SARA.
Response from the Department: As mentioned in the section above, the preamble of the Species at Risk Act indicates that “responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among the governments in this country and that it is important for them to work cooperatively to pursue the establishment of complementary legislation and programs for the protection and recovery of species at risk in Canada.” The Department of the Environment welcomes measures taken by provinces and territories to offer protection to species at risk within their jurisdictions. However, it is still necessary for the Government of Canada to take action, as adding a species to Schedule 1 of SARA is the first step to allowing for a number of protection measures to be implemented, as presented in the response to the previous comment.
As per The Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management , departments are responsible for assessing the benefits and costs when determining whether and how to regulate. The Department of the Environment undertook such an analysis and identified the potential positive and negative economic, environmental, and social impacts of the proposed Order. This analysis was presented earlier in the “Benefits and costs” section of this document. It concluded that the cost impact of adding Louisiana Waterthrush and Red Crossbill percna to Schedule 1 of SARA would be low.
An individual wrote to express their opposition to the modifications to Schedule 1 of SARA, but did not indicate the reasons behind their position.
The Department is committed to a collaborative process throughout the assessment, listing and recovery planning processes. The results of the public consultations are of great significance to the process of listing species at risk. The Department carefully reviews the comments it receives to gain a better understanding of the benefits and costs of changing Schedule 1 of SARA.
Details on each species are provided in Annex 1.
Biodiversity is crucial to ecosystem productivity, health and resiliency, yet it is rapidly declining worldwide as species become extinct. footnote 36 The Order supports the survival and recovery of nine species at risk in Canada, thus contributing to the maintenance of biodiversity in Canada. In the case of the six endangered or threatened species, they will be protected on federal lands through the general prohibitions of SARA, which include prohibitions on killing, harming, harassing, capturing, possessing, collecting, buying, selling and trading. In addition, these species will benefit from the development of recovery strategies and action plans that identify the main threats to species survival, as well as identify, when possible, the critical habitat that is necessary for their survival and recovery in Canada. In addition, three species listed as species of special concern will benefit from the development of a management plan, which includes measures for the conservation of the species.
The Order will help Canada meet its commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. A strategic environmental assessment concluded that the Order will result in important positive environmental effects. Specifically, it demonstrated that the protection of wildlife species at risk contributes to national biodiversity and protects ecosystem productivity, health and resiliency. Given the interdependency of species, a loss of biodiversity can lead to decreases in ecosystem functions and services. These services are important to the health of Canadians and have important ties to Canada’s economy. Small changes within an ecosystem resulting in the loss of individuals and species can therefore have adverse, irreversible and broad-ranging effects.
The amendments to Schedule 1 of SARA will have important positive environmental effects. They will support the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) footnote 37 goal of “Healthy wildlife populations” and the following target: “By 2020, species that are secure remain secure, and populations of species at risk listed under federal law exhibit trends that are consistent with recovery strategies and management plans.” The amendments will support this goal by helping to ensure that species are provided appropriate protection. They will also indirectly contribute to the FSDS goal of “Effective action on climate change” by supporting the conservation of biodiversity, because many ecosystems play a key role in mitigating climate change impacts. These actions will also support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals concerning Life on Land (goal 15) and Climate Action (goal 13). footnote 38
In summary, listing of the species will benefit Canadians in many ways, yet no major costs will be borne by Indigenous peoples or stakeholders. The costs to Government are expected to be relatively low.
Following the listing, the Department will implement a compliance promotion plan. Compliance promotion initiatives are proactive measures that encourage voluntary compliance with the law through education and outreach activities and raise awareness and understanding of the prohibitions. Potentially affected Indigenous peoples and stakeholders will be reached in order to
increase their awareness and understanding of the Order;
promote the adoption of behaviours that will contribute to the overall conservation and protection of wildlife at risk;
increase compliance with the Order; and
enhance their knowledge regarding species at risk.
These objectives will be accomplished by creating and disseminating information products to explain the new prohibitions applicable on federal lands for threatened or endangered species; the recovery planning process that follows listing and how stakeholders can get involved; and general information on each of the species. These resources will be posted on the SAR Public Registry. Mail-outs and presentations to targeted audiences may also be considered appropriate.
In Parks Canada protected heritage places, front-line staff will be given the appropriate information regarding the species at risk found within their sites so that they can inform visitors on prevention measures and engage them in the protection and conservation of species at risk.
Subsequent to listing, the preparation and implementation of recovery strategies, action plans or management plans may result in recommendations for further regulatory action for the protection of wildlife species. It may also draw on the provisions of other Acts of Parliament to provide required protection.
SARA provides for penalties for contraventions to the Act, including fines or imprisonment as well as seizure and forfeiture of things seized or of the proceeds of their disposition. Agreements on alternative measures may also be used to deal with an alleged offender under certain conditions. SARA also provides for inspections and search and seizure operations by enforcement officers designated under SARA. Under the penalty provisions of the Act, a corporation found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $300,000; a non-profit corporation is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000; and any other person is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both. A corporation found guilty of an indictable offence is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000,000; a non-profit corporation, to a fine of not more than $250,000; and any other person, to a fine of not more than $250,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both.
As stated above, section 73 of SARA allows individuals to apply to the Minister for a permit to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals. Given that the nine migratory bird species are protected under the MBCA, the permitting option for the particular activity must also be available under the MBCA. Upon notifying an applicant that their application for a section 73 permit is received, the Minister has 90 days to either issue or refuse to issue the permit. footnote 39
The Permits Authorizing an Activity Affecting Listed Wildlife Species Regulations contribute to consistency, predictability and transparency in the SARA permitting process by providing applicants with clear and measurable service standards for the section 73 permit application process. The Department of the Environment measures its service performance annually, and performance information is posted on the Department website footnote 40 no later than June 1 for the preceding fiscal year.
Species at Risk Act Policy and Regulatory Affairs
Telephone: 1-800‑668‑6767
Email: ec.LEPreglementations-SARAregulations.ec@canada.ca
Annex 1 — Description of species being added or reclassified to Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act
Black Swift ( Cypseloides niger )
COSEWIC assessed this species as endangered in May 2015.
The Black Swift is the largest swift in North America and a migratory bird protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 . It has an almost entirely blackish plumage, has long, pointed wings, and is the only North American swift with a notched tail. It feeds exclusively on flying insects and has many unusual life-history traits compared to other landbird species (single egg clutch, extended maturation, remote waterfall and cave nesting sites). The Black Swift may be a sensitive indicator for climate change, as its waterfall nesting sites are likely to be impacted by decreased snow pack and glacial melt.
Canada is believed to harbour about 81% of the North American population, the vast majority of which occurs in British Columbia. Often foraging at high altitude, Black Swifts fly over open country and forests in mountainous areas and lowlands, pursuing aerial insects.
The most important threats to the species are believed to be airborne pollutants, which reduce aerial insect food availability and/or potentially cause reproductive failure in swifts, and climate change. Other threats such as problematic native species, logging, annual and perennial non-timber crops, livestock farming and ranching, hydroelectric dams and water management, and recreational activities were considered as being negligible.
Four species-specific comments were received regarding the Black Swift from one provincial government, two environmental non-governmental organizations and one individual. All comments were supportive or did not oppose listing.
Following the publication of the proposed Order in the Canada Gazette , Part I, two comments that did not oppose the listing of the species were received.
Listing rationale
Like many other birds that specialize on a diet of flying insects, this species has experienced a large population decline over recent decades. The causes of the decline are not well understood, but are believed to be related to changes in food supply that may be occurring at one or more points in its life cycle. The magnitude and geographic extent of the decline are causes for conservation concern.
Cassin’s Auklet ( Ptychoramphus aleuticus )
COSEWIC assessed this species as a species of special concern in November 2014.
Cassin’s Auklet is a small grey seabird that comprises almost half of all seabirds nesting in British Columbia. About 75–80% of the global population breeds in British Columbia, nesting in burrows in forested or treeless habitats on islands. Cassin’s Auklets lay a single-egg clutch, which is incubated by both parents on alternating days for about 38 days. After the egg hatches, parents return to the burrow at night to feed the nestling for about 45 days. The young are independent at fledging.
This species faces threats from climate change, introduced mammalian predators, and oil spills. Climate change is expected to result in warmer ocean temperatures and more frequent El Niño events, both of which have negative consequences for Cassin’s Auklet reproduction and survival. The impacts are expected to be most severe and immediate in the California Current System. Rats, raccoons and mink cause notable destruction to, and possibly extirpation of, colonies. The threat of oil contamination from chronic or catastrophic spills is ongoing and expected to increase if offshore vessel traffic increases.
No species-specific comments were received during initial consultations.
Following the publication of the proposed Order in the Canada Gazette , Part I, no comments specific to this species were received.
About 75% of the world population of this ground-nesting seabird occurs in British Columbia. Overall, the Canadian population is thought to be declining, but population monitoring has been insufficient to determine size and trends. The amount of suitable nesting habitat has declined over the past 75 years due to introductions of mammalian predators (rats, raccoons and mink) to colony islands. Changes to vegetation have also decreased the amount of high-quality nesting habitat on some islands since the 1980s. The species also faces other threats when it forages at sea, including large-scale climate change effects on its oceanic prey, and risks from oiling.
Evening Grosbeak ( Coccothraustes vespertinus )
COSEWIC assessed this species as a species of special concern in November 2016.
The Evening Grosbeak is a stocky, boldly coloured songbird, with a massive greenish-yellow bill. In Canada, its distribution includes all Canadian provinces and territories except Nunavut.
Optimal Evening Grosbeak breeding habitat generally includes open, mature mixed-wood forests, where fir species and/or White Spruce are dominant, and Spruce Budworm is abundant. Outside the breeding season, the species seems to depend largely on seed crops from various trees such as firs and spruces in the boreal forest, but is also attracted to ornamental trees that produce seeds or fruit, and bird feeders stocked with sunflower seeds.
Fluctuations of Spruce Budworm populations, which naturally occur every 25–40 years in eastern Canada and every 26 years in western Canada, are likely a key factor in fluctuations of the Evening Grosbeak population since 1970. Known threats to the Evening Grosbeak include mortality caused by window strikes while birds are visiting feeders in winter, reduction of mature and old-growth mixed-wood forests due to commercial forest management, and mortality due to road collisions when individuals feed on grit and road salt. Mortality related to ingestion of sodium chloride along roadsides may also be a threat. Over the long term, there may be a contraction of breeding habitat due to climate change.
Twelve species-specific comments were received regarding the Evening Grosbeak from one provincial government, seven Indigenous governments, one industry association, one environmental non-governmental organization, one federal department and one regional government. All comments were supportive or did not oppose listing.
Following the publication of the proposed Order in the Canada Gazette , Part I, eight comments were received specific to this species. All but two of these comments supported or did not oppose the addition of the species to Schedule 1 of SARA. The opposing comments and a departmental response are presented in the “Consultation” section of this document.
The species has exhibited significant long-term declines (77–90%) over most of its range, since 1970. Over the past decades, some data suggest a further decline of nearly 40%, while other data indicate stabilization at a lower level.
Lark Bunting ( Calamospiza melanocorys )
COSEWIC assessed this species as threatened in November 2016.
The Lark Bunting is a large chunky sparrow with a short tail and relatively large bill. The species is restricted to breeding in the grasslands of west-central North America, from the southern Canadian prairies through the Great Plains of the central United States into northern Mexico. In Canada, Lark Buntings are found in southeastern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and southwestern Manitoba. They spend the non-breeding season in the southwest United States and north-central Mexico.
Lark Buntings occur in a variety of grassland habitats, including shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie, weedy fallow fields, pastures, and croplands. They prefer habitat with a combination of grass, shrubby vegetation and bare ground for nesting. Shrubs or tall grasses near the nest provide shading and concealment from predators. In Canada, the species appears to use managed agricultural areas such as hayfields, cultivated grasslands and roadside ditches, in addition to native grasslands.
Little is known about threats specific to the Canadian Lark Bunting population. Over much of the Great Plains, habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation due to agriculture, urbanization and resource extraction are considered the primary threats to the species, along with the effects of pesticides.
One species-specific comment that did not oppose the listing was received from an Indigenous government regarding Lark Bunting.
Following the publication of the proposed Order in the Canada Gazette , Part I, one opposing comment was received with regards to the listing of the species. The opposing comment and a departmental response are presented in the “Consultation” section of this document.
This grassland songbird is at the northern edge of its range in the Canadian Prairies. It is nomadic, with breeding populations shifting considerably from year to year to track favourable conditions across the regional landscape, seeking peak abundance of grasshoppers. Population estimates therefore fluctuate substantially and complicate the estimation of short-term trends, but long-term data show a decline of 98% since 1970. Over most of the past decade, the trend has remained strongly negative.
A number of limiting factors make Lark Buntings susceptible to decline. They rely heavily on the availability of vegetative cover to minimize thermal stress while nesting. They are sensitive to drought conditions, when their main food (grasshoppers) is less abundant, and they experience increased competition with other grassland bird species and a resultant lower rate of recruitment. Conversely, they are also vulnerable to heavy rainfall events on the breeding grounds, and to fluctuations in seed availability on their wintering grounds.
Louisiana Waterthrush ( Parkesia motacilla )
The Louisiana Waterthrush was listed to Schedule 1 of SARA as a species of special concern in December 2007. COSEWIC reassessed the species as threatened in November 2015.
The Louisiana Waterthrush is a relatively large, drab wood-warbler that resembles a small thrush. In Canada, the species breeds in southern Ontario, where it is considered a rare, but regular local summer resident in the Norfolk Sand Plain region bordering the north shore of Lake Erie, and the central Niagara Escarpment between Hamilton and Owen Sound. It is also a rare, but sporadic breeder in southwestern Quebec.
The Louisiana Waterthrush occupies specialized habitat, showing a strong preference for nesting and wintering along relatively pristine headwater streams and wetlands situated in large tracts of mature forest. Although it prefers running water (especially clear, cold water streams), it also inhabits heavily wooded swamps with vernal or semi-permanent pools.
The species is a habitat specialist and its global population is limited by the supply of high-quality aquatic habitat on both its breeding and wintering grounds. There isn’t a specific threat to the survival of the Canadian population; rather, it is the cumulative effects of many threats at different stages of its annual life cycle that are of particular concern. Habitat loss and changes in water quality/quantity due to agricultural intensification and suburban residential development may have contributed to declines observed in parts of southern Ontario. Habitat conditions in Canada are expected to further deteriorate due to the anticipated spread of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, an exotic forest pest, into eastern Canada.
Four species-specific comments were received regarding the Louisiana Waterthrush from one provincial government, two First Nations and one regional municipality. All comments were supportive or did not oppose listing.
Following the publication of the proposed Order in the Canada Gazette , Part I, two comments were received specific to this species. One of these comments did not oppose the addition of the species to Schedule 1 of SARA, while the other one did oppose it. The opposing comment and a departmental response are presented in the “Consultation” section of this document.
Rationale for reclassification
Since this species was last assessed by COSEWIC in 2006, new information has been made available on the species: its distribution and abundance; its nesting productivity and parasitism rates; and some information on site fidelity, site turnover, and return rates in Ontario. New and emerging threats on the breeding grounds are impacting breeding habitat in the northern United States range, which is considered an essential source of immigrants to sustain the small Canadian population. New forest pest species are also expected to affect forest habitat in the Canadian breeding range in the near future. Other threats to the population in southern Ontario are continuing. The Canadian population is small, probably consisting of fewer than 500 adults, but breeding pairs are difficult to detect. Population trends for the Canadian population are uncertain. Declines have been noted in some parts of the Canadian range, particularly in its stronghold in southwestern Ontario, while new pairs have been found in others. Immigration of individuals from the northeastern United States is thought to be important to maintaining the Canadian population. However, while the U.S. source population currently appears to be fairly stable, it may be subject to future population declines due to emerging threats to habitat.
McCown’s Longspur ( Rhynchophanes mccownii )
The McCown’s Longspur was listed to Schedule 1 of SARA as a species of special concern in December 2007. COSEWIC reassessed the species as threatened in April 2016.
The McCown’s Longspur is a grey or greyish-brown sparrow-like songbird that breeds in short-grass prairie, non-native pastures, closely grazed mixed-grass prairie, and some cultivated fields from southern Alberta and eastern Montana to southern Saskatchewan and the western edge of the Dakotas. The Canadian population is estimated from Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) results as 138 000 adults, which is about 23% of the global population. The best available information on trends, from the BBS, suggests the species declined by 98% in Canada between 1970 and 2012 and by at least 30% in the 10-year period between 2002 and 2012.
The species breeds in dry, sparse, short-cropped grassland with bare patches and few shrubs or forbs. Such habitat includes short-grass prairie, non-native pastures, closely grazed mixed-grass prairie, and some cultivated fields. The breeding habitat declined historically through the last century, and habitat loss and degradation continue, mainly because native grasslands are being converted for agriculture.
Threats include disruptions to natural systems that maintain the species’ habitat, agricultural effluents, oil and gas drilling, annual and perennial non-timber crops, renewable energy development, and transportation and service corridors associated with development.
Five species-specific comments were received regarding the McCown’s Longspur from one provincial government, one First Nation, two environmental non-governmental organizations and one individual. One of the five comments opposed the up-listing, while the others were supportive of the listing or did not oppose it. The opposing comment and a departmental response have been described in the “Consultation” section of this RIAS.
Pink-footed Shearwater ( Ardenna creatopus )
The Pink-footed Shearwater was listed to Schedule 1 of SARA as threatened in July 2005. COSEWIC reassessed the species as endangered in November 2016.
The Pink-footed Shearwater is a stocky seabird about the size of a medium gull. In Canada, the species occurs exclusively off the coast of British Columbia, with observations concentrated off the west coast of Vancouver Island, the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in Queen Charlotte Sound. Numbers in Canada peak from June to October.
Pink-footed Shearwaters nest in burrows that they excavate in the soil of their breeding colonies. In the marine environment, Pink-footed Shearwaters display a preference for biologically productive waters associated with the continental slope, shelf and shelf break.
Threats facing this species at its colonies include human exploitation and disturbance, predation, disturbance and competition from introduced mammals, and habitat loss and destruction, particularly via erosion compounded by vegetation loss. At sea, the species is threatened by interactions with fisheries, oil and other pollution, plastic ingestion, and likely by competition with humans for prey fish.
This long-lived seabird nests on only three islands off the coast of Chile, where it has suffered significant declines due to nest predation by introduced predators, exploitation by humans and habitat degradation. It also experiences mortality due to incidental take by fisheries across its range, including important foraging areas off the coast of British Columbia. Bycatch risk from fisheries has increased over the last three generations. This species is also sensitive to offshore oil spills.
The Red-necked Phalarope is a small shorebird, easily recognized in breeding plumage by the red-orange colour on the sides and base of its neck. The current estimate of species abundance within North America is at least 2 500 000 individuals, about 74% of these individuals occurring in Canada. Red-necked Phalaropes breed in low- and sub-Arctic wetlands.
A change in climate and associated habitat and food-web effects is likely the single greatest threat to Red-necked Phalaropes on their breeding grounds. The drying of freshwater ponds and the expansion of shrubs and trees into low- and sub-Arctic wetland habitats, with a changing climate, is expected to have a significant impact on habitat quality and availability for the species. This species also faces threats due to climate change, prey availability, and pollution, including oil spills.
Twenty-one species-specific comments were received regarding the Red-necked Phalarope. They were received from wildlife management boards, provincial and territorial governments, First Nations and environmental non-governmental organizations. Only one comment opposed the listing while the others were supportive of the listing or did not oppose it. The opposing comment and a departmental response have been described in the “Consultation” section of this RIAS.
Following the publication of the proposed Order in the Canada Gazette , Part I, seven comments were received specific to this species. All but two of these comments supported or did not oppose the addition of the species to Schedule 1 of SARA. The opposing comments and a departmental response are presented in the “Consultation” section of this document.
This bird has declined over the last 40 years in an important staging area; however, overall population trends during the last three generations are unknown. The species faces potential threats on its breeding grounds, including habitat degradation associated with climate change. It is also susceptible to pollutants and oil exposure on migration and during the winter. This is because birds gather in large numbers on the ocean, especially where currents concentrate pollutants.
Red Crossbill percna subspecies ( Loxia curvirostra percna )
The Red Crossbill percna subspecies was listed to Schedule 1 of SARA as endangered in July 2005. COSEWIC re-assessed this species as threatened in April 2016.
The Red Crossbill percna subspecies is a medium-sized specialized seed eater with curved and crossed mandibles, muscular hinged jaws, and strong clasping feet for prying open conifer cone scales to access the seeds. This subspecies is a distinctive taxonomic group and, in Canada, is endemic to the Island of Newfoundland and Anticosti Island in Quebec. The species is dependent on cone-productive boreal forest. The Canadian population of Red Crossbill percna is estimated to be in the low thousands (i.e. 1 000–2 500 mature individuals), based on recent bioacoustic analyses and localized systematic surveys targeting Red Crossbills, as well as on data from Christmas Bird Counts, Breeding Bird Surveys, the Quebec Breeding Bird Atlas, and anecdotal reports from birdwatchers.
Probable threats to this species include competition and predation from introduced Red Squirrels on the Island of Newfoundland; fungal infestations affecting native and non-native pines to the Island of Newfoundland, and insect outbreaks resulting in reduced cone production or tree mortality; natural system modifications (forest fires and forest fire suppression); habitat loss due to development (transportation and service corridors, forestry, mining, quarrying and agriculture); and a fungal disease affecting the Red Pine.
Five species-specific comments were received regarding the Red Crossbill percna subspecies. They were received from First Nations, an Indigenous organization and a regional municipality. Only one comment opposed the listing, while the others were supportive of the listing or did not oppose it. The opposing comment and a departmental response have been described in the “Consultation” section of this RIAS.
This subspecies is a distinctive taxonomic group endemic to Canada. Previously known to breed only on the Island of Newfoundland, it has within the past five years also been documented nesting on Anticosti Island. While the Canadian population is thought to be greater than was understood previously due to the recent discovery of a breeding population component on Anticosti Island, there is no evidence of an increasing trend. On the contrary, this taxon has experienced a substantial long-term decline. Further population decrease is expected based on identified threats, most notably competition and predation from introduced squirrels on the island of Newfoundland, habitat loss due to logging, and a fungal disease affecting Red Pine.
Butchart S. M. H. et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science. 328: 1164–1168.
Bamosky A. D. et al. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471: 51–57.
Hooper D. U. et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological monographs. 75: 3–35.
The Governor in Council is the Governor General of Canada acting by and with the advice of the Queen’s Privy Council of Canada (Cabinet).
Preamble to the Species at Risk Act (2003).
In COSEWIC definitions and abbreviations, an extinct species is defined as a wildlife species that no longer exists.
Section 2 of the Species at Risk Act defines an extirpated species as a wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild.
Protected heritage places under the Parks Canada Agency’s authority include places such as national parks, national historic sites, heritage canals, national marine conservation areas and the Rouge National Urban Park.
More information can be found on COSEWIC’s website.
If the decision is made not to add the wildlife species to Schedule 1 or to refer the assessment back to COSEWIC, the Minister shall include a statement in the SAR Public Registry setting out the reasons for that decision.
The Regulations define “hunting” as chasing, pursuing, worrying, following after or on the trail of, lying in wait for, or attempting in any manner to capture, kill, injure or harass a migratory bird, whether or not the migratory bird is captured, killed or injured.
As indicated below, the protections afforded to threatened and endangered species differ in one area, which is the timeline for posting recovery strategies on the SAR Public Registry: two years for threatened species, and one year for endangered species.
Subsection 34(2) of SARA for provinces and subsection 35(2) for territories.
As per the definition in SARA, “competent minister” means (a) the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency with respect to individuals of the wildlife species in or on federal lands administered by that Agency; (b) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to aquatic species, other than species mentioned in (a); and (c) the Minister of the Environment with respect to all other individuals of the wildlife species.
As per section 61 of SARA.
Species at Risk Act Permitting Policy [Proposed]
For more information, visit the Habitat Stewardship Program for species at risk web page.
One study estimated that birds supply between 12.4% and 52.9% of the total phosphorus (a scarce nutrient), as well as 5.2% to 27% of the total nitrogen for terrestrial ecosystems [Fujita, M. & Koike, F. (2007). Birds transport nutrients to fragmented forests in an urban landscape. Ecological Applications , 17(3), 648-654. doi:10.1890/06-0118].
2012 Canadian Nature Survey (PDF)
2011 Canadian population (18+) estimate used in the study: 26.5 million
Birds help plants: a meta-analysis of top-down trophic cascades caused by avian predators (PDF), Mantyla, E., Klemola, T. & Laaksonen, T. (2011).
Reduced-Risk Strategy for Grasshopper Management
Loomis, J. B., and White, D. S. (1996). Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics , 18(3), 197–206. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(96)00029-8
Brouwer, R., van Beukering, P., and Sultanian, E. (2008). The impact of the bird flu on public willingness to pay for the protection of migratory birds . Ecological Economics , 64(3), 575–585. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.001
Arrow, K. J. and Fisher, A. C. (1974). Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 88(2), 312–319.
Since critical habitat is only identified in a recovery strategy or action plan following listing, the extent of future critical habitat identification is unknown.
Critical Habitat Identification Toolbox
Critical habitat is defined as the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species. Not all of a species’ current habitat would necessarily be deemed critical habitat.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Real Property and Material Policy Directorate. (2014). Directory of Federal Real Property [Shapefile format].
Natural Resources Canada, Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation. (2014). Aboriginal Lands. v2.5.3. [Shapefile format].
Although uncertain at this time, new permits may be applied for if there is habitat conversion in months where the bird and its nest are not present, as these situations would not be covered under the MBCA.
Under section 79 of SARA, a project means a designated project as defined in subsection 2(1) or section 66 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 , a project as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act or a development as defined in subsection 111(1) of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act .
Any board or other body established under a land claims agreement that is authorized by the agreement to perform functions in respect of wildlife species.
Butchart S. M. H. et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science. 328:1164-1168.
Section 3 of the Permits Authorizing an Activity Affecting Listed Wildlife Species Regulations , SOR/2013-140.
Department of the Environment service performance.