Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia): recovery strategy proposed 2021

Official title:  Recovery Strategy for the Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) in Canada [proposed] 2021

Species at Risk Act
Recovery Strategy Series

Bank Swallow
Document information

Recommended citation:

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2021. Recovery Strategy for the Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. ix + 122 pp.

Official version
The official version of the recovery documents is the one published in PDF. All hyperlinks were valid as of date of publication.

Non-official version
The non-official version of the recovery documents is published in HTML format and all hyperlinks were valid as of date of publication.

For copies of the recovery strategy, or for additional information on species at risk, including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk (SAR) Public RegistryFootnote 1.

Cover illustration: iStock.com / Paul Reeves Photography

Également disponible en français sous le titre « Programme de rétablissement de l’Hirondelle de rivage (Riparia riparia) au Canada [Proposition] »

Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source.

Preface

The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996)Footnote 2 and the Cooperation Agreement for the Protection and Recovery of Species at Risk in QuebecFootnote 3 agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) (SARA), the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of recovery strategies for listed Extirpated, Endangered, and Threatened species and are required to report on progress within five years after the publication of the final document on the SAR Public Registry.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada and Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency is the competent minister under SARA for the Bank Swallow and has prepared this recovery strategy, as per section 37 of SARA. To the extent possible, it has been prepared in cooperation with the Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board, the Wek'eezhii Renewable Resources Board, and the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (Northwest Territories) as per section 39(1) of SARA.

Success in the recovery of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that will be involved in implementing the directions set out in this strategy and will not be achieved by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Parks Canada Agency, or any other jurisdiction alone. All Canadians are invited to join in supporting and implementing this strategy for the benefit of the Bank Swallow and Canadian society as a whole.

This recovery strategy will be followed by one or more action plans that will provide information on recovery measures to be taken by Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Parks Canada Agency and other jurisdictions and/or organizations involved in the conservation of the species. Implementation of this strategy is subject to appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints of the participating jurisdictions and organizations.

The recovery strategy sets the strategic direction to arrest or reverse the decline of the species, including identification of critical habitat to the extent possible. It provides all Canadians with information to help take action on species conservation. Once critical habitat is identified, either in a recovery strategy or an action plan, SARA requires that critical habitat then be protected.

In the case of critical habitat identified for terrestrial species including migratory birds, SARA requires that critical habitat identified in a federally protected areaFootnote 4 be described in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the recovery strategy or action plan that identified the critical habitat is included in the public registry. A prohibition against destruction of critical habitat under ss. 58(1) will apply 90 days after the description of the critical habitat is published in the Canada Gazette.

For critical habitat located on other federal lands, the competent minister must either make a statement on existing legal protection or make an order so that the prohibition against destruction of critical habitat applies.

If the critical habitat for a migratory bird is not within a federal protected area and is not on federal land, within the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of Canada, the prohibition against destruction can only apply to those portions of the critical habitat that are habitat to which the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 applies as per SARA ss. 58(5.1) and ss. 58(5.2).

For any part of critical habitat located on non-federal lands, if the competent minister forms the opinion that any portion of critical habitat is not protected by provisions in or measures under SARA or other Acts of Parliament, or the laws of the province or territory, SARA requires that the Minister recommend that the Governor in Council make an order to prohibit destruction of critical habitat. The discretion to protect critical habitat on non-federal lands that is not otherwise protected rests with the Governor in Council.

Acknowledgments

This recovery strategy was prepared by Marc-André Cyr (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service [ECCC-CWS] – National Capital Region) based on a draft by David Anthony Kirk (Aquila Applied Ecologists – Ottawa, ON). Advice, expertise and document reviews were provided by a technical working group consisting of the following members:

Pam Sinclair (ECCC-CWS – Northern Region), Wendy Easton, Andrew Huang, Chloe Boynton, and Tara Imlay (ECCC-CWS – Pacific Region), Barry Robinson (ECCC-CWS – Prairies Region). Russ Weeber, Mike Cadman, Angela Darwin, and Ken Tuininga (ECCC-CWS – Ontario Region), François Shaffer (ECCC-CWS – Quebec Region), Becky Whittam, Peter Thomas, Kathy St-Laurent (ECCC-CWS – Atlantic Region), Matthew Huntley (ECCC-CWS – National Capital Region), Gregory Mitchell (ECCC-Science and Technology Branch [ECCC-S&T] – Ottawa, ON), Nancy Mahony (ECCC-S&T) – Edmonton, AB), Leah de Forest (Parks Canada Agency), Ally Manthorne and Liz Purves (Birds Canada), Chanda Turner (Inuvialuit Game Council), Donna Hurlburt (Nova Scotia), Garry Gregory (Prince Edward Island), Inge-Jean Hansen (British Columbia), Joanna Wilson (Northwest Territories), Kaytlin Cooper (Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board), Kristyn Richardson (Long Point Basin Land Trust), Laurie Noel and Liette Laroche (Quebec), Maureen Toner and Hubert Askanas (New Brunswick), Shelley Garland (Newfoundland and Labrador), Brandy Downey (Alberta), Katherine Conkin (Saskatchewan), Tim Poole (Manitoba), Dave Fraser (British Columbia), and Mark Elderkin (Nova Scotia).

Additional comments were provided by Marie-Claude Archambault (ECCC-CWS – Ontario Region), Catherine Geoffroy, Kim Borg and Kella Sadler (ECCC-CWS – National Capital Region), Joanne Tuckwell (Parks Canada Agency), Véronique Connolly (private consultant), Kimberly Dohms (ECCC-CWS – Pacific Region), Kevin Kardynal (ECCC-S&T – Prairie Region) and Margaret Eng (ECCC-S&T – Atlantic Region).

We would also like to acknowledge and thank all the organizations and individuals that provided species’ occurrence data from across the species’ range: Birds Canada, Quebec Oiseaux, National Capital Commission, Parks Canada Agency, Department of National Defence, and the various provincial Conservation Data Centres.

Environment and Climate Change Canada would like to acknowledge the contribution of the thousands of volunteers who generously donate their time and expertise to bird monitoring programs throughout North America. Environment and Climate Change Canada also acknowledges the many professional biologists and technicians working for various government agencies and non-government organizations in Canada and the United States who helped to establish, design, run and analyze the Breeding Bird Survey and Breeding Bird Atlas results.

Executive Summary

The Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) was listed as a threatened species in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2017.

The Bank Swallow is an aerial insectivorous bird that nests in colonies on vertical cliff faces, and banks along waterbodies and human-made habitats. The species predominantly winters in the Southern Cone Grasslands of Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. In Canada, the Bank Swallow population shows severe long-term declines, with slower declines in recent years.

The causes of Bank Swallow population declines are unclear. Multiple factors likely have a cumulative impact on the species. The most likely primary threat to Bank Swallow are the broad-scale ecosystem modifications in the breeding, migration, and wintering areas of the species resulting in less abundant invertebrate prey. The loss of natural nesting sites from erosion control measures and a reduction in prey availability as a result of climate change may create further pressure on the species.

There are unknowns regarding the feasibility of recovery of the Bank Swallow. Nevertheless, in keeping with the precautionary principle, this recovery strategy has been prepared as per section 41(1) of SARA, as would be done when recovery is determined to be feasible.

The population and distribution objectives for the Bank Swallow are as follows:

The broad strategies to be taken to address the threats to the survival and recovery of the species are presented in the section “Strategic Direction for Recovery”. Broad strategies aim to reverse the loss of nesting, foraging and roosting habitats. Further research and monitoring on the demographic parameters and migratory connectivity of the Bank Swallow are required to prioritize conservation measures.

The critical habitat identified in this recovery strategy is insufficient to meet the population and distribution objectives. The identification of critical habitat is based on confirmed nesting occurrences in natural settings reported between 2001 and 2017. A schedule of studies outlines the key activities that are required to complete the identification of critical habitat. Examples of activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat are also outlined.

One or more action plans for the Bank Swallow will be posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry within five years after the final version of this recovery strategy is posted. Action plans provide the detailed recovery planning that supports the strategic direction set out in the recovery strategy for the species.

Recovery Feasibility Summary

Based on the following four criteria that Environment and Climate Change Canada uses to establish recovery feasibility, there are unknowns regarding the feasibility of recovery of the Bank Swallow. In keeping with the precautionary principle, this recovery strategy has been prepared as per section 41(1) of SARA, as would be done when recovery is determined to be technically and biologically feasible. This recovery strategy addresses the unknowns surrounding the feasibility of recovery.

1. Individuals of the wildlife species that are capable of reproduction are available now or in the foreseeable future to sustain the population or improve its abundance.

Yes. The Bank Swallow is still a relatively common and widespread species despite its long-term population declines. The Canadian population of the Bank Swallow is estimated from 2.4 million individuals (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2020) to 3.46 million individuals (Boreal Avian Modelling Project 2020). There are currently adequate numbers of individuals of the species to sustain the population or improve its abundance.

2. Sufficient suitable habitat is available to support the species or could be made available through habitat management or restoration.

Unknown. It is unknown if sufficient nesting habitat in natural settings remains to support the recovery of the species. Measures to control hydrological regimes and shoreline erosion continue to be implemented, likely resulting in a net loss of natural nesting habitat. The Bank Swallow is opportunistic in its use of nesting habitat. The proportions of the breeding population found in natural or human-made habitats likely depend on availability of nesting features and regional density of Bank Swallows. The suitability of human-made nesting habitats may have declined in Canada due to changes in quarry operation standards and roadcut design. Human-made settings that maintain nesting habitat may slow the overall rate of decline.

The loss of natural habitats that produce insect prey, such as wetlands and natural grasslands, is ubiquitous over the Bank Swallow’s range. The quality of foraging habitats in “functional landscapes”Footnote 5 might be degraded due to agricultural intensification or release of contaminants, such as pesticides. Foraging habitat requirements for the Bank Swallow are well known, although insect prey availability at critical periods of the annual cycle requires further investigation. Sufficient foraging habitat can be made available to support the species through restoration of ecosystem features that produce insects.

On the breeding grounds, Bank Swallows congregate at nocturnal roosts before fall migration. Some roost sites hosting large numbers of Bank Swallows are known, but the location of many smaller roosts remain undocumented. Historically, the Bank Swallow may have roosted in smaller wetlands, but a large proportion of those habitats have been lost in southern Canada. Despite the key importance of roost sites for Bank Swallow, the location, size and availability of those habitats are mostly unknown.

3. The primary threats to the species or its habitat (including threats outside Canada) can be avoided or mitigated.

Unknown. Multiple factors on the breeding, migration, and wintering range are likely having a cumulative impact on the species, with possible carry-over effects from one region to the other. Broad-scale ecosystem modifications reducing the abundance or quality of insects consumed by Bank Swallow and climate change resulting in phenological changes in abundance of insects during the breeding period may be important threats to the species. The degradation of ecosystem functions that support the production of insects may be avoided following important changes in agricultural production systems and land use policies. Impacts of climate change may be mitigated following drastic changes in agricultural production systems, consumption of goods, and emissions of greenhouse gases.

In Canada, erosion control and water level management have been implemented widely along rivers and lakes resulting in loss of nesting habitat. Natural hydrological regimes can be implemented in cooperation with hydroelectricity producers and dam operators. Most provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions have strong legislation in place to protect shorelines. Climate change may create an increasing risk to coastal infrastructure, which may accelerate efforts to stabilize shorelines. Further loss of nesting habitat may be avoided by sound land-use planning and better knowledge of the impacts of climate change. When alternative natural habitat cannot be created to offset habitat loss from development, surrogate nesting structures might be considered while ensuring that foraging habitat is available.

4. Recovery techniques exist to achieve the population and distribution objectives or can be expected to be developed within a reasonable timeframe.

Unknown. Mitigating threats to the Bank Swallow represents considerable challenges. The broad-scale ecosystem modifications on the breeding, migration and wintering areas largely result from market forces driving land use policies and production systems. Strong international collaboration will be required to develop and implement sustainable agricultural production systems and land use policies. In Canada, market-based incentives and certification schemes can be implemented to drive the adoption of sustainable agricultural systems that maintain ecosystem services and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Restoration of ecosystem processes and sustainable development along shorelines, also known as nature-based solutions, can be implemented to mitigate the risk and severity of erosion and flooding. Strong collaboration with provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions will be required for climate change adaptations that will co-benefit the Bank Swallow. Further research on migratory connectivity, wintering habitat use, and demographic rates of the Bank Swallow may help to prioritize conservation measures for the species.

1. COSEWIC* Species Assessment Information

Date of Assessment:May 2013

Common Name (population): Bank Swallow

Scientific Name: Riparia riparia

COSEWIC Status: Threatened

Reason for Designation: This widespread species has shown a severe long-term decline amounting to a loss of 98% of its Canadian population over the last 40 years. As with many other aerial insectivores, the decline continues, albeit at a slower rate since the 1980s. Breeding Bird Survey data from 2001-2011 indicate a potential loss of 31% of the population during that 10-year time period. The reasons for these declines are not well understood, but are likely driven by the cumulative effects of several threats. These include loss of breeding and foraging habitat, destruction of nests during aggregate excavation, collision with vehicles, widespread pesticide use affecting prey abundance, and impacts of climate change, which may reduce survival or reproductive potential.

Canadian Occurrence: Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador

COSEWIC Status History:Designated Threatened in May 2013.

* COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada)

2. Species Status Information

The Bank Swallow is listed as threatened in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) since 2017. The Bank Swallow is protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, which protects all individuals of the species as well as its nest and eggs on federal and non-federal lands.

In addition to federal protection, the Bank Swallow is listed as threatened under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act since 2014, and as endangered under Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act since 2017. The species is not listed under legislation for species at risk in the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, or Newfoundland and Labrador. The provinces of Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, and the Yukon and the Nunavut territories do not have legislation for species at risk. Provincial and territorial legislation and policies on the Bank Swallow support the conservation and protection of the species and its habitats on non-federal lands.

The NatureServe national status ranking in Canada and the United States are listed in Table 1 in addition to the Canadian sub-national conservation ranks.

Table 1. Conservation status ranks for the Bank Swallow (NatureServe 2017)
Global (G) rank National (N) ranks Sub-national (S) ranks
G5

Canada: N5B, N5M

United States: N5B

Yukon Territory (S4B)

Northwest Territories (S2?B)

British Columbia (S4B)

Alberta (S4B)

Saskatchewan (S5B, S5M)

Manitoba (S4B)

Ontario (S4B)

Quebec (S2S3B)

New Brunswick (S2S3B, S2S3M)

Nova Scotia (S2S3B)

Prince Edward Island (S2S3B)

Newfoundland Island (S1S2B, SUM)

Labrador (S2B, SUM)

Conservation Status ranks (G-Global, N-National, S-Sub-National); 1: Critically Imperilled, 2: Imperilled; 3: Vulnerable, 4: Apparently Secure, 5: Secure, ?: Inexact Numeric Rank; U: Unrankable; B: Breeding; M: Migrant.

3. Species information

3.1 Species description

The Bank Swallow has an average body length of 12 cm and a typical weight of 12.7 to 15 g, making it the smallest swallow in Canada. Its upperparts are a dark brown that extends to the top of the head and it has a large brown band across the upper part of the chest. The rest of the body, including the chin and throat, are white. Both sexes are similar in appearance. Bank Swallows can be distinguished from other swallows by the brown band that crosses their chest. The nominate subspecies R. r. riparia is the only subspecies found in Canada (Turner and Rose 1989).

The Bank Swallow is an aerial insectivorous bird that nests in colonies. Nesting Burrows are excavated in vertical banks, primarily along waterways (Garrison and Turner 2020). In Canada, the species nests from mid-May to late August. Estimates of generation time (“average age of parents in a cohort”) range from 1.7 to 2 years (COSEWIC 2013).

3.2 Species population and distribution

Distribution

The Bank Swallow has an extensive global distribution, being present on almost every continent except Antarctica and Australia (Garrison and Turner 2020). In North America, it nests in Canada and the northern half of the United States (Winkler 2006). The species has an extensive distribution on its wintering grounds in Central and South America (Figure 1), with higher concentrations in the Southern Cone Grasslands of Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay (Fink et al. 2020). The species also winters in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Central America. In Canada, the Bank Swallow breeding range includes all provinces, Yukon and the Northwest Territories (Garrison and Turner 2020). The species rarely occurs in Nunavut. In 2013, the COSEWIC estimated the extent of occurrence (the area that encompasses the known breeding range) of the Bank Swallow to 9.95 million km2 in Canada. The area of occupancyFootnote 6 of the Bank Swallow expanded after Europeans settled in North America due to the creation of transportation corridors, sandpits, and clearing of forests for agriculture, which created suitable conditions for nesting and foraging (Erskine 1979; Cadman et al. 1987; Erskine 1992; Federation of Alberta Naturalists 1992; Bols 2017).

The Bank Swallow is found across all three Maritime provinces (Stewart et al. 2015). The species is known to breed in both Newfoundland and Labrador (P. Thomas, pers. comm. 2021; see Appendix E). In Ontario and Quebec, a large portion of the population is found in the southern regions of the provinces (Cadman et al. 2007; Quebec Breeding Bird Atlas 2017). In Manitoba, the highest densities occur in the Prairie Potholes region and along the Hayes, Owl, and lower Nelson Rivers in the Hudson Bay Lowlands, where long sections of steep, exposed banks provide nesting habitat (Artuso et al. 2017; T. Poole, pers. comm. 2021). Preliminary data from the Saskatchewan Breeding Bird Atlas indicates most nesting evidence in the Prairie Potholes region, although survey effort is currently limited north of this region (Birds Canada, 2020). In Alberta, data from the first Breeding Bird Atlas showed that more than 85% of these swallows nested in the southern half of the province (Federation of Alberta Naturalists 1992), with few reports in the Canadian Shield. In British Columbia, the Bank Swallow is generally restricted to areas below 752 m of altitude (W. Easton, pers. comm.) in the southern interior and the boreal taiga plains regions (Howie 2015). Bank Swallow colonies are commonly found along the coastline of Atlantic Provinces, but seldom occur along the coastline of British Columbia. The species is common in Yukon, particularly in the southern part of the territory, and has been confirmed nesting as far north as the Babbage River near the Beaufort Sea coast (Sinclair et al. 2003). It has not been surveyed extensively in the Northwest Territories, but large colonies exist on the the Mackenzie and Arctic Red River (Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board, unpubl. data).

Figure 1 - please read long description.
Figure 1. Breeding, migrating and wintering distribution of Bank Swallow (adapted from BirdLife International 2016). 
Long description

Figure 1 shows the breeding distribution of the Bank Swallow throughout most of Canada, crossing through the provinces and some territories, the breeding distribution also includes Alaska and northern United States.  The migration distribution includes the southern half of the United States as well as Mexico, Cuba, the Caribbean Islands, Guatamala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Belize and Honduras. The wintering distribution of the Bank Swallow includes Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, Guyane, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia and Brazil.

Comparisons of first and second breeding bird atlases in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta show a decrease in the area of occupancy of this species, shown by a reduction in the number of atlas squares with confirmed breeding evidence (Table 2). The Bank Swallow shows a decrease in its area of occupancy despite the increase survey effort from first to second atlases.

Table 2. Number of Atlas squares with reported confirmed breeding in first and second atlases
Region Number of 10 x 10 km atlas squares with confirmed breeding - first atlas Number of 10 x 10 km atlas squares with confirmed breeding - second atlas Percent change (%)
Maritimesa 792 433 -45.3
Quebecb 804 416 -48.3
Ontarioc 1421 987 -30.5
Albertad 227 76 -66.5

a First Atlas period: 1986–1990 (Erskine 1992); Second Atlas period: 2006–2010 (Stewart et al. 2015).

b First Atlas period: 1984–1989 (Gauthier and Aubry 1995); Second Atlas period: 2010–2014 (Quebec Breeding Bird Atlas 2017).

c First Atlas period: 1981–1985 (Cadman et al. 1987); Second Atlas period: 2001–2005 (Cadman et al. 2007).

d First Atlas period: 1987–1991 (Federation of Alberta Naturalists 1992); Second Atlas period: 2000–2005 (Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007).

The Bank Swallow is opportunistic in its choice of nesting sites, readily using both natural and human-made habitats (Erskine 1979; Burke 2017; Garrison and Turner 2020). Bank Swallow distribution is influenced regionally by geomorphological and hydrological conditions needed to create nesting habitat, which are relatively fixed in the landscape and persistent over time. Locally, the location of erodible banks used as nesting substrate may change over time following erosion and accretion processes, and re-vegetation. In human-made settings, nesting habitat may become available following bank excavation, then rapidly become unsuitable following grading of vertical faces or colony disturbance from industrial activities. The reduction in the area of occupancy in the last two decades might be explained, in part, by changes in the design of transportation corridors, aggregate, and shoreline management practices (COSEWIC 2013; section 4.2 Description of threats). In Ontario, colonies found in road-cuts have not been reported since the 1990s (COSEWIC 2013), which is attributed to changes in road-cut design that has become less suitable for nesting. Road-cuts suitable for nesting are also becoming less common in Yukon (P.H. Sinclair, pers. comm. 2020) and in Labrador (P. Thomas, pers. comm. 2021).

The locations and sizes of breeding, post-fledging and pre-migratory roosts are poorly known for Bank Swallow, despite the important conservation value that these sites are believed to have for these diurnal migrants (Falconer et al. 2016a; Saldanha 2016; Kelly and Pletschet 2017; Saldanha et al. 2019; Imlay et al. 2020). Some roost sites hosting tens to hundreds of thousands of Bank Swallows are known, such as Whitewater Lake, Manitoba and Long Point, Ontario, but the location of many smaller roosts remain undocumented.

Population

The Bank Swallow remains common in North America despite long-term declines, with an estimated population of 7.9 million adults (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2020). The breeding population of the Bank Swallow in Canada, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) results, is estimated at 2.4 million adults (95% confidence interval: 1.6–3.4 million), of which approximately 18% breed in Quebec, 17% in British Columbia, 16% in Manitoba, 12% in Alberta, 12% in the Northwest Territories, 10% in Saskatchewan, 7% in Ontario, with the remainder in relatively small numbers in Yukon, Nunavut and Atlantic provinces (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2020). The proportion assigned to Ontario likely does not account for the large nesting colonies on the shore of Lake Erie, which are not well surveyed by BBS routes (Falconer et al. 2016a). The highest numbers of Bank Swallows counted on BBS routes are found in the Maritimes, southern Quebec and Ontario, Manitoba and Yukon (Figure 2). In the United States, the specie is most abundant in the states north of Oregon, Illinois and New Jersey, as well as in Alaska.

The Boreal Avian Modelling (BAM) Project estimates the breeding population at 3.46 million adultsFootnote 7 (Confidence Interval: 2.91–4.27 million; Boreal Avian Modelling Project 2020). The predicted highest densities of the species can be found in Quebec, Ontario, and the Prairie Potholes Region. The predicted high densities in the Boreal Softwood Shield of Manitoba and Saskatchewan should be interpreted with caution as they are not supported by observations from the Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas (Artuso et al. 2017) and preliminary data from the Saskatchewan Breeding Bird Atlas (Birds Canada, 2020). The BAM predictive model can over-predict species densities in regions with sparse data (Boreal Avian Modelling Project 2020).

The BAM Project provides population estimates based on models of species density in relation to environmental variables. Environmental variables include tree species biomass (local and landscape scale), forest age, topography, land use, and climate, but not surficial geology or hydrology, likely important predictors of nesting habitat occurrence and Bank Swallow density. Species observations include a combination of the BAM database of point-count surveys (through 2018), the Breeding Bird Survey, and provincial Breeding Bird Atlases. In addition, the use of environmental covariates in the BAM population estimate model reduces sampling effort bias and attenuates the low detection rate of Bank Swallows during the BBS roadside counts.

Both Partners in Flight and BAM population estimation methods have limitations and biases when applied to Bank Swallow. More precise population estimates can be obtained from local colony surveys. For example, the best available information in Ontario obtained from surveys of colony sites on the Great Lakes, along rivers, and at human-made habitats indicates a Bank Swallow breeding population of more than 400,000 adults (Falconer et al. 2016a). This estimate differs markedly from the 180,000 adults in Ontario derived from the BBS (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2020).

Figure 2 - please read long description

Figure 2. Map of relative abundance (average number of birds counted/route/year; 1979-2019) of Bank Swallow in Canada and the United States from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). Areas in dark red indicate higher relative abundance and areas in pale yellow indicate areas of lower relative abundance. White areas indicate regions were data was insufficient, although nesting occurrences might occur sparsely. 

Source: Smith et al. 2020.

Long description

Figure 2 shows the map of relative abundance of Bank Swallow in Canada and the United States. The areas with the highest relative abundance include several areas such as Alaska, parts of Washington and Montana, parts of Minnesota, as well as parts of Quebec and most of the maritime regions of Canada. The areas with high abundance but less than the previous areas are Yukon, parts of B.C, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as well as almost half of Quebec and  the maritime regions and Newfoundland and Labrador which has a lower relative abundance. Several parts of the northern half of the United States also have a high relative abundance. Areas with a medium level of relative abundance are most of the northern parts of Canada, parts of Ontario, parts of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador as well as parts of the United States such as parts of South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa for example. The relative abundance gradually gets lower in some parts of Canada such as Newfoundland and Labrador, the northern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan, some parts the Provinces and States on the west coast that border the Pacific Ocean. Several States also have a lower abundance such as parts of Montana and Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania as well as parts of Texas for example. 

In Canada, the Bank Swallow population has shown a 5.3% annual decline in abundance between 1970 and 2019 based on BBS data (Table 3). Aerial insectivores, including swifts, swallows and nightjars, began declining in the 1980s with Bank Swallow showing the steepest decline (Smith et al. 2015). In the early 1990s, the Bank Swallow population declined by more than 10% annually, but recent declines have slowed or stabilized (Figure 3). Nationally, the latest short-term trend indicates an average 1.3% annual increase for the 2009-2019 period. Both over the long and short term, the Bank Swallow population has shown the largest annual declines in Yukon, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces, with less severe declines in the Prairie Provinces (Table 3). In Saskatchewan, a positive trend can be observed on the short-term and long-term, although the latter is not statistically significant. The causes for this positive trend, also observed in other jurisdictions of the Prairie Potholes (Bird Conservation Region 11), remain unexplained but may be related to increased development and availability of human-made nesting habitat. In the Northwest Territories and in Newfoundland and Labrador, a positive, but not statistically significant trend is observed over the short-term.

Despite the short-term, positive population trend in Canada, steep declines continue to occur west and east of the Prairie Provinces. The short-term positive trend in Canada must be interpreted with caution and may not indicate an improved condition of the Bank Swallow population. Excluding BBS data of Saskatchewan from national estimates, the Bank Swallow population shows a 10 year population decline of more than 30 percent. It is currently unknown whether the different trends observed across Canada are the result of local conditions on the breeding grounds, non-breeding grounds, or a combination of factors across the range of the species.

As with population estimates, targeted colony counts may provide more accurate population trends. In Ontario, numbers of breeding Bank Swallows along the shore of Lake Erie were at an all-time low in 2020, continuing the downward trend from 2019 (Ontario Bank Swallow Working Group meeting, November 2020). Important declines in areas that have historically supported high numbers of Bank Swallows might be indicative of population declines at a broader scale.

Table 3. National and regional annual average estimates of percent population change (including 95% Confidence Limit [CL]) for the Bank Swallow in Canada over the long and short terms, based on Breeding Bird Survey results
Geographic area Long-term Trend (1970 to 2019) %/year Long-term Trend (1970 to 2019) lower CL Long-term Trend (1970 to 2019) upper CL Long-term Trend (1970 to 2019) overall reliability Short-term Trend (2009 to 2019) %/year Short-term Trend (2009 to 2019) lower CL Short-term Trend (2009 to 2019) upper CL Short-term Trend (2009 to 2019) Overall reliability
Canada -5.3 -8.0 -3.4 Medium 1.3 -5.2 9.5 Low
Newfoundland and Labrador -3.3 -10.9 4.7 Low 1.7 -15.7 22.6 Low
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Islanda -8.6 -10.9 -6.6 Medium -8.3 -18.2 -1.0 Low
New Brunswick -10.1 -12.4 -7.8 Medium -12.6 -22.2 -1.8 Low
Quebec -9.5 -11.8 -6.6 Medium -9.8 -18.1 1.8 Low
Ontario -6.6 -9.1 -4.9 Medium -9.4 -14.7 -3.9 Low
Manitoba -3.4 -6.4 -1.0 Medium -3.3 -8.5 2.8 Low
Saskatchewan 2.0 -0.5 4.2 Medium 17.1 8.9 26.5 Low
Alberta -4.5 -9.8 -1.3 Low -2.6 -9.6 4.8 Low
British Columbia -4.5 -7.2 -1.7 Medium -4.6 -13.8 5.9 Low
Yukon -7.5 -12.2 -2.5 Low -11.9 -22.8 1.7 Low
Northwest Territories -1.7 -11.1 8.0 Low 2.1 -18.9 27.6 Low

a Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island each have too small of a sample size of Breeding Bird Survey routes to allow for the calculation of reliable trends, and are thus grouped together when reporting results.

Source: Smith et al. 2020.

The BBS provides reliable long-term population trends at national and provincial scales for the Bank Swallow, as the survey covers areas where the species is likely most abundant (COSEWIC 2013). The Bank Swallow may be over-represented in areas with roadcut habitat and aggregate pits compared to natural habitats, where the species is less likely to be detected (COSEWIC 2013). Changes in availability of human-made nesting habitats may influence detection rates of Bank Swallows during BBS road-side surveys, and ultimately influence estimated population trends at the regional and national scales. BBS data remain the best available information for assessing the population trends and status of the Bank Swallow at a national level because of their broad coverage.

Figure 3 - please read long description

Figure 3. Annual percent change by 10 year periods of the Bank Swallow population in Canada. The most recent 10 year trend period ending in 2019 represents a 14% population increase over ten years. The orange and red horizontal lines represent 10 year population declines of 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Ten-year population declines of 30 and 50 percent correspond respectively to thresholds for threatened and endangered designations by COSEWIC. Light and dark vertical bars represent 50% and 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Trends are based on Breeding Bird Survey data.

Source: Smith et al. 2020.

Long description

Figure 3 shows the annual percent change by 10-year periods for the Bank Swallow in Canada. On the x-axis is the ending year of 10-year trend, which starts at 1980 and goes until 2020, on the y-axis is the annual percent change, which increases from -10 to +10. The graph shows a gradual increase in annual percent change by 2019. 

3.3 Needs of the Bank Swallow

Nesting habitat

Bank Swallows excavate burrows within which a rudimentary nest is built from grasses, feathers and twigs. These nesting burrows are generally excavated each year, although a small proportion of old burrows may be re-occupied (Garrison and Turner 2020); frequency of re-use of burrows varies regionally (Sinclair et al. 2020). Nesting colonies are found in vertical or near-vertical structures composed of exposed and unconsolidated silt or sand deposits (Falconer et al. 2016a). Attributes of a bank include the talus and the vertical face, also referred to as “vertical bank” or “nesting face” (John 1991; Burke 2017). Burke (2017) defines the talus as the “sloped accumulation of rock and soil debris at the base of cliff or bank” and the vertical face as the “vertical portion of bank situated above talus”. The vertical face represents the suitable portion of a bank where Bank Swallows can nest. In Saskatchewan, the heights of vertical banks at nesting colonies averaged 1.8 m (range 0.5 to 6.6; n = 60; Hjertaas 1984). A vertical face height of 0.5 m is used in this recovery strategy as the minimum vertical face height of a suitable nesting site.

In natural settings, nesting colonies are generally located along river bluffs, lakeshores or coastlines where regular erosion keeps the bank suitable for burrow excavation (Falconer et al. 2016a; Garrison and Turner 2020). Nesting burrows are aggregated into colonies of variable sizes, ranging from a few nesting pairs to several thousand (COSEWIC 2013; Garrison and Turner 2020).

Bank Swallows opportunistically establish nesting colonies in human-made habitats. Burrows can be found in vertical or near-vertical faces in aggregate pits, along road-cuts, and in piles of sand, gravel, or sawdust (COSEWIC 2013; Falconer et al. 2016a; Garrison and Turner 2020). Human-made settings may become unsuitable for nesting within three to five years without regular sediment excavation. Human-made structures built as surrogate nesting habitat have been rapidly colonized by Bank Swallows where natural conditions suitable for nesting have previously existed (Laberge and Houde 2015). In these human-made structures, excavation or addition of material may create or maintain suitable conditions for the birds to excavate burrows.

The accumulation of sediments and the subsequent growth of vegetation on the talus slope (below the vertical face) can limit the erosion process of banks supporting nesting colonies and result in the hardening of the nesting substrate. This natural, long-term process on rivers, larger lakes and coastlines may lead to the abandonment of the nesting location and contribute to the spatiotemporal changes of colony locations. Colony locations might be further restricted by the presence of vegetation at the top of the colony face, where roots can create an obstacle to burrow excavation (Garrison and Turner 2020).

Changes in human practices are also associated with changes in colony locations. In aggregate pits, banks maintained at less than 70 degrees do not provide adequate nesting sites for Bank Swallows. Over the last decades, changes in the design of roadcuts (the vertical banks alongside roads that pass through hilly terrains) to lower grades have reduced the suitability of this artificial nesting habitat compared to older designs (COSEWIC 2013). Such changes in habitat availability might have inflated the declining trends detected by roadside surveys such as the Breeding Bird Survey.

Foraging habitat

The Bank Swallow is an aerial insectivore that forages over open country and aquatic habitats that support insect populations (Moffatt et al. 2005; Garrison and Turner 2020). Open country includes habitat with perennial cover such as natural grasslands, pastures, hayfields, and croplands (Moffatt et al. 2005; Falconer et al. 2016a; Saldanha 2016; Garrison and Turner 2020). In agricultural landscapes, hedgerows and shelterbelts enhance the richness and abundance of flying invertebrates by providing shelter; that is, refuge from perturbations of farming practices and perches for predatory insects (Griffiths et al. 2008). Aquatic habitats include rivers, creeks, lakes, wetlands and sewage lagoons, as well as coastal waters. In Ontario, Bank Swallows nesting along the shore of Lake Erie were observed foraging along the lakeshore, and over hay and pasture fields instead of cropland (G. Mitchell, pers. comm.). Croplands are often either prophylactically (as a preventive measure) or heavily treated with pesticides and typically represent low habitat heterogeneity, which may reduce insect availability for Bank Swallows (Moffatt et al. 2005; Saldanha 2016).

Bank Swallows are “central-place foragers” meaning that the species forages in a radial pattern from the nest. The distance travelled for catching prey is influenced by environmental factors and time of breeding (Turner 1980; Saldanha 2016). The most important environmental factors are insect abundance and weather; Bank Swallows have been found to travel 80% farther to forage during cold or rainy weather (Turner 1980). By installing field markers and noting at which field markers Bank Swallows started feeding, Turner (1980) estimated the minimum travel distances between nest and feeding sites at a sand pit colony in the United Kingdom. Mean travel distance was 600 m during nest buildingFootnote 8, 439.2 m during egg layingFootnote 9, 388.5 m during incubationFootnote 10, 216.0 m during rearing of 1st broodFootnote 11, and 143.6 m during rearing of 2nd broodFootnote 12. In poor weather conditions (temperature lower than 16 degrees Celcius), Bank Swallows foraged 501.8 m from the colonies (SD of 197.1; Turner 1980). In New Brunswick, Saldanha (2016) monitored presence or absence of radio tagged birds in 300 m radius plots within 2 km of colonies using manual tracking radio antenna. Swallows were detected more frequently within 300 to 600 m from colonies and seldomly detected in outer plots. Foraging trips greater than 2 km from the colonies were monitored using automated telemetry towers. While the most foraging occurred near the colonies, foraging trips greater than 2 km were frequent, with one individual travelling over 15 km from the colony (Saldanha 2016). In Ontario, radio-tagged Bank Swallows generally foraged close to colonies, with few flights detected beyond 1,0002 m (Falconer et al. 2016a). Consistent with Turner’s (1980) observation of travel distances in poor weather conditions and recent observations that most foraging occurs near colonies, a 500 m distance is hereby used to define the scale of foraging habitat.

There is limited knowledge of Bank Swallow foraging habitat and foraging distances outside of the breeding season, although most accounts point towards the use of a variety of open terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Falconer et al. 2016a; Garrison and Turner 2020; K. Kardynal, pers. comm. 2021). During periods of cold or rainy weather, large numbers of swallows converge to forage over habitats that support high concentrations of insects.

Roosting habitat

Roosts are the places where any number of Bank Swallows regularly settle or congregate to rest. Communal roosting of various swallow species occurs all year between dusk and dawn, although less frequently during the breeding period (COSEWIC 2013; Falconer et al. 2016a; Saldanha 2016).

During fall migration, flocks consisting of several hundred Bank Swallows mixed with other swallow species congregate at stopover roost sites (Winkler 2006; COSEWIC 2013; Garrison and Turner 2020). During the nesting period, both adults can leave the nest site and roost overnight, travelling up to 14 km in New Brunswick (Saldanha 2016; Saldanha et al. 2019) and more than 30 km in Ontario (Falconer et al. 2016b). Adults appear to frequently switch between roost locations (Saldanha 2016), suggesting that the presence of multiple roost locations in proximity to nesting colonies could have biological significance for Bank Swallows (Falconer et al. 2016b). Bank Swallows usually roost in wetlands of cattail, Phragmites or other tall vegetation (COSEWIC 2013; Falconer et al. 2016a,b; Saldanha 2016).

During the post-fledging period, adults and young roost communally, perching on a wide variety of natural and human made structures. In Barn Swallows (Hirundo rustica), a species with similar communal behaviour, post-fledging occurs generally within 20 km of the nest site (C. Boynton, pers. comm. 2021). Characteristics of post-fledging habitat are not well known, despite the presumed importance of that period for recruitment of individuals into the population. Structures used for perching, such as exposed roots, tall grasses, bushes, hedgerows, trees, telephone wires and clotheslines, located close to an insect-producing habitat may be used as roosts by large numbers of swallows.

Overall, Bank Swallow roost locations and habitat characteristics are poorly known. Large swallow roosts have been detected using weather radar, but validating roost locations and species composition of roosting flocks is made difficult due to the low lighting conditions when birds enter or leave sites.

Limiting factors

Colonial nesting and communal roosting provide advantages such as protecting against predation, helping in thermoregulation, and providing an indication of habitat quality to prospecting individuals (Laughlin et al. 2016; Saldanha et al. 2019). Despite these advantages, colonial nesting and communal roosting may expose large numbers of individuals to random natural events. Bank slumping resulting in the loss of eggs, nestlings, fledglings or adults, limited food availability in adverse weather or depredation of nests can reduce the overall productivity or survival of the population. Local colony sizes can decrease within the nesting season due to erosion, bank collapse, predation, and burrow slumping, then increase due to re-nesting after erosion (Cadman and Lebrun-Southcott 2013).

Depredation of eggs, nestlings, fledglings or adults may reduce the productivity of the population. However, burrow nesting offers relative protection against predators (COSEWIC 2013; Burke 2017). Predators include raccoons, foxes, chipmunks, badgers, skunks, weasels, coyotes, snakes, hawks, falcons, crows, gulls, ravens and grackles (COSEWIC 2013; Falconer et al. 2016a; Burke 2017). Mammalian predators may depredate a large proportion of nests within a colony over a short period. Burke (2017) observed lower predation rates at aggregate pit colonies in relation to lakeshore colonies.

Several flea species (order Siphonaptera) are known to inhabit Bank Swallow burrows and can reduce nestling weights by about 5% (Alves 1997). Several larval blowfly species (order Diptera) frequently infest colonies, and at least one species, Protocalliphora chrysorrhoea, is restricted almost entirely to inhabiting the nests of Bank Swallows and parasitizing nestlings (Sabrosky et al. 1989). Although P. chrysorrhoea infestations may cause physiological stresses in nestlings, nestling mortality rates are unaffected (Whitworth and Bennett 1992). Burke (2017) observed that fledglings at aggregate pit sites had fewer ectoparasites than fledglings at lakeshore sites, possibly because of a higher number of old burrows along lakeshores containing parasites from the previous year.

4. Threats

4.1 Threat assessment

The Bank Swallow threat assessment is based on the IUCN-CMP (World Conservation Union–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threats classification system (version 2.0). This threat assessment was conducted in May 2018. Threats are defined as the proximate activities or processes that have caused, are causing or may cause in the future the destruction, degradation, and/or impairment of the entity being assessed (population, species, community, or ecosystem) in the area of interest (global, national, or subnational). Limiting factors are not considered during this assessment process. Historical threats, indirect or cumulative effects of the threats, or any other relevant information that would help understand the nature of the threats are presented in the Description of Threats section.

Table 4. Threat calculator assessment
Threat number Threat description Impacta Scopeb Severityc Timingd
1 Residential and commercial development Negligible Negligible (<1%) Extreme (71 to 100%) High (continuing)
1.1 Housing and urban areas Negligible Negligible (<1%) Extreme (71 to 100%) High (continuing)
1.2 Commercial and industrial areas Negligible Negligible (<1%) Extreme (71 to 100%) High (continuing)
2 Agriculture and aquaculture Negligible Negligible (<1%) Slight (1 to 10%) High (continuing)
2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops Negligible Negligible (<1%) Slight (1 to 10%) High (continuing)
2.3 Livestock farming and ranching Negligible Negligible (<1%) Slight (1 to 10%) High (continuing)
2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture Not Calculated Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
3 Energy production and mining Negligible Restricted (11 to 30%) Negligible (<1%) High (continuing)
3.2 Mining and quarrying Not a Threat Restricted-Small (1 to 30%) Neutral or Potential Benefit High (continuing)
3.3 Renewable energy Negligible Restricted (11 to 30%) Negligible (<1%) High (continuing)
4 Transportation and service corridors Low Pervasive (71 to 100%) Slight (1 to 10%) High (continuing)
4.1 Roads and railroads Low Pervasive (71 to 100%) Slight (1 to 10%) High (continuing)
4.3 Shipping lanes Not a Threat Negligible (<1%) Neutral or Potential Benefit High (continuing)
4.4 Flight paths Not Calculated Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
5 Biological resource use Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (continuing)
5.1 Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (continuing)
6 Human intrusions and disturbance Negligible Negligible (<1%) Slight (1 to 10%) High (continuing)
6.1 Recreational activities Negligible Negligible (<1%) Slight (1 to 10%) High (continuing)
6.3 Work and other activities Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (continuing)
7 Natural system modifications Medium Pervasive (71 to 100%) Moderate (11 to 30%) High (continuing)
7.1 Fire and fire suppression Not Calculated Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
7.2 Dams and water management/use Low Small (1 to 10%) Serious (31 to 70%) High (continuing)
7.3 Other ecosystem modifications Medium Pervasive (71 to 100%) Moderate (11 to 30%) High (continuing)
7.4 Removing / Reducing human maintenance Negligible Negligible (<1%) Moderate (11 to 30%) High (continuing)
8 Invasive and problematic species, pathogens and genes Low Restricted (11 to 30%) Slight (1 to 10%) High (continuing)
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants and animals Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (continuing)
8.2 Problematic native plants and animals Low Restricted (11 to 30%) Slight (1 to 10%) High (continuing)
9 Pollution Unknown Large (31 to 70%) Unknown High (continuing)
9.2 Industrial and military effluents Unknown Unknown Unknown High (continuing)
9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents Unknown Large (31 to 70%) Unknown High (continuing)
9.5 Air-borne pollutants Unknown Large (31 to 70%) Unknown High (continuing)
11 Climate change and severe weather Unknown Pervasive (71 to 100%) Unknown High (continuing)
11.1 Ecosystem encroachment Unknown Small (1 to 10%) Unknown High (continuing)
11.3 Changes in temperature regimes Unknown Pervasive (71 to 100%) Unknown High (continuing)
11.4 Changes in precipitation and hydrological regimes Unknown Pervasive (71 to 100%) Unknown High (continuing)
11.5 Severe / Extreme Weather Events Unknown Pervasive (71 to 100%) Unknown High (continuing)

a Impact– The degree to which a species is observed, inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly threatened in the area of interest. The impact of each threat is based on Severity and Scope rating and considers only present and future threats. Threat impact reflects a reduction of a species population or decline/degradation of the area of an ecosystem. The median rate of population reduction or area decline for each combination of scope and severity corresponds to the following classes of threat impact: Very High (75% declines), High (40%), Medium (15%), and Low (3%). Unknown: used when impact cannot be determined (e.g., if values for either scope or severity are unknown); Not Calculated: impact not calculated as threat is outside the assessment timeframe (e.g., timing is insignificant/negligible or low as threat is only considered to be in the past); Negligible: when scope or severity is negligible; Not a Threat: when severity is scored as neutral or potential benefit.

b Scope – Proportion of the species that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within 10 years. Usually measured as a proportion of the species’ population in the area of interest. (Pervasive = 71 to 100%; Large = 31 to 70%; Restricted = 11 to 30%; Small = 1 to 10%; Negligible < 1%).

c Severity – Within the scope, the level of damage to the species from the threat that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within a 10-year or three-generation timeframe. Usually measured as the degree of reduction of the species’ population. (Extreme = 71 to 100%; Serious = 31 to 70%; Moderate = 11 to 30%; Slight = 1 to 10%; Negligible < 1%; Neutral or Potential Benefit ≥ 0%).

d Timing– High = continuing; Moderate = only in the future (could happen in the short term [< 10 years or 3 generations]) or now suspended (could come back in the short term); Low = only in the future (could happen in the long term) or now suspended (could come back in the long term); Insignificant/Negligible = only in the past and unlikely to return, or no direct effect but limiting.

4.2 Description of threats

The causes of Bank Swallow population declines are unclear. Multiple factors are likely having a cumulative impact on the species; however, it is unknown if a specific threat limits the Bank Swallow somewhere on its range or during part of its annual cycle. This recovery strategy considers the declines in aerial insect-prey populations resulting from the broad-scale ecosystem modifications in the breeding, migration, and wintering areas of the species, as the most likely primary threat to Bank Swallow (Table 4). It is unknown if climate change is inducing net gains or losses in nesting habitat and insect-prey availability. However, climate change likely induces a mismatch in timing between nest initiation and insect prey emergence, which may have an impact on nestling survival. Several other threats, described below, likely have a lower, but cumulative impact on the species. Threats might have a lower or higher impact on the Bank Swallow in certain parts of its breeding range in Canada, depending on the landscape composition and the proportion of natural or human-made habitats used by the species for nesting or foraging. Threats likely to affect the species within the next ten years are described below from highest to lowest impact and certainty.

In this section, information that is not accompanied by a reference, such as estimations of scope and severity and the resulting level of impact, has been obtained from expert opinion during the assessment of IUCN-CMP threats to the Bank Swallow in May 2018.

IUCN-CMP Threat 7.3 Other ecosystem modifications (medium impact)

Insect populations are exhibiting significant declines worldwide (Conrad et al. 2006; Collen et al. 2012; Dirzo et al. 2014; Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019). A review of global faunal population trends noted that 33% of all insects with available IUCN-documented population trends were declining and many also exhibited range contractions (Dirzo et al. 2014). Ecosystem modifications that have the highest level of impact to the Bank Swallow include those associated with declines in aerial insect-prey diversity and abundance. These threats, described below, result from the loss or degradation of ecosystem functions supporting insect production, possibly the primary limiting factor to the recovery of the Bank Swallow and other aerial insectivores. Populations of aerial insectivores are showing dramatic declines, particularly in northeastern North America (Nebel et al. 2010; Michel et al. 2015; Smith et al. 2015). The common diet of this diverse group of species implies a reduction in available insect prey in breeding, migratory, or wintering areas as a probable contributing factor in the declining population trends of aerial insectivores (Nebel et al. 2010, Hallman et al. 2014; Rioux Paquette et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2015; Imlay et al. 2018a).

Ecosystem modifications that have a lower level of impact on the Bank Swallow include those associated with the loss or degradation of nesting habitat in the breeding range in Canada. These threats are prevalent in the southern part of the species’ Canadian range where humans have extensively modified shorelines and coastlines to prevent or control erosion and have altered hydrological regimes. Cumulatively, the scope of ecosystem modifications on the species is considered pervasive. It is expected that the Bank Swallow population may continue declining at a rate similar to the one observed in the last ten years, given that the contributing factors for these ecosystem modifications persist.

Loss of natural habitat supporting insect production

The ongoing loss of ecosystem functions that support insect production, including the conversion of natural habitats and farmland for residential and commercial developments, and for intensive agriculture is an important threat throughout the species’ range. Aquatic habitats, such as wetlands, ponds and sewage lagoons, likely provide higher-quality prey for Bank Swallows compared to terrestrial habitats and aggregate pits (Twining et al. 2016, 2018; Génier et al. 2021). Across southern Canada, wetlands are especially vulnerable to drainage and land conversion (Kennedy and Mayer 2012). By 2002, in Southern Ontario, over 85% of wetlands that existed prior to European settlement (early 1800s) had been permanently converted to other land types (Ducks Unlimited Canada 2010). Similarly, about 25% of the original wetlands of the prairie potholes region of southwestern Manitoba remain (ECCC 2016) and more than 90% of remaining wetlands have been negatively impacted from agriculture (Bartzen et al. 2010). In the United States, where the species is both a passage migrant and where a large proportion of its population nests, about half of natural wetlands have been lost since European settlement (Dahl 2000, 2011). Despite a significant reduction in the loss of wetland area in Canada and in the United States due to “no net loss” policies, natural wetlands and their ecological functions continue to be lost from agricultural and urban expansion (Quigley and Harper 2006). The loss of insect-producing habitats is ubiquitous over the Bank Swallow’s range and likely has cumulative effects with other threats resulting in projected population declines.

Changes in agricultural practices

Agricultural practices and the expansion of agricultural lands associated with European settlement in North America likely contributed to an increase in the extent of open habitat types that supported considerable insect production and Bank Swallow foraging habitat. Over the past 200 years, landscapes in southern Canada have changed dramatically with the expansion of agriculture (Neave and Baldwin 2011, cited in Falconer et al. 2016a). In provinces east of the Prairies, forested lands have been converted to open habitat and urban areas, while most natural grassland have been converted to arable land, likely increasing the available foraging habitat for Bank Swallow and other aerial insectivore birds foraging in open habitats. In the grasslands and parklands regions of the Canadian Prairies, natural grasslands have largely been converted to arable land following European settlement.

In the last century, afforestation of agricultural land has reduced open country habitats used as foraging habitat by the Bank Swallow in Ontario and Quebec (Latendresse et al. 2008; Neave and Baldwin 2011, cited in Falconer et al. 2016a). However, in the last 40 years, the amount of open country habitat in North America has not changed extensively (Latendresse et al. 2008; Neave and Baldwin 2011, cited in Falconer et al. 2016a). The increasing rate of agricultural intensification is expected to reduce the rate of afforestation over the long term in Quebec (Latendresse et al. 2008) and likely in other provinces east of the Prairies. In the Prairies, agriculture remains the dominant land use, with frequent changes in types of crops between years (ESTR Secretariat 2014; PHJV 2014).

Since the 1960s, the agricultural sector has been changing dramatically. There has been widespread adoption of intensive agricultural practices in many areas; however, other areas have seen a reduction in land area used for crops, especially in the northeast of Canada (Neave and Baldwin 2011, cited in Falconer et al. 2016a). Agricultural intensification includes the increasing extent of monocultures over mixed crops; the amalgamation of small farms into larger farms; the removal of hedgerows between crops; the removal of riparian buffers; the drainage or filling of seasonal wetlands; and the abandonment of set-aside fallows (Jobin et al. 1996; Matson et al. 1997; Donald et al. 2001; Benton et al. 2003; Murphy 2003; Tscharntke et al. 2005; Latendresse et al. 2008; Watmough et al. 2017; Statistics Canada 2020).

Agricultural intensification results in the loss of non-crop land cover, such as pastures, wetlands, old fields and field margin vegetation including hedgerows, and shelterbelts (Benton et al. 2003; Latendresse et al. 2008; Watmough et al. 2017), which constitute insect producing habitat. These changes have generally resulted in agroecosystems supporting lower levels of invertebrate prey (Benton et al. 2003; Donald et al. 2006; Ghilain and Bélisle 2008) especially later during the breeding season (Rioux Paquette et al. 2013). Lower prey abundance in agricultural landscapes has been associated with lower reproductive success (Ghilain and Bélisle 2008; Rioux Paquette et al. 2014) and reduced breeding adult body condition in Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor; Stanton et al. 2016).

Overall, agricultural intensification reduces the availability of insect-rich, open habitats (Benton et al. 2003; ESTR Secretariat 2014; Falconer et al. 2016a) leading to declines in avian populations and farmland biodiversity (Chamberlain et al. 2000). The effects of insect-producing habitat loss are likely twofold: by reducing the reproductive output of breeding Bank Swallows, as observed in other aerial insectivores (Ghilain and Bélisle 2008; Rioux Paquette et al. 2014); and by limiting the suitability of potential nesting habitat adjacent to insect-rich, open habitats (Moffat et al. 2005).

Use of pesticides

Insecticide use in agricultural or forested landscapes can have indirect effects on insectivorous birds through reductions in abundance of insects on which the Bank Swallow feeds (Boatman et al. 2004; Stanton et al. 2018). In addition, insecticide use has been associated with long-term changes in invertebrate species composition and reduction in diet quality in aerial insectivores (Nocera et al. 2012; Pomfret et al. 2014).

Introduced in the 1990s, neonicotinoid insecticides are currently the most widely used class of insecticides globally and their use continues to increase. Neonicotinoids are ubiquitous in many landscapes where crop agriculture is the dominant land use (Sparks 2013; Douglas and Tooker 2015; Malaj et al. 2020). In Canada, the three major neonicotinoids (thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid) are all in the top 5 most frequently applied insecticides in the Prairie Pothole Region, where about 85% pesticides are applied in the country (Malaj et al 2020). Neonicotinoids are highly soluble in water and are used as systemic insecticides, meaning that they are absorbed and distributed through all parts of the plant. They are most commonly applied as seed treatments, and it is estimated that twenty percent or less of the seed treatment goes into the plant, with the remainder entering the environment through the soil, water, and as dust (Goulson 2014). Neonicotinoids can persist in soil for years. Due to their solubility, they readily move into aquatic environments (Environment Canada 2011; Main et al. 2014) and disperse to untreated areas, resulting in chronic exposures in non-target organisms (Goulson 2013; Jones et al. 2014; Krupke and Tooker 2020). Neonicotinoids were detected in wetlands located near cultivated crops over one year following seeding, and watercourses away from application areas (Environment Canada 2011; Xing et al. 2013; Main et al. 2014; Morrissey et al. 2015; Struger et al. 2017).

Neonicotinoids have been found to impair aquatic habitat function, including the production of insects used as prey by insectivorous birds (Pisa et al. 2014, 2021; Cavallaro 2019). Some of the most sensitive species are emergent aquatic insects, which are a group that comprises a large proportion of the swallow diet (Morrissey et al. 2015; Maloney et al. 2018). Reduced prey availability could potentially result in reduced reproductive rates (Ghilain and Bélisle 2008; Rioux Paquette et al. 2014).

Recently, in Canada, some mitigation measures have been put in place to reduce the risk of the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam and clothianidin to aquatic invertebrates (Health Canada 2021a,b). However, neonicotinoids will continue to be used on large areas of Canada on cereal, oilseed, vegetable crops, forestry, and in greenhouses. In addition, there are several systemic insecticides being used as alternatives or in combination with neonicotinoids, such as butenolides and diamides, which are increasing in use and are being detected in wildlife and the environment (e.g., Bishop et al. 2020). Those products share many characteristics with neonicotinoids, including neurotoxicity, water solubility, and environmental persistence. There is evidence that diamides are more toxic than neonicotinoids to aquatic invertebrates (EFSA 2013, Lavtizar et al 2015, Maloney et al 2019), but effects in birds are still largely unknown.

In Canada, microbial insecticides are commonly used since the 1980s for controlling populations of biting insects, such as mosquitoes and flies. The larvicide Btk (B.t. var. kurstaki), which occurs naturally in soils, is used extensively in southern Ontario for the control of gypsy moths in woodlots and in urban areas. The larvicide Bti (Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensi) is commonly used in rural areas for biting mosquito control. In a study in France, Bti application was found to impact non-target invertebrates and ultimately reduce the Common House Martin (Delichon urbicum), an aerial insectivore bird (Poulin et al. 2010; Jakob and Poulin 2016). A review of risks related to Bti application identified negative, indirect effects on food chains, wildlife populations, and ecosystem services (Gouvernement du Québec 2019).

Direct evidence between pesticide use and Bank Swallow reproductive success are lacking (Stanton et al. 2018). However, various studies demonstrated the effects of pesticides on population trends of swallows and other species (Hallmann et al. 2014; Stanton et al. 2018; Li et al. 2020). Finally, warmer temperatures have increased the abundance of pest insects in cereal crops, suggesting that climate change may ultimately result in increased pesticide use in agricultural systems (Ewald et al. 2015). The effect of pesticides on foraging habitat quality is considered pervasive in scope, given that the foraging habitat of Bank Swallows is often associated with waterbodies and agricultural landscapes.

Use of fertilizers

Limited information is available on the indirect effects of fertilizer application on invertebrate and bird communities in agricultural landscapes (Stanton et al. 2018, but see Yosef and Deyrup 1998); despite high fertilizer input typically being associated with intensive agriculture (Hole et al. 2005). Despite limited gains in crop productivity, over-application of phosphorus fertilizers may result in persistent accumulation in soils and leaching to waterbodies (AAFC 2018).

Nutrient leaching from terrestrial systems to waterbodies result in increased blooms of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) and hypoxic conditions. The compounded effects of nutrient leaching, pesticide contamination, and climate change in the Great Lakes have been associated with long-term declines in Hexagenia mayflies (Stepanian et al. 2017, 2020). Another indirect, negative effect of fertilizer use on avian species includes contamination by cyanotoxins during harmful cyanobacteria blooms. Cyanotoxin contamination was detected throughout a riparian food-chain, but no detrimental effects were detected in the nestlings of Prothonotary Warblers (Protonotaria citrea), an insectivorous bird (Moy et al. 2016). Potential effects of fertilizer application on the Bank Swallow foraging habitat are likely pervasive, but more information is needed to determine impacts at population-level.

Erosion-control measures

Erosion control measures have been implemented widely along shorelines where human settlements occur or where they reduce the risk of damage to infrastructure (COSEWIC 2013). Erosion control includes shoreline stabilization using hard structures (groynes, seawalls, breakwaters, and rock embankments) and soft structures (vegetation and beach nourishment). Boyer-Villemaire et al. (2016) reviewed the cost-benefit analysis of erosion control measures in coastal settings against no intervention scenarios. This analysis concluded that hard structures were optimal in 15% of scenarios, whereas soft structures or non-intervention was optimal in 85% of scenarios.

Bank stabilization can result in direct nesting habitat loss for Bank Swallows either by replacing the bank’s unconsolidated sediments with hard structures or by changing the bank slope angle making the site unsuitable for burrow excavation (Bank Swallow Technical Advisory Committee 2013; Silver and Griffin 2009; Falconer et al. 2016a). Bank stabilization can indirectly result in nesting habitat loss when the natural erosion processes are eliminated by stabilizing the base of the bank or removing wave action (Silver and Griffin 2009; Chassiot et al. 2020). In California, the loss of nesting habitat from shoreline stabilization along the Sacramento River was directly related to local colony extirpation (Bank Swallow Technical Advisory Committee 2013). Removal of shoreline stabilization structures along the Sacramento River was identified as a key measure for the recovery of Bank Swallow in California (Girvetz 2010).

The expected increase in coastal erosion from rising sea levels and ice scouring associated with climate change (see threats 11.3 and 11.1), as well as the expansion of human developments along coasts may accelerate efforts to stabilize shorelines (Environment Canada 2006; Lemmen et al. 2016) and further nesting habitat loss. Along inland waterbodies, the expected increase in water level fluctuations and extreme events such as spring runoff and ice scouring may also result in increased efforts to stabilize shorelines (M. Cadman, pers. comm.).

IUCN-CMP Threat 7.2 Dams and water management (low impact)

Fluctuations in water levels and peak discharge rates in creeks, rivers and lakes throughout inhabited areas of North America are now widely controlled by the use of flood control and hydroelectricity dams (Graf 2006; Monk et al. 2010). The loss of natural hydrological processes on dammed rivers is considered to have reduced bank erosion rates, which led to lower nesting site availability (Moffat et al. 2005; Falconer et al. 2016a). New hydroelectricity developments are scarceFootnote 13 on the species’ Canadian breeding range, but may impact large colonies in otherwise undisturbed areas. New constructions of hydroelectricity dams may result in various positive or negative impacts until a new hydrological regime stabilizes (Silver and Griffin 2009). Short-term effects are considered to have an extreme severity on the species if existing nesting sites are lost during reservoir flooding. Upstream from dams, reservoir flooding is expected to create bank instability for some time after water levels stabilize, potentially resulting in the creation of nesting sites. On altered watercourses, long-term effects are associated with the absence of natural water flow regimes such as seasonal flooding and high precipitation events. Stabilization of hydrological regimes may reduce bank erosion processes necessary to expose unconsolidated sediments where Bank Swallows can excavate burrows (Falconer et al. 2016a). Furthermore, impoundment and fast release of water by hydroelectric dams can flood occupied nest burrows causing mortality of adults, eggs, nestlings or fledglings (CEAA 2009; COSEWIC 2013). Changes in hydrological regimes are also expected to alter upstream and downstream habitats used by Bank Swallows for roosting or foraging. Overall, changes in hydrological regimes are considered to have localized, but extreme effects on the species.

Some of the largest Bank Swallow colonies in Canada occur on the Great Lakes, where water levels are controlled extensively for water consumption, navigation, and electricity production (IJC 2012). Control of water levels on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River have reduced extreme water level fluctuations (IJC 2012). Rising water levels over the last two decades (Gronewold et al. 2013) is considered to have accelerated lakeshore erosion (G. Mitchell, pers. comm., see Bain et al. 2008), which may lead to higher erosion-control efforts from artificial bank stabilization. However, there is a great amount of uncertainty in projections of Great Lakes water levels (IJC 2012), therefore future impacts on nesting site availability and distribution for Bank Swallow cannot be well predicted (COSEWIC 2013).

IUCN-CMP Threat 4.1 Roads and railroads (low impact)

Exposure of Bank Swallows to roads is widespread within the species’ range. Collision with moving vehicles is considered a minor issue relative to other threats, but regularly occurs with Bank Swallow (Mead 1979a; Ashley and Robinson 1996). Time of year, road configuration, traffic volume and traffic speed influence risk of bird collision with vehicles (Bishop and Brogan 2013). Construction of new roads encroaching on waterbodies, as well as maintenance of existing roads and roadcuts may result in the loss of natural nesting sites. In some regions of the breeding grounds, Bank Swallows have nested extensively on roadcuts when road design created suitable nesting conditions (COSEWIC 2013). In areas where the species still nest on roadcuts, the widening of rights-of-way, straightening of roads, and sloping of roadside banks might result in the removal or reduction of nesting habitat. In Canada, the number of colonies found on roadcuts have declined overall, which may partially explain regional population trends obtained from Breeding Bird Survey data.

IUCN-CMP Threat 8.2 Problematic native plants and animals (low impact)

Increasing abundance of ravens (Corvus corax), coyotes (Canis latrans), foxes (mostly Vulpes vulpes), raccoons (Procyon lotor), skunks (Mephitis mephitis) and gulls (Larus sp.) above background levels due to increased urbanization may be leading to increased depredation of eggs or nestlings at colonies. Depredation during the nesting period may reduce the reproductive success of the population. For example, raccoons have greatly expanded their range northwards over the course of the last century, possibly due to an increase in food availability related to the expansion of agriculture (Larivière 2004). They are now widespread in the Canadian Prairies and even in the boreal forest (Larivière 2004; Latham 2008) and their distribution overlaps that of Bank Swallow. The impact of this threat is low relative to other threats.

IUCN-CMP Threat 11.3 Changes in temperature regimes (unknown impact)

Changes in temperature regimes are defined as broad-scale changes in mean temperatures and temperature extremes as a result of climate change. These changes are expected to affect Bank Swallows negatively, although the magnitude of population declines from this threat are unknown. In Canada, spring temperatures are generally increasing, which results in the earlier emergence of insects consumed by aerial insectivores.

Some insectivorous bird species have capitalized on these environmental changes by arriving earlier on their breeding grounds and expanding the duration of their breeding season (Newton 2007; Vafidis et al. 2016; Iron et al. 2017). Some species of aerial insectivores, especially long-distance migrants such as the Bank Swallow, face an increasing temporal mismatch between food availability and energy requirements during the breeding season (Both et al. 2010; Ambrosini et al. 2011; Saino et al. 2011; Calvert 2012; Imlay et al. 2018b; 2019). Bank Swallows rely on abundant prey to recover from migration to accumulate energy reserves to produce offspring. In the Maritimes, nest-monitoring information suggests that clutch initiation date of Bank Swallows in the 2006–2016 decade was similar to the 1960s, despite earlier spring insect abundance peaks (Imlay et al. 2018b). Productivity declines observed there (-46% fledglings/pair) may be related to a mismatch between food supply and breeding phenology (Imlay et al. 2018b), possibly in addition to carry-over effects from conditions on the wintering grounds (Imlay et al. 2019). It is unknown if the species has shown similar changes in breeding performance elsewhere within its breeding range, thus the severity of this threat remains unknown.

Other effects of changes in temperature regimes include reduced ice cover on large waterbodies and oceans (Lemmen et al. 2016). Reduced ice cover is likely to increase wave action during winter storms and thus increase the frequency of erosion events (Lemmen et al. 2016; Chassiot et al. 2020). Although increased shoreline erosion might create potential nesting habitat for Bank Swallow in the short term, erosion-control efforts may also be deployed to protect infrastructure, leading to a net loss in nesting habitat on the long term.

IUCN-CMP Threat 11.4 Changes in precipitation and hydrological regimes (unknown impact)

Environmental conditions, such as precipitation and temperatures during winter and spring, influence insect abundance in the spring. Spring insect abundance is an important factor in the breeding performance of insectivorous birds (Williams et al. 2015; Imlay et al. 2018b). In early spring, lower amounts of precipitation can reduce the extent of insect-producing habitats, such as wetlands. Projected changes in precipitation vary by region and by season. Across the species’ breeding range in Canada and especially in the Prairies, more precipitation in the winter and spring is expected over the next 30 years (Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 scenario; Prairie Climate Centre 2019). Bank Swallow survival and, through carry-over effects, breeding productivity, will also be influenced by changes in precipitation and hydrological regimes in the non-breeding grounds. A better understanding of migratory connectivity between breeding and non-breeding grounds is necessary to estimate the effects of these changes on regional Bank Swallow population trends observed in Canada.

IUCN-CMP Threat 11.5 Severe / extreme weather events (unknown impact)

Severe weather events, such as high winds, heavy precipitation or extreme temperatures, can disrupt the ability of aerial insectivores to forage or temporarily reduce the availability of air-borne invertebrate prey (Grüebler et al. 2008; Møller 2013; Cox et al. 2019). During cold or rainy weather, aerial insectivores may need to travel longer distances before returning to the nest (Turner 1980), therefore reducing on a daily basis the amount of food provided to nestlings. Severe weather events, such as hurricanes, can also increase mortality rates during migration or delay arrival date on breeding grounds. Heavy precipitation events that occur during the breeding period can result in bank slumping and cause nest failures. However, those weather events can also create new vertical cliffs (Chassiot et al. 2020) with suitable nesting habitat characteristics. Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and magnitude of severe weather events encountered by Bank Swallows throughout their annual life cycle.

Projected changes in precipitation patterns vary by region. Over the next 30 years, the Pacific coast, Quebec and Atlantic provinces are likely to see more days of heavy precipitation events, with limited change elsewhere in Canada (Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 scenario; Prairie Climate Centre 2019). The effects of these changes on the Bank Swallow’s breeding performance and on local population trends have not been assessed.

During breeding and non-breeding periods, increased frequency and severity of storms and flooding could increase shoreline erosion rates (creating nesting habitat). During the breeding period, rapid changes in water levels associated with flash rainstorms can potentially increase bank or cliff collapse or flooding. Higher erosion rates could lead to increased artificial bank stabilization, contributing to permanent loss of nesting habitat. While this threat will affect Bank Swallows across their breeding range, there is no information on the balance between loss and replacement of nesting habitat.

IUCN-CMP Threat 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (unknown impact)

In addition to the indirect effects of pesticides on birds discussed above, direct contact with pesticides can cause mortality and sub-lethal effects that may contribute to bird population declines in North America, especially for those species that breed, winter, or migrate through agricultural areas (Mineau and Whiteside 2013). Direct exposure could be through inhalation, absorption through the skin, or consumption of contaminated prey or water. Although direct effects of pesticides on Bank Swallow are largely undocumented, pesticide use on both breeding and non-breeding grounds has been implicated in direct mortality and habitat degradation for many avian species (e.g., Goldstein et al. 1999; Mineau et al. 2005; Rogers et al. 2019).

Most organochlorine pesticides (compounds such as DDTFootnote 14) have been banned for decades in North America. However, those products may still be in use in Central and South America (Klemens et al. 2000; Lebbin et al. 2010; Nebel et al. 2010) for mosquito control and in agricultural practices. In addition, they are highly persistent and bioaccumulative; chronic exposure to organochlorine insecticides will likely continue to occur for decades in areas of historic use. Little is known about the extent to which Bank Swallows and other neotropical migrant passerines are exposed to organochlorine pesticides throughout their lifetime, but there is some indication that neotropical migrant insectivores are still being exposed to organochlorine pesticides in North America (Kesic 2021) and during the non-breeding period (Maldonado et al. 2017).

Acutely neurotoxic organophosphorus and carbamate compounds were used increasingly since the majority of organochlorine pesticides were restricted in North America in the 1970s and banned in the 1980s (Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America 2003). Several of these compounds, such as monocrotophos and carbofuran, have been banned in multiple jurisdictions due to their high toxicity to vertebrates including humans. However, other products are still commonly used in Canada, such as chlorpyrifos and malathion (Malaj et al 2020).

In the Netherlands, the presence of neonicotinoids in surface waters have been correlated with declines in insectivorous birds (Hallmann et al. 2014). In North America, higher neonicotinoid use is associated with steeper declines of aerial insectivores and grassland birds (Li et al. 2020). Declines may be in relation to a reduction of insect prey, but direct effects on birds from exposure to low, sub-lethal concentrations are possible (Lopez-Antia et al. 2015; Eng et al. 2017, 2019; English et al. 2021). The exposure of Bank Swallows to neonicotinoid pesticides is unknown but, given the species’ habitat preferences, it is probably widespread on its breeding and non-breeding grounds. Recent assessments have demonstrated that neonicotinoids are routinely detected in birds, including species that do not eat seeds (e.g., Bishop et al. 2018, 2020; Graves et al. 2019; Elgin et al. 2020). Neonicotinoids are metabolized by birds within hours to days (Eng et al. 2021); their detection in non seed-eating birds is an indication of widespread environmental contamination. Notably, in Tree Swallows breeding in Canada’s Prairie Pothole Region, all nestlings and adults measured (n = 56) had detectable concentrations of neonicotinoids in their blood, which indicates that aerial insectivores are directly exposed to neonicotinoids, including through insect prey provisioned to nestlings (Elgin 2020). A major knowledge gap is how chronic exposure to very low sub-lethal concentrations of neonicotinoids affects bird populations. Overall, effects of agricultural contaminants on breeding success and population trends of Bank Swallow remain unknown (Berzins 2020).

IUCN-CMP Threat 9.5 Air-borne pollutants (unknown impact)

Acidification of freshwater ecosystems is a phenomenon that is particularly marked in the northeastern part of the continent (Lacoul et al. 2011), where the soil of the Precambrian Shield offers a limited capacity to neutralize acid. Lakes and soils found in areas of the Canadian Shield in northeastern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and parts of western British Columbia, are also sensitive to acid deposition (ECCC 2018).

Passerines must obtain calcium from their food during the egg-laying period (Hames et al. 2002). Calcium deficiency during this time may lead to breeding failure due to birds laying eggs with thin, weak and more porous shells (St. Louis and Barlow 1993). Tree Swallows, an aerial insectivore sharing a similar diet with Bank Swallow, showed lower reproductive success when nesting and foraging near acidified experimental lakes (St. Louis and Barlow 1993). Bank Swallows are likely affected by acidification on a large portion of their Canadian range; however, there is limited evidence that acidification has impacts on the species’ population.

IUCN-CMP Threat 11.1 Ecosystem encroachment (unknown impact)

Rising sea levels are expected to increase erosion rates of coastal habitat (Prince Edward Island Department of the Environment, Labour and Justice 2011; Lemmen et al. 2016). Bank Swallows mostly nest in coastal habitats in the eastern portion of their range; a large proportion of the species population could be affected by the effects of rising sea levels and increasing coastal erosion rates (Savard et al. 2016; see 7.1.3 Application of critical habitat identification criteria). Increased erosion rates might increase the availability of nesting habitat along coastlines in the short term. However, in inhabited areas, higher erosion rates could lead to increased artificial bank stabilization (Savard et al. 2016), contributing to permanent loss of nesting habitat over the long term. Coastal salt marshes are an important foraging habitat for Bank Swallows in the Atlantic region (Saldanha 2016). Rising sea levels are expected to flood these habitats and lead to a reduction in insect-prey availability.

IUCN-CMP Threat 9.2 Industrial and military effluents (unknown impact)

Mercury exposure may be a potential threat to the Bank Swallow by contamination of its food supply, especially in areas of the breeding or non-breeding grounds with higher availability of emergent aquatic insects (Kardynal et al. 2020). Studies on Tree Swallows have shown high mercury concentrations in insect prey and adult swallows at sites contaminated by mercury in the northeastern United States (Cristol et al. 2008). Insectivorous birds have higher mercury concentrations than birds feeding on seeds or nectar (Keller et al. 2014). Birds foraging over water show higher mercury concentrations, which are also typically higher in birds nesting east of Manitoba (Kardynal et al. 2020; Ma et al. 2021; Twining et al. 2021). Mercury has been implicated in a wide range of negative effects on Tree Swallows and other bird species. These include detrimental alterations of the immune and endocrine systems (Hawley et al. 2009; Wada et al. 2009), reduced productivity and survival rates (Brasso and Cristol 2008; Hallinger et al. 2011) and skewing offspring sex ratios towards females (Bouland et al. 2012). Various studies have also suggested negative effects from organochloride compounds (polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs), mercury and chlorinated hydrocarbons on Tree Swallows (Bishop et al. 1998a, b, 1999, 2000; Hawley et al. 2009). These effects are expected to also occur in Bank Swallows given the similar diet between the two species, although sub-lethal effects associated with mercury contamination in Bank Swallows require further studies (Kardynal et al. 2020).

IUCN-CMP Threat 7.4 Removing / reducing human maintenance (negligible)

Closure of aggregate pits

In the Prairie Provinces, Ontario and Quebec, most Bank Swallow colonies are found in sand or gravel extraction sites, generally referred to as aggregate pits. Bank Swallows nest opportunistically in these artificial nesting sites maintained by extraction activities. The majority of those sites are owned by the industry, or municipal, provincial or territorial governments. In Ontario, 85% of aggregate production takes place in the southern part of the province, following demand where urban expansion and development have been the most extensive (Binstock and Carter-Whitney 2011). Although historical industry practices promoted the operation of extraction sites close to urban centers (Yundt and Messerschmidt 1979), the reliance on aggregate reserves located further from these areas is expected to increase (Binstock and Carter-Whitney 2011).

The aggregate extraction industry was largely unregulated until the 1970s (COSEWIC 2013). Provincial regulations have been implemented to increase licensing and rehabilitation requirements (COSEWIC 2013; Falconer et al. 2016a). Extraction methods and safety policies have limited the occurrence of steep or vertical faces, which have been replaced by gentler or tapered banks that are largely unsuitable for nesting Bank Swallows (COSEWIC 2013). The ongoing rehabilitation of smaller aggregate pits reduces the availability of nesting sites. Several studies from Europe have linked declines in Bank Swallows to changes in the aggregate industry practices (Heneberg 2013).

In Ontario, demand of aggregate material is expected to increase over the next 20 years based on economic and population growth (OMNR 2010). Progressive rehabilitation of aggregate sites represent a beneficial management practice that maintains nesting habitat and contribute to the regional persistence of the Bank Swallow (OMNRF 2017).

Although sand and gravel currently are important sources of aggregate, crushed stone is expected to occupy a larger proportion of the aggregate needs (OMNR 2010). This type of aggregate does not present characteristics for burrow excavation, so crushed stone quarries will likely not provide suitable habitat for Bank Swallow.

Sandpits contribute to the regional persistence of Bank Swallows in areas where riverbanks have become unsuitable for nesting (Burke 2017; Masoero et al. 2019). However, Bank Swallows nesting in sandpits might face an ecological trap. Compared to natural nesting sites, increased mortality occurs as a result of predation or excavation (Williams 2010; Cadman and Lebrun-Southcott 2012; Calvert et al. 2013) and adults show poorer body condition at the end of the breeding season (Burke 2017). Overall, closure or reduced maintenance of aggregate pits reduces the availability of nesting habitat for the Bank Swallow (Lind et al. 2002; Heneberg 2013), but likely impacts a negligible proportion of the population.

IUCN-CMP Threat 6.1 Recreational activities (negligible)

Sandy banks are attractive locations for recreational activities such as mountain biking, dirt biking, climbing, or walking dogs. At active colonies, a single source of disturbance can elicit a large group response, where birds flush from nests and nestlings become exposed to predation or cold temperatures. Disturbance of the vertical face can result in slumping of the bank and subsequently in the loss of nests, eggs or nestlings. Colonies in human-made or coastal settings are likely more exposed to disturbance from recreational activities, but most colonies occur in locations difficult to access.

5. Population and distribution objectives

This recovery strategy defines recovery of the Bank Swallow as a reduced risk of extinction relative to the conditions that led COSEWIC to designate the Bank Swallow as threatened. The Bank Swallow faces an increased extinction risk due to its steep population declines. At a national scale, the species does not show large fluctuations in the number of mature individuals (COSEWIC 2013). Before human-influenced landscape changes became important drivers of Bank Swallow distribution and abundance in Canada (pre-1800s), the species was likely locally abundant over a large range, showing long-term population stability. Therefore, a reduced risk of extinction for the Bank Swallow is defined by widespread, locally abundant in natural settings, and stable population in Canada. Various factors influence regional population trends such as habitat quality, composition, and availability, and conditions on wintering grounds.

Distribution objective:

The extent of occurrence was deemed appropriate to assess the degree of extinction risk amongst the Canadian portion of the Bank Swallow population against the multiple, cumulative threats to the species. The distribution objective aims to maintain redundance of the species in Canada, a key characteristic of species survivalFootnote 16. The Bank Swallow is surveyed extensively, which is a requirement for appropriate measure of extent of occurrence (Gaston and Fuller 2009). The area encompassing the minimum convex polygon delineated from the outermost critical habitat units presented in this recovery strategy establishes a baseline for the distribution objective. This area is representative of the breeding range of the Bank Swallow from 2001 to 2017 in Canada and estimated at 9.51 million km2 (Appendix E – Figure E).

Numerous species of birds have exhibited northern range expansions as a result of climate change, although this pattern has not been observed in some aerial insectivorous birds (Michel et al. 2015). This recovery strategy recognizes that a longitudinal (southward or northward) shift in the Bank Swallow breeding range might occur as a result of climate change (Langham et al. 2015) and create a confounding effect when measuring progress toward the distribution objective. Despite the predicted expansion of the northern limit of its breeding range (Langham et al. 2015, see also National Audubon Society 2021), ongoing declines in the Bank Swallow population could result in fewer birds colonizing the North. Therefore, the extent of occurrence, in addition to reliable estimates of population size and trend, is an important metric for measuring the degree of extinction risk because the larger the extent of occurrence, the less likely that all locations of the Bank Swallow will undergo simultaneous extinction as a consequence of common threats (Gaston and Fuller 2009).

Short-term population objective:

The 12 year period was deemed appropriate for the short-term population objective because determining if a population has stabilized or is increasing will take multiple years of data acquisition. The BBS provides the best available estimates of the direction and magnitude of population trends nationally; as such, the short-term population objective will be assessed based on the 10 year population trend for the period ending in 2033. Short-term (10-year) population trends are produced every year by the Canadian Wildlife Service (Table 3). Over the years, those trends can help understanding whether the conservation status of species is degrading or improving (Figure 3). This population objective aligns with the COSEWIC criteria for species assessment that includes reviewing population change within 10 year windows. It is estimated that a period of 12 years should allow for understanding the primary threats to the species and other aerial insectivores, and to begin implementation of conservation measures. During this period, known factors likely to influence the decline of the species must be mitigated (see section 6: Broad Strategies and General Approaches to Meet Objectives).

This recovery strategy recognizes that the population size of Bank Swallows in Canada will continue to decline until the population trend stabilizes. In achieving the short-term population objective, conservation measures should be put in place so that the population size in Canada declines by no more than 20% between 2021 and 2033.

Long-term population objective

A 20-year period following the short-term objective was deemed appropriate to set a long-term population objective to allow conservation measures aimed at stabilizing and supporting recovery of the Bank Swallow population to act. Multiple years of data acquisition are necessary to determine accurate population trends. The BBS provides the best available estimates of the direction and magnitude of population trends; as such, the long-term population objective will be assessed annually based on 10 year population trend periods from the BBS. This population objective aligns with the COSEWIC criteria for species assessment that includes reviewing population change within 10 year windows.

Achieving the long-term population and distribution objectives will require implementation of conservation measures that remove or mitigate the threats to Bank Swallows identified during the first 10 years of recovery. Strong international collaboration will be required to recover Bank Swallow, as the species spends a short period of the year in Canada. Threats and limiting factors in the United States, where about 70% of the North American population of Bank Swallows breeds, might strongly influence the population trend observed in Canada. Following a 92% decline since 1970, the Bank Swallow still shows a negative, but non-statistically significant decline over the 2009-2019 period (Smith et al. 2020). The degree to which the Bank Swallow population can be stabilized and recovered is uncertain given the limited knowledge on the nature and irreversibility of the threats affecting the species (see Recovery Feasibility Summary). The degree to which the Bank Swallow population will be able to recover is partially dependent upon the impacts of climate change on the species. These impacts are currently unknown and cannot be projected with certainty.

This recovery strategy recognizes that the population size of Bank Swallows in Canada will continue to decline until the population trend is anticipated to stabilize. In achieving the long-term population objective, conservation measures should be put in place to partially recover losses to the Bank Swallow population so that the population size in Canada remains above 90% of its 2021 level.

6. Broad strategies and general approaches to meet objectives

6.1 Actions already completed or currently underway

Numerous activities have been initiated since the latest COSEWIC assessment in 2013. The following list is not exhaustive, but is meant to illustrate the main areas where work is already underway to give context to the broad strategies to recovery outlined in section 6.2. Actions completed or underway include the following:

Conservation plans

Conservation measures

Monitoring

Several community-science and conservation-oriented monitoring projects have been implemented in Canada that include Bank Swallow in the framework of activities. These include the following groups and/or projects:

Research

6.2 Strategic direction for recovery

The threats contributing to Bank Swallow population declines remain unclear, driving the need for investigation on the species’ migratory ecology and habitat use, especially at migration stopovers and on wintering grounds. Despite those uncertainties, building international partnerships that will address common drivers of aerial insectivore declines and maintain important habitat for the species should be prioritized. A recent workshop on aerial insectivores identified research, conservation and outreach priorities related to aerial insectivores in Canada (Berzins 2020). Research and management approaches that may benefit the recovery of Bank Swallow have been included in the recovery planning table and grouped by broad strategies and conservation action classificationFootnote 19 (Table 5).

Table 5. Recovery planning table
Broad strategy Threat or limiting factor Prioritya General description of research and management approaches
Awareness Raising

2.3 Livestock farming and ranching

3.2 Mining and quarrying

6.1 Recreational activities

High 3.1 Outreach and Communication
  • Promote habitat stewardship and compliance to the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and its regulations at Bank Swallow colonies found in natural or in anthropogenic settings
Livelihood, Economic and Moral Incentives

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops

2.3 Livestock farming and ranching

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

High 5.2 Better Products and Management Practices
  • Identify and implement incentives aimed at municipalities, landowners, and farmers for limiting pesticide use and promoting Integrated Pest Management practices
  • Provide incentives aimed at farm operations for considering Bank Swallow’s habitat needs when developing and implementing environmental farm plans
Livelihood, Economic and Moral Incentives 3.2 Mining and quarrying High 5.2 Better Products and Management Practices
  • Promote to operators of pit and quarry beneficial management practices that avoid or reduce disturbance to nesting colonies, such as setting buffer zones near active colonies, tapering bank slope outside of the nesting season, and creating nesting substrate in areas that will not be disturbed during the nesting season (see OMNRF 2017)
Livelihood, Economic and Moral Incentives

1.1 Housing and urban areas

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

Moderate 5.5 Non-Monetary Values
  • Identify and implement incentives aimed at landowners to maintain native and perennial vegetation cover
Conservation Designation and Planning

1.1 Housing and urban areas

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops

High 6.1 Protected Area Designation and/or Acquisition
  • On breeding grounds, protect wetlands used as roosting habitat, especially those that play a critical role for the recovery of Bank Swallow
Conservation Designation and Planning 6.1 Recreational activities Moderate 6.5 Site Infrastructure
  • Reduce human disturbance by designating exclosure zones and installing signage around nesting colonies where appropriate
Land / Water Management

1.1 Housing and urban areas

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops

High 1.2 Ecosystem and Natural Process (Re)Creation
  • Restore lost or severely degraded wetlands, especially in areas with nesting habitat
Land / Water Management

1.1 Housing and urban areas

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

High

1.2 Ecosystem and Natural Process (Re)Creation

  • Restore shorelines into nesting habitat in areas with low risk of future damage to infrastructure where erosion-control measures have been implemented (Boyer-Villemaire et al. 2016)
  • Replace aging erosion-control measures by natural solutions adapted to the risks of climate change (planting vegetation and natural features to reduce bank erosion)
  • Consider restoration of fluvial systems using a “freedom space” approach which strengthens resilience to extreme meteorological events and optimizes availability of natural nesting habitat for the Bank Swallow (see Biron et al. 2013a,b)
  • Revegetate top of nesting cliffs and banks that have been cleared to promote cliff stability and protection of burrows from heavy surface water runoff
Legal and Policy Frameworks

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents

High 7.1 Laws, regulations and codes
  • Create or amend regulations based on an assessment on the potential risks of pesticides to aquatic insects
Legal and Policy Frameworks

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents

High 7.1 Laws, regulations and codes
  • Create or amend federal regulations based on an assessment on the potential risks of pesticides to aerial insectivore populations with a focus on prey availability and prey contaminant load
Institutional Development 7.3 Other ecosystem modifications High

10.3 Alliance and Partnership Development

  • On breeding grounds, engage with provincial and territorial governments to encourage sustainable land-use planning and restoration of ecosystem processes, also known as nature-based solutions that mitigate shoreline erosion and maintain natural nesting habitat
  • Support non-governmental organizations in the delivery of nesting, foraging and roosting habitats stewardship programs to private landowners
Institutional Development

3.2 Mining and quarrying

4.1 Roads and railroads

7.4 Removing / Reducing human maintenance

High

10.3 Alliance and Partnership Development

  • Engage with land owners to develop appropriate stewardship, voluntary measures, mitigation or other appropriate measures in order to protect occupied nests in human-made habitat
Institutional Development

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

9.3 Agricultural and Forestry Effluents

Moderate

10.3 Alliance and Partnership Development

  • Work with international partners within the Bank Swallow’s range to develop and implement sustainable production systems and land use policies
Institutional Development 7.2 Dams and water management/use Moderate 10.3 Alliance and Partnership Development
  • On breeding grounds, engage with water level regulation agencies, dam operators and hydroelectricity producers to maintain natural hydrological processes and create Bank Swallow habitat
Institutional Development Knowledge gap Moderate

10.3 Alliance and Partnership Development

  • Develop new international partnerships and maintain existing partnerships to collaborate on roost detection using weather radar
Institutional Development 4.1 Roads and railroads Low

10.3 Alliance and Partnership Development

  • Engage with the appropriate government level to reduce vehicle speed limits on roads adjacent to Bank Swallow colonies and roosts
Research and Monitoring Knowledge gap High 8.1 Basic Research and Status Monitoring
  • Collaborate with international partners to determine wintering distribution and habitat association with goals of identifying priority areas for conservation and of understanding historical changes in wintering habitats availability and quality
Research and Monitoring Knowledge gap High 8.1 Basic Research and Status Monitoring
  • Estimate demographic parameters and possible carry-over effects throughout the annual cycle with goal of identifying the limiting period of the annual cycle
Research and Monitoring Knowledge gap Moderate

8.1 Basic Research and Status Monitoring

  • Conduct surveys at nesting colonies in natural and human-made settings to determine the between-year dispersal distances of juveniles and breeding adults; determine how individuals respond to regional changes in nesting habitat availability; and determine dispersal patterns between natural and human-made settings
  • Conduct surveys at natural nesting colonies to determine the within-year dispersal distances of breeding adults and determine how individuals respond to disturbances
Research and Monitoring Knowledge gap Moderate

8.1 Basic Research and Status Monitoring

  • Develop a predictive model of Bank Swallow population size that includes hydrology and surficial geology as environmental variables, and incorporate data from colony surveys in order to improve population estimates
Research and Monitoring Knowledge gap Moderate

8.1 Basic Research and Status Monitoring

  • Monitor insect biomass and availability at key times and locations during the annual cycle and determine main drivers of insect abundance
Research and Monitoring

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents

Moderate

8.1 Basic Research and Status Monitoring

  • Collaborate with international partners to examine levels of exposure to pesticides and other contaminants during the wintering and migration periods
Research and Monitoring

11.1 Ecosystem encroachment

11.4 Changes in precipitation and hydrological regimes

11.5 Severe / Extreme Weather Events

Low 8.1 Basic Research and Status Monitoring
  • Conduct projections of shoreline erosion-accretion processes related to climate change and assess potential for creation or loss of nesting habitat
Research and Monitoring Knowledge gap Low 8.2 Evaluation, Effectiveness Measures and Learning
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of different designs of surrogate nesting structures based on the nesting requirements of the species, species breeding productivity, and co-benefits provided by the structure such as erosion control

a “Priority” reflects the degree to which the broad strategy contributes directly to the recovery of the species or is an essential precursor to an approach that contributes to the recovery of the species

6.3 Narrative to support the recovery planning table

As indicated in the Recovery Feasibility Summary section, mitigating threats to the Bank Swallow represents considerable challenges. Recovery of the Bank Swallow will require commitment and collaboration among federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions, Indigenous peoples, local communities, landowners, and industry to reverse the loss of nesting, foraging and roosting habitats. Concurrently, further research on migratory connectivity, wintering habitat use, and demographic rates of the Bank Swallow may help prioritizing conservation measures for the species.

Conservation measures for nesting habitat

The loss of nesting habitat is prevalent in the southern part of the species’ range where humans have extensively altered hydrological regimes and modified shorelines and coastlines to prevent or control erosion. Sea level rises, more frequent flooding events, and increased ice scouring associated with climate change may accelerate efforts to control erosion along shorelines. Where technically feasible and required to support recovery, shorelines should be restored to create nesting habitat for Bank Swallow. Natural nesting habitat may be provided when adaptation to climate change involves removing structures threatened by erosion or by not replacing structures that have reached the end of their useful life.

Any new residential, commercial or industrial development should avoid removing nesting habitat in natural settings. Risks of damage to infrastructure related to climate change, such as erosion and flooding, may be reduced by avoiding new developments along shorelines where Bank Swallow nesting habitat occurs. Outside of designated critical habitat units, natural nesting habitat should be created before the following nesting season when removing existing nesting habitat cannot be avoided. Nesting habitat compensation should result in an increase of available nesting habitat that persists over the long-term. Foraging habitat should be available or created near the vertical banks to ensure effectiveness of nesting habitat compensation (Moffatt et al. 2005). Bank Swallows should have occupied the replacement nesting habitat before existing habitat is removed. When self-sustaining, natural nesting habitat cannot be created to offset habitat loss, surrogate nesting structures might be considered (e.g., Laberge and Houde 2015) while ensuring that foraging habitat is available. However, surrogate nesting structures might provide limited long-term support for the recovery of the species as they become unsuitable without annual maintenance (Bank Swallow Technical Advisory Committee 2013). Therefore, surrogate nesting structures must be maintained until self-sustaining natural nesting habitat is created or restored.

On breeding grounds, water level regulation agencies, dam operators and hydroelectricity producers should maintain flow regimes that promote natural hydrological processes and create Bank Swallow habitat. Release of large volumes of water from reservoir during the nesting period should be avoided to reduce the risk of bank collapse and loss of nestlings. However, controlled releases before the beginning of the breeding season have the potential for increasing available nesting habitat by eroding banks (Moffatt et al. 2015).

Disturbance to active colonies must be avoided to minimize the risk of nesting failure and bird mortality. Bank Swallow colonies are commonly found in human-made habitats and nesting success in those habitats will contribute to the recovery of the species. Quarry operators should adopt beneficial management practices that avoid or reduce disturbance to nesting colonies, such as setting buffer zones near active colonies or tapering bank slope outside of the nesting season. Where appropriate, human disturbance should be prevented by designating exclosure zones and installing signage around nesting colonies. In addition, vehicle speed limits should be reduced on roads adjacent to Bank Swallow colonies and roosts, especially where those habitats and prime foraging habitat are separated by a road. Law enforcement authorities should conduct surveillance in areas identified as critical habitat in this recovery strategy with high levels of recreational activities.

Conservation measures for foraging habitat

The broad-scale ecosystem modifications on the breeding, migration and wintering grounds associated with the loss of ecosystem services largely result from market forces driving land use policies and production systems. In Canada, market-based incentives and certification schemes can be implemented or improved to drive the adoption of sustainable agricultural systems that maintain ecosystem services, such as support of wildlife habitat. New evaluations or reevaluations of pesticide registration should include an assessment of their potential risks to non-target insects and indirect effects on other wildlife. Strong international collaboration will be required to develop and implement sustainable production systems and land use policies.

Wetlands and grasslands play a significant role in the production of insects consumed by the Bank Swallow, but continue to be lost or degraded at an alarming rate in North America. The availability of foraging habitat near nesting habitat increases the likelihood of recovering the species (Moffatt et al. 2005). On breeding grounds, land owners should continue to protect and restore wetlands used as foraging or roosting habitats to ensure no net loss. Governmental agencies should identify and implement incentives aimed at landowners to ensure no net loss of native and perennial vegetation cover which act as source and shelter for insects. Government agencies should provide incentives aimed at farm operations for considering Bank Swallow’s habitat needs when developing and implementing environmental farm plans. Any new residential, commercial or industrial development should avoid removing foraging habitat near or in areas of critical habitat. In addition, lost or degraded wetlands should be restored, especially in areas of critical habitat.

Conservation measures for roosting habitat

In addition to supplying insects consumed by the Bank Swallow, wetlands are commonly used as roosting habitats when the species is present in Canada. During the breeding period, wetlands may be used as nocturnal roost by a large number of Bank Swallows, with individuals travelling 30 km from their colony (Falconer et al. 2016b). After the breeding period, the Bank Swallow uses wetlands to roost at night before the fall migration. Very little is known about the location and number of Bank Swallows at roosting sites. The proximity of nocturnal roosting habitat to nesting habitat likely is an important landscape characteristic for the conservation of Bank Swallows (Falconer et al. 2016b; Saldanha et al. 2019). Conservation measures to foraging habitat may be applied to roosting habitat, but within a larger area from nesting sites.

Research and monitoring

Further research on habitat use on the Canadian range, demographic parameters and migratory connectivity of the Bank Swallow are required to prioritize conservation measures. On the Canadian range, the designation of critical habitat will protect the nesting and foraging habitats required to recover the species. Communal roosts play an important role during the breeding, post-fledging, and pre-migratory periods, but their characteristics, location and availability for swallows are poorly known. Completing the research activities described in the Schedule of Studies section will inform the designation of critical habitat.

Survival, productivity and recruitment rates are demographic parameters that may indicate whether recovery of the Bank Swallow is limited by factors on the breeding, migration or wintering grounds. Monitoring at nesting colonies can provide data which inform the demographic parameters of the species. Further studies are needed on the differences in demographic parameters and between-year dispersal between natural and human-made nesting sites. Monitoring at nesting sites must be done over multiple years and at multiple colonies across the species’ breeding range, as portions of the breeding populations might winter in different areas of South America and be affected by different levels of threats.

Monitoring on the breeding range must be complemented by migratory connectivity studies, such as with stable isotopes or Global Positioning System (GPS) units. Collaboration with international partners is required to determine the wintering distribution and habitat use of the species. Overall, information on the limiting factors and habitat use will help prioritize conservation efforts and identify priority areas required for the recovery of Bank Swallows.

7. Critical habitat

Critical habitat is the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of the species. Section 41(1)(c) of SARA requires that recovery strategies include an identification of the species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible, as well as examples of activities that are likely to result in its destruction.

This recovery strategy recognizes human-made nesting habitat, such as sandpits and quarries, as anthropogenic structures as defined under the Policy Regarding the Identification of Anthropogenic Structures as Critical Habitat (2019). Sufficient natural habitat is likely available to support the recovery of the Bank Swallow and human-made nesting habitat are not required to meet the population and distribution objectives following section 4.2.3 of the Policy. Therefore, human-made nesting habitats are not identified as critical habitat. Although sufficient natural habitat is likely available, the application of the critical habitat identification criteria in this recovery strategy does not identify sufficient natural habitat required to support the population objectives.

7.1 Identification of the species’ critical habitat

The critical habitat identified in this recovery strategy is insufficient to meet the population objectives. Critical habitat is identified at locations where the criteria of habitat occupancy and the biophysical attributes of nesting or foraging habitat, as explained in the following sections, are met. The types of habitat that may be required for the recovery of the species but not identified at this time as critical habitat are described at the end of section 7.1. As new information becomes available, the boundaries of the critical habitat should be revised and new critical habitat units should be identified. A schedule of the studies necessary to complete the identification of critical habitat of the species (section 7.2) is also included.

In Canada, Bank Swallows require nesting habitat associated with foraging habitat to support the breeding, nesting and brood-rearing portions of their life history. In natural settings, nesting colonies are generally located along river bluffs, lakeshores or coastlines where regular erosion keeps the bank suitable for burrow excavation (Falconer et al. 2016a; Garrison and Turner 2020). At natural sites along rivers, colonies generally tend to be found in the same location from year to year, although the habitat may be unoccupied some years. Larger colonies are more likely to be found at the same location (Freer 1979; Garrison and Turner 2020) and are more frequently reused than smaller ones (Garcia 2009; Cadman and Lebrun-Southcott 2013; Sinclair et al. 2020). The location of colony sites might change because of the dynamic nature of nesting habitat, while various factors can make previous nesting locations unsuitable for nesting between years. In areas where the Bank Swallow has been found to nest, continuous segments of shoreline where nesting habitat may be formed by natural processes are required to support the regional persistence of the species over the long term.

Bank Swallows show high nest site fidelity rates where they have successfully bred in previous years (Stoner 1941; Freer 1979; Falconer et al. 2016a; Garrison and Turner 2020). However, adults experiencing major nest mortality events, such as predation or bank collapse, do not appear to recolonize the same nesting location, although new birds may recolonize these sites in successive years (Freer 1979; Falconer et al. 2016a). Between 55% and 92% of surviving adults return to breeding sites used in previous years (Falconer et al. 2016a).

After fledging from the nest, young explore and assess the quality of existing colonies or potential nesting habitat, where they may return for nesting during the following breeding season. In the United Kingdom, adults and juveniles were recaptured within 3 and 6 km (median distance) from their natal colonies, respectively (Mead 1979b). In the northeastern United States, a long-term study (1923–1940) found that most birds, especially adults, (66.8%) were recaptured at the same colony in the following year (Stoner 1941). Adults and young that dispersed were recaptured most frequently between 1.6 and 7.9 km (1 to 4 miles, distance class as reported in the study) from their home colony. The upper bracket of this class (7.9 km) is probably more representative of actual dispersal distances of young, given that dispersal to the next distance class (8 to 14 km) was three times more frequent than dispersal within 0.4 to 1.6 km from the natal site. Both Mead (1979b) and Stoner (1941) found greater dispersal distance of young than of adults, which is likely an important evolutionary trait for the Bank Swallow given the dynamic and fragile nature of the nesting habitat. These dispersal movements allow for colonization of new nesting sites, or recolonization of sites that are not available each year. Critical habitat is delineated within a distance of 5 km from known colonies to capture the dynamic nature of nesting habitat and based on between-year dispersal distances of the Bank Swallow. This approach provides a variety of occupied and unoccupied nesting sites that are required to maintain long-term persistence and gene flow among the population.

While historical nest record scheme data indicated that human-made habitats supported a large proportion (about 60%) of the Bank Swallow population in Canada (Erskine 1979), the exhaustive compilation of Bank Swallow nesting records for this recovery strategy suggests that the proportion of colonies in human-made habitats may have been much lower in recent years (about 44% of colonies). Proportions of colony records must be further assessed against potential sampling bias and changes in habitat availability (Pelletier et al. in prep.). Burrows can be found in vertical faces in aggregate pits, along road-cuts, and in piles of sand, gravel, or sawdust (COSEWIC 2013; Falconer et al. 2016a; Garrison and Turner 2020). Bank Swallows may also build nests in holes in human-made structures or occupy artificial faces built as surrogate habitat (Laberge and Houde 2015). Human-related excavation of material or maintenance of surrogate habitat can refresh the vertical face and make those sites suitable for nesting (Falconer et al. 2016a). Human-made nesting habitats require ongoing maintenance to preserve the characteristics of natural nesting habitat for Bank Swallows. This type of habitat does not possess the biophysical attributes required to maintain the long-term persistence of Bank Swallows (Bank Swallow Technical Advisory Committee 2013); as such, human-made habitat is not identified as critical habitatFootnote 20 in this recovery strategy.

During the nesting season, Bank Swallows forage over open country and aquatic habitats where flying insects are available (Moffatt et al. 2005; Saldanha 2016; Garrison and Turner 2020). The amount of food adults can provide to nestlings is closely related to the abundance, quality and availability of insect prey. During the breeding period, Bank Swallows can forage beyond 2 km from the nest (Saldanha 2016; see section 3.3), but most foraging activity occurs within 600 m (Turner 1980; Saldanha 2016). Open country and aquatic environments suitable for the production of insects found within 500 m from nesting habitat are required to support the reproductive success and the long-term persistence of the species.

The confirmed nesting records used to determine the location of critical habitat might point towards locations that are not currently occupied by Bank Swallows for nesting. Critical habitat is identified at those locations only if the biophysical attributes of nesting or foraging habitat are found. Habitat that has been used in the past for nesting or newly-created habitat are deemed necessary for the recovery of the species, in order to provide a range of nesting locations where the species can return in different years. Although human-made habitats are expected to contribute in supporting the breeding population of the species given appropriate stewardship measures, the availability of human-made habitat has likely declined over the past 50 years (COSEWIC 2013; Falconer et al. 2016a; Pelletier et al. in prep.). Nesting habitat in natural settings should be maintained, whether it is occupied or not, to ensure sufficient nesting habitat is available for the Bank Swallow population given the reduction human-made habitat availability. The following section provides the methodology used in this recovery strategy for the identification of critical habitat for Bank Swallow.

7.1.1 Areas containing critical habitat

All available records (Appendix B) of documented nest locations, standardized survey data, as well as incidental observations of Bank Swallow in Canada were assigned a breeding evidence code and category from the Saskatchewan Breeding Bird Atlas (Appendix C). Critical habitat is determined on the basis of all confirmed breeding occurrences with a spatial accuracy of 702 m or lessFootnote 21, observed between 2001 and 2017 in a natural setting.

The delineation process of areas containing critical habitat is presented in Figure 4. On waterbodies where a colony occursFootnote 22, shorelinesFootnote 23 of the waterbody are selected within 5 km of the colony occurrence’s spatial accuracy distance. The critical habitat polygon (unit) is delineated from a 500-m buffer around the selected shorelines. When more than one polygon overlap, they are merged into a single polygon.

Figure 4 - please read long description

Figure 4. Delineation process of areas containing critical habitat for the Bank Swallow. A) Nesting colonies (red dot) trigger the extraction of shorelines within 5 km (outer black circle) from a record’s spatial uncertainty distance (inner black circle; Step 1); B) Selection of shorelines (red lines) that intersect a radius made of the nesting records’ spatial accuracy distance (up to 700 m) and a 100 m search distance. (Step 2); C) Application of a 500 m radial distance around selected shorelines to create the detailed critical habitat unit (yellow polygon) (Step 3); D) Critical habitat occurs in detailed polygons (units) where biophysical attributes are found.

Long description

Figure 4 shows four small maps labelled with A, B, C and D. A shows the nesting colonies that trigger the extraction of shorelines within 5 km, B shows the shorelines that intersect with the radius of the nesting records, C shows the 500 m radial distance around selected shorelines to create critical habitat and D shows where the critical habitat occurs within the biophysical attributes. 

7.1.2 Biophysical features and attributes of critical habitat

This criterion for identifying critical habitat refers to the biophysical attributes of the various habitats in which the species can engage in activities associated with nesting (e.g., territory defense, nest building, brood rearing) and foraging in Canada (Table 6). The biophysical attributes of nesting habitat required by the Bank Swallow are generally defined by the presence of a vertical face made of erodible material. During the breeding period, the biophysical attributes of foraging habitat are generally defined by the presence of open habitats that produce insects, such as wetlands, salt marshes, grasslands and hayfields. Seasonal wetlands or ponds that are flooded in the spring provide important insect prey to Bank Swallows at the onset of the breeding season.

Land covers unsuitable for foraging such as cropland, manicured lawns, golf courses, or hard surfaces (paved roads, exposed bedrock, etc.) and any adjacent hedgerow hold limited value for sustaining insects consumed by Bank Swallows, and they are not identified as critical habitat even when they occur within the critical habitat unit.

Table 6. Essential functions, biophysical features and key attributes of nesting and foraging habitat for Bank Swallow
Conditions Life stage Function Biophysical Feature(s) Attributes
Essential functions, biophysical features and key attributes of nesting and foraging habitat Adults and juveniles Nesting Natural bank structure such as stream bank, river bank, bluffs, cliffs, eskers, or dunes
  • Morphological attributes:
    • Vertical or near-vertical (portion of the bank above the talus with a slope of more than 70 degrees) structure
    • Minimum height of vertical face of 0.5 metres
  • Composition of erodible material that would include any proportions of the following substrates:
    • Sand
    • Silt
    • Loose clay
    • Fine gravel
    • Organic soils
OR, within areas containing critical habitat Adults and juveniles Foraging Waterbodies producing insects
  • Rivers and creeks
  • Lakes
  • Wetlands
  • Salt marshes
OR Adults and juveniles Foraging Open country with vegetated cover producing insects, including hedgerows and shelterbelts in agricultural lands, excluding croplands
  • Grasslands
  • Shrublands
  • Pastures
  • Hayfields
  • Dunes

7.1.3 Application of critical habitat identification criteria

The application of the criteria described in section 7.1.1 identifies 8,138 km of shorelines. In inland settings, segments of shorelines that correspond to the biophysical attributes of nesting habitat described in section 7.1.2 likely amount to one hundredth to one tenth of the total extent of shorelines (for example 81 km to 813 km, respectively). In coastal settings, this proportion increases up to 45% of the total extent of shorelines. Those estimations are based on a visual assessment of the presence of biophysical attributes in a subset of identified shorelines. The extent of critical habitat identified in this recovery strategy is insufficient to support the population objectives for Bank Swallow.

The application of criteria described in section 7.1.1 identifies 285 critical habitat units for the Bank Swallow in Canada (critical habitat units may overlap between two jurisdictions resulting in a total higher than 285): 4 in Yukon, 6 in the Northwest Territories, 40 in British Columbia, 15 in Alberta, 6 in Saskatchewan, 32 in Manitoba, 50 in Ontario, 52 in Quebec, 37 in New Brunswick, 28 in Nova Scotia, 16 in Prince Edward Island, and 5 in Newfoundland and Labrador. Confirmed nesting records were not available in Nunavut, therefore no critical habitat units have been identified in that territory.

The distribution of critical habitat units (Appendix E – Figure E) closely represents the known distribution (Figure 1) and extent of occurrence of 9.95 million km2 (COSEWIC 2013) of the species in Canada, suggesting that the critical habitat units identified in this recovery strategy might ensure that redundance is maintained. The critical habitat presented in this recovery strategy defines the benchmark for the distribution objective. As such, the critical habitat identification will need to be replicated with more recent Bank Swallow occurrences over a similar number of years (e.g., 17 years) to determine whether the distribution objective for the species is achieved.

Reference to the general areas containing critical habitat is provided in Appendix D and presented in Appendix E. Detailed maps that illustrate the critical habitat units can be requested by contacting Environment and Climate Change Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service at ec.planificationduretablissement-recoveryplanning.ec@canada.ca.

7.2 Schedule of studies to identify critical habitat

A schedule of studies has been developed to provide the information necessary to complete the identification of critical habitat (Table 7). By 2027, knowledge on the location, characteristics and relative importance of nesting and roosting habitats should inform the need for identifying new critical habitat units for Bank Swallow in order to achieve the short-term and long-term population objectives.

Table 7. Schedule of studies to identify critical habitat
Description of activity Rationale Timeline
Conduct Bank Swallow colony surveys, especially in the northern portion of the species’ range Critical habitat has not been identified for occurrences records that only provided possible or probable nesting evidence. This activity is required such that sufficient critical habitat is identified to meet the population objectives 2022 to 2027
Determine the biophysical attributes, location, extent and contribution to population processes of post-fledging roost and foraging habitats near natural nesting colonies Bank Swallow fledglings require roosting and foraging habitat near their natal site but the characteristics, location, quantity and quality of post-fledging habitat are unknown. This activity is required to complete the identification of critical habitat 2022 to 2027
Determine the biophysical attributes, location, extent and contribution to population processes of nocturnal roosting sites used during the breeding period or the pre-migratory period Bank Swallows roost communally during the breeding period and before the fall migration, but the characteristics, location, quantity and quality of roosting habitats are unknown. This activity is required to complete the identification of critical habitat 2022 to 2027

Several habitat types are required by the Bank Swallow to accomplish its essential functions when the species is in Canada. Those habitats are the nocturnal roosts used during the breeding period, the post-fledging roosting sites near nesting sites, and pre-migratory roosting sites. More information is needed on the availability, characteristics, location and relative importance of those habitats to the recovery of the species.

Nocturnal roosts used during the breeding period

During the nesting period, Bank Swallows may require roosting habitat at night. Nocturnal roosting during the breeding period is difficult to study because birds can travel 10–35 km from the colony (Falconer et al. 2016b; Saldanha 2016) and frequently switch between roost locations (Saldanha 2016; Saldanha et al. 2019). The frequency of nocturnal roosting events during the breeding season suggest that those habitats may play an important role to support the recovery of the species (Falconer et al. 2016b; Saldanha et al. 2019). However, the availability, habitat characteristics, location and relative importance of those habitats are mostly unknown.

Post-fledging foraging and roosting sites near nesting sites

In addition to nesting habitat, Bank Swallows require post-fledging foraging and roosting sites near nesting habitat to support the post-fledging portion of their life history. In Barn Swallows, another aerial insectivore, the quality of post-fledging roosting sites appear to play an important role in the survival of fledglings and the recruitment of new individuals into the population (T. Imlay, pers. comm.). However, the availability, habitat characteristics, location and relative importance of those habitats are mostly unknown.

Pre-migratory roosting sites

Following the breeding season, Bank Swallow congregate in hundreds to tens of thousands of individuals at roosting sites until the fall migration (Winkler 2006; COSEWIC 2013). Pre-migratory roosts generally form from late July to early September. Swallows generally roost at night in wetlands, which provide food, heat and shelter. The presence of large flocks of swallows before sunrise and after sunset near large wetlands is indicative of the presence of a roost site. These movements can be observed using Doppler weather surveillance radar (Winkler 2006; Laughlin et al. 2016; Kelly and Pletschet 2017). Despite the key importance of roosting sites for Bank Swallow, the availability, habitat characteristics, location and relative importance of those habitats are mostly unknown.

7.3 Activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat

Understanding what constitutes destruction of critical habitat is necessary for the protection and management of critical habitat. Destruction is determined on a case-by-case basis. Destruction occurs when part of the critical habitat is degraded, either permanently or temporarily, such that it can no longer serve its function when needed by the species. Destruction may result from a single activity at one point in time or from the cumulative effects of one or more activities over time.

Examples of activities likely to result in destruction of critical habitat for the Bank Swallow include, but are not limited to, activities that eliminate or damage nesting or foraging sites, modify the natural processes that maintain or create nesting sites, or modify the natural processes that maintain productive foraging sites. Examples are presented in Table 8.

Due to the dynamic nature of Bank Swallow nesting habitat, it is recognized that some activities listed in Table 8 can either destroy or create habitat. Nesting habitat is considered destroyed when the activity results in a permanent loss of critical habitat, or when the activity permanently removes the natural processes that maintain or create nesting habitatFootnote 24. Loss or alteration are deemed permanent when the biophysical attributes of the habitat are not available to the species at the beginning of the nesting season in the second calendar year following the activityFootnote 25.

It is recognized that some activities listed in Table 8 can contribute to create or maintain foraging habitat for Bank Swallows. On one hand, agricultural practices that diversify types and reduce areas of crops or restore natural habitats within existing farmlands can contribute to more diverse and abundant communities of insects consumed by Bank Swallow (Fahrig et al. 2011; Monck-Whipp et al. 2018). On the other hand, agricultural practices that result in large, monoculture fields (agricultural intensification), rather than smaller, more diverse fields, can degrade foraging habitat used by Bank Swallow. As such, agricultural intensification includes activities that remove the biophysical attributes of the foraging habitat, such as merging adjacent fields into a single culture by the removal of hedgerows.

Table 8. Examples of Activities Likely to Result in the Destruction of Critical Habitat for the Bank SwallowFootnote 26
Habitat Description of activity Description of effect Details of effect
Nesting habitat (human-made sites are excluded from critical habitat identification)

Alteration of the topography, composition or erosion processes of the bank or bluff, or permanently blocking access to nesting habitat

Activities include, but are not limited to, erosion control measures by the installation of groynes, seawalls, breakwaters, rock embankments, beach nourishment, or removal of vegetation at the top of the bank.

Related threat:

1.1 Housing and urban areas

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas

3.2 Mining and quarrying

4.1 Roads and railroads

7.2 Dams and water management/use

7.3 Other Ecosystem Modifications

Destruction of critical habitat by replacing the bank’s unconsolidated sediments with hard structures or by changing the bank slope angle to less than 70 degrees.

Destruction of critical habitat by eliminating or limiting the natural processes required for the stability or erosion of the bank or bluff.

Timing: Activities can result in the destruction of critical habitat at any time of year, if habitat is no longer available when needed by the species. Removal or conversion of habitat during the breeding season can be particularly detrimental because a variety of nesting habitat within 5 km of colonies is required by breeding individuals for relocation.

Extent: Activities that occur within the bounds of a critical habitat unit will likely result in destruction of critical habitat. Erosion control measures that occur outside of the bounds of the critical habitat unit can change sediment flow and transport and have an impact on suitability of nesting habitat.

Type: Activities can directly destroy critical habitat by altering the morphological attributes or composition of the bank or bluff. Activities can indirectly destroy critical habitat by altering the natural processes of erosion that maintain or create nesting habitat. Activities can indirectly destroy critical habitat by removing protection against nest predation afforded by steep and tall banks of bluffs.

Thresholds: A bank slope of more than 70 degrees is required to maintain nesting habitat. Altering the topography or composition of all or part of a bank may result in destruction of critical habitat. The erosion or sedimentation rates associated with nesting habitat are variable given different hydrological regimes and surficial geology (the erodible material) across the species’ range.

All nesting habitat within a critical habitat unit is important for the colonization of that unit. Therefore, the removal of any nesting habitat within a critical habitat unit may destroy the critical habitat unit.

Nesting habitat (human-made sites are excluded from critical habitat identification)

Activities that result in a direct loss of bank or bluff habitat through its conversion to an incompatible land-use (e.g., housing, urban, commercial, industrial, tourism, recreation, mining, transportation, energy production).

Related threats:

1.1 Housing and urban areas

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas

1.3 Tourism and recreation areas

4.2 Roads and railroads

7.2 Dams and water management/use

Destruction of critical habitat by replacing the bank’s unconsolidated sediments with hard structures or by changing the bank slope angle to less than 70 degrees

Timing: Activities can result in the destruction of critical habitat at any time of year, if habitat is no longer available when needed by the species. Removal or conversion of nesting habitat during the breeding season can be particularly detrimental in the short-term because a variety of nesting habitat within 5 km of colonies is required by breeding individuals for relocation.

Extent: Activity must occur within the bounds of critical habitat to cause its destruction.

Type: Activities can directly destroy critical habitat if biophysical attributes are removed or modified.

Thresholds: Removal or conversion of all or part of nesting habitat may result in destruction of critical habitat.

Nesting habitat (human-made sites are excluded from critical habitat identification) Nesting habitat (human-made sites are excluded from critical habitat identification)

Changes in hydrological regime that alter water levels or flow rates. Activities include, but are not limited to, creation of reservoirs used in hydroelectricity production, construction of dams or channelization to control downstream water discharge.

Related threat:

7.2 Dams and water management/use

7.3 Other Ecosystem Modifications

Destruction of critical habitat through the removal of biophysical attributes of nesting habitat.

Destruction of critical habitat through the removal or alteration of erosion processes that maintain the morphological attributes of nesting habitat.

Timing: Activities can result in the destruction of critical habitat at any time of year, if habitat is no longer available when needed by the species or if activities result in a permanent reduction in water level that isolates the bank from natural erosion processes.

It is recognized that once a new water level regime has stabilized, new nesting habitat may be created. However, a new water level regime might not provide an equivalent amount of nesting habitat or provide similar bank refreshment rate as before the activity was conducted. Such activity can still result in the destruction of critical habitat.

During the nesting period of the Bank Swallow, a temporary increase of the water flow rate or water level can result in slumping of the bank and result in the loss of nests, eggs or nestlings, yet might not immediately or ultimately result in the destruction of critical habitat. The nesting period can be determined regionally using nesting calendars. The absence of the birds in August is a good indicator that the nesting season is over. Dam operators and water management agencies should consider the presence of critical habitat of the Bank Swallow when conducting activities.

Extent: Activities that occur within or outside the bounds of the critical habitat unit can result in destruction of critical habitat.

Type: Activities can directly destroy critical habitat if biophysical attributes are removed or modified. Activities can indirectly destroy critical habitat if erosion processes that maintain the morphological attributes of nesting habitat are removed or altered.

Thresholds: Permanent changes in hydrology that result in conditions outside of the seasonal fluctuations of water level may result in destruction of critical habitat.

Foraging habitat

Activities that result in the removal of biophysical attributes of foraging habitat. Activities include, but are not limited to, development of residential, commercial, industrial, or recreational areas; intensification of agricultural activities within existing farmlands; greenhouse agriculture; mining or quarrying; construction of roads or railroads.

Related threat:

1.1 Housing and urban areas

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas

1.3 Tourism and recreation areas

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops

3.2 Mining and quarrying

4.2 Roads and railroads

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

Destruction of critical habitat through permanent loss of ecosystem functions or habitats that produce or provide shelter to aerial insects

Timing: Activities can result in the destruction of critical habitat at any time of year, if habitat is no longer available when needed by the species.

Extent: Activity must occur within the bounds of critical habitat to cause destruction. The Bank Swallow requires foraging habitat near potential nesting habitat to meet energetic requirements of nest building, egg-production and brood rearing.

Type: Activities can directly destroy critical habitat if biophysical attributes are removed.

Thresholds: Information available at this time does not allow for the development of thresholds.

Foraging habitat Activities that result in the degradation of foraging habitat. Activities are restricted to:
  • application of insecticides without consideration of Integrated Pest Management practices
  • application of insecticides for controlling populations of biting insect (such as mosquitoes); and
  • application of pesticides for landscaping or cosmetic purposes

Related threat:

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents

Destruction of critical habitat through the contamination of soil, waters or vegetation that result in the removal or reduction in abundance of insect prey used by Bank Swallows for foraging or feeding young

Timing: Applicable predominantly during the nesting period and post-fledging period of the Bank Swallow, including the post-fledging period. The nesting period can be determined regionally using nesting calendars. The absence of the birds in August is a good indicator that the nesting season is over.

A single application of pesticide during the brood-rearing period can be particularly detrimental to the growth and development of young by reducing prey availability. Repeated events (within or between years) are likely to be more detrimental and have long-term impacts on the quality of foraging habitat as neonicotinoids have been found to accumulate in soils.

Extent: Activities must occur within the bounds of critical habitat to cause destruction.

Type: Activities can directly destroy critical habitat if biophysical attributes are degraded from pesticide application during the nesting or post-fledging periods. Activities can indirectly destroy critical habitat if foraging habitat remains degraded from one nesting season to the other as a result of repeated pesticide application.

Thresholds: Repeated applications of pesticides both within and between years increase the risk of destroying critical habitat. Information available at this time does not allow for the development of thresholds.

Foraging habitat

Permanent removal of hedgerows, shelterbelts, grassy field margins, riparian vegetation, wetlands, marshes, or ponds adjacent to arable land that provide a source of and shelter for insect prey.

Related threat:

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops

Destruction of critical habitat through the removal or reduction of terrestrial, aquatic or riparian vegetation that support insect prey used by Bank Swallows for foraging or feeding young

Timing: Activities can result in the destruction of critical habitat at any time of year, if habitat is no longer available when needed by the species.

Extent: Activities must occur within the bounds of critical habitat to cause destruction.

Type: Activities can directly destroy critical habitat if biophysical attributes of the foraging habitat are removed.

Thresholds: The risk of degrading critical habitat depends on multiple factors such as the extent of edge removal within the bounds of critical habitat, the species composition of hedgerows, and the overall habitat configuration and species richness within the area where critical habitat has been identified. Information available at this time does not allow for the development of thresholds.

8. Measuring progress

The performance indicators presented below provide a way to define and measure progress toward achieving the population and distribution objectives.

9. Statement on action plans

One or more action plans for the Bank Swallow will be posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry within five years of the final posting of the recovery strategy. This/these will be in addition to the multi-species action plans that have been developed by the Parks Canada Agency that include Bank Swallow.

10. References

AAFC (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada). 2018. Long-term Study of Legacy Phosphorus. Scientific achievements in agriculture. Web site: https://www5.agr.gc.ca/eng/news-from-agriculture-and-agri-food-canada/scientific-achievements-in-agriculture/long-term-study-of-legacy-phosphorus/?id=1424993181089 [accessed April 2021].

Alves, M.A.S. 1997. Effects of ectoparasites on the Sand Martin Riparia riparia nestlings. Ibis 139:494-496.

Ambrosini, R., D. Rubolini, A.P. Møller, L. Bani, J.Clark, Z. Karczca, D. Vangeluwe, C. du Feu, F. Spina, and N. Saino. 2011. Climate change and the long-term northward shift in the African wintering range of the Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica. Climate Research 49(2):131-141.

Artuso, C., A.R. Couturier, K.D. De Smet, R.F. Koes, D. Lepage, J. McCracken, R.D. Mooi, and P. Taylor. 2017. The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Manitoba, 2010-2014. Bird Studies Canada. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Ashley, E.P. and J.T. Robinson. 1996. Road mortality of amphibians, reptiles and other wildlife on the Long Point causeway, Lake Erie, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 110(3):403-412.

Bain M.B., N. Singkran, and K.E Mills. 2008. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment: Lake Ontario Water Management. PLoS ONE 3(11): e3806.

Bank Swallow Technical Advisory Committee. 2013. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) Conservation Strategy for the Sacramento River Watershed, California. Version 1.0. 40 pp.

Bartzen, B.A., K.W. Dufour, R.G. Clark, and F.D. Caswell. 2010. Trends in agricultural impact and recovery of wetlands in prairie Canada. Ecological Applications 20:525-538.

Benton, T.G., J.A. Vickery, and J.D. Wilson. 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(4):182-188.

Berzins, L. 2020. Research, conservation and outreach priorities for conserving aerial insectivore populations in Canada. Report from March 2020 aerial insectivore workshop in Saskatoon, SK. July 31, 2020. 58 pp + Appendices.

Binstock, M. and M. Carter-Whitney. 2011. Aggregate extraction in Ontario: a strategy for the future. Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. 83 pp.

BirdLife International. 2016. Riparia riparia. Web site; http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis [accessed December 2020].

Birds Canada. 2020. Saskatchewan Breeding Bird Atlas. Bank Swallow. Preliminary Data November 2019. [accessed February 2021].

Biron, P., T. Buffin-Bélanger, M. Laroque, S. Demers, T. Olsen, M-A. Ouellet, G. Choné, C-A. Cloutier, and M. Needelman. 2013a. Espace de liberté: un cadre de gestion intégrée pour la conservation des cours d’eau dans un contexte de changements climatiques. Ouranos, Montreal. 125 pp. Web site: https://www.ouranos.ca/publication-scientifique/RapportBironetal2013_FR.pdf (Available in French only) [Accessed May 2021].

Biron, P., G. Choné, T. Buffin-Bélanger, S. Demers, and T. Olsen. 2013b. Improvement of streams hydro‐geomorphological assessment using LiDAR DEMs. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 38(15):1808-1821.

Bishop, C.A., H.J. Boermans, P. Ng, G.D. Campbell, and J. Struger. 1998b. Health of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) nesting in pesticide-sprayed apple orchards in Ontario, Canada. I. Immunological parameters. Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A. 55:531-559.

Bishop, C.A. and J.M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):2.

Bishop, C.A., B. Collins, P. Mineau, N.M. Burgess, W.F. Read, and C. Risley. 2000. Reproduction of cavity-nesting birds in pesticide-sprayed apple orchards in southern Ontario, Canada, 1988–1994. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19(3):588-599.

Bishop, C.A., N.A. Mahony, S. Trudeau, and K.E. Pettit. 1999. Reproductive success and biochemical effects in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) exposed to chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants in wetlands of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin, USA and Canada. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(2):263-271.

Bishop, C.A., A.J. Moran, M.C. Toshack, E. Elle, F. Maisonneuve, J.E. Elliott. 2018. Hummingbirds and bumble bees exposed to neonicotinoid and organophosphate insecticides in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 37:2143-2152.

Bishop, C.A., G.J. Van der Kraak, P. Ng, J.E.G. Smits, and A. Hontela. 1998a. Health of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) nesting in pesticide-sprayed apple orchards in Ontario, Canada. II. Sex and thyroid hormone concentrations and testes development. Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A. 55:561-581.

Bishop, C.A., M.B. Woundneh, F. Maisonneuve, J. Common, J.E. Elliott, and A.J. Moran. 2020. Determination of neonicotinoids and butenolide residues in avian and insect pollinators and their ambient environment in Western Canada (2017, 2018). Science of the Total Environment (737):139386.

Boatman, N.D., N.W. Brickle, J.D. Hart, T.P. Milsom, A.J. Morris, A.W.A. Murray, K.A. Murray, and P.A. Robertson. 2004. Evidence for the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds. Ibis (Suppl. 2):131-143.

Boreal Avian Modelling Project, 2020. BAM Generalized National Models Documentation, Version 4.0. Results for Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia). [accessed November 2020].

Both, C., C.A.M. Van Turnhout, R.G. Bijlsma, H. Siepel, A.J. Van Strien, and R.P.B. Foppen. 2010. Avian population consequences of climate change are most severe for long-distance migrants in seasonal habitats. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 277:1259-1266.

Bols, S.H. 2017. Bank Swallows in Canada’s north: an interdisciplinary study. M.Sc. thesis, Nipissing University, North Bay, Ontario, Canada. 124 pp.

Bouland, A.J., A.E. White, K.P. Lonabaugh, C.W. Varian‐Ramos, and D.A. Cristol. 2012. Female-biased offspring sex ratios in birds at a mercury contaminated river. Journal of Avian Biology 43:244-251.

Boyer-Villemaire, U., M. Circé, L. Da Silva, C. Desjarlais, and F. Morneau. 2016. Atlantic-Quebec cost-benefit analysis of adaptation options in coastal areas: synthesis report. Ouranos, Montreal. 33 pp + appendices. Web site: https://www.ouranos.ca/en/programs/economic-evalutaion/ [accessed May 2021].

Boynton, C. pers. comm. 2020. Email correspondence to M.-A. Cyr. January 2021. Environmental Assessment Liaison, Canadian Wildlife Service Pacific Region, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Delta, British Columbia.

Brasso, R.L. and D.A. Cristol. 2008. Effects of mercury exposure on the reproductive success of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology 17:133-141.

Burke, T. 2017. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) breeding in aggregate pits and natural habitats. M.Sc. thesis. Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. 109 pp.

Cadman, M.D., and Z. Lebrun-Southcott. 2012. Nesting success of Bank Swallows in aggregate pits. Presentation at North American Ornithological Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Cadman, M.D. and Z. Lebrun-Southcott. 2013. Bank Swallow colonies along the Saugeen River, 2009-2013. Ontario Birds 31(3):137-147.

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A. Couturier (eds.). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto. xxii + 706 pp.

Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles, and F.M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 1981-1985. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario. 617 pp.

Calvert, A.M. 2012. Research priorities to support the conservation of aerial insectivores in Canada. Environment Canada and Bird Studies Canada. 18 pp.

Calvert, A.M., C.A. Bishop, R.D. Elliot, E.A. Krebs, T.M. Kydd, C.S. Machtans, and G.J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):11.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggert-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, and G.W. Kaiser. 1997. The birds of British Columbia. Vol. 3. Univ. of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 693 pp.

Cavallaro, M.C., A.R. Main, K. Liber, I.D. Phillips, J.V. Headley, K.M. Peru, and C.M. Morrissey. 2019. Neonicotinoids and other agricultural stressors collectively modify aquatic insect communities. Chemosphere 226:945-955.

CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 2009. Response to Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project: Environmental Impact Statement. Registry number 07-05-26178. Web site: www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/26178/39444/v2-01.pdf [accessed January 2019].

Chamberlain, D.E., R.J. Fuller, R.G.H. Bunce, J.C. Duckworth, and M. Shrubb. 2000. Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:771-778.

Chassiot, L., P. Lajeunnesse and J.-F. Bernier. 2020. Riverbank erosion in cold environments: Review and outlook. Earth-Science Reviews 207.

Collen, B., M. Böhm, R. Kemp, and J.E.M. Baillie. 2012. Spineless: status and trends of the world’s invertebrates. Zoological Society of London, London, United Kingdom. 86 pp.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America. 2003. DDT no longer used in North America. Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, Montreal, QC.

Conrad, K.F., M.S. Warren, R. Fox, M.S. Parsons, and I.P. Woiwod. 2006. Rapid declines of common, widespread British moth provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biological Conservation 132:279-291.

COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Bank Swallow Riparia riparia in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 48 pp.

COSEWIC. 2015. COSEWIC Assessment process, categories and guidelines. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Web site: https://www.cosewic.ca/index.php/en-ca/assessment-process/wildlife-species-assessment-process-categories-guidelines [accessed November 2017].

Cox, A.R., R.J. Robertson, A.Z. Lendvai, K. Everitt, and F. Bonier. 2019. Rainy springs linked to poor nestling growth in a declining avian aerial insectivore (Tachycineta bicolor). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 286(1898).

Cristol, D.A., R.L. Brasso, A.M. Condon, R.E. Fovargue, S.L. Friedman, K.K. Hallinger, A.P. Monroe, and A.E. White. 2008. The movement of aquatic mercury through terrestrial food webs. Science 320(5874):335.

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S.Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.82 pp. [accessed December 2020].

Dahl, T.E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 108 pp. [accessed December 2020].

Dirzo, R., H.S. Young, M. Galetti, G. Ceballos, N.J. Isaac, and B. Collen. 2014. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345(6195): 401-406.

Donald, P.F., R.E. Green, and M.F. Heath. 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 268(1462):25-29.

Donald, P.F., F.J. Sanderson, I.J. Burfield, and F.P. Van Bommel. 2006. Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 116(3):189-196.

Douglas, M.R. and J.F. Tooker. 2015. Large-scale deployment of seed treatments has driven rapid increase in use of neonicotinoid insecticides and preemptive pest management in US field crops. Environmental Science and Technology 49(8):5088-5097.

Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2010. Southern Ontario Wetland Conversion Analysis. Final report. March 2010. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Barrie, Ontario. 23 pp. + annexes.

Elgin, A.S. 2020. Conserving prairie ponds for swallows; Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) foraging and nestling diet quality in prairie agroecosystems. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 104 pp.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2016. Water sources: wetlands. Web site: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water-overview/sources/wetlands.html#Section1 [accessed November 2020].

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2018. Acid rain: causes and effects. Web site: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/air-pollution/issues/acid-rain-causes-effects.html [accessed November 2020].

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2021. Species at risk policy on recovery and survival: final version 2021. Web site: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/policies-guidelines/survival-recovery-2020.html [accessed May 2021].

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority. 2013. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance chlorantraniliprole. EFSA Journal 11(6):3143.

Eng, M.L. C. Hao, C. Watts, F. Sun, and C.A. Morrissey. 2021. Characterizing imidacloprid and metabolites in songbird blood with applications for diagnosing field exposures. Science of the Total Environment 760:143409.

Eng, M.L., B.J.M. Stutchbury, and C.A. Morrissey. 2017. Imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos insecticides impair migratory ability in a seed-eating songbird. Scientific Reports 7:15176.

Eng, M.L., B.J.M. Stutchbury, and C.A. Morrissey. 2019. A neonicotinoid insecticide reduces fueling and delays migration in songbirds. Science 365(6458):1177-1180.

English, S.G., N.I. Sandoval-Herrera, C.A. Bishop, M. Cartwright, F. Maisonneuve, J.E. Elliott, and K.C. Welch Jr. 2021. Neonicotinoid pesticides exert metabolic effects on avian pollinators. Scientific Reports 11:2914.

Environment Canada. 2006. Impacts of sea-level rise and climate change on the coastal zone of southeastern New Brunswick. Project Report. Environment Canada, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. 644 pp. + 5 appendices.

Environment Canada. 2011. Presence and levels of priority pesticides in selected Canadian aquatic ecosystems. Environment Canada, Water Science and Technology Directorate, Gatineau, Quebec. 103 pp.

Erskine, A.J. 1979. Man’s influence on potential nesting sites and populations of Bank Swallows in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 93:371-377.

Erskine, A.J. 1992. Atlas of the breeding birds of the Maritime provinces. Nimbus and Nova Scotia Museum (Chelsea Green), Halifax, Nova Scotia. 270 pp.

ESTR Secretariat. 2014. Prairies Ecozone+ evidence for key findings summary. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Evidence for Key Findings Summary Report No. 4. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers. Ottawa, ON. ix + 115 p. [accessed November 2020].

Ewald, J.A., C.J. Wheatley, N.J. Aebischer, S.J. Moreby, S.J. Duffield, H.Q.P. Crick, and M.B. Morecroft. 2015. Influences of extreme weather, climate and pesticide use on invertebrates in cereal fields over 42 years. Global Change Biology 21(11):3931-3950.

Fahrig, L., J. Baudry, L. Brotons, F.G. Burel, T.O. Crist, R.J. Fuller, C. Sirami, G.M. Siriwardena, and J.-L. Martin. 2011. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology Letters 14(2):101-112.

Falconer, C.M., K. Richardson, A. Heagy, D. Tozer, B. Stewart, J. McCracken, R. and Reid. 2016a. Recovery Strategy for the Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario. ix + 70 pp.

Falconer, C.M., G.W. Mitchell, P.D. Taylor, and D.C. Tozer. 2016b. Prevalence of disjunct roosting in nesting Bank Swallows (Riparia riparia). The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128(2):429-434.

Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 1992. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta, Semenchuk, G.P. (ed). Nature Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 391 pp.

Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 2007. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta: A Second Look. Nature Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 626 pp.

Fink, D., T. Auer, A. Johnston, M. Strimas-Mackey, O. Robinson, S. Ligocki, W. Hochachka, C. Wood, I. Davies, M. Iliff, and L. Seitz. 2020. eBird Status and Trends, Data Version: 2019; Released: 2020. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

Freedman, B. 1995. Environmental ecology: the ecological effects of pollution, disturbance, and other stresses. Academic Press. San Diego, CA. 606 pp.

Freer, V.M. 1979. Factors affecting site tenacity in New York Bank Swallows. Bird-Banding 50:349-357.

Friend, M. and J. C. Franson. 1999. Field manual of wildlife diseases: general field procedures and diseases of birds. US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report 1999-2001, DTIC Document.

Garcia, D. 2009. Spatial and temporal patterns of the Bank Swallow on the Sacramento River. M.Sc. thesis. California State University, Chico, California, USA. 94 pp.

Gard, N.W., M.J. Hooper, and R.S. Bennett. 1993. Effects of pesticides and contaminants on neotropical migrants. pp. 310-314. in D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel (eds.). Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. US. Fish and Wildlife Service Gen. tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, Colorado. 422 pp.

Garrison, B. A. and A. Turner. 2020.Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (S.M. Billerman, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Gaston, K.J. and R.A. Fuller. 2009. The sizes of species’ geographic ranges. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(1):1-9.

Gauthier, J. and Y.E. Aubry. 1995. The breeding birds of Quebec: atlas of the breeding birds of Southern Quebec. Association Quebecoise des Groupes d’Ornithologues, Province of Quebec Society for the Protection of Birds, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Quebec Region, Montreal. xviii + 1295 pp.

Génier, C.S.V., C.G. Guglielmo, G.W. Mitchell, M. Falconer, and K.A. Hobson. Nutritional consequences of breeding away from riparian habitats in Bank Swallows: new evidence from multiple endogenous markers. Conservation Physiology 9(1).

Ghilain, A. and M. Bélisle. 2008. Breeding success of Tree Swallows along a gradient of agricultural intensification. Ecological Applications 18(5):1140-1154.

Girvetz, E.H. 2010. Removing erosion control projects increases Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) population viability modeled along the Sacramento River, California, USA. Biological Conservation 143:828-838.

Goldstein, M.I., T.E. Lacher, B. Woodbridge, M.J. Bechard, S.B. Canavelli, M.E. Zaccagnini, G.P. Cobb, E.J. Scollon, R. Tribolet, and M.J. Hopper. Monocrotophos-Induced Mass Mortality of Swainson's Hawks in Argentina, 1995–96. Ecotoxicology 8:201-214.

Goulson, D. 2013. An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal of Applied Ecology 50(4):977-987.

Goulson, D. 2014. Pesticides linked to bird declines. Nature 511:295-296.

Gouvernement du Québec. 2019. Orientation relative au contrôle des insectes piqueurs à l’aide du Bacillus thuringiensis variété israelensis (Bti) et du Bacillus sphaericus (Bsph). Ministière des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parc. Version 2019-01-23. 12 pp.

Graf, W.L. 2006. Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic effects of large dams on American rivers. Geomorphology 79:336–360.

Graves, E.E., K.A. Jelks, J.E. Foley, M.S. Filigenzi, R.H. Poppenga, H.B. Ernest, R. Melnicoe, and L.A. Tell. 2019. Analysis of insecticide exposure in California hummingbirds using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26:15458-15466.

Griffiths, G.J.K., J.M. Holland, A. Bailey, and M.B. Thomas. 2008. Efficacy and economics of shelter habitats for conservation biological control. Biological Control 45(2):200-209.

Gronewold, A.D., A.H. Clites, J.P. Smith, and T.S. Hunter. 2013. A dynamic graphical interface for visualizing projected, measured, and reconstructed surface water elevations on the earth's largest lakes. Environmental Modelling and Software 49:34-39.

Grüebler, M., M. Morand, and B. Naefdaenzer. 2008. A predictive model of the density of airborne insects in agricultural environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 123(1–3):75-80.

Haas, G.E., T. Rumfelt, and N. Wilson. 1980. Fleas (Siphonaptera) from nests and burrows of the Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) in Alaska. Northwest Science 54:210-215.

Hallinger, K.K., K.L. Cornell, R.L. Brasso, and D.A. Cristol. 2011. Mercury exposure and survival in free-living tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology 20:3946.

Hallmann, C.A., R.P.B. Foppen, C.A.M. van Turnhout, H. de Kroon, and E. Jongejans. 2014. Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511:341-343.

Hames, R.S., K.V. Rosenberg, J.D. Lowe, S.E. Barker, and A.A. Dhondt. 2002. Adverse effects of acid rain on the distribution of the Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelinain North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(17):11235-11240.

Hawley, D.M., K.K. Hallinger, and D.A. Cristol. 2009. Compromised immune competence in free-living tree swallows exposed to mercury. Ecotoxicology 18:499-503.

Health Canada. 2021a. Special Review Decision SRD2021-04, Special Review Decision: Thiamethoxam Risk to Aquatic Invertebrates. Web site: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions-updates/special-registration-decision/2021/thiamethoxam.html [accessed April 2021].

Health Canada. 2021b. Special Review Decision SRD2021-03, Special Review Decision: Clothianidin Risk to Aquatic Invertebrates. Web site: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions-updates/special-registration-decision/2021/clothianidin.html [accessed April 2021].

Heneberg, P. 2013. Burrowing bird's decline driven by EIA over-use. Resources Policy 38:542–548.

Hjertaas, D.G. 1984. Colony site selection in Bank Swallows. Master's Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

Hole, D.G., A.J. Perkins, J.D. Wilson, I.H. Alexander, P.V. Grice, and A.D. Evans. 2005. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation 122(1):113-130.

Howie, R. 2015. Bank Swallow. in P.J.A. Davidson, R.J. Cannings, A.R. Couturier, D. Lepage, and C.M. Di Corrado (eds.). The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of British Columbia, 2008-2012, Bird Studies Canada, Delta, British Columbia. Web site: http://www.birdatlas.bc.ca/accounts/speciesaccount.jsp?sp=BKSWandlang=en [accessed November 2020].

IJC (International Joint Commission). 2012. Lake Superior Regulation: Addressing uncertainty in the Upper Great Lakes water levels. Summary of findings and recommendations. International Joint Commission, Ottawa, ON. 19 pp.

Imlay, T.L., F. Angelier, K.A. Hobson, G. Mastromonaco, S. Saldanha, and M.L. Leonard. 2019. Multiple intrinsic markers identify carry-over effects from wintering to breeding sites for three Nearctic–Neotropical migrant swallows. The Auk 136(4):1-15.

Imlay, T.L., K.A. Hobson, A. Roberto-Charron. and M.L. Leonard. 2018a. Wintering areas, migratory connectivity and habitat fidelity of three declining Nearctic-Neotropical migrant swallows. Animal Migration 5:1-16.

Imlay, T.L., J.M. Flemming, S. Saldanha, N.T. Wheelwright, and M.L. Leonard. 2018b. Breeding phenology and performance for four swallow over 57 years: relationships with temperature and precipitation. Ecosphere 9(4):1-15.

Imlay, T.L., S. Saldanha, and P.D. Taylor. 2020. The fall migratory movements of Bank Swallows, Riparia riparia: fly-and-forage migration? Avian Conservation and Ecology 15(1):2.

Iron, R.D., A. Harding Scurr, A.P. Rose, J.C. Hagelin, T. Blake, and D.F. Doak. 2017. Wind and rain are the primary climate factors driving changing phenology of an aerial insectivore. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284: 20170412.

Jakob, C. and B. Poulin. 2016. Indirect effects of mosquito control using Bti on dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in the Camargue. Insect Conservation and Diversity 9:161-169.

Jobin, B., J.-L. DesGranges and C. Boutin. 1996. Population trends in selected species of farmland birds in relation to recent developments in agriculture in the St. Lawrence Valley. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 57:103-116.

John, R.D. 1991. Observations on soil requirements for nesting Bank Swallows, Riparia riparia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 105:251-254.

Jones, A., P. Harrington, and G. Turnbull. 2014. Neonicotinoid concentrations in arable soils after seed treatment applications in preceding years. Pest Management Science 70(12):1780-1784.

Kardynal, K. pers. comm. 2021. Email correspondence to M.-A. Cyr. April 2021. Wildlife Research Biologist, Prairie and Northern Wildlife Research Centre, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Kardynal, K., T.D. Jardine, C.S.V. Génier, K.H. Bumelis, G.W. Mitchell, M. Evans, and K.A. Hobson. 2020. Mercury exposure to swallows breeding in Canada inferred from feathers grown on breeding and non-breeding grounds. Ecotoxicology 29(7):876-891.

Keller, R.H., L. Xie, D.B. Buchwalter, K.E. Franzreb, and T.R. Simons. 2014. Mercury bioaccumulation in Southern Appalachian birds, assessed through feather concentrations. Ecotoxicology 23:304-316.

Kelly, J.F. and S.M. Pletschet. 2017. Accuracy of swallow roost locations assigned using weather surveillance radar. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 4(2):166-172.

Kennedy, G. and T. Mayer. 2012. Natural and constructed wetlands in Canada: an overview. Water Quality Research Journal 37(2):295-325.

Kesic, R. 2020. The continuing persistence and biomagnification of DDT and metabolites in American robin (Turdus migratorius) fruit orchard food chains. M.E.T. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. 77 pp.

Klemens, J.A., R.G. Harper, J.A. Frick, A.P. Capparella, H.B. Richardson, and M.J. Coffey. 2000. Patterns of organochlorine pesticide contamination in Neotropical migrant passerines in relation to diet and winter habitat. Chemosphere 41(7):1107-1113.

Krupke, C.H. and J.F. Tooker. 2020. Beyond the Headlines: The Influence of Insurance Pest Management on an Unseen, Silent Entomological Majority. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4:595855.

Laberge, V. and B. Houde. 2015. Suivi 2015 Hirondelle de rivage. Projet d’aménagement de nichoirs pour l’Hirondelle de rivage. Écogénie, Quebec, Quebec, Canada. 7 pp. + annexes. [accessed December 2020].

Lacoul, P., B. Freedman, and T. Clair. 2011. Effects of acidification on aquatic biota in Atlantic Canada. Environmental Reviews 19:429-460.

Langham, G.M., J.G. Shuetz, T. Distler, C.U. Soykan, and C. Wilsey. 2015. Conservation Status of North American Birds in the Face of Future Climate Change. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0135350.

Larivière, S. 2004. Range expansion of raccoons in the Canadian Prairies: review of hypotheses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3):955-963.

Latendresse, C., B. Jobin, A. Baril, C. Maisonneuve, C. Boutin, and D. Côté. 2008. Dynamique spatiotemporelle des habitats fauniques dans l’écorégion des Basses terres du fleuve Saint-Laurent, 1950-1997. Série de rapports techniques no 494, Environnement Canada, Service canadien de la faune, région du Québec, Québec. 83 pp. + annexes.

Latham, A.D.M. 2008. Evidence of Raccoon, Procyon lotor, Range Extension in Northern Alberta. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 122(2):176-178.

Laughlin, A.J., D.R. Sheldon, D.W. Winkler and C.M. Taylor. 2016. Quantifying non-breeding season occupancy patterns and the timing and drivers of autumn migration for a migratory songbird using Doppler radar. Ecography 39:1017-1024.

Lavtizar, V., R. Helsum, S.A.E. Kools, D. Dolenc, C.A.M. van Gestel, P. Trebse, S.L. Waaijers, and M.H.S. Kraak. 2015. Daphnid Life Cycle Responses to the Insecticide Chlorantraniliprole and Its Transformation Products. Environmental Science and Technology 49(6):3922-3929.

Lebbin, D.J., M.J. Parr, and G.H. Fenwick. 2010. The American Bird Conservancy guide to bird conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 456 pp.

Lemmen, D.S., F.J. Warren, T.S. James, and C.S.L. Mercer Clarke (eds). 2016. Canada’s Marine Coasts in a Changing Climate. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 274 pp.

Li, Y., R. Miao, and M. Khanna. 2020. Neonicotinoids and decline in bird biodiversity in the United States. Nature Sustainability: 1–9.

Lind, B-B., J. Stigh, and L. Larsson. 2002. Sediment type and breeding strategy of the Bank Swallow Riparia riparia in western Sweden. Ornis Svecica 12:157-163.

Lopez-Antia, A. M.E. Ortiz-Santaliestra, F. Mougeot, and R. Mateo. 2015. Imidacloprid-treated seed ingestion has lethal effect on adult partridges and reduces both breeding investment and offspring immunity. Environmental Research 136:97-107.

Ma, Y., K.A. Hobson, K.J. Kardynal, C.G. Guglielmo, and B.A. Branfireun. 2021. Inferring spatial patterns of mercury exposure in migratory boreal songbirds: Combining feather mercury and stable isotope (δ2H) measurements. Science of the Total Environment 762.

Main, A.R., J.V. Headley, K.M. Peru, N.L. Michel, A.J. Cessna, and C.A. Morrissey. 2014. Widespread use and frequent detection of neonicotinoid insecticides in wetlands of Canadaʼs prairie pothole region. PLoS ONE 9(3).

Malaj, E., K. Liber, and C.A. Morrissey. 2020. Spatial distribution of agricultural pesticide use and predicted wetland exposure in the Canadian Prairie Pothole Region. Science of the Total Environment 718.

Maldonado, A.R., M.A. Mora, and J.L. Sericano. 2017. Seasonal Differences in Contaminant Accumulation in Neotropical Migrant and Resident Songbirds. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 72:39-49.

Maloney, E., K. Liber, J.H. Headley, K.M. Peru, and C.A. Morrissey. 2018. Neonicotinoid insecticide mixtures: evaluation of laboratory-based toxicity predictions under semi-controlled field conditions. Environmental Pollution 243:1727-1739.

Maloney, E.M., H. Sykes, C. Morrissey, K.M. Peru, J.V. Headley, and K. Liber. 2019. Comparing the Acute Toxicity of Imidacloprid with Alternative Systemic Insecticides in the Aquatic Insect Chironomus dilutus. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 39(3):587-594.

Masoero, G., G. Boano, A. Tamietti, and E. Caprio. 2019. Proper gravel management may counteract population decline of the Collared Sand Martin Riparia riparia. Avocetta 43:139-147.

Matson, P.A., W.J. Parton, A.G. Power, and M.J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277(5325):504-509.

Mead, C.J. 1979a. Mortality and causes of death in British Sand Martins. Bird Study 26:107-112.

Mead, C.J. 1979b. Colony fidelity and interchange in the Sand Martin. Bird Study 26(2):99-106.

Michel, L.N., A.C. Smith, R.G. Clark, C.A. Morrissey, and K.A. Hobson. Differences in spatial synchrony and interspecific concordance inform guild‐level population trends for aerial insectivorous birds. Ecography 39(8):774-786.

Mineau, P., and M. Whiteside. 2013. Pesticide acute toxicity is a better correlate of U.S. grassland bird declines than agricultural intensification. PLoS One 8:e57457

Mineau, P., C.M. Downes, D.A. Kirk, E. Bayne, and M. Csizy. 2005. Patterns of bird species abundance in relation to granular insecticide use in the Canadian prairies. EcoScience 12:267-278.

Moffatt, K.C., E.E. Crone, K.D. Holl, R.W. Schlorff, and B.A. Garrison. 2005. Importance of hydrologic and landscape heterogeneity for restoring Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) colonies along the Sacramento River, California. Restoration Ecology 13(2):391-402.

Møller, A.P. 2013. Long-term trends in wind speed, insect abundance and ecology of an insectivorous bird. Ecosphere 4(1):1-11.

Monk, W.A., D.J. Baird, R.A. Curry, N. Glozier, and D.L. Peters. 2010. Ecosystem status and trends report: biodiversity in Canadian lakes and rivers. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Technical Thematic Report Series: No. 20. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers. Ottawa, Ontario. vi + 142 pp.

Monck-Whipp, L., A.E. Martin, C.M. Francis, and L. Fahrig. 2018. Farmland heterogeneity benefit bats in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 253:131-139.

Montreal Port Authority. 2020. Bank Swallows are back in great numbers! Web site: https://www.port-montreal.com/en/the-port-of-montreal/news/news/bank-swallows [Accessed December 2020].

Morrissey, C.A., P. Mineau, J.H. Devries, F. Sanchez-Bayo, M. Liess, M.C. Cavallaro, and K. Liber. 2015. Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters and associated risk to aquatic invertebrates: a review. Environment International 74:291-303.

Moy, N.J., J. Dobson, S.J. Tassone, P.A. Bukaveckas, and L.P. Bulluck. 2016. Biotransport of algal toxins to riparian food webs. Environmental Science and Technology 50:10007-10014.

Murphy, M.T. 2003. Avian population trends within the evolving agricultural landscape of eastern and central United States. The Auk 120(1):20-34.

National Audubon Society. 2021. How Climate Change Will Reshape the Range of the Bank Swallow. Web site: https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/bank-swallow [accessed May 2021].

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [Web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [accessed November 2020].

Nature Québec. 2014. Plan d’action pour la protection des sites de nidification de l’hirondelle de rivage dans les ZICO du Québec. Réalisé dans le cadre du programme Zones importantes pour la conservation des oiseaux au Québec (ZICO). 64 pp. + annexes.

Neave, E., and D. Baldwin. 2011. Mixedwoods Plain and Southern Boreal Shield Open Country Birds Habitat Assessment: History and Trends. Unpublished report to Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service – Ontario Region. Downsview, Ontario. 75 pp.

Nebel, S., A.M. Mills, J.D. McCracken, and P.D. Taylor. 2010. Declines of aerial insectivores in North America follow a geographic gradient. Avian Conservation and Ecology 5(2):1.

Newton, I. 2007. Weather-related mass-mortality events in migrants. Ibis 149:453-467.

Nocera, J.J., J.M. Blais, D.V. Beresford, L.K. Finity, C. Grooms, L.E. Kimpe, K. Kyser, N. Michelutti, M.W. Reudink, and J.P. Smol. 2012. Historical pesticide applications coincided with an altered diet of aerially foraging insectivorous Chimney Swifts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279(1740).

OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2010. The state of the aggregate resource in Ontario Study: consolidated report. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 26 pp.

OMNRF (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry). 2017. Best Management Practices for the Protection, Creation and Maintenance of Bank Swallow Habitat in Ontario. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2017. 37 pp.

Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2020. Population Estimates Database, version 2020. Web site: http://pif.birdconservancy.org/ [accessed November 2020].

Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1987. Breeding birds of Ontario: nidiology and distribution, Vol. 2: passerines. Royal Ontario Museum. Life Sciences Misc. Publication. Toronto, 387 pp.

Pisa, L.W., V. Amaral-Rogers, L.P. Belzunes, J.M. Bonmatin, C.A. Downs, D. Goulson, D.P. Kreutzweiser, C. Krupke, M. Liess, M. MCField, et al. 2015. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22:68-102.

Pisa, L., G. Goulson, E.-C. Yang, D. Gibbons, F. Sánchez-Bayo, E. Mitchell, A. Aebi, J. van der Sluijs, C.J.K. MacQuarrie, C. Giorio, et al. 2021. An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic insecticides. Part 2: impacts on organisms and ecosystems. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28:11749-11797.

Prairie Climate Centre. 2019. Climate Atlas of Canada, version 2 (July 10, 2019). University of Winnipeg. Web site: https://climateatlas.ca/ [accessed February 2021].

Pomfret, J.K., J.J. Nocera, T.K. Kyser, and M.W. Reudink. 2014. Linking population declines with diet quality in Vaux’s Swifts. Northwest Science 88(4):305-313.

Poulin, B., G. Lefebvre, and L. Paz. 2010. Red flag for green spray: adverse trophic effects of Bti on breeding birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 47(4):884-889.

PHJV (Prairie Habitat Joint Venture). 2014. Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan 2013-2020: The Prairie Parklands. Report of the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture. Environment Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. 122 pp.

Poole, T. pers. comm. 2021. Email correspondence to M.-A. Cyr. January 2021. Biologist, Wildlife and Fisheries Branch, Manitoba.

Prince Edward Island Department of Environment, Labour and Justice. 2011. Coastal Erosion and Climate Change. Prince Edward Island Department of Environment, Labour and Justice. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. Web site: https://www.csrpa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/coastal_erosion_and_climate_change_0.pdf [accessed September 2020].

Quebec Breeding Bird Atlas. 2017. Data obtained from the Quebec Breeding Bird Atlas office. Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service and Bird Studies Canada. Quebec, Quebec, Canada.

Quigley, J.T. and D.J. Harper, D.J. 2006. Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving no net loss. Environmental Management 37(3):351-366.

Rogers, K.H., S. McMillin, K.J. Olstad, and R.H. Poppenga. 2019. Imidacloprid Poisoning of Songbirds Following a Drench Application of Trees in a Residential Neighborhood in California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 38(8):1724-1727.

Rioux Paquette, S., D. Garant, F. Pelletier, and M. Bélisle. 2013. Seasonal patterns in tree swallow prey (Diptera) abundance are affected by agricultural intensification. Ecological Applications 23:122-133.

Rioux Paquette, S., F. Pelletier, D. Garant, and M. Bélisle. 2014. Severe recent decrease of adult body mass in a declining insectivorous bird population. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1786):1-9.

Robinson, B. pers. comm. 2020. Virtual meeting with M.-A. Cyr. October 2020. Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife and Habitat Assessment, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Edmonton, Alberta.

Rousseu, F. and B. Drolet. 2015. Prediction of the nesting phenology of birds in Canada. In: J. Hussell and D. Lepage. Bird Nesting Calendar Query Tool. Project NestWatch. Bird Studies Canada / Études d’Oiseaux Canada. [accessed November 2020].

Sabrosky, C.W., G.F. Bennett, and T.L. Whitworth. 1989. Bird blow flies (Protocalliphora) in North America (Diptera: Calliphoridae) with notes on the Palearctic species. Smithson. Institute Press, Washington, D.C., 312 pp.

Saino, N., R. Ambrosini, D. Rubolini, J. von Hardenburg, A. Provenzales, K. Hü, O. Hü, A. Lehikoinens, E. Lehikoinens, K. Rainio, M. Romano, and L. Sokolov. 2011. Climate warming, ecological mismatch at arrival and population decline in migratory birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278:835-842.

Saldanha, S. 2016. Foraging and Roosting Habitat Use of Nesting Bank Swallows in Sackville, NB. M.Sc. thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 89 pp.

Saldanha, S., P.D. Taylor, T.L. Imlay, and M.L. Leonard. 2019. Biological and environmental factors related to communal roosting behavior of breeding Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia). Avian Conservation and Ecology 14(2):21.

Sánchez-Bayo, F. and K.A.G. Wyckhuys. 2019. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biological Conservation 232:8-27

Savard, J.-P., D. van Proosdij, and S. O’Carroll. 2016. Perspectives on Canada’s East Coast region. Pp. 99-152. in D.S. Lemmen, F.J. Warren, T.S. James and C.S.L. Mercer Clarke (eds.). Canada’s Marine Coasts in a Changing Climate Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention. 2011. United Nations targets widely-used pesticide endosulfan for phase out. Web site: http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/PublicAwareness/PressReleases/COP5Geneva,3May2011Endosulfanphaseout/tabid/2216/Default.aspx [accessed December 2020].

Silver, M. and C.R. Griffin. 2009. Nesting habitat characteristics of Bank Swallows and Belted Kingfishers on the Connecticut River. Northeastern Naturalist 16(4):519-534.

Sinclair, P.H. pers. comm. 2020. Email correspondence to M.-A. Cyr. November 2020. Bird Conservation Biologist, Wildlife and Habitat Assessment, Environment Climate Change Canada, Whitehorse, Yukon.

Sinclair, P.H., M.D. Mossop, and S.A. Stotyn. 2020. Nesting ecology and reuse of nest burrows by Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) in southern Yukon. Canadian Field-Naturalist 134(4):329-341.

Sinclair, P.H., W.A. Nixon, C.D. Eckert, and N.L. Hughes. 2003. Birds of the Yukon Territory. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. 595 pp.

Smith, A.C., M-A.R. Hudson, V.I. Aponte, and C.M. Francis. 2020. North American Breeding Bird Survey – Canadian Trends Website, Data-version 2019. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Quebec. Web site: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Mr4kbS7cbBoORj1tiX-nBZN0RovMKMSX [accessed April 2021].

Smith, A.C., M-A R. Hudson, C.M. Downes, and C.M. Francis. 2015. Change points in the population trends of aerial-insectivorous birds in North America: Synchronized in Time across Species and Regions. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0130768.

Sólymos, P. pers. comm. 2021. Email correspondence to M.-A. Cyr. February 2021. Adjunct Professor, Department of Biology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Sparks, T.C. 2013. Insecticide discovery: an evaluation and analysis. Pesticide biochemistry and physiology 107(1):8-17.

Stanton, R.L., C.A. Morrissey and R.G. Clark. 2016. Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) foraging responses to agricultural land use and abundance of insect prey. Canadian Journal of Zoology 94:637-642.

Stanton, R.L., C.A. Morrissey and R.G. Clark. 2018. Trends and drivers of North American farmland bird declines: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 254:244-254.

Statistics Canada. 2020. Table 32-10-0153-01 Total area of farms and use of farm land, historical data [accessed November 2020].

Stepanian, M.A., S.A. Entrekin, C.E. Wainwright, D. Mirkovic, J.T. Tank, and J.F. Kelly. 2020. Declines in an abundant aquatic insect, the burrowing mayfly, across major North American waterways. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(6):2987-2992.

Stepanian, M.A., P.M. Kocovksy, and B.L. Bodamer Scarbro. 2017. Evaluating factors driving population densities of mayfly nymphs in Western Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 43(6):1111-1118.

Stewart, R.L.M., K.A. Bredin, A.R. Couturier, A.G. Horn, D. Lepage, S. Makepeace, P.D. Taylor, M.-A. Villard, and R.M. Whittam (eds). 2015. Second Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Natural History Society of Prince Edward Island, Nature New Brunswick, New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, Nova Scotia Bird Society, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, and Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Sackville, 528 + 28 pp.

St. Louis, V., and J.C. Barlow. 1993. The reproductive success of tree swallows nesting near experimentally acidified lakes in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71(6):1090-1097.

Stoner, D. 1941. Homing instinct in the bank swallow. Bird-Banding 12(3):104-109.

Struger, J., J. Grabuski, S. Cagampan, E. Sverko, D. McGoldrick, and C.H Marvin. 2017. Factors influencing the occurrence and distribution of neonicotinoid insecticides in surface waters of southern Ontario, Canada. Chemosphere 169:516-523.

Thomas, P. pers. comm. 2021. Email correspondence to M.-A. Cyr. January 2021. Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Assessment and Protected Areas, Environment Climate Change Canada, Sackville, New Brunswick.

Tscharntke, T., A.M. Klein, A. Kruess, I. Steffan-Dewenter, and C. Thies. 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters 8:857-874.

Turner, A.K. 1980. The use and time and energy by aerial feeding birds. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom. 347 pp.

Turner, A.K. and C, Rose. 1989. Swallows and Martins Identification Guide. Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston.

Twining, C.W., J.T. Brennab, P. Lawrence, J.R. Shipley, T.N. Tollefsonc, and D.W. Winkler. 2016. Omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids support aerial insectivore performance more than food quantity. PNAS 113(39):10920-10925)

Twining, C.W., J.N. Roxanna Razavi, J. Thomas, S.A. Dzielski, S.T. Gonzalez, P. Lawrence, L.B. Cleckner, and A.S. Flecker. 2021. Emergent Freshwater Insects Serve as Subsidies of Methylmercury and Beneficial Fatty Acids for Riparian Predators Across an Agricultural Gradient. Environmental Science and Technology.

Twining, C.W., J.R. Shipley, and D.W. Winkler. 2018. Aquatic insects rich in omega-3 fatty acids drive breeding success in a widespread bird. Ecology Letters 21(12).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Endosulfan phase-out. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available: https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/html/endosulfan-agreement.html [accessed December 2020].

Vafidis, J.O., I.P. Vaughan, T. Hefin Jones, R.J. Facey, R. Parry, and R.J. Thomas. 2016. The effects of supplementary food on the breeding performance of Eurasian Reed Warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus; Implications for climate change impacts. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0159933.

Wada, H., D.A. Cristol, F.M.A. McNabb, and W.A. Hopkins. 2009. Suppressed adrenocortical responses and thyroid hormone levels in birds near a mercury-contaminated river. Environmental Science and Technology 43:6031-6038

Watmough, M.D., Z. Li, and E.M. Beck. 2017. Canadian Prairie Wetland and Upland Status and Trends 2001-2011 in the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Delivery Area. Prairie Habitat Joint venture, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Williams, J. 2010. Avian Incidental Take due to Mining Operations in Canada. Report Prepared by ArborVitae Environmental Services Ltd. for Environment Canada, Western Arctic Unit, Yellowknife. 32 pp.

Williams, T.D., S. Bourgeon, A. Cornell, L. Ferguson, M. Fowler, R.B. Fronstin, and O.P. Love. 2015. Mid-winter temperatures, not spring temperatures, predict breeding phenology in the European starling Strunus vulgaris. Royal Society Open Science 2(1):140301.

Winkler, D.W. 2006. Roosts and migrations of swallows. El Hornero 21(2):085-097.

Whitworth, T.L. and G.F. Bennett. 1992. Pathogenicity of larval Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae) parasitizing nestling birds. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:2184-2191.

Xing, Z., L. Chow, H. Rees, F. Meng, S. Li, B. Ernst, G. Benoy, T. Zha, and L.M. Hewitt. 2013. Influences of sampling methodologies on pesticide-residue detection in stream water. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 64(2):208-218.

Yosef, R., and M.A. Deyrup. 1998. Effects of fertilizer-induced reduction of invertebrates on reproductive success of Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus). Journal für Ornithologie 139:307-312.

Yundt, S.E. and B.P. Messerschmidt. 1979. Legislation and policy mineral aggregate resource management in Ontario, Canada. Minerals and the Environment 1:101-111.

Appendix A: Effects on the environment and other species

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery planning documents, in accordance with the /content/canadasite/en/environmental-assessment-agency/programs/strategic-environmental-assessment/cabinet-directive-environmental-assessment-policy-plan-program-proposals.html">Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals\[27\]. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making and to evaluate whether the outcomes of a recovery planning document could affect any component of the environment or any of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy’sFootnote 28 (FSDS) goals and targets.

Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts upon non-target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself, but are also summarized below in this statement.

Several of the recommended activities may benefit the following aerial insectivore birds also listed as species at risk: Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Eastern Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica). The proposed measures may also benefit several other aerial insectivores that are not at risk, such as other swallow and flycatcher species. The protection afforded to Bank Swallow critical habitat might benefit other migratory bird species that nest in banks, such as Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) and Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon).

Recovery activities could have consequences to those species whose habitat requirements differ from the Bank Swallow. Therefore, it is important that stewardship and habitat management activities for the Bank Swallow be considered from an ecosystem perspective through the development, with input from responsible jurisdictions, of multi-species plans, ecosystem-based recovery programs or area management plans that take into account the needs of multiple species, including other species at risk, and other biodiversity goals (e.g., increasing forest cover).

Appendix B: Acquisition dates of best available data

Biodiversity datasets are regularly updated with new or historical occurrences. Critical habitat is based on all suitable occurrence records available to Environment Climate Change Canada as of November 2020. The following list indicates acquisition dates of datasets that are susceptible to be regularly updated with new or historical occurrences and therefore is not an exhaustive list of datasets that constitute the best available data.

Datasets from which data was retained towards critical habitat were acquired on the following dates:

October 2017
Newfoundland and Labrador Conservation Data Centre

November 2017
Alberta Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System

January 2018
eBird Canada

October 2018
Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre

February 2019
Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre
SOS-POP (Quebec) – January 27, 2019 version.

August 2019
Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre
Project NestWatch

November 2020
British Columbia Conservation Data Centre

Appendix C: Breeding evidence categories and codes

Occurrence records were assigned a standardized breeding evidence code and category used in Breeding Bird Atlases, with the exception of breeding bird atlas data, where codes were already provided, following the description of codes in the Saskatchewan Breeding Bird Atlas (sk.birdatlas.ca/jsp/codes.jsp). The following list provides possible observations of breeding evidence under three categories: possible, probable, and confirmed. The identification of critical habitat for Bank Swallow was restricted to records providing a confirmed breeding evidence.

Possible breeding:

Probable breeding:

Confirmed Breeding:

Appendix D: Locations of critical habitat for the Bank Swallow

Table D-1. Nesting critical habitat locations in Newfoundland and Labrador. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length(km)a 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identificationb Land tenurec
1233_NL_1 Larkin Point 47.7794 -59.3079 15 21TUN29, 21TUN39 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NL_2 Parsons Pond 50.0225 -57.6999 30 21UVR43, 21UVR44, 21UVR53, 21UVR54 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NL_3 Little Wabush Lake 52.9408 -66.8783 28 19UFU36, 19UFU46, 19UFU47 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NL_4 Smallwood Reservoir 53.8325 -64.0166 2 20UME36 Non-federal Land
1233_QCNL_1 Lac Bau 52.7868 -66.3190 21 19UFU75, 19UFU84, 19UFU85 Non-federal Land

a The length presented is that of the shoreline(s) that intersect a nesting colony (rounded up to the nearest 1 km) used in delimiting critical habitat polygons.

b Based on the standard UTM Military Grid Reference System, where the first 3 characters represent the UTM Zone, the following 2 letters indicate the 100 x 100 km standardized UTM grid. The last 2 digits represent the 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid containing all or a portion of the critical habitat unit. This unique alphanumeric code is based on the methodology produced from the Breeding Bird Atlases of Canada (See Birds Canada for more information on breeding bird atlases).

c Land tenure is provided as an approximation of the types of land ownership that exist at the critical habitat units and should be used for guidance purposes only. Accurate land tenure will require cross referencing critical habitat boundaries with surveyed land parcel information.

Table D-2. Nesting critical habitat locations in Prince Edward Island. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_PE_1 Northumberland Strait - Wood Islands Area 45.9595 -62.7323 23 20TNR18, 20TNR19, 20TNR28, 20TNR29 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_2 Cameron Island 46.0617 -62.9911 20 20TMR99, 20TMS90, 20TNR09, 20TNS00 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_3 Hillsborough Bay - Jardines Point 46.1875 -63.0180 29 20TMS91, 20TNS01 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_4 Skmaqn-Port-la-Joye-Fort Amherst National Historic Site 46.1868 -63.1623 21 20TMS81, 20TMS91 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_5 Northumberland Strait - DeSable Area 46.1788 -63.4077 38 20TMS51, 20TMS61, 20TMS70, 20TMS71, 20TMS80 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_6 Launching Bay 46.2199 -62.4424 13 20TNS31, 20TNS41, 20TNS42 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_7 Northumberland Strait - Howe Bay 46.2960 -62.3634 25 20TNS42, 20TNS43, 20TNS52, 20TNS53 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_8 Sevenmile Bay 46.3206 -63.7667 38 20TMS32, 20TMS33, 20TMS42, 20TMS43 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_9 Black Pond Bird Sanctuary 46.3720 -62.1359 15 20TNS63, 20TNS73 Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_10 Prince Edward Island National Park Of Canada (A) 46.4257 -63.1025 27 20TMS74, 20TMS84, 20TMS93, 20TMS94, 20TNS03, 20TNS04 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_11 Northumberland Strait - Maximeville Area 46.4336 -64.1160 28 20TMS13, 20TMS14 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_12 Prince Edward Island National Park Of Canada (B) 46.4653 -62.4888 58 20TNS14, 20TNS24, 20TNS34, 20TNS44, 20TNS54, 20TNS64 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_13 Prince Edward Island National Park Of Canada (C) 46.4930 -63.3681 18 20TMS64, 20TMS65, 20TMS74, 20TMS75 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_14 Malpeque Bay 46.5047 -63.6846 111 20TMS34, 20TMS44, 20TMS45, 20TMS55, 20TMS65 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_PE_15 Cascumpec Bay 46.7487 -64.0959 25 20TMS17, 20TMS18 Non-federal Land
1233_PE_16 West Cape - Anglo Tignish 46.8747 -64.2074 76 20TLS96, 20TLS97, 20TLS98, 20TMS08, 20TMS09, 20TMS19, 20TMT10, 20TMT20, 20TMT21 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
Table D-3. Nesting critical habitat locations in Nova Scotia. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_NS_1 Kejimkujik National Park And National Historic Site Of Canada 43.8427 -64.8433 20 20TLP45, 20TLP55 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_2 Cape St. Mary's 44.0492 -66.1734 13 19TGJ27, 19TGJ28 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_3 Kingsburg 44.2877 -64.2771 46 20TLP99, 20TLQ90, 20TLQ91, 20TMQ00 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_4 Rafuse Island 44.4539 -64.2367 3 20TMQ02 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_5 Martinique Beach 44.7028 -63.1388 44 20TMQ84, 20TMQ85, 20TMQ94, 20TMQ95 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_6 Annapolis River 44.7932 -65.3999 48 20TLQ05, 20TLQ06, 20TLQ16 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_7 Shubenacadie River 45.0072 -63.4479 25 20TMQ67, 20TMQ68 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_8 Bay of Fundy - Blomidon Peninsula 45.2190 -64.3577 21 20TLR90, 20TLR91 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_9 Bay of Fundy - Cobequid Bay 45.3048 -63.7614 41 20TMR31, 20TMR41 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_10 Bay of Fundy - The Brothers 45.3826 -64.2123 1 20TMR02 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_11 Bay of Fundy - Highland Village Area 45.3899 -63.6274 26 20TMR42, 20TMR52 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_12 Ouetique Island 45.6100 -60.9574 1 20TPR55 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_13 Big Island 45.6595 -62.4286 20 20TNR45 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_14 Northumberland Strait - Lismore Area 45.7012 -62.2882 14 20TNR45, 20TNR55, 20TNR56, 20TNR66 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_15 Bay of Fundy - Lower Cove 45.7224 -64.4379 16 20TLR85, 20TLR86, 20TLR96 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_16 Northumberland Strait - Waterside 45.7650 -62.7810 12 20TNR16, 20TNR26 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_17 Bras d'Or Lake 45.8051 -60.7686 3 20TPR77 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_18 Northumberland Strait - Cape John 45.7837 -63.0330 39 20TMR87, 20TMR96, 20TMR97, 20TNR06, 20TNR07 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_19 Pictou Island 45.8126 -62.5713 12 20TNR37 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_20 Northumberland Strait - Livingstone Cove 45.8671 -61.9711 12 20TNR77, 20TNR78, 20TNR88 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_21 Northumberland Strait - Heather Beach 45.8760 -63.7739 25 20TMR38, 20TMR47, 20TMR48 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_22 Baie Verte 45.9793 -63.9263 18 20TMR29, 20TMR38, 20TMR39 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_23 Livingstones Pond 45.9601 -61.5249 22 20TPR18, 20TPR19 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_24 Victoria Mines 46.2404 -60.1610 12 20TQS12, 20TQS22 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_25 Spanish Bay 46.2604 -60.2360 18 20TQS02, 20TQS03, 20TQS12, 20TQS13 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_26 Northumberland Strait - Gillis Cove 46.2952 -61.2556 13 20TPS32, 20TPS33 Non-federal Land
1233_NS_27 Cape Breton Highlands National Park Of Canada 46.8387 -60.3440 34 20TPS99, 20TQS08, 20TQS09 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_NS_28 Cape Breton Island - Polletts Cove 46.9175 -60.6984 12 20TPS79, 20TPT70 Non-federal Land
Table D-4. Nesting critical habitat locations in New Brunswick. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_NB_1 Grand Manan Island 44.7115 -66.7519 25 19TFK74, 19TFK75, 19TFK85 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_2 Bay of Fundy - Sand Cove Area 45.2227 -66.1220 20 19TGL20, 19TGL21, 19TGL31 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_3 Bay of Fundy - Quaco Bay 45.3473 -65.5253 17 20TKR92, 20TLR02 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_4 Nerepis River 45.4456 -66.3201 32 19TGL03, 19TGL04, 19TGL13, 19TGL14 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_5 Bay of Fundy - Rocher Bay 45.6184 -64.8094 17 20TLR55, 20TLR64, 20TLR65 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_6 Kennebecasis River 45.6070 -65.7304 23 20TKR84, 20TKR85, 20TKR95 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_7 Shepody Bay 45.8077 -64.5087 12 20TLR86, 20TLR87 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_8 Tintamarre National Wildlife Area 45.8810 -64.3418 66 20TLR97, 20TLR98, 20TLR99, 20TMR07 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_9 Sugar Island 45.9813 -66.7987 13 19TFL69, 19TFL79 Non-federal Land
1233_NB_10 Nashwaak River - Penniac Area 46.0225 -66.5874 30 19TFL89, 19TFM80 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_11 Petitcodiac River 46.0631 -64.8389 14 20TLS50, 20TLS60 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_12 Cape Spear 46.0822 -63.8334 12 20TMS30, 20TMS40 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_13 Nashwaak River - Durham Bridge Area 46.1238 -66.6103 27 19TFM80, 19TFM81 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_14 Cap-Pelé - Little Shemogue Harbour 46.1827 -64.1473 85 20TLS91, 20TLS92, 20TMS01, 20TMS02, 20TMS10, 20TMS11, 20TMS21 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_15 Shediac Bay 46.2393 -64.5221 33 20TLS71, 20TLS72, 20TLS81, 20TLS82 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_16 Cap-des-Caissie 46.3296 -64.5291 12 20TLS73, 20TLS82, 20TLS83 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_17 Baie-de-Bouctouche 46.4466 -64.6660 14 20TLS64, 20TLS74 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_18 Saint John River - Florenceville 46.4596 -67.5978 13 19TFM04, 19TFM05, 19TFM14 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_19 Cap-Lumière 46.6499 -64.7146 12 20TLS66, 20TLS67 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_20 Saint John River - Lower Perth 46.7103 -67.7129 13 19TEM96, 19TEM97, 19TFM07 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_21 Kouchibouguac National Park Of Canada (A) 46.8064 -64.8913 16 20TLS58 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_22 Little Southwest Miramichi 46.9480 -65.8710 21 20TKT70, 20TKT80 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_23 Kouchibouguac National Park Of Canada (B) 46.9521 -64.8477 14 20TLS59, 20TLT50, 20TLT60 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_24 Bay du Vin River 47.0575 -65.1022 11 20TLT31, 20TLT41 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_25 Point aux Carr 47.0644 -65.2297 17 20TLT21, 20TLT31 Non-federal Land
1233_NB_26 Escuminac 47.0667 -64.8401 16 20TLT51, 20TLT60, 20TLT61 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_27 Pointe Morin 47.2241 -65.1105 17 20TLT33, 20TLT43 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_28 Tabusintac Bay 47.2922 -64.9761 28 20TLT43, 20TLT53, 20TLT54 Non-federal Land
1233_NB_29 Green River 47.4026 -68.1814 29 19TEN55, 19TEN64, 19TEN65 Non-federal Land
1233_NB_30 Val-Comeau 47.4542 -64.8785 6 20TLT55, 20TLT56 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_31 Baie de Tracadie 47.5326 -64.8658 11 20TLT56, 20TLT66 Non-federal Land
1233_NB_32 Green Point 47.6205 -64.8085 10 20TLT67, 20TLT68 Non-federal Land
1233_NB_33 Little Main Restigouche River 47.6629 -67.5006 15 19TFN07, 19TFN17, 19TFN18 Non-federal Land
1233_NB_34 Chiasson 47.7448 -64.6319 18 20TLT78, 20TLT79, 20TLT88, 20TLT89 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NB_35 Lac Chenière 47.9638 -64.5389 3 20ULU81 Non-federal Land
1233_QCNB_1 Patapedia River 47.8437 -67.3810 31 19TFN19, 19TFN29, 19UFP10, 19UFP20 Non-federal Land
1233_QCNB_2 Restigouche River 47.9940 -66.8641 12 19UFP51, 19UFP61 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
Table D-5. Nesting critical habitat locations in Quebec. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_QC_1 Rivière des Prairies 45.6839 -73.5393 4 18TXR15, 18TXR16 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_2 Île Beauregard 45.7520 -73.4095 4 18TXR26 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_3 Île aux Prunes 45.8133 -73.3327 1 18TXR27, 18TXR37 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_4 Île Saint-Ours 45.9144 -73.2226 6 18TXR38 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_5 Rivière Yamaska - Secteur de Massueville 45.8801 -72.9344 33 18TXR57, 18TXR58, 18TXR67, 18TXR68, 18TXR69 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_6 Rivière Richelieu - Secteur de Sorel-Tracy 46.0101 -73.1339 21 18TXR49, 18TXS40 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_7 Rivière Yamaska - Secteur de Yamaska 46.0207 -72.9208 27 18TXR59, 18TXR69, 18TXS50, 18TXS60 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_8 Rivière Bulstrode 46.0592 -72.2190 28 18TYS10, 18TYS20 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_9 Rivière Saint-François - Secteur de Pierreville 46.0757 -72.8440 11 18TXS60, 18TXS70 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_10 Rivière Rouge - Secteur de La Conception 46.1940 -74.7084 50 18TWS20, 18TWS21, 18TWS22 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_11 Bras Saint-Victor 46.2519 -70.8373 15 19TCM51, 19TCM52 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_12 Rivière Bécancour - Secteur de Bécancour 46.3106 -72.4006 45 18TXS93, 18TYS02, 18TYS03 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_13 Rivière Désert - Secteur de Kitigan Zibi 46.3846 -76.0101 27 18TVS13, 18TVS14, 18TVS23, 18TVS24 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_14 Rivière Rouge - Secteur de Rivière-Rouge 46.4399 -74.8870 36 18TWS03, 18TWS04, 18TWS13, 18TWS14 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_15 Île du Village - Réservoir Taureau 46.7384 -73.7933 4 18TWS97 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_16 St. Lawrence River - Saint-Vallier Area 46.9111 -70.7846 14 19TCM59, 19TCM69, 19TCN60 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_17 Riviere du Sud 46.9177 -70.6481 31 19TCM79, 19TCN70 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_18 St. Lawrence River - Montmagny Area 46.9956 -70.5501 13 19TCN70, 19TCN80 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_19 L'Isle-aux-Grues 47.1039 -70.5025 13 19TCN81, 19TCN82 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_20 Îles-de-la-Madeleine - Secteur de Cap-aux-Meules 47.3817 -61.9008 63 20TNT74, 20TNT75, 20TNT84, 20TNT85 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_21 Îles-de-la-Madeleine - Secteur de Havre aux Maisons 47.4148 -61.7689 14 20TNT84, 20TNT85, 20TNT94, 20TNT95 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_22 Îles-de-la-Madeleine - Secteur de Grande-Entrée 47.5750 -61.4806 18 20TPT16, 20TPT17 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_23 Chaleur Bay - New Carlisle Area 48.0116 -65.3673 22 20ULU11, 20ULU12, 20ULU21, 20ULU22, 20ULU31, 20ULU32 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_24 Rivière Verte 48.0083 -69.3444 46 19UDP61, 19UDP71, 19UDP72 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_25 Chaleur Bay - Saint-Godefroi Area 48.0731 -65.1118 17 20ULU32, 20ULU42, 20ULU43 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_26 Chaleur Bay - Carleton-sur-Mer Area 48.1078 -66.0862 22 19UGP12, 19UGP13, 19UGP23 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_27 Chaleur Bay - Port-Daniel-Gascons Area 48.1921 -64.8588 14 20ULU53, 20ULU63, 20ULU64 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_28 St. Lawrence River - Les Bergeronnes Area 48.2386 -69.5524 6 19UDP54, 19UDP64 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_29 Chaleur Bay - Chandler Area 48.3667 -64.5962 16 20ULU75, 20ULU85, 20ULU86 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_30 Rivière du Moulin 48.4114 -71.0340 13 19UCP46, 19UCP56 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_31 Rivière Cascapédia 48.4433 -66.0264 25 19UGP16, 19UGP17, 19UGP26, 19UGP27, 20UKU76 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_32 Île Bonaventure 48.4952 -64.1624 10 20UMU17 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_33 Gulf of St. Lawrence - Percé Area 48.4634 -64.3122 37 20ULU96, 20UMU06, 20UMU07, 20UMU17 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_34 Gulf of St. Lawrence - Pointe-Saint-Pierre Area 48.6340 -64.2123 21 20UMU08, 20UMU09, 20UMU18, 20UMU19 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_35 Estuaire du Saint-Laurent - Secteur de Baie-des-Sables 48.7308 -67.8753 11 19UEP79, 19UEP89, 19UEQ80 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_36 Gulf of St. Lawrence - Rivière-au-Renard Area 49.0016 -64.3936 12 20ULV92, 20ULV93, 20UMV02 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_37 Lac de la Main 49.0315 -69.4468 12 19UDQ62, 19UDQ63 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_38 Estuaire du Saint-Laurent - Secteur de Pointe-aux-Outardes 49.0634 -68.4055 23 19UEQ33, 19UEQ43 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_39 Estuaire du Saint-Laurent - Pointe-Lebel 49.1099 -68.2067 12 19UEQ53, 19UEQ54, 19UEQ63, 19UEQ64 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_40 Gulf of St. Lawrence - Marsoui Area 49.2108 -66.1224 20 19UGQ05, 19UGQ15, 20UKV85 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_41 Gulf of St. Lawrence - Mont-Saint-Pierre Area 49.2310 -65.8069 12 20UKV95, 20ULV05 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_42 Gulf of St. Lawrence - Baie-Trinité Area 49.4856 -67.2365 15 19UFQ27, 19UFQ28 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_43 Rivière Sainte-Marguerite 50.1455 -66.6328 12 19UFR65, 19UFR66, 19UFR75 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_44 Île aux Perroquets 50.2209 -64.2060 1 20UMA16 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_45 Rivière Moisie 50.2345 -66.0632 39 19UGR06, 19UGR07, 19UGR16, 19UGR17 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_46 Rivière Saint-Jean 50.2998 -64.3223 13 20UMA07, 20UMA17 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QC_47 Rivière Mistassibi 50.4361 -72.1864 7 18UXA98, 18UYA08, 18UYA09 Non-federal Land
1233_QC_48 Rivière au Chien Rouge 59.3149 -69.7600 19 19VDF57 Non-federal Land
1233_QCNL_1 Lac Bau 52.7868 -66.3190 21 19UFU75, 19UFU84, 19UFU85 Non-federal Land
1233_QCNB_1 Patapedia River 47.8437 -67.3810 31 19TFN19, 19TFN29, 19UFP10, 19UFP20 Non-federal Land
1233_QCNB_2 Restigouche River 47.9940 -66.8641 12 19UFP51, 19UFP61 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_QCON_1 Île Kettle 45.4706 -75.6517 10 18TVR43, 18TVR53 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
Table D-6. Nesting critical habitat locations in Ontario. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_ON_1 Long Point National Wildlife Area 42.5462 -80.0881 54 17TNH70, 17TNH71 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_2 Lake Erie shoreline - Duttona Beach, Lake Erie shoreline - Port Glasgow 42.5607 -81.5240 23 17TMH40, 17TMH50, 17TMH51, 17TMH61 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_3 Thames River (B) 42.6403 -81.7578 30 17TMH31, 17TMH32, 17TMH42 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_4 Lake Erie shoreline - Port Stanley to Big Creek National Wildlife Area 42.6342 -80.8722 75 17TMH72, 17TMH82, 17TMH92, 17TNH02, 17TNH11, 17TNH12, 17TNH21, 17TNH22, 17TNH31, 17TNH41 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_5 St. Clair River 42.7981 -82.4687 13 17TLH73, 17TLH74, 17TLH83, 17TLH84 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_6 Lake Erie shoreline - Point Abino 42.8590 -79.1076 20 17TPH44, 17TPH54 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_7 Thames River (A) 42.8908 -81.4158 59 17TMH64, 17TMH65 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_8 Highland Glen 43.0984 -82.1216 12 17TMH06, 17TMH07, 17TMH17 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_9 Nith River 43.1999 -80.4440 58 17TNH48, 17TNH58 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_10 Grand River (B) 43.4100 -80.4069 34 17TNJ40, 17TNJ41, 17TNJ50 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_11 Lake Ontario shoreline - Oakville 43.4580 -79.6479 23 17TPJ00, 17TPJ01, 17TPJ11, 17TPJ12 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_12 Grand River (A) 43.5107 -80.4784 46 17TNJ32, 17TNJ41, 17TNJ42 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_13 Etobicoke Creek, Lake Ontario shoreline - Port Credit 43.6013 -79.5626 48 17TPJ12, 17TPJ13, 17TPJ22 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_14 Humber River (B) 43.6937 -79.5226 55 17TPJ13, 17TPJ14, 17TPJ23 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_15 Lake Ontario shoreline - Toronto 43.6914 -79.2556 69 17TPJ32, 17TPJ33, 17TPJ43, 17TPJ44, 17TPJ54, 17TPJ55 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_16 Highland Creek 43.7896 -79.2283 46 17TPJ34, 17TPJ35, 17TPJ44, 17TPJ45 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_17 Rouge River 43.8269 -79.1964 42 17TPJ45, 17TPJ55 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_18 Humber River (A), East Humber River 43.8182 -79.6156 92 17TPJ05, 17TPJ14, 17TPJ15 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_19 Lake Ontario shoreline - Frenchman's Bay, Duffins Creek 43.8427 -78.9966 43 17TPJ55, 17TPJ65, 17TPJ75 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_20 Sandbanks Provincial Park 43.9234 -77.3120 19 18TUP06, 18TUP16, 18TUP26 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_21 Lake Ontario shoreline - Huycks Bay 43.9379 -77.4887 13 18TTP96, 18TTP97, 18TUP06 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_22 Black Creek 43.9466 -77.0627 16 18TUP36, 18TUP37 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_23 Lake Ontario shoreline - Cobourg 43.9620 -78.0946 21 17TQJ26, 17TQJ27, 17TQJ37, 17TQJ47, 18TTP57, 18TTP67 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_24 Wellers Bay National Wildlife Area 44.0052 -77.6118 15 18TTP87, 18TTP97 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_25 Saugeen River (C) 44.1767 -80.9590 31 17TMJ98, 17TMJ99, 17TNJ08, 17TNJ09 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_26 Saugeen River (B) 44.1795 -81.1570 107 17TMJ88, 17TMJ89, 17TMJ98, 17TMK80 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_27 Nottawasaga River (B) 44.2705 -79.8403 101 17TNJ98, 17TNJ99, 17TNK80, 17TNK81, 17TNK90, 17TNK91 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_28 Saugeen River (A) 44.4832 -81.3336 32 17TMK62, 17TMK72 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_29 Nottawasaga Bay Shoreline - Wasaga Beach, Nottawasaga River (A) 44.5069 -80.0198 54 17TNK72, 17TNK73, 17TNK82, 17TNK83 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_30 Park Head Creek 44.6009 -81.1264 15 17TMK83, 17TMK93 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_31 Moira River 44.5816 -77.5782 28 18TTQ93, 18TTQ94 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_32 Nottawasaga Bay Shoreline - Nottawasaga Beach 44.7128 -80.0337 14 17TNK74, 17TNK75, 17TNK84 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_33 Burnt River 44.6880 -78.6876 49 17TPK74, 17TPK84, 17TPK85 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_34 Kawpagwakog River 45.1091 -79.1324 33 17TPK49, 17TPL40 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_35 Georgian Bay shoreline - Bruce Peninsula 45.1406 -81.3185 12 17TMK79, 17TML70 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_ON_36 Big East River 45.3788 -79.1978 62 17TPL32, 17TPL42, 17TPL43 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_37 Goulais River (A) 46.7219 -84.3739 62 16TFS97, 16TGS07 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_38 Goulais River (B) 46.7593 -84.0802 39 16TGS17, 16TGS18, 16TGS28 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_39 Sturgeon River 46.9352 -80.4371 39 17TNM49, 17TNN30, 17TNN40 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_40 Magpie River 48.0425 -84.7832 35 16UFU61, 16UFU62 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_41 Wilson Creek (B) 48.8099 -94.6495 11 15UUQ70, 15UUQ80 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_42 Knox Creek 51.2203 -94.4418 8 15UUS97, 15UVS07 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_43 Albany River (A) 51.8070 -83.0482 18 17ULT53, 17ULT54, 17ULT64 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_44 Albany River (B) 51.9288 -82.7045 11 17ULT75, 17ULT85 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_45 Ekwan River 53.3157 -82.5214 14 17ULV90, 17ULV91, 17UMV00 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_46 Severn River (B) 55.0681 -88.9706 25 16UCF79, 16UCG60, 16UCG70 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_47 Severn River (A) 55.1455 -88.6979 26 16UCG81, 16UCG91 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_48 Severn River (C) 56.0093 -87.5317 12 16VDH60, 16VDH70 Non-federal Land
1233_ON_49 Black Duck River 56.3814 -89.3814 41 16VCH44, 16VCH54, 16VCH55 Non-federal Land
1233_QCON_1 Île Kettle 45.4706 -75.6517 10 18TVR43, 18TVR53 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
Table D-7. Nesting critical habitat locations in Manitoba. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_MB_1 Cypress Creek (A) 49.0295 -98.9452 4 14UNV02, 14UNV03 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_2 Cypress Creek (B) 49.0447 -98.9936 2 14UMV93, 14UNV03 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_3 Gainsborough Creek 49.0837 -101.3414 1 14ULV23 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_4 Long River 49.1391 -99.5402 32 14UMV54, 14UMV64 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_5 Pembina River (A) 49.0932 -98.5421 152 14UNV23, 14UNV24, 14UNV33, 14UNV34, 14UNV43 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_6 Roseau River 49.1939 -96.8953 44 14UPV45, 14UPV54, 14UPV55 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_MB_8 Rock Lake 49.2180 -99.2390 20 14UMV75, 14UMV84, 14UMV85 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_9 Graham Creek 49.2536 -101.1564 0 14ULV45 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_10 Pembina River (B) 49.2253 -99.0406 48 14UMV94, 14UMV95, 14UNV05 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_11 Medora Creek (A) 49.3347 -100.8265 0 14ULV66 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_12 Medora Creek (B) 49.3409 -100.7237 0 14ULV76 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_13 Cypress River 49.5194 -98.6672 0 14UNV28 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_14 Stephenfield Lake 49.5258 -98.3070 16 14UNV48, 14UNV58 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_15 Souris River 49.6062 -100.2525 46 14UMV09, 14UMV19 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_MB_16 Assiniboine River (A) 49.6667 -99.2539 90 14UMA70, 14UMA80, 14UMV79, 14UMV89 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_MB_17 Red River (A) 49.7826 -97.1335 26 14UPA31 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_MB_18 Red River (B) 49.9422 -97.0937 26 14UPA32, 14UPA33, 14UPA43 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_MB_19 Little Saskatchewan River 49.9560 -100.2304 46 14UMA03, 14UMA13 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_20 Assiniboine River (B) 50.0093 -97.7697 44 14UNA83, 14UNA84, 14UNA93, 14UNA94 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_21 Assiniboine River (C) 50.4102 -101.2743 48 14ULA38, 14ULA39, 14ULA48 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_22 Big Grass River 50.4811 -98.9382 12 14UNA09 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_23 Winnipeg River 50.5192 -96.1188 18 14UQA09, 14UQB00 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_24 Woody River 52.1466 -101.4721 43 14ULC27, 14ULC28, 14ULC37, 14ULC38 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_25 Gods River 56.1405 -92.4914 13 15VWC22, 15VWC31, 15VWC32 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_26 Owl River 57.3684 -94.1951 42 15VVD25, 15VVD26, 15VVD35, 15VVD36 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_27 Wapusk National Park Of Canada (A) 57.4986 -93.7881 32 15VVD46, 15VVD47, 15VVD56, 15VVD57 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area
1233_MB_28 Wapusk National Park Of Canada (B) 57.5849 -93.5467 26 15VVD67, 15VVD68, 15VVD78 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area
1233_MB_29 Wapusk National Park Of Canada (C) 57.6466 -93.3948 26 15VVD78, 15VVD79 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area
1233_MB_30 Wapusk National Park Of Canada (D) 57.7801 -93.1246 29 15VVE80, 15VVE90 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area
1233_MB_31 Wapusk National Park Of Canada (E) 57.8287 -92.8184 17 15VWE00, 15VWE10, 15VWE11 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_MB_32 Seal River 58.9948 -95.4154 5 15VUF64 Non-federal Land
1233_MB_33 Nueltin Lake 59.8317 -100.0500 30 14VMM33, 14VMM43 Non-federal Land
Table D-8. Nesting critical habitat locations in Saskatchewan. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_SK_1 Swift Current Creek 50.4471 -107.6331 1 13UCR19 Non-federal Land
1233_SK_2 South Saskatchewan River 51.3525 -106.9840 12 13UCS68, 13UCS69 Non-federal Land
1233_SK_3 North Saskatchewan River (A) 52.5684 -107.9389 22 12UYD02, 13UBU92, 13UCU02 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_SK_4 Duck Lake 52.7893 -106.2751 42 13UDU14, 13UDU15 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_SK_5 North Saskatchewan River (B) 52.9463 -108.5716 26 12UXD56, 12UXD57, 12UXD66, 12UXD67, 12UXD76 Non-federal Land
1233_SK_6 North Saskatchewan River (C) 53.1680 -108.9878 25 12UXD38, 12UXD39 Non-federal Land
Table D-9. Nesting critical habitat locations in Alberta. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_AB_1 Castle River 49.3969 -114.3426 27 11UPQ87, 11UPQ97, 11UPQ98 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_2 Crowsnest River 49.5720 -114.2357 30 11UPQ99, 11UQQ09 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_3 Willow Creek (A) 49.9256 -113.6024 37 12UUA03, 12UUA12, 12UUA13 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_4 Oldman River 49.9269 -111.7118 21 12UVA42, 12UVA43, 12UVA53 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_5 Clear Lake 50.1478 -113.4171 12 12UUA25, 12UUA26 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_6 Little Bow River 50.2175 -112.8919 22 12UUA56, 12UUA66, 12UUA76 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_7 Matzhiwin Creek 50.8378 -111.9361 47 12UVB23, 12UVB33 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_8 Inglewood Bird Sanctuary 51.0047 -114.0908 98 11UPS95, 11UQS04, 11UQS05, 11UQS15, 12UTB85, 12UTB95 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_AB_9 Rosebud 51.3125 -112.9015 55 12UUB68, 12UUB78 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_11 Red Deer Bird Sanctuary 52.1682 -113.9728 205 11UPT86, 11UPT87, 11UPT96, 11UPT97, 11UQT07, 12UTC97, 12UTC98, 12UUC08, 12UUC09, 12UUC19, 12UUD00, 12UUD10 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_AB_10 Red Deer River 52.2665 -113.5784 22 12UUC19, 12UUC29 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_12 North Saskatchewan River (D) 53.4098 -114.3528 46 11UPV71, 11UPV72, 11UPV82 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_13 North Saskatchewan River (E) 53.4679 -113.6158 15 12UUE22, 12UUE23 Non-federal Land
1233_AB_14 Peace River (D) 56.2637 -118.9769 11 11VLC73, 11VLC83 Non-federal Land
1233_BCAB_1 Peace River (A) 56.1133 -120.3001 60 10VFH42, 10VFH51, 10VFH52, 10VFH61, 10VFH62, 10VFH71, 10VFH72, 10VFH82, 11VLC12 Non-federal Land
Table D-10. Nesting critical habitat locations in British Columbia. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_BC_1 Pend d'Oreille River 49.0264 -117.5023 64 11UMQ52, 11UMQ53, 11UMQ62, 11UMQ63, 11UMQ72, 11UMQ73 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_2 Flathead River 49.0276 -114.4965 19 11UPQ83 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_3 Six Mile Slough 49.1672 -116.6135 42 11UNQ23, 11UNQ24, 11UNQ25, 11UNQ33, 11UNQ34 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_4 Columbia River (A) 49.2202 -117.6821 12 11UMQ44, 11UMQ45, 11UMQ55 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_5 Kootenay River 49.3838 -117.5542 11 11UMQ56, 11UMQ57, 11UMQ66, 11UMQ67 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_6 Elk River 49.4086 -115.0342 12 11UPQ37, 11UPQ46, 11UPQ47 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_7 Lake Koocanusa 49.4385 -115.4298 11 11UPQ08, 11UPQ17, 11UPQ18 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_8 St. Mary River 49.5942 -115.8254 42 11UNQ79, 11UNQ89, 11UNQ99 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_9 Okanagan Lake 49.5890 -119.5941 13 11ULQ19, 11ULR10 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_10 Wild Horse River 49.6081 -115.6168 11 11UNQ99, 11UPQ09 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_11 Slocan River 49.6768 -117.5140 16 11UMQ69, 11UMR60 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_12 Lower Arrow Lake (A) 50.0114 -117.9284 12 11UMR23, 11UMR33, 11UMR34 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_13 Lower Arrow Lake (B) 50.0056 -117.9085 13 11UMR33, 11UMR34 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_14 Findlay Creek 50.1269 -115.9937 18 11UNR65, 11UNR75 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_15 Columbia Lake 50.2693 -115.8805 12 11UNR76, 11UNR77, 11UNR86, 11UNR87 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_16 Columbia River (B) 50.3514 -115.8819 20 11UNR77, 11UNR87 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_17 Lillooet River 50.3627 -122.8503 32 10UEA07, 10UEA08, 10UEA17, 10UEA18 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_18 Columbia National Wildlife Area 50.5900 -116.0890 91 11UNR69, 11UNS50, 11UNS60, 11UNS61 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_19 South Thompson River 50.6760 -120.2440 23 10UFB81, 10UFB91, 10UGB01 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_20 Columbia River (C) 50.7156 -116.1712 24 11UNS51, 11UNS52, 11UNS61 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_21 Shuswap Lake 50.8564 -118.9866 22 11ULS53, 11ULS63 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_22 Kootenay National Park Of Canada 50.9196 -115.9975 27 11UNS63, 11UNS64, 11UNS73, 11UNS74 Federal Land, Federally Protected Area
1233_BC_23 Adams Lake 51.2271 -119.5440 11 11ULS17, 11ULS27, 11ULS28 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_24 Fraser River 51.5263 -122.2860 23 10UEC40, 10UEC41, 10UEC50 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_25 Chilcotin River 52.0926 -123.4080 12 10UDC67, 10UDC76, 10UDC77 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_26 Williams Lake River 52.1637 -122.2209 1 10UEC57, 10UEC58 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_27 West Road (Blackwater) River 53.2187 -123.5052 33 10UDD69, 10UDE60 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_28 Chilako River 53.7858 -123.0049 36 10UDE95, 10UDE96, 10UEE05, 10UEE06 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_29 Fraser River 53.8833 -122.7301 14 10UEE16, 10UEE17, 10UEE27 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_30 Nechako River 53.9480 -122.9354 38 10UEE07, 10UEE08 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_31 Sukunka River 55.4181 -121.6798 15 10UEG83, 10UEG84 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_32 Pine River 56.0041 -121.2022 14 10VFH00, 10VFH10, 10VFH11 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_33 Peace River (B) 56.1001 -121.7615 97 10VEH60, 10VEH61, 10VEH70, 10VEH71, 10VEH72, 10VEH81, 10VEH82, 10VEH92 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_34 Peace River (C) 56.1797 -120.8592 106 10VFH22, 10VFH23, 10VFH32, 10VFH33, 10VFH42 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_35 Peace River (E) 56.2449 -121.3240 60 10VEH92, 10VEH93, 10VFH03, 10VFH13 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_36 Williston Lake 56.6364 -124.7164 15 10VCH97, 10VCH98 Non-federal Land
1233_BC_37 Stikine River 58.0194 -130.9778 27 09VUE72, 09VUE73, 09VUE82, 09VUE83 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_BC_38 Kechika River 59.0443 -127.4350 17 09VWF84, 09VWF85, 09VWF94 Non-federal Land
1233_BCAB_1 Peace River (A) 56.1133 -120.3001 60 10VFH42, 10VFH51, 10VFH52, 10VFH61, 10VFH62, 10VFH71, 10VFH72, 10VFH82, 11VLC12 Non-federal Land
1233_BCYT_1 Tatshenshini River 59.9833 -137.2218 28 08VLM74, 08VLM75 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
Table D-11. Nesting critical habitat locations in Yukon. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_YT_1 Yukon River (A) 60.7051 -134.9833 139 08VMN84, 08VMN92, 08VMN93, 08VMN94, 08VMN95, 08VNN01, 08VNN02, 08VNN11, 08VNN12, 08VNN21 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_YT_2 Yukon River (B) 61.8176 -134.9571 173 08VMP86, 08VMP94, 08VMP95, 08VMP96, 08VNP02, 08VNP03, 08VNP04, 08VNP05, 08VNP06 Non-federal Land
1233_YT_3 Yukon River (C) 61.9967 -135.4554 25 08VMP77, 08VMP87 Non-federal Land
1233_BCYT_1 Tatshenshini River 59.9833 -137.2218 28 08VLM74, 08VLM75 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
Table D-12. Nesting critical habitat locations in the Northwest Territories. Critical habitat occurs where the criteria described in section 7.1 are met
Critical habitat unit Site name (waterbody or other feature) Centroid of critical habitat unit - latitude Centroid of critical habitat unit - longitude Nesting shoreline length (km) 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid square identification Land tenure
1233_NT_1 Mackenzie River (A) 67.2848 -133.2701 18 08WNV66, 08WNV75, 08WNV76, 08WNV86 Non-federal Land
1233_NT_2 Arctic Red River 67.3227 -133.7072 69 08WNV55, 08WNV56, 08WNV57, 08WNV58, 08WNV65 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NT_3 Mackenzie River (B) 67.6538 -134.3420 11 08WNA20, 08WNA30 Non-federal Land
1233_NT_4 Mackenzie River (C) 67.6757 -134.2034 47 08WNA30, 08WNA31 Non-federal Land
1233_NT_5 Mackenzie River (D) 67.6700 -134.1303 11 08WNA30, 08WNV39, 08WNV49 Federal Land, Non-federal Land
1233_NT_6 Caribou Creek 68.0901 -133.4768 39 08WNA64, 08WNA65 Non-federal Land

Appendix E: Maps of critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Canada

Figure E. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Canada. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. The Extent of Occurrence is delineated from a minimum convex polygon (purple outline). Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request.

Figure E - please read long description
Long description

Figure E shows the critical habitat of the Bank Swallow found within 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid squares. The critical habitat is located within a border representing the extend of occurrence for the Bank Swallow and it is found within several provinces and territories such as B.C, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, P.E.I, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon and Northwest Territories. A lot of the critical habitat is found along the southern parts of the provinces near the U.S.A border.

Figure E-1. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Newfoundland is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-1 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-1 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Newfoundland represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. There are two areas of critical habitat; one is the 1233_NL_1 near Channel-Port aux Basques and the other is 1233_NL_2 found along the cost of the Gulf of St. Lawrence south of Port au Choix and near a protected or conserved area. There are other protected or conserved areas on the map such as the Bay du Nord Wilderness Reserve and Proposed Basses Collines Du Lac Guernese Biodiversity Reserve.

Figure E-2. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Labrador is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-2 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-2 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Labrador represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. There are three areas of critical habitat; one is the 1233_NL_4 in the center of the map south of the Riviere-George Land Reserved For Protected Area, the other two are southwest of the first and next to each other. The second is 1233_NL_3, which is near Labrador City and Fermont, and the third is 1233_QCNL_1 near Fermont. There are several protected or conserved areas such as Proposed Riviere Moisie Aquatic Reserve, Proposed Vallee De La Riviere Natashquan Biodiversity Reserve and Riviere-George Land Reserved For Protected Area.

Figure E-3. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Prince Edward Island and Quebec is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-3 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-3 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Prince Edward Island and Quebec represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. There are 18 areas of critical habitat; 15 of them are bordering around Charlottetown. The other 3 of them are all found near one another in Quebec on the Magdalen Islands. Some areas of critical habitat are found in Prince Edward Island National Park of Canada and Black Pond Bird Sanctuary.

Figure E-4. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Nova Scotia is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-4 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-4 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Nova Scotia represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. There are 28 areas of critical habitat; all of them are located around and within Nova Scotia and surrounded by multiple terrestrial protected or conserved areas such as Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site of Canada and Cape Breton Highlands National Park of Canada and a marine protected or conserved area.

Figure E-5. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in New Brunswick is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-5 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-5 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in New Brunswick represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. The critical habitat borders New Brunswick and is close to many terrestrial protected or conserved areas such as Tintamarre National Wildlife Area, and Kouchibouguac National Park of Canada as well as a Marine protected or conserved area. The critical habitat also borders the Gulf of St. Lawrence in some areas and the Bay of Fundy in other areas of the map. It is near and passes through areas such as Grand Falls, Hampton, Saint John, Sussex, Moncton, Dalhousie and Edmundston.

Figure E-6. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Southeastern Quebec is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-6 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-6 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Southeastern Quebec represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. The critical habitat is near the Banc-Des-Americains Marine Protected Area. The critical habitat is also near areas such as the Proposed Riviere Moisie Aquatic Reserve as well as locations such as Trois-Pistoles, New Richmond, Chandler, Forestville and Baie-Comeau.

Figure E-7. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Northern Quebec is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-7 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-7 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Northern Quebec represented as polygon within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. There is one polygon of critical habitat located near the Baie-Aux-Feuilles National Park Reserve (Quebec) on the coast of Ungava Bay.

Figure E-8. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Southwestern Quebec is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-8 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-8 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Southwestern Quebec represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. Four polygons of critical habitat are on the northeast part of the map, one of them is near Saguenay, one polygon is on the south shore near Riviere-du-Loup and another is on the other shore of the St. Lawrence River (north shore) and one is north of those two. There are 4 polygons of critical habitat that are on the south shore of Riviere-du-Loup, one polygon near St-Georges, two are near Victoriaville, 8 are near Montreal, four are near St-Michel-des-Saints and Maniwaki and  one near the border with Ottawa that will be described in the next figure. There are also several protected or conserved areas near these critical habitat polygons.

Figure E-9. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Southeastern Ontario is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-9 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-9 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Southeastern Ontario represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. Twenty-two polygons of critical habitat are located in several areas such as Burlington and south of Burlington, Toronto, and surrounding Lake Ontario. There are some polygons of critical habitat more north of Toronto near Orillia and even more north closer to Algonquin Provincial Park (Natural Environment Class). One polygon of critical habitat is north of Belleville and several are west of Kingston. There is also one polygon around Ottawa.

Figure E-10. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Southwestern Ontario is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-10 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-10 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Southwestern Ontario represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. Polygons are in locations surrounding Georgian Bay, and Lake Huron, and further south to Kitchener, London, and Sarnia, as well as along the northwest coast of Lake Erie. National Wildlife Areas are also identified on the map.

Figure E-11. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Northern Ontario is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-11 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-11 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Northern Ontario represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. The area depicted shows the province from the northern boundary of Lake Michigan up to the Manitoba border, with thirteen polygons identified. National Wildlife Areas and provincial parks are also identified on the map.

Figure E-12. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Southern Manitoba is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-12 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-12 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Southern Manitoba represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. The area depicted shows the province from the southern border until the north of Lake Winnipeg with twenty-three polygons identified. National Wildlife Areas, and provincial parks are also identified on the map, along with Asatiwisipe Aki Traditional Use Planning Area.

Figure E-13. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Northern Manitoba is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-13 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-13 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Northern Manitoba represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. The area depicted shows the province north of Lake Winnipeg up to the border with Northwest Territories, with polygons identified along the Hudson’s Bay coast, and in Nueltin Lake Provincial Park. National Wildlife Areas, and provincial parks are also identified on the map.

Figure E-14. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Saskatchewan is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-14 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-14 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Saskatchewan represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. Six polygons are identified north of Swift Current and south of Prince Albert. National Wildlife Areas, and provincial parks are also identified on the map.

Figure E-15. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Southern Alberta is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-15 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-15 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Southern Alberta represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. Thirteen polygons are identified on the map, including two next to Edmonton, two between Lacombe and Innisfail, one south of Drumheller, one in Calgary, and seven in rural areas between Brooks and the southern border of the province. National Wildlife Areas, and provincial parks are also identified on the map.

Figure E-16. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Northern Alberta is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-16 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-16 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Northern Alberta represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. One polygon is identified on the map west of Fairview, and one polygon crosses the border of Alberta and British Columbia parallel with Fairview. National Wildlife Areas, and provincial parks are also identified on the map.

Figure E-17. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Southern British Columbia is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-17 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-17 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Southern British Columbia represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. The area depicted shows the province from the southern border until Prince George, with thirty polygons identified throughout. National Wildlife Areas, and provincial parks are also identified on the map.

Figure E-18. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Northern British Columbia is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-18 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-18 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Northern British Columbia represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. Six polygons are identified surrounding Dawson Creek, including the polygon shown in Figure E-16 that crosses the border to Alberta. One polygon is shown near Ingenika Mine, one polygon is near Pup Lake, and one polygon is located in Tahltan region. National Wildlife Areas, and provincial parks are also identified on the map.

Figure E-19. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in Yukon is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-19 - please read long description
Long description

Figure E-19 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Yukon represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. Two polygons are identified east of Carmacks, one polygon is shown around Whithorse, and one polygon is shown in Kluane National Park, crossing the border into British Columbia. National Wildlife Areas, and provincial parks are also identified on the map.

Figure E-20. Critical habitat for Bank Swallow in the Northwest Territories is represented by the yellow shaded polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. The 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid overlay (red outline) shown on this figure is a Standardized national grid system that indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found. Detailed critical habitat maps are available upon request. Labels (1233_XX_YY) indicate the critical habitat units described in Appendix D.

Figure E-20
Long description

Figure E-20 shows the critical habitat for the Bank Swallow in Northwest Territories represented as polygons within 10 x 10 km UTM grid squares. Six polygons are identified between the Rat River, Husky River, Black Mountain region, and the Travaillant Lake, Mackenzie and Tree Rivers region. National Wildlife Areas, and provincial parks are also identified on the map.

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: