Species at Risk Act Annual Report for 2006 and 2007

• Contents
• 1. Introduction
• 2. The List of wildlife Species at Risk
• 3. Measures to Protect Listed Species
• 4. Species Recovery Measures
• 5. Consultation and Cooperation
• 6. Stewardship and Public Engagement
• 7. Compliance and Enforcement
• 8. Species at Risk Public Registry
• Appendix 1: Species Added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk (Schedule 1) of SARA in 2006 and 2007

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) received Royal Assent on December 12, 2002, and came fully into force on June 1, 2004.

This report provides a summary of SARA-related activities carried out in the 2006 and 2007 calendar years and in the 2005–06 and 2006–07 fiscal years where information is compiled on a fiscal year basis.

The report fulfil the Minister of the Environment's obligation, under section 126 of the Act, to prepare an annual report on the administration of SARA for each calendar year. The Act requires that the report include a summary addressing the following matters:

1. the assessments of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and the Minister's response to each of them;
2. the preparation and implementation of recovery strategies, action plans and management plans;
3. all agreements made under sections 10 to 13;
4. all agreements made and permits issued under section 73, and all agreements and permits amended under section 75 or exempted under section 76;
5. enforcement and compliance actions taken, including the response to any requests for investigation;
6. regulations and emergency orders made under SARA; and
7. any other matters that the Minister considers relevant.

This introductory section outlines the purposes of SARA and the responsibilities of federal departments and agencies under the Act. Subsequent sections describe the following activities under SARA:

• the List of Wildlife Species at Risk;
• measures to protect and recover listed species;
• consultation and cooperation;
• stewardship and public engagement;
• compliance and enforcement; and
• the Species at Risk Public Registry.

SARA is an important tool for conserving and protecting Canada's biological diversity. The purposes of the Act are to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity, and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.

The Act establishes a process for conducting scientific assessments of the population status of individual species, and a mechanism for listing extirpated, endangered, threatened and special concern species. SARA also includes provisions for the protection of individuals of listed wildlife species, and for their critical habitats and residences.

SARA complements existing legislation administered by Environment Canada and other federal departments and agencies, including:

• The following Conventions and Acts administered by Environment Canada:
  • the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
  • the Convention on Biological Diversity,
  • the Canadian Environment Assessment Act,
  • the Canada Wildlife Act,
  • the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and
  • the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act;
• The following Acts administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada:
  • the Fisheries Act,
  • the Oceans Act;
• And the following Acts administered by the Parks Canada Agency:
  • the Canada National Parks Act,
  • the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, and
  • the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park Act.

Three government organizations share responsibility for the implementation of SARA:

• The Parks Canada Agency oversees matters concerning individuals of species found in or on federal lands it administers;
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada oversees matters concerning aquatic species when individuals of these species are found outside Parks Canada Agency waters; and
• Environment Canada oversees matters concerning all other species, including migratory birds, and is responsible for the administration of the Act.

The Ministers responsible for these government organizations are referred to as "competent ministers" under SARA (note that the Minister of the Environment is presently the Minister responsible for both Environment Canada and the Parks Canada Agency).

Competent ministers have the authority to make decisions in their respective areas of responsibility and are required to consult with each other as necessary on matters related to SARA. Orders in Council required under SARA, such as orders to list species under the Act, are made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the competent Minister.

SARA establishes a process for conducting scientific assessments of the conservation status of individual species. Schedule 1 of SARA, the List of Wildlife Species at Risk, identifies species that are extirpated, endangered, threatened and special concern. The Act separates the scientific assessment process from the listing decision, ensuring that scientists can provide fully independent recommendations and that decisions affecting Canadians are made by elected officials who can be held accountable for those decisions.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is the committee of experts that identifies and assesses wild species at risk in Canada. The Committee assesses the conservation status of a species using the best available scientific, Aboriginal and community knowledge. The assessment process is independent and transparent. COSEWIC provides assessments and supporting evidence annually to the Minister of the Environment. It assesses species as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, special concern, data deficient, or not at risk. An extirpated species no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the world. An endangered species faces imminent extirpation or extinction. A threatened species is likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. A species of special concern may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Further details on risk categories and more information on COSEWIC are available at www.cosewic.gc.ca.

Upon receiving COSEWIC 's assessments, the Minister of the Environment has 90 days to include in the Public Registry a report indicating how he or she intends to respond to each assessment, providing timelines to the extent possible. These response statements are posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry, and public consultations on species eligible for listing are launched.

Following the publication of the Minister’s Response and after the listing consultations, the Minister of the Environment submits the assessments to the Governor in Council. Within nine months of receiving the assessment, the Governor in Council may accept the assessment and add the species to Schedule 1 as assessed, decide not to add the species to Schedule 1 or refer the matter back to COSEWIC for further consideration. For a species already on Schedule 1, the acceptance of a COSEWIC re-assessment may result in the Governor in Council deciding to reclassify a species to a higher or lower category of risk or to de-list it from Schedule 1. If the Governor in Council has not made a decision within nine months of receiving, from the Minister, the COSEWIC assessment, Schedule 1 will be amended in accordance with COSEWIC 's assessment by Ministerial order.

Species that were designated at risk by COSEWIC prior to October 1999 must be reassessed using revised criteria before they can be considered for addition to Schedule 1. These species are listed on Schedules 2 and 3, and are not yet officially protected under SARA. Once all the species on Schedules 2 and 3 have been reassessed, these Schedules will be eliminated and species will simply be listed or not listed under Schedule 1 of the Act.

The following chart provides further details of the species listing process. Table 1 (see page 12) summarizes the stage of the listing process for species under assessment at the end of December 2007 and gives projected dates for next steps.

The Species Listing Process under SARA

COSEWIC includes members from government, academia, Aboriginal organizations, non-government organizations and the private sector. Federal government support of COSEWIC and their assessments is provided by Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Parks Canada Agency.

The Parks Canada Agency conducts numerous species at risk inventories, which clarify the conservation status of many species occurring on Agency lands and provide useful information to COSEWIC assessments. Inventories are essential for improving knowledge of biodiversity and to document the presence, location and status of species at risk in national protected heritage areas. Findings from these inventories can inform status assessments, recovery planning and critical habitat identification for many species at risk. During 2006 and 2007, the Parks Canada Agency conducted 55 inventories and surveys of COSEWIC -designated species on priority sites across the country.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada leads a peer-review process for aquatic species when there are multiple sources of data and the data warrant a review prior to submission to COSEWIC . The peer review process includes government scientists as well as experts from universities and industry. In 2006, Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducted pre-COSEWIC peer reviews for Smooth Skate, Western Silvery Minnow and three Rockfish species. In 2007, Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducted pre-COSEWIC peer reviews for Spiny Dogfish, American Plaice, Silver Lamprey, Northwest Atlantic Killer Whale, and three species of Redfish.

Environment Canada leads the federal - provincial/territorial work to produce a report on the Status of Wild Species in Canada. Published in 2006 , Wild Species 2005, the second report in the Wild Species series (http://www.wildspecies.ca/wildspecies2005/index.cfm?lang=e), presents general status assessments for a total of 7732 species from all provinces, territories, and ocean regions, representing all of Canada's vertebrates species (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals), all of Canada's vascular plants, and four invertebrate groups (freshwater mussels, crayfishes, odonates and tiger beetles). The Wild Species 2005 report has greatly increased the number and variety of species assessed nationally, but with total number of species in Canada estimated to be more than 70 000, there are still many species left to be assessed. COSEWIC uses the general status ranks outlined in the Wild Species series to help prioritize species for detailed status assessments.

In 2006, COSEWIC developed a procedure for better incorporating community knowledge into its species status assessments. Potential holders of community knowledge are identified by Species Specialist Subcommittees, jurisdictions and status report writers. COSEWIC then communicates with these community knowledge holders and provides interim status reports to those who express an interest in reviewing them. COSEWIC has also updated its website to better inform potential holders of community knowledge of the ways they can contribute to assessments.

SARA requires that COSEWIC assess the conservation status of species on the basis of the best available information, including scientific knowledge, community knowledge and Aboriginal traditional knowledge, and that COSEWIC establish a supporting subcommittee on Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge.

Ten Aboriginal representatives participated in four meetings with the two current Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittee Co-chairs. The representatives were selected by the Assembly of First Nations, Métis National Council, Native Women's Association of Canada, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Activities of the Subcommittee included:

• attended the 2006 COSEWICspecies assessment meeting to meet Committee members and observe the species assessment process;
• selected members to participate on COSEWICSpecies Specialists Subcommittees;
• attended two species at risk workshops organized by National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk;
• created two Subcommittee Working Groups on Process and Protocol Guidelines and Species Prioritization List that will be based on species of interest/concern for Aboriginal peoples; and
• approved development of Terms of Reference for Aboriginal traditional knowledge reviews on caribou and polar bears as well as a case study for Inuktitut translation of the updated polar bear status report.

In 2007, the Minister formally appointed 12 members of the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittee. The Subcommittee developed draft process and protocol guidelines for including Aboriginal traditional knowledge in COSEWIC species assessments. The Guidelines will be reviewed by Aboriginal elders and knowledge holders in 2008 prior to being implemented.

COSEWIC established an ad-hoc working group to examine how an ecosystem approach might be used as a tool in assessing the status of species that share habitat or common threats. In November 2006, Environment Canada organized a two-day workshop to consider the potential utility of adopting an ecosystem-based approach to the assessment of species at risk. Most of the COSEWIC members attended the workshop as did staff from Environment Canada, the Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

In correspondence dated January 2007, COSEWIC informed to the Minister that the workshop demonstrated that there is a wide range of perspectives regarding what is meant by an ‘ecosystem approach’ to species at risk management. As it pertains to species assessments, COSEWIC interprets an ‘ecosystem approach’ as a means of undertaking assessments that groups species on the basis of shared geographical proximity, ecological interactions, threats or a combination of these factors. Given the diversity of perspectives on the interpretation of the ecosystem approach, COSEWIC requested that the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council or the Canadian Wildlife Directors Committee provide COSEWIC with more explicit objectives and anticipated outcomes associated with the adoption of an ecosystem approach to species assessment.

COSEWIC conducted the following species assessments, grouped in batches, between 2002 and 2007:

• Batch 1 -- 115 species in May 2002, November 2002 and May 2003
• Batch 2 -- 59 species in November 2003 and May 2004
• Batch 3 -- 73 species in November 2004 and May 2005
• Batch 4 -- 68 species in April 2006
• Batch 5 -- 64 species in November 2006 and April 2007

Details on batches 1 through 3 can be found in previous SARA Annual Reports at http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/act/sara_annual_e.cfm.

Batch 4

At its April 2006 meeting, COSEWIC assessed a total of 68 species (Batch 4):

• 3 were examined and found to be data deficient¹;
• 11 were assessed as not at risk; and
• 54 were assessed as at risk of which 4 were confirmed at the classification already attributed to them on the Schedule 1.

COSEWIC forwarded the assessments for the 50 species classified as extirpated, endangered, threatened and of special concern to the Minister of the Environment in August 2006 so that she could consider whether to recommend to the Governor in Council that they be added to Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act.

Batch 5:

At their November 2006 and April 2007 meetings, COSEWIC assessed a total of 64 species (Batch 5):

• 5 were examined and found to be data deficient;
• 6 were assessed as not at risk (this included 1 species already listed on Schedule 1 which was assessed as no longer at risk; and
• 54 were assessed* as at risk of which 8 were confirmed at the classification already attributed to them on Schedule 1.

* Shortly after an assessment was made, new information came to light indicating that one of the species assessed had been incorrectly identified making the number of assessment a total of 53.

COSEWIC forwarded the assessments for 44 of the species classified as extirpated, endangered, threatened and of special concern to the Minister of the Environment in August 2007 so that he could consider whether to recommend to the Governor in Council that they be added to Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act.

Emergency Assessment:

In 2006, in response to a request for an emergency assessment of the Sakinaw Lake population of sockeye salmon, the Chair of COSEWIC established an Emergency Assessment Subcommittee to assess the species’ status based on information available through 2005. The Subcommittee unanimously recommended that the conservation status of the Sakinaw Lake population of Sockeye salmon warranted an Emergency Listing as an endangered species under subection 29(1) of SARA. COSEWIC informed the Minister of this recommendation in April 2006.

On May 17, 2007, the Governor General in Council, having considered the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment declined to list, on an emergency basis, the sockeye salmon (Sakinaw Lake population), as an endangered species.

In November 2006, the Minister posted response statements for the 54 species from Batch 4 on the Species at Risk Public Registry. The response statements indicated that for:

• 34 species, normal consultations were to be undertaken. These included 32 terrestrial species and 2 aquatic species (recommendations were forwarded to the Governor in Council in April 2007).
• 16 species extended public consultations would be undertaken due to elevated potential impacts on the activities of Aboriginal peoples, commercial and recreational fishers, or Canadians at large. Of these 16 eligible species undergoing extended consultations, 13 are aquatic and 3 are terrestrial.
• 4 species, consultations would not be required as the COSEWICassessment confirmed their current status on Schedule 1.

In December 2007, the Minister of the Environment posted the response statements for the 54 species from Batch 5 on the Species at Risk Public Registry, indicating the timelines to the extent possible. The assessments were forwarded for receipt to the Governor in Council in June 2008.

In December 2006, the Minister of the Environment launched consultations on adding 35 terrestrial species to Schedule 1. Thirty-three of these species were eligible for addition to Schedule 1 and two were eligible to have their status on Schedule 1 of SARA raised. The document, Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act: December 2006 was posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry to facilitate consultations. The government distributed approximately 1000 copies of the document to targeted stakeholders including provincial and territorial governments, wildlife management boards, Aboriginal communities, and other stakeholders and affected parties. This document is available at http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1258.

In 2006, Fisheries and Oceans Canada completed extended consultations on the proposed listing of 15 species from Batch 3. In 2007, the Department completed consultations on the proposed listing of 14 species from Batch 4, 12 of which were extended consultations, and for 21 species from Batch 5, 9 of which were extended. Public consultations were facilitated through workbooks and other supporting documents posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website. Workbooks were mailed directly to other government departments, stakeholders, Aboriginal peoples and non-government organizations. Meetings were also held with interested or potentially affected individuals and organizations.

In 2006 and 2007, the Parks Canada Agency continued to work with Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada in ensuring that all stakeholders were consulted and duplication of consultation efforts were avoided.

When deciding whether or not to list a species on Schedule 1 of SARA, the Government of Canada relies on the scientific assessments provided by COSEWIC , any other relevant scientific information, an assessment of the costs and benefits to Canadians, and comments received through consultations with other levels of government, Aboriginal peoples, wildlife management boards, stakeholders and the public. Governor in Council decisions are published as Orders amending Schedule 1 of SARA in the Canada Gazette, and include Regulatory Impact Analysis Statements and explanatory notes if a species is not added to Schedule 1 of SARA or it is referred back to COSEWIC . The Orders are also published on the SARA Public Registry.

In 2006, 44 species were added to Schedule 1 of SARA. The Governor in Council decided not to add 12 species to Schedule 1, and referred the assessments of 7 species back to COSEWIC for further information or consideration.

In April 2006, of the 12 Batch 1 species whose assessments were received by the Governor in Council in July 2005:

• 2 were added to Schedule 1:
• 4 were not added to Schedule 1; and
• 6 had their assessments referred back to COSEWIC

The Governor in Council order stated that:

• The Newfoundland and Labrador population, the Laurentian North population, and the Maritimes population of Atlantic Cod and the Interior Fraser population of Coho Salmon were not listed because of anticipated significant socio-economic impacts of listing. Also the Governor in Council made the decision to not list the Interior Fraser population of the Coho Salmon based on uncertainties associated with changes in the marine environment and potential future socio-economic impacts on users associated with that uncertainty.
• 6 were referred back to COSEWIC:
  • the assessment for Arctic population of Atlantic Cod was missing Aboriginal traditional knowledge and did not clearly differentiate between landlocked and marine Arctic Cod stocks;
  • the Bocaccio was referred back to COSEWICbecause two scientific assessments subsequent to COSEWIC’s reported a different species abundance, and there was also a lack of confidence in the strength of the data used to support the COSEWICassessment;
  • the Cusk assessment placed significant emphasis on trawl survey data that may have exaggerated the decline in abundance of Cusk;
  • the Northwest population of Harbour Porpoise assessment had combined three sub-populations of Harbour Porpoise although it was acknowledged that there was insufficient information to estimate the abundance of two of the sub-populations;
  • the assessment for the Lake Winnipeg Physa was based on a scientific paper that had not been peer reviewed and did not adequately define whether the Physa is a distinct species or a variant of a much more abundant species found elsewhere; and
  • the assessment for the Shortjaw Cisco lacked Aboriginal traditional knowledge and also applied a single designable unit when there was insufficient information to do so.

In August 2006, of the 7 Batch 2 species and the 39 Batch 3 species whose assessments were received by the Governor in Council in November 2005:

• 42 were added to Schedule 1;
• 8 were not added to Schedule 1²; and
• 1 was referred back to COSEWIC.

The Governor in Council order stated that:

• 5 populations of Beluga Whale (Cumberland Sound, Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay, Eastern Hudson Bay, Ungava Bay and Western Hudson Bay) were not listed in order to further consult with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board;
• the Porbeagle Shark was not listed because the listing would have resulted in unreported discard mortality in fisheries where Porbeagle is captured incidentally, which would have had hindered scientific efforts to monitor and assess its status;
• the decisions to not add the Lower Fraser River and Middle Fraser River populations of the White Sturgeon were based on the potential negative socio-economic impacts a listing decision would have had on Aboriginal peoples and the sport fishing industry²; and
• the Verna Flower Moth assessment was referred back to COSEWICbecause of a lack of data on the species distribution, abundance, range, threats and suitable habitat.

In 2007, 36 species were added to Schedule 1, 3 species were not listed, 1 was referred back to COSEWIC and 1 Schedule 1 species was reclassified to a higher category of risk. Of the 3 decisions not to list, two resulted from the regular listing process, and one species was eligible as the result of an emergency assessment.

In December 2007, of the 6 aquatic species from Batch 3 that were under extended consultations and the 34 species from Batch 4 whose assessments were received by the Governor in Council in April 2007:

• 36 were added to Schedule 1;
• 1 had its status changed from Threatened to Endangered;
• 2 were not added to Schedule 1;
  • the Bering Cisco was not listed based on the lack of available scientific information and significant uncertainty with respect to any threats to this species
  • the Black Redhorse was not listed because the lack of scientific information meant it was not possible to determine the potential socio-economic impacts of listing the species
• 1 was referred back to COSEWIC: The Ghost antler was referred back to COSEWICas new information regarding the species’ population was obtained after the COSEWICassessment.

* Canada Gazette Part I/II

** Change of the status of a species listed on Schedule 1 to a higher category of risk

*** Includes the Polar Bear (referred back to COSEWIC in July 2005 after a decision not to list was made in January 2005).

**** COSEWIC assessed White Sturgeon as a single species but, for the Treasury Board submission, DFO subdivided this population into six populations; out of the six populations, four were listed and two were not.

When SARA was proclaimed in June 2003, the official List of Wildlife Species at Risk (Schedule 1 of SARA) included 233 species. In 2005, 112 species were added to the original list. In 2006 and 2007, 44 and 36 more species respectively were added, for a total of 425 listed species (Table 2). Appendix 1 provides a complete list of species added to Schedule 1 in 2006 and 2007.

¹ “Data deficient” is a category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species' risk of extinction.

²For the purposes of providing listing recommendations under the Act, White Sturgeon was treated as six separate populations. This approach was consistent with COSEWIC ’s status assessment report and with the intent of the Wild Salmon Policy as each of the populations is genetically distinct. The Governor in Council made the decision to list four populations and not list two other populations.

The protections that come into effect following the addition of a species to Schedule 1 of SARA vary depending on the type of species, the risk category in which the species is listed, and where the species occurs in Canada.

Sections 32 and 33 of SARA make it an offence to:

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

These prohibitions apply automatically to listed aquatic species and birds covered by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 wherever they are found in Canada, and to all other listed species when they occur on federal lands*.

For species other than in situations described above, provinces and territories are given the first opportunity to protect listed species. If the province or territory does not act, the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, may order that the prohibitions in sections 32 and 33 apply for a given species on non-federal lands in a province or territory, or on lands not controlled by Environment Canada or the Parks Canada Agency in a territory. The Minister must make this recommendation if, after consultation with the provincial or territorial minister, he or she finds that the species or its residence** is not effectively protected by the laws of the province or territory.

* Under SARA, the definition of federal land includes, but is not limited to, Canada's oceans and waterways, national parks, military training areas, national wildlife areas, some migratory bird sanctuaries, and First Nations reserve lands.

** "Residence" means a dwelling-place, such as a den, nest or other similar area or place that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals during all or part of their life cycles, including breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, feeding or hibernating.

SARA allows for emergency listings of species on Schedule 1 when the Minister deems that there exists an imminent threat to the survival of a wildlife species and, in such a case, addition of the species would be conducted via Ministerial recommendations to the Governor in Council.

On May 17, 2007, the Governor General in Council, having considered the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, made pursuant to subsection 29(1) of the Act, and social, economic and other factors, declined to list, on an emergency basis, the sockeye salmon (Sakinaw Lake population), as an endangered species.

Sections 73 to 78 of SARA address agreements, permits, licences, orders and other documents that authorize activities that would otherwise be an offence under the Act. If all reasonable alternatives have been considered, all feasible measures will be taken to minimize the impact of the activity, and the survival or recovery of the species will not be jeopardized, agreements may be made and permits may be issued for the following activities:

• research relating to conserving a listed species that is conducted by qualified scientists;
• activities that benefit a listed species or enhance its chances of survival in the wild; and
• activities that incidentally affect a listed species.

In 2006 and 2007, Environment Canada continued to manage a web-based SARA permit tracking system to allow for more efficient processing and issuing of permits under section 73 of the Act. The department also began developing an updated version that will allow for online completion and submission of permit applications.

Environment Canada issued 43 permits in 2006 and 39 permits in 2007 to allow monitoring, inventory and management of a variety of species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and plants. Most of the activities were scientific research related to species conservation.

The Parks Canada Agency established an online research permitting system to enhance services to researchers and to ensure that research is efficiently communicated. The system incorporates a mandatory peer review mechanism that ensures that every permitted research activity is SARA compliant. The Parks Canada Agency issued 40 permits in 2006 and 22 permits in 2007 to academic and government researchers, and to Parks Canada scientists for conservation research. Parks Canada also delivered training in research and collection permitting and SARA authorizations to 78 staff in 2006 and 28 staff in 2007.

In 2006, Fisheries and Oceans Canada issued approximately 9,600 permits for Northern Wolffish and Spotted Wolffish and 5000 permits for Leatherback Seaturtle. In 2007, 9,600 permits were issued for Northern Wolffish and Spotted Wolffish, and 2 permits were issued for Leatherback Seaturtle. These permits were issued under paragraph 73(2)(c) of SARA to fishers in Atlantic Canada whose activities might cause incidental harm to these listed species. Peer-reviewed assessments determined that the level of harm from by-catch would not jeopardize survival or recovery of these species. In 2006, Fisheries and Oceans Canada issued a total of 22 scientific permits for work in freshwater and 63 for work in marine areas, under paragraph 73(2)(a) of the Act. In 2007, the department issued 53 scientific permits for freshwater and 51 for research in marine areas. One SARA-compliant Fisheries Act Authorization was also issued in 2007.

Rationales for permits issued under the Act are posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry at www.sararegistry.gc.ca.

No agreements were negotiated during the reporting periods.

Species recovery includes a wide range of measures to restore populations of species at risk. Under SARA, the competent Ministers must prepare recovery strategies and action plans for species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened, and management plans for species listed as special concern. Recovery strategies identify threats to the species and its habitat, identify critical habitat to the extent possible and set recovery goals. Management plans include measures for species conservation. Table 3 shows the required timelines for developing the recovery measures. Recovery strategies are developed cooperatively by the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions responsible for each species, in cooperation and consultation with other directly affected parties as required under the Act.

Proposed recovery strategies, action plans and management plans are posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry for a 60-day public comment period. The Ministers consider comments and make changes where appropriate. The final documents are posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry within 30 days of the close of the public comment period. Five years after a recovery strategy, action plan or management plan comes into effect, the competent Ministers must report on progress made towards the stated objectives.

4.2.1 Recovery Strategies

The first SARA deadline for completion of recovery strategies was January 2006. Table 4 shows the number of species listed on Schedule 1 by government agency responsible for recovery planning under SARA for 2006 and 2007. Table 5 shows the number of species covered by recovery strategies for listed extirpated, endangered and threatened species.

In 2006, Environment Canada posted 10 final recovery strategies, 4 proposed recovery strategies and 1 final management plan. In 2007 Environment Canada posted 15 final recovery strategies, 3 proposed recovery strategies, and 1 final management plan.

In 2006, Fisheries and Oceans Canada posted 3 final recovery strategies covering six species. The Department also completed consultations on the recovery strategies of 21 aquatic species, and 22 aquatic species in 2007. In 2007, the department posted 16 final recovery strategies for 25 species, and 16 proposed strategies for 19 species.

In 2006, the Parks Canada Agency posted 3 final recovery strategies covering 20 species, 5 proposed recovery strategies and 1 proposed action plan. In 2007, the Agency developed five final recovery strategies, three proposed final recovery strategies, and one final action plan.

* Note that a single Recovery Strategy may address multiple species at risk. Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Parks Canada Agency use a multi-species/ecosystem based approach for the recovery of species at risk where appropriate.

4.2.2 Identification of Critical Habitat

SARA defines critical habitat as the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species. Competent Ministers must identify critical habitats to the extent possible, based on the best available information, in their recovery strategies and action plans. This helps to identify the amount, quality and locations of habitat needed to achieve the recovery goal, and the population and distribution objectives established in the recovery strategy. If available information is inadequate to fully identify critical habitat, the competent Ministers must include a schedule of studies in the recovery plan strategy or action plan. Critical habitats do not need to be identified for extirpated species where reintroduction is not recommended or for species of special concern.

Environment Canada identified critical habitat for six species (Barren's Willow, Roseate Tern, Horsetail Spike-rush, Northern Spotted Owl, Spoon-leaved Moss and Western Prairie Fringed-orchid) in 2006 and for eight species (Felt Lichen (Atlantic), Bashful Bulrush, Cucumber Tree, Wood-poppy, Piping Plover (circumcinctus), Whooping Crane, Woodland Caribou (Atlantic-Gaspésie) and Hoary Mountain-mint in 2007. Critical habitat was proposed for one additional species (Prothonotary warbler) in 2007.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada identified critical habitat for one species in 2006 (Aurora Trout) and proposed the identification of critical habitat for three species in 2007 (Nooksack Dace and northern and southern resident Killer Whale populations), all of which have since been finalized. In 2006 and 2007, the department initiated studies addressing the identification of critical habitat for 17 species.

During 2006 and 2007, the Parks Canada Agency continued to support and assist in research and activities that help to identify critical habitat for many species. For example, in 2006 and 2007, the Parks Canada Agency helped to develop two workshops attended by various academic and governmental biologists to advance important dialogue on biological and practical issues related to identifying critical habitat. In 2006 and 2007, the Parks Canada Agency identified critical habitat for three species (Banff Springs Snail, Engelmann’s Quillwort, Pink Sand-verbena). The Parks Canada Agency is investing considerable resources to developing and implementing schedules of studies to identify critical habitat for many other species.

4.3.1 Protection of Critical Habitat

SARA requires that all critical habitat identified in recovery strategies and action plans be protected against destruction. The competent Ministers use a wide range of measures to achieve this goal.

By the end of 2007 Environment Canada had identified critical habitat for 14 species at risk. Of these, Environment Canada fully protected the critical habitat for one species against destruction in 2007. For the remaining species, Environment Canada identified the portions of critical habitat that were already protected and took action towards protecting the remaining portions of critical habitat. Actions included publishing critical habitat descriptions in the Canada Gazette for four species found in Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas, and developing processes for protecting critical habitat by a ministerial order when required.

The critical habitat for aquatic species can be protected through an order, a regulation, or a section 11 agreement, under SARA, or through measures available under any other applicable legislation such as the Fisheries Act,or the Oceans Act. The Aurora Trout critical habitat, which consists of two lakes in a provincial park, continued to be monitored in 2006 and 2007. Should protection measures be needed to protect it from acidification, which is the primary threat, liming of the lakes inhabited by the trout would be undertaken.

The critical habitat of species found on lands administered by the Parks Canada Agency can be legally protected by provisions in or measures under SARA, the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act or any other applicable legislation. In 2007, the Parks Canada Agency took action to finalize or work towards the protection of critical habitat on lands administered by the Agency for several species.

4.3.2 Recovery Activities

In 2006, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Parks Canada Agency continued to dedicate significant resources to support the recovery of species at risk and to encourage partnerships with various stakeholders (see Part 6 on Stewardship and Public Engagement for additional information).

In 2006 and 2007, Environment Canada implemented recovery activities for numerous species at risk across the country. Projects included monitoring, population studies, critical habitat identification, habitat restoration, outreach and education, development of appropriate land use guidelines, and captive breeding and release into the wild of species at risk.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada implemented recovery activities for aquatic species at risk. These activities included captive broodstock programs, re-introductions, enhancement/naturalization of riparian habitat, reduction of agricultural waste, rescue of entangled marine animals, and removal of ghost and illegal nets.

In 2006 and 2007, the Parks Canada Agency conducted recovery activities for species at risk in and around national protected heritage areas. In addition to numerous smaller projects focusing on individual species, the Agency continued to support three major projects taking an ecosystem approach to species at risk recovery: restoration of habitat conservation in Garry Oak ecosystems in southern British Columbia, grassland restoration at Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan and habitat conservation in the Thousand Islands ecosystem in Ontario. The Agency also initiated two additional projects: one in Nova Scotia and one along the Trent-Severn Canal in Ontario. Each project represents an investment of more than $1.0 million over three years. Such an ecosystem approach includes research, recovery activities, outreach and education for an integrated approach to species recovery.

4.3.3 Interdepartmental Recovery Fund

The Interdepartmental Recovery Fund provides funding to federal departments and Crown corporations for implementing recovery activities and conducting surveys for species at risk on federal lands or under federal jurisdiction. In its first five years (2002-03 to 2006-07), the Interdepartmental Recovery Fund allocated $9.7 million for 310 projects for the recovery of 77 species and five ecosystems. Projects were implemented by eight federal departments and four Crown corporations. Of the total funds, 78% were applied to recovery actions and 22% to surveys on federal lands. More information can be found at www.sararegistry.gc.ca/involved/funding/irf_fir/default_e.cfm.

In 2006-07, the Interdepartmental Recovery Fund supported 135 projects, totalling $3.5 million (see table below for breakdown by federal agency and fiscal year). The portion of funds allocated to federal organizations other than the responsible agencies under SARA has grown steadily since the program was put in place. In 2006–07, about 64% of the funds went to these other federal government organizations, up from 44 % in 2005–06.

SARA recognizes that the responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared by federal, provincial and territorial governments. The federal government is responsible for terrestrial species found on federal lands as well as aquatic species and most migratory birds, while the provincial and territorial governments are primarily responsible for other species. SARA is designed to work with provincial and territorial legislation.

In 1996, the provincial, territorial and federal governments signed the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. The Accord outlines commitments to designate species at risk, protect their habitats, and develop recovery plans, and to establish supporting legislation, regulations, policies and programs.

To support the implementation of the Accord,governments agreed to a National Framework for Species at Risk Conservation in June 2007. The National Framework provides a set of common principles, objectives and overarching approaches for species at risk conservation to guide federal, provincial and territorial species at risk programs and policies.

The specific objectives of the Framework are to:

• Facilitate coordination and cooperation among jurisdictions involved with species at risk;
• Encourage greater national coherence and consistency in jurisdictional policies and procedures; and
• Provide context and common ground for federal/provincial/territorial bilateral agreements.

The establishment of governance structures for inter-jurisdictional cooperation is central to the effective implementation of the Act.

Reflecting this commitment, the departments are negotiating bilateral agreements on species at risk with all provinces and territories. The agreements set out shared objectives, as well as specific commitments where the governments will cooperate on species at risk initiatives. As of 2007, agreements have been signed with the governments of British Columbia, Quebec, and Saskatchewan, while agreements with other provinces and territories are at various stages of negotiation.

In 2007, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the federal government drafted a Memorandum of Understanding to harmonize requirements under SARA with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The Memorandum of Understanding sets out the proposed listing process for species at risk, including actions and timelines for listing decisions, while complying with the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement for the designation of rare, threatened and endangered species by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.

The Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) was established under the 1996 Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk and was formally recognized under SARA. CESCC is made up of federal, provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for conservation and management of species at risk. Under SARA, CESCC:

• provides general direction on the activities of COSEWIC, the preparation of recovery strategies, and the preparation and implementation of action plans; and
• coordinates the activities of the various governments represented on the Council relating to protection of species at risk.

In June 2006, CESCC Deputy Ministers met to discuss species at risk issues such as moving towards an ecosystem approach for species at risk planning, critical habitat policy, species assessment and species recovery.

The Canadian Council of Resource Ministers and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (whose Ministers also sit on CESCC) held a joint meeting in October 2006 to discuss the National Framework for Species at Risk Conservation and the Minister's Round Table on Species at Risk.

In June 2007, the Deputy Ministers of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers approved the National Framework for Species at Risk Conservation.

The Government has established governance structures to support federal implementation of the Act and its supporting programs. Several committees, comprising senior officials from Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Parks Canada Agency, meet regularly to discuss policy and strategic issues, and monitor SARA implementation:

• the Species at Risk Associate Deputy Ministers Steering Committee, ,
• the Species at Risk Assistant Deputy Ministers Committee, and
• the Species at Risk Directors General Operations Committee.

All of these Committees met regularly in 2006 and 2007 to discuss and provide direction on matters related to SARA implementation, such as:

• development and implementation of policies concerning the implementation of SARA;
• planning and coordination of the Minister’s Round Table on species at risk;
• development and implementation of processes related to SARA listing and recovery;
• development and implementation of bilateral agreements;
• implementation of the action plan developed in response to an formative evaluation of Federal Species at Risk Programes;
• approval of priorities and projects under the three species at risk funding programs (Habitat Stewardship Program, Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk and Interdepartmental Recovery Fund);
• planning for the departments’ preparations for the Parliamentary five year review of SARA; and
• development of a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework and a Risk-based Audit Framework for SARA.

The Canadian Wildlife Directors Committee plays an important role in inter-jurisdictional cooperation on species at risk. The Committee is an advisory body on wildlife issues including species at risk and is made up of federal and provincial/territorial wildlife directors, including representatives from Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Parks Canada Agency. The Committee provides leadership in the development and coordination of policies, strategies, programs and activities that address wildlife issues of national concern and help conserve biodiversity. It also advises and supports CESCC Deputy Ministers' and Ministers' councils on these matters.

The Directors met twice in both 2006 and 2007, and held several conference calls to address issues including species at risk items as noted:

• coordination and governance of species at risk programming;
• planning for the Minister's Round Table on Species at Risk;
• development of species at risk bilateral agreements;
• development of guidance to COSEWICregarding species assessment;
• development of species recovery measures;
• direction on National Framework for Species at Risk Conservation;
• development of provincial/territorial species at risk programming; and
• planning for Deputy Ministers’ and Ministers’ meetings.

The National Recovery Working Group consists of federal, provincial and territorial representatives responsible for the recovery of species at risk. They provide information, advice and recommendations on recovery matters to the Canadian Wildlife Directors Committee.

The Working Group met twice in both 2006 and 2007. Discussion focused on issues such as:

• review of recovery planning documents;
• development of guidelines on conducting socio-economic assessment;
• engagement of aboriginal peoples and Wildlife Management Boards in recovery;
• integration of approaches to recovery;
• stewardship planning;
• review of SARApolicies and guidelines;
• cooperation in recovery strategies and action plans;
• consistency in the development of recovery goals and objectives;
• development of national ranking scheme for species at risk recovery planning
• critical habitat identification and protection; and
• approaches to ecosystem or multi-species planning.

To help further inter-jurisdictional discussions, the Ministers responsible for fisheries and aquaculture created an Aquatic Species at Risk Task Group, including representatives from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and all provinces and territories.

In 2006, the Task Group met several times to draft discussion papers and identify issues for a National Strategy for the protection and recovery of aquatic species at risk. Draft discussion papers were developed for assessment, recovery, roles and responsibilities, permitting, priority species and listing. These papers were developed to inform a national strategy. A Task Group subgroup was also created and met several times to provide guidance on the process for socio-economic analysis in relation to SARA listing recommendations for aquatic species to the Minister of the Environment.

In 2007, the Task Group finalized a National Strategy for the Protection and Recovery of Aquatic Species at Risk. The Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers approved the strategy in 2007.

SARA requires that the Minister convene a round table, at least every two years, of persons interested in matters respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada to advise the Minister on those matters.

The first Minister’s Round Table on Species at Risk was held in December 2006. The round table provided the opportunity for many stakeholders who do not participate in any existing advisory committees to share their insights. Participation included opinion leaders from Aboriginal groups, industry, non-government organizations, academia, international organizations and youth.

Discussions centered on three themes selected by the Environment Minister: improving the implementation of the Act through a more systematic use of an ecosystem approach; the consideration of socio-economic factors in listing and recovery planning processes; and the promotion of Canada’s conservation legacy.

The Minister’s Round Table resulted in a number of recommendations, which Environment Canada is currently working towards implementing. The Minister’s response can be found at http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1545.

SARA recognizes that the role of Aboriginal peoples in the conservation of wildlife is essential and that Aboriginal peoples possess unique traditional knowledge concerning wildlife species. The National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk (NACOSAR), comprised of representatives from the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, is created under section 8.1 of SARA to advise the Minister of the Environment on the administration of the Act and to provide advice and recommendations to the CESCC.

In addition to regular meetings held in 2006, NACOSAR hosted two national workshops for Aboriginal peoples to network, discuss species at risk issues and generate recommendations. Participants at national workshops included representatives from the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Métis National Council, Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The March 2006 National Species at Risk Workshop for Aboriginal Peoples focused on communications needs, capacity development, use and protection of Aboriginal traditional knowledge, and enabling Aboriginal participation in species at risk conservation.

A November 2006 workshop, entitled “Species at Risk – Our Heritage, Our Responsibility,” was organized around three themes: ecosystem management; plants, medicines and flora; and animals.

Objectives of the workshop were to share experiences related to species conservation and recovery, identify species at risk gaps of particular interest and concern to Aboriginal peoples, identify and address Aboriginal participation in SARA, and facilitate a strong Aboriginal voice and participation in species recovery and protection.

NACOSAR also met with CESCC Ministers in October 2006, where it presented its vision for Aboriginal participation in SARA implementation and discussed Aboriginal engagement in species at risk conservation.

In 2007, NACOSAR and its Policy and Planning Committee held numerous meetings and conference calls to discuss such issues as Aboriginal engagement practices on SARA, Aboriginal considerations in socio-economic analysis of listing decisions, Aboriginal involvement in species recovery strategies, Aboriginal engagement in Aboriginal capacity building and critical habitat funds, bilateral agreements between the federal government and provinces and territories, and communications tools. Federal government officials attended these meetings to exchange information, and receive advice and recommendations.

NACOSAR Policy and Planning Committee members participated in the May 2007 workshop on the Renewal of Aboriginal Funds under the Species at Risk, where they provided advice and recommendations to improve Aboriginal participation in the program. NACOSAR was also represented at the National Management Team meeting for the Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk in February 2007.

The Species at Risk Advisory Committee was created by the Minister through discretionary powers under the Act. Chaired by Environment Canada, the Committee was established to provide advice on the administration of the Act . In 2006, it included 11 representatives from industry groups, nine representatives from environmental non-government organizations and one member from academia. In 2007, the Committee included nine representatives from industry groups, 10 representatives from environmental non-government organizations and two members from academia. Representatives from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Parks Canada Agency attend the committee meetings as observers.

The Advisory Committee held one meeting and one teleconference in 2006, and two meetings and four teleconferences in 2007. Discussions and advice regarding SARA implementation included:

• development of policies under SARA;
• planning for the Minister’s Round Table on Species at Risk;
• development of processes related to SARA listing and recovery;
• review of compliance guidelines;
• development of bilateral agreements;
• review of the national strategy for public engagement;
• planning for the Parliamentary five year review of SARA;
• development of approaches for assessing socio-economic impacts of regulatory actions under SARA;
• development of approaches for incorporating ecosystem concepts into species assessment; and
• guidance on development of the Woodland Caribou recovery strategy

SARA recognizes that all Canadians have a role to play in conserving wildlife, including preventing wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct. The Act also recognizes that the conservation efforts of individual Canadians and communities should be encouraged, and that stewardship activities contributing to the conservation of wildlife species and their habitat should be supported to prevent species from becoming at risk. The Act therefore encourages stewardship and cooperation through provisions for funding programs, conservation agreements and joint programs for species at risk.

In 2006 and 2007, Environment Canada continued to use its National Strategy for Public Engagement in the Conservation of Species at Risk, approved in 2005, to guide its outreach and education activities such as the iconic program Hinterland Who's Who. During the reporting period, species at risk were also included in many cases in Environment Canada’s broader conservation and biodiversity related outreach and educational activities.

Environment Canada, in partnership with the Parks Canada Agency, provided training in public engagement to members of species recovery teams and conservation organizations. Five training workshops across Canada (Lunenburg, Montreal, Winnipeg, Quebec and London) reached 109 recovery practitioners.

In 2006 and 2007 the network of national parks and sites developed educational products and initiatives for species at risk at the local and regional levels, including newsletters, signage, interpretive exhibits, trails, community outreach events, curriculum-based resources, volunteer monitoring programs and community mobilization programs for species recovery. In 2007, following extensive consultations, the Parks Canada Agency approved a five-year strategic plan for ecological integrity and species at risk outreach education. This plan highlights three key strategic directions for outreach education: connect Canadians to their natural heritage, improve the state of ecological integrity and species at risk, and maximize the effectiveness of ecological integrity and species at risk outreach education.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada continued, in 2006 and 2007, to develop and implement communications and outreach programs across Canada, with a focus on increasing awareness of aquatic species at risk. Key target audiences included the fishing industry, general public, media, environmental non-government organizations and Aboriginal groups. For example, the Abalone Watch Program encouraged Aboriginal fish harvesters and others along the Pacific coast to report potential Northern Abalone poaching activities to a toll-free hotline.

6.2.1 Websites

Environment Canada posted profiles of species at risk on its species at risk website (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca), including actions that individual Canadians can take to help to protect these species. In 2006 and 2007, the website received an average of 37,340 visits per month.

In 2006 and 2007, Fisheries and Oceans expanded and updated the national website on aquatic species at risk (www.aquaticspeciesatrisk.gc.ca), with more than 45 new species profiles. These profiles provide in-depth background on aquatic species at risk, the threats they face and ways Canadians can help protect them. By the end of 2007, the site was receiving more than 30,000 visits per month.

In 2006, the Parks Canada Agency maintained a species at risk portal on its website (www.pc.gc.ca/speciesatrisk), including information on species and recovery efforts. The website also includes a searchable database of species at risk found in lands and waters managed by the Parks Canada Agency, and provides youth oriented games and activities on species at risk.

The federal government supports Canadians in their efforts to help recover species at risk by providing funding that fosters coordination and collaboration among participants, and encourages timely and effective action.

6.3.1 Endangered Species Recovery Fund

The Endangered Species Recovery Fund, a joint initiative between Environment Canada and World Wildlife Fund Canada, was established in 1988 to support recovery activities for species at risk. A Scientific Advisory Committee reviews project proposals once a year from university researchers, conservation groups and others, and makes funding recommendations based on established criteria. Since 1988, the Endangered Species Recovery Fund has invested over $9.8 million in over 700 projects. Each year, the funded projects contribute to the recovery of more than 40 species at risk.

The Endangered Species Recovery Fund awarded more than $400,000 to 56 projects in 2006 and $650,000 to 46 projects in 2007. These funds supported research and education efforts by scientists and conservation advocates working to recover Canadian species at risk. More information can be found at http://www.registrelep.gc.ca/involved/funding/esrf_e.cfm

6.3.2 Habitat Stewardship Program

The federal Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk was established in 2000 as part of the National Strategy for the Protection of Species at Risk. The program allocates up to $10.0 million annually to projects that conserve and protect species at risk and their habitat. The goal of the Habitat Stewardship Program is to engage Canadians from all walks of life in conservation actions so that an entire landscape or waterscape will benefit. Projects focus on three key areas:

• securing or protecting important habitat to protect species at risk and support their recovery;
• mitigating threats to species at risk caused by human activities; and
• supporting the implementation of priority activities in recovery strategies or action plans.

The Habitat Stewardship Program is co-managed by Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Parks Canada Agency, and administered by Environment Canada on a regional basis. Regional implementation boards include representatives from the three federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, and other stakeholders where appropriate. These boards provide advice on priorities, program direction and project selection for their respective regions. Further information on the program is available at www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/hsp-pih/.

In 2005-06, the Habitat Stewardship Program directed $29.3 million (including matching funds) to stewardship activities that benefited more than 250 species at risk designated by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. With its 147 funding projects and 116 recipients, the program has raised the awareness of numerous Canadians. In total, close to 160,000 hectares of land have been protected.

During fiscal year 2006–07, the program funded 152 new projects by 137 recipients, for a total of $8.8 million. This leveraged an additional $26.8 million in funds from other sources (in-kind and cash contributions combined) for a total value of $35.6 million.

6.3.3 Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk

The Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk (AFSAR) Program comprises two funds: the Aboriginal Capacity Building Fund (ACBF) and the Aboriginal Critical Habitat Protection Fund (ACHPF). The ACBF helps Aboriginal organizations and communities across Canada build capacity to participate actively in the conservation and recovery of species protected under SARA and species at risk designated by COSEWIC; the ACHPF helps to protect and recover critical habitat or habitat important for species at risk on First Nations Reserves, or on land and waters traditionally used by Aboriginal Peoples. Each year the AFSAR Program benefits between 50 and 100 species at risk. The Program is co-managed by Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Parks Canada Agency, with the support of Indian and Northern Affairs and the guidance of the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk. Further information on the program is available at www.registrelep.gc.ca/involved/funding/asrp_e.cfm.

In financial year 2005-06, the AFSAR Program provided over $1.2M for 45 projects. These projects levered additional funds that exceeded $488,000 (cash and in-kind). The 27 ACBF projects involved more than 11,700 Aboriginal people in 58 communities, and benefitted SARA-listed or COSEWIC-designated species through increased Aboriginal awareness of species at risk. The 18 ACHPF projects were conducted primarily on First Nations reserves. They involved a total of nine communities and benefitted species at risk through the development of strategies, guidelines and practices, or the completion of monitoring, surveying and inventorying studies.

In financial year 2006-07, the program funding and the number of projects financed almost doubled with nearly $2.3M being invested in 81 projects. The additional amount levered by these projects more than doubled, reaching $1.3M (cash and in-kind). The 36 ACBF projects involved more than 36,880 Aboriginals in 30 communities, and the 45 ACHPF projects involved habitat protection activities and more than 270 surveys and assessments.

The federal government recognizes the importance of compliance education in the protection and recovery of species at risk. Officials from Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Parks Canada Agency continue to work together to ensure that Canadians are informed about SARA and their responsibilities under the Act. Offences under SARA can be prosecuted as indictable or summary conviction offences.

In 2006 and 2007, Environment Canada continued compliance promotion activities, guided by the National Strategy for Public Engagement in the Conservation of Species at Risk, approved in 2005. The department adapted the “SARA and You” guides from the Species at Risk Public Registry for print, for use in listing and recovery consultations and other public events. Information sessions were held with other federal government departments, First Nations groups and industry sectors in the National Capital Region and other regions across Canada.

In 2006, more than 550 front-line fishery enforcement officers working in the Conservation and Protection Branch at Fisheries and Oceans Canada continued to promote voluntary compliance with the prohibitions in SARA. Fishery officers from all regions dedicated more than 400 hours to education and public outreach activities, including conservation harvesting workshops, and school and tradeshow presentations.

In 2007, fishery enforcement officers continued to work with internal and external partners to promote compliance through education and outreach activities with affected communities and aboriginal groups. Fishery officers dedicated more than 1080 hours educating a wide-range of Canadians on the threats to aquatic species at risk and what they can do to help protect them. These efforts included school visits, trade shows, workshops and community meetings.

Highlights of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s regional compliance promotion activities in 2006 and 2007 include:

• Gulf Region promoted compliance in relation to listed species in the region, preparing and delivering educational materials to affected parties, and other interested groups and individuals.
• Quebec Region monitored potential impacts on Beluga whales in the St. Lawrence and northern Quebec.
• Central and Arctic Region responded to entrapped beluga whales in the eastern Arctic.
• Maritimes Region patrolled by air and water to monitor the location of North Atlantic Right Whales in the Bay of Fundy to limit potential interaction with lobster harvesting gear. Maritimes Region also monitored rivers inhabited by Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic Salmon, providing information to support compliance with prohibitions.
• Newfoundland and Labrador Region met with affected parties from regulated fisheries to discuss prohibitions and human-related threats to aquatic species at risk.

Throughout 2006 and 2007, the Parks Canada Agency continued to promote awareness and understanding of species at risk and their habitat, initiate and maintain public engagement efforts to help mitigate key issues impacting the protection and recovery of species at risk, and increase knowledge of key audiences to help build effective public education programs and initiatives.

Enforcement activities under SARA include inspections to verify compliance, investigations of alleged violations, measures to compel compliance in place of formal court action and compliance through court action. Penalties for contraventions of the Act include liability for costs, fines, imprisonment, alternative measures agreements and forfeiture of proceeds from illegal activities.

7.3.1 Training and Designation of Enforcement Officers

Environment Canada’s enforcement actions under SARA are carried out by trained and designated wildlife enforcement officers and are coordinated regionally by a SARA enforcement coordinator. Environment Canada designated 12 persons as enforcement officers under SARA in 2006 and 9 persons in 2007. By 2007, there were a total of 21 wildlife enforcement officers under SARA.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s compliance and enforcement actions under SARA are carried out by fishery officers (over 600 officers by 2007) who have been trained and designated as enforcement officers under SARA. Fishery Officers are supported by regional and national coordination for SARA enforcement activities and incorporate the SARA compliance program activities into their other duties under the Fisheries Act and other legislation and regulations. In 2007, fishery officers from Central and Arctic Region, Quebec Region and Gulf Region received specialized training to aid in the release of entrapped or entangled whales.

In 2006, the Parks Canada Agency finalized its national training strategy. The Agency modified and enhanced its training course in 2006, resulting in a training success rate of 93% for the year. In 2006 and 2007, the Agency trained approximately 110 park wardens in both 2006 and 2007, bringing the total number of park wardens trained as enforcement officers since 2005 to 185.

In May 2007, as a result of a Canada Labour Code Part II Direction, park wardens within the Parks Canada Agency were removed from their law enforcement duties. To ensure that enforcement capacity was still in place to deal with species at risk on lands and waters administered by the Agency, a partnership agreement was initiated with Environment Canada. Throughout 2006 and 2007, the Parks Canada Agency continued to contribute to the development of inter-departmental species at risk processes and guidance documents regarding enforcement and compliance.

7.3.2 Enforcement Tracking Systems

Fisheries and Oceans Canada tracks enforcement activities through a Fisheries Enforcement Activity Tracking System. Fishery officers across Canada dedicated a total of 16,860 hours in 2006 and 16,196 hours in 2007 to operational planning, patrols and inspections, investigations, court and other duties related to enforcing the prohibitions of SARA. Monitoring and patrolling can occur as part of regular fishery officer duties or can be targeted specifically at potential human threats to aquatic species at risk, such as fishing and eco-tourism (e.g. whale watching). Fishery officers recorded a total of 99 occurrences for the 2006 across Canada related to aquatic species at risk, resulting in a range of responses from inspections to investigations of suspected violations. An occurrence is defined as a reported or observed incident which is a potential violation of any act or regulation which falls under the mandate of a Canadian fishery officer.

The Parks Canada Agency uses an Occurrence Tracking System to track compliance promotion and enforcement activities, which includes querying and reporting functions for species at risk. During 2006 and 2007, the Agency improved the tracking system by defining data collection standards and making technical improvements.

7.3.3 Inspections

In March 2006, Environment Canada developed its first annual National Inspection Plan for the wildlife acts and regulations it enforces, including SARA. Some of the specific considerations in setting priorities and identifying planned activities include significance of trade, preservation of global and Canadian biodiversity, geographical scale, operational complexity and capacity, type of activity, and the compliance history, size and nature of the regulated community.

In both 2006–07 and 2007–08, Environment Canada’s National Inspection Plan identified high priority activities under SARA as:

• responses to third party complaints and referrals, including requests for investigations made under S. 93 of SARA;
• inspections of critical habitat identified on federal land in recovery strategies; and
• inspections related to emergency orders.

Environment Canada received and responded to two complaints regarding alleged SARA violations in 2006–07 and three complaints in 2007–08.

Environment Canada conducted several patrols in 2006 and 2007, including: patrols of piping plover nesting areas in the Magdalene Islands (Quebec), in cooperation with the province; patrols of Wellers Bay and Mississippi Lake National Wildlife Areas and piping plover nesting areas on Sauble Beach (Ontario); a joint patrol with the province in southwestern Nova Scotia, as well as patrols of New Brunswick’s Acadian peninsula, southeastern New Brunswick and southwestern Nova Scotia.

7.3.4 Investigations

In 2006, Environment Canada initiated several investigations. Regional highlights include:

• Atlantic Region investigated possible off-road vehicle use that could impact Piping Plovers in northeastern New Brunswick.
• Quebec Region investigated a complaint concerning a construction project in the Bas St-Laurent Region but found that no offence had been committed. An investigation of the destruction of Piping Plover nests by all terrain vehicles yielded insufficient evidence. An investigation concerning the destruction of endangered Butternut trees in a National Wildlife Area was not prosecuted.
• Ontario Region referred a complaint to the province for investigation, regarding the killing of an Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake along the Lake Huron shore of the Bruce Peninsula.on private property.
• Prairie and Northern Region investigated the destruction of Small Flowered Sand Verbena during a road maintenance and grading operation on federal land in Alberta. The Crown decided not to go forward with charges, as the disturbance resulted in an increase of the population. Officers responded to several reports of other potential violations, however the actions occurred on private or provincial land, where SARA did not apply.
• Pacific and Yukon Region investigated a report regarding the destruction of Deltoid Balsam Root through development activities. While SARA did not apply in this case, the officers recovered and relocated the remnants of the affected plants.

In 2007, Environment Canada initiated several investigations and laid one charge. Regional highlights include:

• Atlantic Region conducted two investigations regarding damage and disturbance of Piping Plover nests by vehicles on New Brunswick’s Acadian Peninsula. Five charges were laid under the provincial trespass act following a joint investigation in one of the cases by the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources.
• Ontario Region conducted two investigations involving the capture and possession of Spotted Turtles and Blanding's Turtles at Walpole Island First Nations, resulting in two individuals being charged.
• Quebec Region investigated two complaints concerning the destruction of Piping Plover nests in the Magdalene Islands. There was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges in one case and the second complaint turned out to be unfounded.
• Prairie and Northern Region conducted several investigations following complaints regarding Small White Lady Slipper orchids and Western Prairie Fringed orchids as well as the loss of bird habitat. It was found that neither SARA nor the Migratory Birds Convention Act applied in these cases.
• The Pacific and Yukon Region executed two search warrants and an investigation related to the harassment of a Yellow-breasted Chat.
• The Ontario Region conducted two investigations for the Parks Canada Agency regarding the alleged killing of two Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnakes in Bruce Peninsula National Park. In both cases, it was found that the incidents took place on provincial lands.

In 2007 Fisheries and Oceans Canada issued 15 warnings and laid two charges. There were no formal requests for investigations of alleged offences under Section 93 of SARA in 2006 or 2007. In 2006, Pacific Region fishery officers detected a major violation following monitoring of a suspected illegal harvesting operation of Northern Abalone. This largest abalone poaching conviction in Canada’s history resulted in the conviction of a number of individuals, with resulting fines and forfeitures of more than $150,000.

The SARA Public Registry fulfils the requirement under the Act for the Minister of the Environment to establish a public registry for the purpose of facilitating access to SARA-related documents. The Public Registry was developed as an online resource, and has been accessible since the proclamation of SARA in 2003. In addition to providing access to documents and information related to the Act, the Public Registry provides a forum to submit comments on SARA-related documents being developed by the Government of Canada.

Section 123 of SARA identifies documents that must be published on the Public Registry, including:

• regulations and orders made under the Act;
• agreements entered into under section 10 of the Act;
• COSEWIC's criteria for the classification of wildlife species;
• status reports on wildlife species that COSEWIChas had prepared or has received with an application;
• the List of Wildlife Species at Risk;
• codes of practice, national standards or guidelines established under the Act;
• agreements and reports filed under section 111 or subsection 113(2) of the Act, or notices that these have been filed in court and are available to the public; and
• all reports made under sections 126 and 128 of the Act.

The government also posts other documents prepared in response to the requirements of SARA, including recovery strategies, statement under 58(5) action plans, management plans, and reports on round table meetings.

Information in SARA’s Public Registry is maintained through the collaborative efforts of partners and stakeholders, and is an important tool in engaging and informing Canadians on species at risk issues.

In 2006, just under 500 documents were added to the Species at Risk Public Registry and approximately 400 in 2007. Documents included the SARA and COSEWIC annual reports, COSEWIC status reports and species assessments, Ministerial response statements, recovery strategies, management plans and permit explanations.

In 2007, work began to integrate the Species at Risk Public Registry and the Species at Risk website. The project began as an effort to resolve the difficulties arising from maintaining two separate sites with overlapping information and purposes. In completing this project Environment Canada will be able to offer a better, single source for information relating to species at risk, as well as all documents relating to SARA.

Efforts in 2007 also focused on the production of e-mail newsletters to provide updates to Species at Risk Public Registry subscribers: please contact SARAregistry@ec.gc.ca to be added to the distribution list.

³ Reclassified from Threatened to Endangered