ARCHIVED — Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Vol. 145, No. 4 — February 16, 2011

Registration

SOR/2011-8 February 4, 2011

SPECIES AT RISK ACT

P.C. 2011-42 February 3, 2011

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, pursuant to section 27 of the Species at Risk Act (see footnote a), hereby makes the annexed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act.

ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 1 TO THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT

AMENDMENTS

1. Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (see footnote 1) is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “PLANTS”:

Lupine, Oregon (Lupinus oreganus)
Lupin d’Orégon

2. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “MAMMALS”:

Caribou, Peary (Rangifer tarandus pearyi)
Caribou de Peary

3. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “BIRDS”:

Grebe, Horned (Podiceps auritus) Magdalen Islands population
Grèbe esclavonpopulation des îles de la Madeleine

4. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “ARTHROPODS”:

Moth, Edwards’ Beach (Anarta edwardsii)
Noctuelle d’Edwards

Tiger Beetle, Cobblestone (Cicindela marginipennis)
Cicindèle des galets

5. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “PLANTS”:

Buttercup, California (Ranunculus californicus)
Renoncule de Californie

Spike-rush, Bent (Eleocharis geniculata) Great Lakes Plains population
Éléocharide géniculéepopulation des plaines des Grands Lacs

Spike-rush, Bent (Eleocharis geniculata) Southern Mountain population
Éléocharide géniculéepopulation des montagnes du Sud

6. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “BIRDS”:

Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus)
Engoulevent bois-pourri

7. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “PLANTS”:

Aster, White-top (Sericocarpus rigidus)
Aster rigide

8. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “PLANTS”:

Desert-parsley, Gray’s (Lomatium grayi)
Lomatium de Gray

Popcornflower, Slender (Plagiobothrys tenellus)
Plagiobothryde délicate

9. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “MOSSES”:

Bryum, Porsild’s (Mielichhoferia macrocarpa)
Bryum de Porsild

10. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “MAMMALS”:

Caribou, Barren-ground (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) Dolphin and Union population
Caribou de la toundrapopulation Dolphin-et-Union

11. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “BIRDS”:

Pigeon, Band-tailed (Patagioenas fasciata)
Pigeon à queue barrée

12. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “REPTILES”:

Turtle, Snapping (Chelydra serpentina)
Tortue serpentine

13. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “ARTHROPODS”:

Snaketail, Pygmy (Ophiogomphus howei)
Ophiogomphe de Howe

14. Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “PLANTS”:

Aster, White-top (Sericocarpus rigidus)
Aster rigide

COMING INTO FORCE

15. This Order comes into force on the day on which it is registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Order.)

Executive summary

Issue: A growing number of wildlife species in Canada face pressures and threats that put them at risk of extirpation or extinction. Many serve important biological functions or have intrinsic, recreational and existence value to the Canadian public and require conservation and protection to ensure healthy ecosystems for future generations.

Description: This Order adds 16 terrestrial species to Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and reclassifies one terrestrial species already listed on Schedule 1. These amendments are being made on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment. The addition of species to Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered or threatened invokes prohibitions to protect those species from extinction or extirpation in Canada. SARA also requires the preparation of recovery strategies and action plans to provide for their recovery and survival. When a species is added to Schedule 1 as a species of special concern, SARA requires the preparation of a management plan to prevent it from becoming endangered or threatened.

Cost-benefit statement: Impacts associated with adding 16 species and reclassifying one species under the Order are anticipated to be low. Given the relatively small portion of the species range covered in the area of application of prohibitions, the existence of protection for some species under statutes such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada National Parks Act and Wildlife Area Regulations, and the limited human activities overlap, the incremental impact of the Order is expected to be low.

However, the Order is an important commitment to Canadians regarding the scarcity of these species and their vulnerability, and sets in motion the development of long-term recovery, action, and management plans, as appropriate for a species designation under SARA. Evidence suggests that Canadians value the existence of species in this Order. The Order is a necessary first step in preserving these species. It is expected that the benefits of the Order will exceed the costs.

Business and consumer impacts: The impacts of listing on governments, industries and individuals are expected to be low for all terrestrial species in this Order due to limited distribution and overlap with human activities and the protection that some of the species already receive under various statutes of Parliament and provincial acts.

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: International coordination and cooperation for the conservation of biodiversity is provided through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (see footnote 2) to which Canada is a signatory. Domestic coordination and cooperation is covered by several mechanisms developed to coordinate the Species at Risk (SAR) Program implementation across the various domestic jurisdictions. These include inter-governmental committees, a National Framework for Species at Risk Conservation (NFSARC), and negotiated SAR bilateral agreements. SAR bilateral agreements foster collaboration in the implementation of SARA and provincial/territorial endangered species legislation.

Performance measurement and evaluation plan: Environment Canada has put in place a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) for the Species at Risk Program. The specific measurable outcomes for the program and the performance measurement and evaluation strategy are described in the Species at Risk Program RMAF-RBAF. The next program evaluation is scheduled for 2010–2011.

Issue

A growing number of wildlife species in Canada face pressures and threats that put them at risk of extirpation or extinction. Canada’s natural heritage is an integral part of Canada’s national identity and history. Wildlife, in all its forms, has value in and of itself and is valued by Canadians for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual, recreational, educational, historical, economic, medical, ecological and scientific reasons. Canadian wildlife species and ecosystems are also part of the world’s heritage, and the Government of Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity. The Government of Canada is committed to conserving biological diversity.

Objectives

The purposes of SARA are to prevent wildlife species from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity, and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. SARA established COSEWIC as an independent scientific body to provide the Minister of the Environment with assessments of the status of Canadian wildlife species that are potentially at risk.

The purpose of the Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act is to add 16 species to Schedule 1, the List of Wildlife Species at Risk (the List), and to reclassify one listed species, pursuant to subsection 27(1) of SARA. This amendment is made on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment based on scientific assessments by COSEWIC and on consultations with governments, Aboriginal peoples, stakeholders and the Canadian public.

Description

On May 6, 2010, the Governor in Council (GIC) acknowledged receipt of the 17 species assessments from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). COSEWIC is a committee of experts that assesses and designates which wildlife species are in some danger of disappearing from Canada. Information relating to COSEWIC can be found on their Web site at www.cosewic.gc.ca.

COSEWIC has assessed one wildlife species as extirpated, seven as endangered, four as threatened, and four as special concern. One species already appearing on Schedule 1 is reclassified from threatened to special concern. Table 1 provides a list of the species and the reason set out by COSEWIC to request the listing of the species on Schedule 1 of SARA. The COSEWIC status reports can be found at www.sararegistry.gc.ca/search/advSearchResults_e.cfm?stype=doc&docID=18.

Table 1: Addition of 16 species and reclassification of one species to Schedule 1 of SARA

Taxon

Common name Scientific name

Range

Adapted from theCOSEWIC reasons forstatus designation (see footnote 3)

Extirpated

Plants

Oregon Lupine

Lupinus oreganus

BC

The species has only been recorded in Oak Bay, Victoria, BC, where it was first collected in 1924. The last record of its existence in Canada is a collection made from the same area in 1929. The species has not been recorded since its last collection in the region in spite of extensive botanical surveys within southeastern Vancouver Island over the last several decades.

Endangered

Mammals

Caribou, Peary

Rangifer tarandus pearyi

NT, NU

This caribou is a subspecies that is only found in Canada. Numbers have declined by about 72% over the last three generations, mostly because of catastrophic die-off likely related to severe icing episodes. The ice covers the vegetation and caribou starve. Voluntary restrictions on hunting by local people are in place, but have not stopped population declines. Because of the continuing decline and expected changes in long-term weather patterns, this subspecies is at imminent risk of extinction.

Birds

Horned Grebe (Magdalen Islands population) Podiceps auritus

QC

The small breeding population of this species has persisted on the Magdalen Islands for at least a century. It has recently shown declines in both population size and area of occupancy. The small size of the population (average of 15 adults) makes it particularly vulnerable to random and unpredictable events.

Arthropods

Cobblestone Tiger Beetle

Cicindela marginipennis

NB

This distinctive species of tiger beetle has a fragmented distribution with a very small range of occurrence and area of occupancy, and is currently only found in two small regions of the St. John River system. There is evidence for decline of habitat and population in one region and the pressures on the habitat from development and recreation appear to be continuing.

Arthropods

Edwards’ Beach Moth

Anarta edwardsii

BC

In Canada, this species of noctuid moth has only been found in sparsely vegetated sandy beach and dune habitats on the coast of Vancouver Island and two small adjacent Gulf Islands. Together, these constitute only two locations. The habitats are at risk from succession, invasive species, recreational activities and changing patterns of sand deposition resulting from increasing frequency and intensity of winter storms. It is currently known from James and Sydney Islands and Pacific Rim National Park. The chance of genetic exchange is minimal between Pacific Rim and other areas and low between the Gulf Islands. One population has not been detected in recent times.

Plants

Bent Spike-rush (Great Lakes Plains population)

Eleocharis geniculata

ON

Only two remaining Ontario populations are known for this annual species of the sedge family. The total population consists of possibly fewer than 2 500 plants. They occur mainly in sandy wet habitats along ponds and in damp open meadows over an area of only about 2 000 m2. The habitat is declining due to the spread of the invasive, introduced form of Common Reed, an aggressive exotic grass.

Plants

Bent Spike-rush (Southern Mountain population)

Eleocharis geniculata

BC

Only a single population of this annual species of the sedge family is known. It is found in a seasonally flooded wetland complex within a sandy spit at Osoyoos Lake, BC. Approximately 10 000 small plants are restricted to an area of about 1 200 m2 where they are at risk.

Plants

California Buttercup

Ranunculus californicus

BC

A perennial species restricted to two small island groups adjacent to Victoria, BC. The four small confirmed populations are found within coastal meadow habitats where the extensive spread of invasive plants places the species at risk. Potential impacts on the populations include planned enlargement of communications towers at one site and unauthorized recreational visitors to the island habitats.

Threatened

Birds

Whip-poor-will

Caprimulgus vociferus

SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, NS

In Canada, this well-known nocturnal bird has experienced both long-term and short-term population declines. There are indications that populations have been reduced by more than 30% over the last 10 years (i.e. three generations). Like other aerial foraging insectivores, habitat loss and degradation as well as changes to the insect prey base may have affected Canadian populations.

Plants

Gray’s Desert-parsley

Lomatium grayi

BC

A highly restricted perennial herb with a small population found on only two sites on the Gulf Islands of British Columbia. The presence of invasive species such as Scotch Broom reduces the quality of the fragile habitat and grazing deer and sheep likely restrict the species’ ability to expand beyond its current limited area.

Plants

Slender Popcornflower

Plagiobothrys tenellus

BC

An annual herb of grassy slopes and coastal bluffs within the highly reduced and fragmented Garry Oak ecosystem. About half of the known populations no longer exist due to the spread of invasive alien plants on southeastern Vancouver Island and adjacent Gulf Islands. Only seven small populations remain. Population sizes fluctuate, likely depending on precipitation, with several comprising only a few individuals. The total population size is estimated to be fewer than 1 000 individuals. Invasive plants continue to degrade the species’ habitat at all sites.

Mosses

Porsild’s Bryum

Mielichhoferia macrocarpa

NU, BC, AB, NL

A rare moss with a severely fragmented distribution of 10 confirmed locations in Canada restricted to 5 general areas. The species grows in mainly mountainous areas on wet calcareous cliffs, presence of constant seepage and winter desiccation. Direct threats to populations include natural and human-caused events that destabilize the rock cliff habitat. There has been a recent decline in habitat quality at the two most abundant locations and substantial loss of mature individual plants at one of these. Only one locality is protected. There is uncertainty in status of northern Canadian populations.

Special concern

Mammals

Barren-ground Caribou (Dolphin and Union population)

Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus

NT, NU

This population of caribou is found only in Canada. Once thought to be extinct, numbers have recovered to perhaps a quarter of the population historic size. They have not been censused since 1997 and are subject to a high rate of harvest, whose sustainability is in question. They migrate between the mainland and Victoria Island and climate warming or increased shipping may make the ice crossing more dangerous. The population, however, increased substantially over the last three generations and was estimated at about 28 000 in 1997.

Birds

Band-tailed Pigeon

Patagioenas fasciata

BC

This large pigeon has suffered long-term declines throughout its range in the western mountains of North America, due in part to overhunting. Harvest has been severely limited in Canada for the past 16 years. Although population surveys (e.g. Breeding Bird Survey and mineral site counts) have low precision, they do suggest a stabilization of the population in the last decade. The species is long-lived (up to 22 years) and has a slow reproductive rate; females typically lay only one or two eggs per year. Forestry may negatively affect habitat in the long term, creating dense second-growth forests with few berry-producing shrubs; the pigeons also are susceptible to disturbance at isolated mineral sources needed for their nutrition.

Reptiles

Snapping Turtle

Chelydra serpentina

SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, NS

Although this species is widespread and still somewhat abundant, its life history (late maturity, great longevity, low rate of reproduction, lack of density-dependent responses), and its dependence on long, warm summers to complete incubation successfully make it unusually susceptible to threats associated with human activity. When these threats cause even apparently minor increases in mortality of adults, populations are likely to decline as long as these mortality increases persist. There are several such threats and their impacts are additive. Aboriginal traditional knowledge generally supports the declining trend and population figures in the COSEWIC report.

Arthropods

Pygmy Snaketail

Ophiogomphus howei

ON, NB

This globally rare species is known to occur at only a few locations and has a specialized and restricted habitat with low population numbers. One significant site is threatened.

Reclassified from threatened to special concern

Plants

White-top Aster

Sericocarpus rigidus

BC

This perennial species reproduces primarily asexually and is present at 22 discrete sites that include 14 recently discovered populations. The latter were previously unrecorded, but likely always present, and include the largest populations. The total population comprises many thousands of stems with most of the plants found in parks and on federal lands. In spite of the species’ occurrence mainly in protected areas, it is at risk from increasing recreational activities and the spread of invasive exotic plants. It was originally listed at proclamation in 2003.

Upon listing on Schedule 1, wildlife species classified as threatened, endangered and extirpated on federal lands, and the migratory birds as defined by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA), wherever they are found, will benefit from immediate protection through general prohibitions under SARA.

Under sections 32 and 33 of the Species at Risk Act, it is an offence to

  • kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a listed species that is extirpated, endangered or threatened;
  • possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a listed species that is extirpated, endangered or threatened, or its part or derivative; and
  • damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of a listed endangered or threatened species or of a listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has proposed its reintroduction into the wild in Canada.

Protection of species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA on non-federal lands falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments. Should the species or the residences of its individuals not be effectively protected by the laws of a province or a territory, SARA has provisions that give the federal government the power to apply the prohibitions mentioned above on non-federal lands to secure their protection. If the Minister is of the opinion that the laws of a jurisdiction do not effectively protect a species or the residences of its individuals, the Minister must make a recommendation to the GIC to invoke the prohibitions in SARA. The Minister must consult with the minister of the jurisdiction concerned and, where appropriate, the wildlife management board before making a recommendation to the GIC. The GIC considers the recommendation of the Minister and decides whether or not to invoke the prohibitions in SARA for the protection of listed wildlife species on non-federal lands.

Under section 37 of SARA, once a terrestrial species is listed on Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered or threatened, the Minister of the Environment is required to prepare a strategy for its recovery. Pursuant to section 41 of SARA, if recovery is deemed feasible, the recovery strategy must, inter alia, address threats to the species’ survival, identify critical habitat to the extent possible based on the best available information, and identify research and potential management measures needed to recover the population. The recovery strategy also provides a timeline for completion of one or more action plans. A management plan must be prepared for species listed as special concern.

Action plans are required to implement recovery strategies for species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened. Action plans can identify measures to achieve the population and distribution objectives for the species and when these may take place; a species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible, based on the best available information and consistent with the recovery strategy; examples of activities that would likely result in the destruction of the species’ critical habitat; measures proposed to be taken to protect the critical habitat; measures to address threats to the species; and methods to monitor the recovery of the species and its long-term viability. These action plans also require an evaluation of the socio-economic costs and the benefits to be derived from the plan’s implementation. For species listed as special concern, management plans that include measures for the conservation of the species and their habitat must be prepared. Recovery strategies, action plans and management plans must be posted on the Public Registry within the timelines set out under SARA.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

As required in the Species at Risk Act, once COSEWIC submits assessments of the status of the species to the Minister of the Environment, there are only three regulatory options available.

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. It provides the Minister of the Environment with assessments of the status of wildlife species and reasons for the designations. The Minister must then indicate how he or she will respond to each of the assessments and, to the extent possible, provide timelines for action. As stipulated under SARA, response statements are prepared, in consultation with the Parks Canada Agency, and posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry within the required 90-day timeline.

For species proposed to be added to the List, the receipt of status assessments by the Minister of the Environment from COSEWIC triggers a regulatory process in which the Minister of the Environment may recommend to the GIC (1) to add a species to Schedule 1 of SARA according to COSEWIC’s status assessment; (2) not to add the species to Schedule 1; or (3) to refer the assessment back to COSEWIC for further information or consideration.

The first option, to add the species to Schedule 1 of SARA, ensures that a wildlife species receives protection in accordance with the provisions of SARA, including mandatory recovery or management planning.

The second option is not to add the species to Schedule 1. Although the species would benefit neither from prohibitions afforded by SARA nor from the recovery or management activities required under SARA, species may still be protected under other federal, provincial or territorial legislation. When deciding not to add a species to Schedule 1, it is not referred back to COSEWIC for further information or consideration. COSEWIC reassesses species once every 10 years or at any time it has reason to believe that the status of a species has changed.

The third option is to refer the assessment back to COSEWIC for further information or consideration. It would be appropriate to send an assessment back if, for example, significant new information became available after the species had been assessed by COSEWIC.

For more details about the listing process, please refer to www.sararegistry.gc.ca.

Benefits and costs

Overview

The Order addresses 17 terrestrial species recommended by COSEWIC. Sixteen species are added and one is reclassified on Schedule 1 of SARA. Addition of a species would likely result in incremental social, environmental, and economic benefits and costs, due to the implementation of SARA’s general prohibitions upon listing, and recovery and conservation planning requirements.

Once listed on Schedule 1, threatened, endangered and extirpated wildlife species on federal lands, and migratory birds, wherever they are found, will benefit from immediate protection under SARA. The Order also requires the development of recovery strategies and, if recovery is deemed technically and biologically feasible, the implementation of recovery strategies and action plans. Recovery strategies must be drafted for all species listed on Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered or threatened. For species of special concern, recovery strategies are not required; however, management plans must be developed and include measures for the conservation of each species and their habitat.

This analysis considers only the incremental impacts of the Order to list or reclassify. Further analysis will be necessary to evaluate the benefits and costs of the recovery strategies and action plans themselves, as appropriate, once these have been developed. A summary of the qualitative analysis of socio-economic impacts by species is presented in Table 3 at the end of the benefits and costs section.

Benefits

Protecting species at risk can provide numerous benefits to Canadians beyond the direct economic benefits. Many species at risk serve as indicators of environmental quality, while some, such as a caribou or a snapping turtle, may be culturally important, due to their symbolism, popularity or role in the cultural history of Canada. Various studies (see footnote 4) indicate that Canadians place value on preserving species for future generations to enjoy and from knowing the species exist. Furthermore, the unique characteristics and evolutionary histories of many species at risk may also be of special interest to the scientific community.

When seeking to quantify the economic benefits to society provided by a species, the most commonly used framework is the Total Economic Value (TEV). The TEV of a species can be broken down into active and passive use values.

Active use values include

  • Direct Use — consumptive uses of a resource, such as hunting;
  • Indirect Use — non-consumptive activities, such as bird watching or recreational value; and
  • Option Use Value — preserving a species for future direct and indirect use.

Passive use values include

  • Bequest value — value of preserving a species for future generations; and
  • Existence value — altruistic value represents the value individuals derive from simply knowing that a given species exists, regardless of potential for any future use. (see footnote 5)

Passive values tend to dominate the TEV for species at risk, (see footnote 6) due to the scarcity of these species and the value that is accordingly attributed to their existence. Even if a given species is not readily accessible to society, existence value may be the most significant or only known benefit of a particular species. (see footnote 7) These passive values can be estimated using the willingness to pay methodology, which is the amount an individual is willing to pay to preserve a species.

Primary studies on species included in this Order have not been conducted. However, various studies of similar species in the United States and Canada can contribute to the discussion of passive use value in the context of the Order using a benefit transfer methodology. These studies indicate that Canadians place monetary value on preserving species at risk, including low-profile species. (see footnote 8)

Costs

The analysis of the Order examines costs attributed to this regulatory action only. Most of the costs attributed to the Order will be borne by existing federal government resources. These costs will include compliance promotion, enforcement, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Costs that could arise from the application of SARA, in particular for the development and implementation of recovery strategies, action plans, or management plans depending on the classification of the species, will be evaluated when they are developed.

Costs attributed to affected parties, including industries, individuals and the government, vary and are linked to the designation of the species under SARA. For example,

  • The new additions to Schedule 1 under endangered and threatened categories receive immediate protection under the general prohibitions found in sections 32 (prohibition on killing or harming) and 33 (prohibition on destroying residence) of SARA. A more detailed analysis will therefore be undertaken examining the cost impacts of those prohibitions, including costs to the federal government and affected parties. Also, species listed as endangered will be subject to accelerated recovery management timelines.
  • For the species designated as special concern, the general prohibitions will not apply, meaning there are no immediate associated costs with listing. Rather, the affected stakeholders may incur costs that would stem from the future development and implementation of management plans required for species under SARA.

Costs arising from the enforcement activities associated with the listing recommendations under this Order are low (see Summary Table 3). This is mainly due to limited distribution of species on federal lands and the fact that they already benefit from different levels of protection under different statutes, such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada National Parks Act and the Wildlife Area Regulations.

The analysis presented hereafter is limited in scope for all species, using mostly qualitative information, proportional to anticipated impacts. However, for the Peary Caribou, given a high level of interest expressed by stakeholders regarding this species and the proposed designation category as endangered, a more detailed analysis is included.

Mammals

Peary Caribou

The Peary Caribou is added as endangered to Schedule 1 under this Order, thus the general prohibitions under sections 32 and 33 automatically apply upon listing. Section 35 of SARA stipulates that, within the territories, general prohibitions would only apply on land under the authority of the federal Minister of the Environment and Parks Canada Agency. These areas would include

  • Quttinirpaaq National Park (Ellesmere Island)
  • Polar Bear Pass National Wildlife Area (Bathurst Island)
  • Nirjutiqavvik National Wildlife Area (Coburg Island, south of Ellesmere)
  • Seymour Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary (North of Bathurst Island)
  • Aulavik National Park (Banks Island)
  • Migratory Bird Sanctuaries No. 1 and No. 2 on Banks Island

As the area of occurrence is limited to the territories, the responsibility for wildlife management is shared between governments, users and wildlife management boards set up under land claim agreements. Application of sections 32 and 33 under SARA outside the aforementioned area can only occur upon a special order from the Governor in Council (and after consultation with the territorial ministers), if the federal Minister of the Environment were of the opinion that a territory was not protecting the species adequately. It is referred to as the “federal safety net” mechanism.

Some Peary Caribou hunting activity by Aboriginals will continue to take place in these areas. Under the land claim agreements, Aboriginal people will continue subsistence hunting on lands under the authority of the federal Minister and Parks Canada Agency. However, the Inuit and Inuvialuit people of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have been mindful of conservation challenges and some restrictions have been applied on harvesting activities. The territorial governments have been working to put in place a Caribou management plan, and certain communities have already restricted the Peary Caribou hunt and allocated annual tags. Moreover, subsistence hunting activities in the Aulavik National Park and the Quttinirpaaq Park in the Northwest Territories are minimal. (see footnote 9)

Certain protections already exist for Peary Caribou under the Canada National Parks Act. Moreover, pursuant to the Wildlife Area Regulations all activities that could be harmful to species and to their habitat are prohibited, unless a permit is issued. Therefore, the Order will not have a significant impact on the direct and/or indirect uses of the Peary Caribou in those areas.

However, the Order represents an important commitment to Canadians regarding the scarcity of this species, its vulnerability and the importance of a long-term recovery strategy.

Following the development of a recovery strategy, an action plan will be put in place. SARA requires that an action plan contain an evaluation of costs and benefits, and Environment Canada will make this analysis available to stakeholders and Canadians through the SARA Public Registry. Given that the recovery strategy and action plan have yet to be developed, the present analysis will be limited to incremental impacts that accrue prior to the development and the implementation of the recovery strategy or action plan.

Benefits

The benefits of the Order will result from improvements in species population size, structure and resilience in the area of application, resulting from recovery planning. In the case of national parks and national wildlife areas, comparable prohibitions already exist under the Canada National Parks Act and the Wildlife Area Regulations.

Listing the Peary Caribou will entail benefits that will be attributed to the active and passive use values. Recovery of this species to sustainable levels will also allow for future enhanced recreational activities and subsistence harvest. With the improved species viewing experience comes higher value in the form of either a greater willingness to pay for viewing or a higher potential for viewing.

Individuals may also simply place a value on the continued existence of the species, as expressed for other types of caribou, (see footnote 10) or bequest value, e.g. value in preservation for future generations. Also, the Peary Caribou have been used traditionally for subsistence and have been an important source of food for local Inuit and Inuvialuit.

Specific benefit studies on the value of Peary Caribou have not been undertaken; however, a series of willingness to pay studies conducted on other caribou, such as the Woodland Caribou in Alberta, (see footnote 11) demonstrated a high value associated with the preservation efforts of caribou. The mean willingness to pay for a habitat preservation program for Woodland Caribou was estimated at $56.51 (in 2009 dollars) per person per year.

Also, another study conducted by Adamowicz et al. (1998) (see footnote 12) concluded that for a one-level improvement in the caribou population (from 400 to 600), the associated increase in welfare averaged $135.37 (in 2009 dollars) per household per year.

Using a benefit transfer technique, if the values from both studies were applied narrowly to the human population that overlap with the Peary Caribou geographic range, this would result in a conservative total estimated benefit of $377,005 for a preservation program and $157,380 per year for an improvement in caribou population.

Costs

The areas of general prohibitions application will include national parks, wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries. The two national parks occupy 50 000 km, which represents around 10% of the Peary Caribou’s range (approximately 600 000 km). Considering the remote location and the existing protection status of the area, overlapping human activities in the national parks area and the national wildlife areas are minimal. As per the Canada National Parks Act, the species in the parks already benefit from a high level of environmental and wildlife protection comparable with those afforded under SARA. Moreover, the Wildlife Area Regulations prohibit all activities that could be harmful to species and to their habitat, unless a permit is issued.

The annual hunt number in Aulavik is estimated to be low (around four hunting activities a year) due to the remoteness of the closest settlement community — Sachs Harbour is located 250 km away. The park is only accessible by air during the summer and by snowmobile in the winter time. It would take approximately three days to reach Aulavik Park from Sachs Harbour by snowmobile. As a result, the likelihood of a subsistence hunt is low. As for Migratory Bird Sanctuary Area No. 1, it is located in proximity to Sachs Harbour. The Inuvialuit have taken a strong leadership role in protecting Peary Caribou. Due to community concerns in Sachs Harbour, a harvest quota on hunting Peary Caribou was implemented in 1990 and is now annually reviewed. (see footnote 13) Currently, the Sachs Harbour community is allowed to harvest two Peary Caribou per household. Given that there are 35 households in Sachs Harbour, the number of Peary Caribou harvested is estimated at 70 caribou per year. According to the latest population estimate, it is believed that there are 1 500 Peary caribou on Banks Island. (see footnote 14)

With regard to the Quttinirpaaq National Park in Nunavut, due to the remote location, difficult access and scarcity of caribou (around 10 caribou are believed to occupy the entire area of the park), (see footnote 15) hunting activities are virtually non-existent. Given the size and remoteness of the Nirjutiqavvik National Wildlife Area and the Seymour Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary, the likelihood of Peary Caribou presence in the areas is very low.

There are no industrial activities in the area where the general prohibitions are applied. Therefore, the cost to industry stemming from this Order will be negligible.

The Order will trigger the SARA requirement that a recovery strategy be developed within one year following the listing, with an action plan developed thereafter if the recovery is deemed technically and biologically feasible. The cost of developing the recovery strategy would be proportional to the measures it would contain.

To the extent possible, recovery strategies must also identify the critical habitat of the species. If there is not enough information available to identify critical habitat, the recovery strategy includes a schedule of studies required for its identification. The action plan would include a statement of measures proposed to protect the species’ critical habitat. A separate impact analysis concerning the implementation of the action plan would be developed.

Peary Caribou are protected under the CanadaNational Parks Act and, as a result, there has been a regular Parks Canada enforcement officer presence and patrols in the above-mentioned areas. Therefore, negligible compliance promotion costs are anticipated, as the species is already protected in the area of application, and no incremental enforcement activities are expected to result from the Order.

It is estimated that the cost of this regulatory proposal on the communities affected by listing Peary caribou will be negligible.

Table 2: Peary Caribou impacts statement (qualitative)

STAKEHOLDER

IMPACTS

SCOPE OF IMPACTS

Communities

Impacts on use of species: Subsistence/Traditional hunting of caribou

None — No change to harvesting numbers. Subsistence hunting will continue in the area of application of general prohibitions.

Impacts on use of species: Enhanced viewing opportunities with species recovery

Unknown scope and scale —Tourism traffic may increase as a consequence of listing.

Impacts on use of species: Commercial/ Sport hunting of caribou

None — No change to harvesting numbers. Sport hunting is not allowed in the area of application of general prohibitions.

Impacts on land-use and development: Land-use for settlement

None — No change for land use, no land use activity in the area of application of general prohibitions.

Impacts on land-use and development: Industrial activities

None — No change to land uses or industrial activities due to limited land use in the area of general prohibitions application.

Existence and bequest value: Cultural importance for aboriginal communities and all Canadians

Low — Bequest and existence values associated with the species would be maintained and would expand over time once recovery measures are implemented.

Government

Enforcement, implementation, monitoring and consultation

Low scope and scale — Low total government costs based on listing costs incurred for other species and current level of protection of Peary Caribou under existing statutes.

Canadians

Impacts on ecosystem and scientific understanding: Bequest and existence value

Low — Bequest and existence values associated with the species would be maintained and would expand over time once recovery measures are implemented.

Scientific communities/ Canadians

Impacts on ecosystem and scientific understanding: Co-benefits

Unknown scope and scale — Potential co-benefits for other species as a result of protecting habitat and research opportunities in the North.

Barren-ground Caribou (Dolphin and Union population)

Benefits

Listing the Dolphin and Union population of Barren-ground Caribou as special concern will not trigger general prohibitions under SARA, but it will require that a management plan be put in place.

Listing the species under this Order will raise awareness of the importance of the species and prevent the degradation of the species population because of the conservation measures contained in a management plan. The very actions to preserve the species may contribute to bequest and existence values that Canadians attribute to the preservation of the species. Canadians will derive value from the knowledge of the species’ continued existence. A series of willingness-to-pay studies conducted on other caribou, such as the Woodland Caribou in Alberta, (see footnote 16) demonstrated a high value associated with efforts toward caribou preservation. The mean willingness-to-pay for a preservation program for Woodland Caribou was estimated at $56.51 (in 2009 dollars) per person per year. Thus, it is expected that Canadians will positively value the preservation of this species.

Moreover, the species is valued in a traditional way of life of Inuit communities in the North and plays an important role in Aboriginal culture. “Aboriginal and northern peoples depend upon healthy populations of caribou for hunting, ceremony, and tradition.” (see footnote 17)

Costs

Since listing the Barren-ground Caribou under the special concern category will not trigger general prohibitions under SARA, there will be no immediate impacts, including consumptive uses, industrial activities, and land use.

Under SARA, a management plan will be required for all species under special concern category. Costs will be associated with the development of this plan.

Birds

Horned Grebe (endangered), Whip-poor-will (threatened), Band-tailed Pigeon (special concern)

Benefits

Both the Whip-poor-will and the Horned Grebe are migratory birds and already receive protection under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA). Under the MBCA, the species and its residence benefit from similar protections to those they would receive under SARA; therefore, no incremental protection is expected. When the species is found within national parks of Canada or other lands administered by the Parks Canada Agency, it is protected or managed under the Canada National Parks Act or through measures or management tools available to the Parks Canada Agency under other legislation. Where it occurs in a national wildlife area, this species is subject to the Wildlife Area Regulations under the Canada Wildlife Act, which prohibits activities that could be harmful to species and to their habitat, unless a permit is issued indicating the permitted activity.

Listing of bird species may contribute to enhanced benefits from recreational activities. For example, bird watching has been identified as a popular activity among Canadians. (see footnote 18) According to the most recent nature survey (1996), nearly one in five Canadians (18.6%) participated in wildlife viewing in Canada. The Whip-poor-will is a valued bird species due to its characteristic haunting song. It gained significance for rural peoples, campers and cottagers. Accordingly, it has attained significant status in popular culture, being mentioned in countless songs, poems, books, and movies. (see footnote 19) The Horned Grebe is equally appreciated by bird watchers and eco-tourists due to its striking nuptial plumage, spectacular courtship and approachable nature. The Band-tailed pigeon is also considered an attractive bird for bird watchers.

No Canadian studies were found on these birds using the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory. An analysis of valuation studies conducted in the United States (see footnote 20) indicates that an average value of species at risk per household ranges from $17.68 (in 2009 dollars) (see footnote 21) for a woodpecker to $61.88 (in 2009 dollars) for a whooping crane. Moreover, an economic study conducted in the United States on bird watching activities demonstrates significant economic benefits associated with bird watching activities. (see footnote 21) Under the assumption that Canadians would share similar bird watching values, (see footnote 23) it is deduced that the protection of these species under SARA will likely result in economic benefits to the regions where those species exist, and/or to individuals visiting these regions who derive indirect value from bird watching or similar activities. Therefore, the Order reflects the value Canadians derive from bird species preservation.

Costs

The incremental costs associated with the listing of the Whip-poor-will and the Horned Grebe will be minimal, since the two species already benefit from the protection under the MBCA. Under SARA, a recovery strategy or an action plan will be required for the Whip-poor-will and the Horned Grebe.

The Band-tailed Pigeon is listed as special concern and is not subject to the general prohibitions. It breeds mainly in the southern coastal region of British Columbia and has been harvested for food. In the past 100 years, it has been considered a game bird for sport hunters. However, this activity has diminished and few hunters pursue this pigeon in Canada. (see footnote 24) Listing under special concern does not invoke immediate restrictions on harvesting of the species. Therefore, listing will have minimal cost impacts.

Reptiles

Snapping Turtle (special concern)

Benefits

The Snapping Turtle is Canada’s largest freshwater turtle and it has an important scientific, ecological and cultural significance. The Snapping Turtle occurs in widespread locations across Canada. Although the Snapping Turtle listing as special concern will not trigger general prohibitions under SARA, it sends an important signal to all stakeholders regarding the importance of conserving this familiar species. The Snapping Turtle will also benefit from the development of a management plan.

Other benefits will be associated with existence values. Based on a number of economic valuation studies of reptiles and amphibians, individuals would place a value ranging from $5.16 to $18.59 (in 2009 dollars) annually per person on the preservation of species in these taxonomic groups. (see footnote 25) From these studies, it is assumed that Canadians would attribute positive value for the reptile species considered under this Order.

Costs

Since the species is not subject to general prohibitions, costs associated with listing are expected to be low. A management plan will be required under SARA. This plan may include mitigation measures minimizing threats arising from traffic, for example the construction of appropriate crossing areas and signage, where appropriate (on federal land in a province). The cost information will not be available until a management plan is developed.

Arthropods

Cobblestone Tiger Beetle (endangered), Edwards’ Beach Moth (endangered) and Pygmy Snaketail (special concern)

Benefits

The benefits of adding the three arthropod species to Schedule 1 includes enhanced conservation of the species population, contribution to the preservation of biological diversity, and the maintenance of healthy ecosystems.

Under SARA, the Cobblestone Tiger Beetle and Edwards’ Beach Moth species receive immediate benefits arising from the basic protection provisions. In addition, more benefits are expected from measures contained in the recovery strategy or action plan. The Pygmy Snaketail dragonfly will benefit from the conservation measures contained in the management plan.

The loss of the Canadian population of the Cobblestone Tiger Beetle would be a significant loss to the genetic diversity of this globally rare species. Moreover, tiger beetles have become important as an environmental indicator of healthy ecosystems. (see footnote 26)

As for Edwards’ Beach Moth, co-benefits stem from the fact that it occurs in sparsely vegetated sandy coastal ecosystems that support a number of species, including an endangered Sand Verbena moth. (see footnote 27) The Pygmy Snaketail dragonfly also acts as an environmental indicator of reasonably uncompromised running waters habitats.

There is no information available from specific willingness to pay studies on these three arthropods in the Canadian context. Dragonflies are, in general, popular with the public, and given the fact that Canadians attribute value to the protection of the species as a whole, (see footnote 28) one may expect that Canadians would place a value on preservation of these species.

Costs

The Cobblestone Tiger Beetle and Edwards Beach Moth have limited occurrence on federal lands and, as a result, listing under this Order will entail minimal costs associated with general prohibitions. Listing triggers SARA’s requirement to develop a recovery strategy or action plan.

With regard to the Edwards Beach Moth, the species’ occurrence on federal lands is limited to the Gulf Island National Park Reserve, where it already benefits from protection under the Canada National Parks Act. Enforcement activities are already in place in the park area; therefore, the incremental costs of listing will be minimal.

Since the Pygmy Snaketail is listed as special concern, there are no immediate costs. However, a management plan will be required under SARA.

Vascular plants

California Buttercup (endangered), Bent Spike-rush (Great Lakes Plains population) [endangered], Bent Spike-rush (Southern Mountain population) [endangered], Gray’s desert-parsley (threatened), Slender Popcornflower (threatened), White-top Aster (downlist from threatened to special concern), and Oregon Lupine (extirpated)

Benefits

All species in this category except for the White-top Aster will benefit from immediate protection under general prohibitions. The White-top Aster is reclassified from threatened to special concern.

The Canadian populations of California Buttercup and Bent Spike-rush are of interest to scientific communities due to their genetic and environmental characteristics. The Slender Popcornflower occurs at the northern extent of the species’ main geographic range. These peripheral populations may be important for long-term survival of the species as a whole.

The White-top Aster is part of distinctive flora that is found only in a very restricted area in Canada, within the Garry Oak ecosystem. It will continue to benefit from recovery efforts underway for this extremely rich and unique Canadian ecosystem. The White-top Aster is of conservation concern throughout its global range.

Evidence suggests that individuals place a positive value on threatened plant species in the order of $3.10 to $4.13 (in 2009 dollars) per individual annually. (see footnote 29) These values generally apply across the entire national population regardless of proximity to the residence or critical habitat. Therefore, it is assumed that Canadians would derive positive intrinsic value stemming from the fact that the plant species exists.

Costs

Oregon Lupine (extirpated)

There are no costs related to the general prohibitions for extirpated species. A recovery strategy will be drafted. If recovery is deemed to be feasible and the recovery strategy recommends the reintroduction of this species, any further costs incurred will be mainly associated with the efforts to re-introduce the species into its habitat in Canada, which used to occupy the Victoria/Oak Bay region on Vancouver Island.

California Buttercup (endangered)

California Buttercup occurs within the Gulf Islands National Parks Reserve. Occurrence of the species has been confirmed on First Nations land in British Columbia (the Chatham Islands four First Nations land). As such, certain activities on those lands may require a SARA permit to provide adequate protection of the species and to mitigate threats to the greatest extent possible. For example, camas is harvested by First Nations on some lands in the vicinity of California Buttercup. Appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate potential impacts on the species will be taken at the recovery strategy or action plan stage. Costs of these measures will be evaluated at the recovery or action plan stage.

Bent Spike-rush (Great Lakes Plains population) and Bent Spike-rush (Southern Mountain population) [both endangered]

Bent Spike-rush (Great Lakes Plains population) occurs on three sites in southwestern Ontario, including the Long Point National Wildlife Area administered by the Canadian Wildlife Service. Incremental enforcement costs will be minimal due to existing protection under the Wildlife Area Regulations.

As for the Bent Spike-rush (Southern Mountain population), there is only one location in British Columbia on the Osoyoos First Nations land. Mitigation of threats arising from trampling and grazing have already been initiated through fencing of the area. Any development of the shoreline site in close proximity to the species occurrence could impact the habitat of the species. Costs may arise in the future, stemming from the processing of permit applications or mitigation measures that will have to be undertaken. It is noteworthy that four other endangered plant species also occur in proximity to the species location, which will require a similar permit. Thus, incremental cost related to permitting and associated mitigation will be reduced.

Gray’s Desert-parsley (threatened)

Gray’s Desert-parsley occurs only in three locations in Canada, two on Salt Spring Island and one on Galiano Island. There is no known occurrence of the species on federal lands. The extreme and inaccessible terrain within the species’ area of occurrence makes it very unlikely for human activities to overlap. A limiting factor may be associated with grazing by native deer and feral sheep. Cost of mitigation measures will be identified once a recovery strategy/action plan is developed.

Slender Popcornflower (threatened)

Slender Popcornflower has very limited distribution and the main threat arises from the spread of invasive species. Cost of mitigation measures will be identified once a recovery strategy/action plan is developed.

White-top Aster (special concern)

White-top Aster has been reclassified from threatened to special concern and no cost will be associated with listing.

Mosses

Porsild’s Bryum (threatened)

Benefits

Listing Porsild’s Byrum as threatened means that SARA prohibitions apply immediately to one population on Northern Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, located in Quttinirpaaq National Park.

Incremental benefits arising from general prohibitions will be limited, since the majority of the species is located within a national park and protection is already afforded by the existing statute, the Canada National Parks Act. The benefits of listing will mainly stem from measures contained in the recovery strategy and the action plan to be developed later on.

Evidence suggests that individuals place a positive value on threatened plant species in the order of $3.10 to $4.13 (in 2009 dollars) per individual annually. (see footnote 30) Therefore, it is assumed that Canadians will derive positive intrinsic value stemming from the fact that the plant species exists.

Costs

Listing Porsild’s Bryum as threatened will result in low costs to the federal government since the area of occurrence within the general prohibition application is limited to one national park — the Quttinirpaaq National Park in Nunavut — which already benefits from protection under the Canada National Parks Act. Hence, costs attributed to enforcement activities will be negligible as enforcement activities are already carried out in the area and no incremental activities are anticipated.

SARA will trigger the development of the recovery strategy and action plan. Since there are no industrial activities in the National Park, no impacts on industry are expected.

Net benefits

Given the limited distribution, low level of industrial/human activities within the area of application of general prohibition and the existing level of protection, impacts stemming from listing of 17 terrestrial species under the Order will be low. This conclusion is built on the above assessment, and, where possible, incorporates a mix of quantitative and qualitative information developed for this analysis.

The net impact to Canadian society will likely be positive and the Order will likely result in net benefits to Canadians.

Table 3: Summary of the qualitative analysis of socio-economic (SE) impacts by species

Taxonomic group

Common name

Scientific name

SE outcome of listing

Socio-economic rationale

Extirpated

Vascular plants

Oregon Lupine

Lupinus oreganus

Low

Benefits to the species will be attributed to the reintroduction of the species to the ecosystem, should this be feasible. Benefits of protecting the species will stem from the recovery strategy/action plan measures.

Costs are expected to be low and will mainly be associated with the development and implementation of a recovery strategy/action plan.

Endangered

Mammals

Peary Caribou

Rangifer tarandus pearyi

Low

Benefits to the species will be attributable to active and passive use values stemming from the recovery strategy/action plan measures. Recovery to sustainable levels may result in improved consumption (subsistence) and non-consumption (tourism) opportunities. Canadians would attribute bequest and intrinsic values to the species protection.

Incremental costs of the Order will likely be low due to existing protection by various statutes and due to minimal overlap with human activities — no industrial activities occur in the area where the general prohibitions apply.

Birds

Horned Grebe (Magdalen Islands population)

Podiceps auritus

Low

Benefits of protecting the species will stem from the recovery strategy/action plan measures.

Costs will likely be minimal, as there will be no incremental increase in enforcement activities. The species is a migratory bird and receives protection under the MBCA. Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Arthropods

Edwards’ Beach Moth

Anarta edwardsii

Low

Benefits of listing the species will include enhanced conservation, preserved biological diversity and maintenance of a healthy ecosystem stemming from the recovery strategy/action plan measures.

Costs will likely be minimal, as the species already benefits from protection under the Canada National Parks Act within the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Arthropods

Cobblestone Tiger Beetle

Cicindela marginipennis

Low

Benefits of listing the species will result in enhanced conservation, preserved biological diversity and an environmental indicator of healthy ecosystems stemming from the recovery strategy/action plan measures.

Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Vascular plants

California Buttercup

Ranunculus californicus

Low

Listing the species will benefit the scientific community, due to its genetic and evolutionary characteristics. Benefits of protecting the species will stem from the recovery strategy/action plan measures.

Costs will likely be minimal, as the species already benefits from protection under the Canada National Parks Act within the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Vascular plants

Bent Spike-rush (Great Lakes Plains population)

Eleocharis geniculata

Low

Listing the species will benefit the scientific community, due to its genetic and evolutionary characteristics. Benefits of protecting the species will stem from the recovery strategy/action plan measures.

Costs will likely be minimal, as the species already benefits from protection within the Long Point National Wildlife Area administered by the Canadian Wildlife Service. Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Vascular plants

Bent Spike-rush (Southern Mountain population)

Eleocharis geniculata

Low

Listing the species will benefit the scientific community. Benefits also pertain to existence values stemming from the recovery strategy/action plan measures.

In Canada, the species only occurs on Osoyoos First Nations land in British Columbia and measures have already been taken to minimize threats and protect the species. Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Threatened

Birds

Whip-poor-will

Caprimulgus vociferus

Low

Benefits of protecting the species will stem from the recovery strategy/action plan measures.

Costs will likely be minimal, as there will be no incremental increase in enforcement activities. The species is a migratory bird and receives protection under the MBCA. Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Vascular plants

Gray’s Desert Parsley

Lomatium grayi

Low

The species will benefit from immediate protection stemming from general prohibitions. Benefits of protecting the species will stem from the recovery strategy/action plan measures. Benefits will also pertain to existence values.

Costs will likely be minimal, as the species already benefits from protection under the Canada National Parks Act within the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Vascular plants

Slender Popcornflower

Plagiobothrys tenellus

Low

The species will benefit from immediate protection stemming from general prohibitions. Benefits of protecting the species will stem from the recovery strategy/action plan measures. Benefits will also pertain to existence values.

Costs will likely be minimal, as the species already benefits from protection under the Canada National Parks Act within the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Mosses

Porsild’s Bryum

Mielichhoferia macrocarpa

Low

Listing the species will primarily benefit the scientific community, due to its genetic and evolutionary characteristics. Benefits will also pertain to existence values stemming from the recovery strategy/action plan measures.

Costs will likely be minimal, as the species already benefits from protection under the Canada National Parks Act within the Quttinirpaaq National Park Area, in Nunavut. Costs related to mitigation measures will be contained in the recovery strategy/action plans and will be evaluated at that time.

Special concern

Mammals

Barren-ground Caribou (Dolphin and Union population)

Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus

Low

Benefits to the species will be associated with passive value. Valuation studies demonstrate that Canadians would derive value from preservation of this species. The species will benefit from measures contained in the management plan.

Costs will be mainly associated with the development of the management plan.

Birds

Band-tailed Pigeon

Patagioenas fasciata

Low

The species will benefit from measures contained in the management plan.

The species is already protected in British Columbia under the British Columbia Wildlife Act, and by the MBCA. Costs will be mainly associated with the development of the management plan.

Reptiles

Snapping Turtle

Chelydra serpentina

Low

Benefits will be attributed to the species conservation efforts as it represents scientific, ecological and cultural significance. Benefits will also pertain to existence values. The species will benefit from measures contained in the management plan.

Costs will be mainly associated with the development of the management plan.

Arthropod

Pygmy Snaketail

Ophiogomphus howei

Low

Benefits will pertain to the species’ ability to indicate environmental quality and clean water habitats. The species will benefit from measures contained in the management plan.

Costs will be mainly associated with the development of the management plan.

Consultation

Under SARA, the scientific assessment of species status and the decision to place a species on the legal list are comprised of two distinct processes. This separation guarantees that scientists may work independently when making assessments of the biological status of wildlife species and that Canadians have the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process in determining whether or not species will be listed under SARA.

Environment Canada began initial public consultation on November 25, 2009, with the posting of the response statements on the SARA Public Registry. On December 5, 2009, stakeholders and the general public were also consulted by means of a document titled Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act, Terrestrial Species, December 2009.

The consultation document outlined 14 of the 17 terrestrial species proposed for addition or reclassification to Schedule 1 by COSEWIC, the reasons for considering listing, and the implications of listing species. The document was posted on the SARA Public Registry and members of the public were invited to comment. The consultation process also consisted of distribution of the discussion document and direct consultation with approximately 2 400 identified stakeholders, including various industrial sectors, provincial and territorial governments, federal departments and agencies, Aboriginal organizations, wildlife management boards, resource users, landowners and environmental non-governmental organizations.

Consultations for three other species, the Peary Caribou, Porsild’s Bryum and the Barren-ground Caribou, Dolphin and Union population, began in November 2004. At that time, the Nunavut Government asked that consultations be extended to ensure adequate time was given to consult with northern residents and discuss how listing on Schedule 1 of SARA would impact their lives and hunting rights. These consultations have been successfully concluded and confirmed that the COSEWIC assessments for these three species are based on the best available information and that the designations are appropriate.

The Peary Caribou consultations initially resulted in mixed levels of support. Sixteen comments were received; nine supported listing or were not opposed, six were opposed, and one recommended referring back to COSEWIC. The opposition was primarily with relation to wanting to manage herds at a community level. The Grise Fiord Hunters and Trappers Organization and the Resolute Bay Hunters and Trappers Association indicated the Peary Caribou is being managed at the community level. Other stakeholders indicated that management plans currently in place restricting the harvest of both the Peary Caribou and the Barren-ground Dolphin and Union population, should allow for their recovery.

Since November 2004, Environment Canada officials consulted extensively with Inuit communities and other affected parties in Canada on these species, including a series of consultations in Nunavut. Most individuals, communities, wildlife management boards and governments support the listing of these species as assessed by COSEWIC. Notably, some Inuit and Inuvialuit communities, the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (N.W.T.) support listing the Peary Caribou and Barren-ground Caribou, Dolphin and Union population in Schedule 1. In addition, the Grise Fiord Hunters and Trappers Organization concurs with the listing of Porsild’s Bryum.

While the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board did not indicate general support, it was pleased with the consultation process, and expressed a desire to continue the listing process for the three outstanding species.

Fifty-nine written comments were received with regard to the species that underwent normal consultations. Of these, the vast majority of the comments received from interested stakeholders and the general public were in support of listing COSEWIC recommended species. Favourable feedback was also received in informal information sessions held by regional Canadian Wildlife Services officers.

Three of the fifty-nine comments expressed opposition for listing. Two were opposed to listing the Snapping Turtle and the other opposed listing Bent Spike-rush (Southern Mountain population).

The Snapping Turtle received seven comments in total; five in favour of listing and two in opposition. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters indicated that the species is widespread and abundant throughout Ontario, and would like COSEWIC to consider only the Prairie populations as species of special concern. A member of the public was opposed to the banning of trapping turtles. Since the Snapping Turtle is currently proposed for special concern, there would be no additional restrictions on federal lands at this time.

The Bent Spike-rush (Southern Mountain population) received four comments; three in favour of listing and one opposed. The Osoyoos First Nations has asked that the listing be postponed until their concerns can be addressed relating to species at risk legislation.

Following pre-consultations, the proposal to add species to Schedule I was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for a 30-day public comment period on July 3, 2010. A total of three comments were received during the consultation period. One submission was generally supportive of listing all the species, another comment supported listing three specific species found in Quebec — the Horned Grebe (Magdalen Islands population), the Whip-poor-will, and the Snapping Turtle. One also included a request to be consulted during the preparation of the recovery strategies relating to these species. The third comment requested that impacted First Nations groups be consulted during the preparations of the recovery strategies and action plans for the Peary Caribou, the California Buttercup and the Bent Spike-rush and to be consulted in the preparation of a management plan for the Barren-ground Caribou.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

Environment Canada and the Parks Canada Agency developed a compliance strategy for the Order amending Schedule 1 of SARA to address the first five years of implementation of compliance promotion and enforcement activities related to the general prohibitions. Specifically, the compliance strategy will only address compliance with the general prohibitions for species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA. The compliance strategy is aimed at achieving awareness and understanding of the Order among the affected communities; adoption of behaviours by the affected communities that will contribute to the overall conservation and protection of wildlife at risk; compliance with the Order by the affected communities; and to increase Environment Canada’s knowledge of the affected communities.

Implementation of the Order amending Schedule 1 of SARA will include activities designed to encourage compliance with the general prohibitions. Compliance promotion initiatives are proactive measures that encourage and facilitate compliance with the law through education and outreach activities, and raise awareness and understanding of the prohibitions, by offering plain language explanations of the legal requirements under the Act. Environment Canada and the Parks Canada Agency will promote compliance with the general prohibitions of SARA through activities, which may include online resources posted on the SARA Public Registry, fact sheets, mail-outs and presentations. These activities will specifically target groups who may be affected by this Order and whose activities could contravene the general prohibitions, including other federal government departments, First Nations, private land owners, recreational and commercial fishers, national park visitors and recreational ATV users on parks lands. The compliance strategy outlines the priorities, affected communities, timelines and key messages for compliance activities.

Timelines apply for the preparation of recovery strategies, action plans or management plans. The implementation of these plans may result in recommendations for further regulatory action for protection of the species. It may draw on the provisions of other acts of Parliament, such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, to provide required protection.

SARA provides for penalties for contraventions to the Act, including liability for costs, fines or imprisonment, alternative measures agreements, seizure and forfeiture of things seized or of the proceeds of their disposition. 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.

Contact

Mary Taylor
Director
Conservation Service Delivery and Permitting
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-953-9097

Footnote a
 S.C. 2002, c. 29

Footnote 1
 S.C. 2002, c. 29

Footnote 2
 Further information on the CBD is available at www.cbd.int.

Footnote 3
www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchform_e.cfm

Footnote 4
Rollins, K. and A. Lyke, “The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, No. 3, 324-344, Publication Date: 1998-11-01

Footnote 5
Wallmo, K. “Threatened and Endangered Species Valuation: Literature Review and Assessment”, www.st.nmfs.gov/st5/documents/bibliography/Protected_ Resources_Valuation%20.pdf#search='endangered%20species%20economic% 20valuation

Footnote 6
Ibid. 23

Footnote 7
Jakobsson, Kristin M. and Andrew K. Dragun, “Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species: Methodological Issues and Applications”, New Horizons in Environmental Economics. Cheltenham, U.K. and Lyme, N. H., Edward Elgan Publishing Limited, distributed by the American International Distribution Corporation, Williston, Vermont, 1996.

Footnote 8
Rudd, M. A., Memorial University of Newfoundland EVPL Working Paper 07-WP003 (2007).

Footnote 9
Interviews were conducted with Parks Canada officials in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Footnote 9
Tanguay, M., W. L. Adamowicz and P. Boxall, “An Economic Evaluation of Woodland Caribou Conservation Programs in Northwestern Saskatchewan”, Rural Economy Project Report 95-01, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, 1995

Footnote 11
Atakelty, H., V. Adamowicz and P. Boxall, “Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation”, Environmental and Resource Economics 16, 51-68, 2000

Footnote 12
Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere, “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 64-75, 1998

Footnote 13
www.enr.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages/wpPages/Peary_caribou.aspx

Footnote 14
COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Peary Caribou (2004)

Footnote 15
 “Overhunting by Explorer Blamed for Tiny Peary Caribou Herds.” The Edmonton Journal (2006). CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. Canada

Footnote 16
Atakelty, H., V. Adamowicz and P. Boxall, “Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 16, 51-68, 2000

Footnote 17
http://pubs.aina.uccalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic50-4-381.pdf

Footnote 18
The Importance of Nature to Canadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-related Activities, prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians, Environment Canada

Footnote 19
Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act, December 2009, Environment Canada, p. 42

Footnote 19
Leslie Richardson, John Loomies “The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis”

Footnote 21
All monetary values are expressed in Canadian dollars (2009) unless otherwise stated.

Footnote 22
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2001, amount that birders spent on all wildlife watching was approximately US $32 billion. Furthermore, this amount spent on wildlife watching generated US $85 billion in economic benefits for the nation in 2001.

Footnote 23
The total spending on wildlife viewing in 1996 according to The Importance of Nature to Canadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-related Activ- ities was $1,301.8 million. This would translate into $1,666.07 million in 2009 dollars.

Footnote 24
COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Band-tailed Pigeon in Canada (2008)

Footnote 25
Martin-Lopez, Berta, Carlos Monte and Javier Benayas. October 2007. “Economic Valuation of Biodiversity Conservation: the Meaning of Numbers”. Conservation Biology, In-press

Footnote 26
COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Cobblestone Tiger Beetle

Footnote 27
COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Edwards’ Beach Moth

Footnote 28
The Importance of Nature to Canadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-related Activities, prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians, Environment Canada

Footnote 29
Kahneman, D., and I. Ritor. 1994. “Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, No. 1, 5-38

Footnote 29
Kahneman, D., and I. Ritor. 1994. “Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, No. 1, 5-38