Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Vol. 143, No. 49 -- December 5, 2009

Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act

Statutory authority

Species at Risk Act

Sponsoring department

Department of the Environment

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Order.)

Executive summary

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

Description: This Order proposes to add four aquatic species to Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). These amendments are being made on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment with advice from the other competent minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The addition of species to Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered or threatened invokes prohibitions against killing, harming, harassing, capturing, taking, possessing, collecting, buying, selling or trading individuals of these species. SARA also requires the preparation of recovery strategies and action plans to provide for their recovery and survival. When a species is added to Schedule 1 as a species of special concern, SARA requires the preparation of a management plan to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.

Cost-benefit statement: For each of the four species recommended for addition to Schedule 1, the socioeconomic impacts are estimated to be low, while costs are expected to be minimal and net benefits are expected to be positive. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is also considering advising the Minister of the Environment that he not recommend the addition of four other aquatic species to Schedule 1 of SARA as the costs of SARA protection would likely outweigh the benefits to Canadians and protection action can and will be taken under other authorities.

Business and consumer impacts: The potential net impact on fish harvesters and recreational anglers as a result of listing the four aquatic species in this proposal is low, as well as the impact on governments.

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: International coordination and cooperation for the conservation of biodiversity is provided through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (see footnote 1) to which Canada is a signatory. Domestic coordination and cooperation is covered by several mechanisms developed to coordinate Species at Risk (SAR) Program implementation across the various domestic jurisdictions. These include inter-governmental committees, a National Framework for Species at Risk Conservation (NFSARC), and negotiated SAR bilateral agreements. The SAR bilateral agreements foster collaboration in the implementation of SARA and of provincial/territorial endangered species legislation.

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

Issue

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

Background

On June 11, 2009, the Governor in Council (GIC) officially acknowledged receipt of assessments for nine aquatic species that had been assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Receipt of eight of these species initiated the nine-month legislated timeline within which the GIC, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, decides on whether or not to add these species to Schedule 1, the List of Wildlife Species at Risk, or refer the species back to COSEWIC for further review. As such, the GIC is required to render a final decision regarding the listing of these species by March 11, 2010. This Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) will address these eight species, as the Western Silvery Minnow will be dealt with separately.

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is a key tool in the ongoing work to protect species at risk. By providing for the protection and recovery of species at risk, the Act is one of the most important tools in the conservation of Canada’s biological diversity. The Act also complements other laws and programs of Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments, and supports the efforts of conservation organizations and other partners working to protect Canadian wildlife and habitat.

Objectives for government action

The purposes of SARA are

1. To prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct;

2. To provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity; and

3. To manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.

A decision to add a species to Schedule 1 of SARA as endangered or threatened will result in the species receiving the benefits of protection and recovery measures required under the SARA. Species listed as special concern will receive the benefits of a SARA-compliant management plan. This will result in overall benefits to the environment both in terms of the protection of individual species and the conservation of Canada’s biological diversity.

A decision not to list species assessed as at risk by COSEWIC to Schedule 1 of SARA means that the protection, recovery and management measures under SARA will not apply. A decision not to list a species is arrived at after weighing the costs of listing against the anticipated benefits. In some instances, a species may be protected through other existing tools, including legislation such as the Fisheries Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14, and non-legislative tools such as government programs and actions by non-governmental organizations, industry, and Canadians, which may provide protection to a species that is not listed.

The purpose of the proposed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act is to add four aquatic species to Schedule 1, the List of Wildlife Species at Risk (the List). This amendment is made on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment based on advice from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on scientific assessments by COSEWIC, and on consultations with governments, Aboriginal peoples, stakeholders and the Canadian public.

Description

Of the nine species assessments received from COSEWIC, the GIC is proposing to add four aquatic species to Schedule 1 of SARA. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is considering advising the Minister of the Environment that he not recommend adding four other aquatic species to Schedule 1 of SARA. The Western Silvery Minnow will be dealt with separately.

The status, as assessed by COSEWIC, for the eight species under consideration, is presented in Table 1. The full status assessments, including the reasons for classification and the species range for the eight species considered in the proposed regulatory actions, are available at www.sararegistry.gc.ca.

Table 1. Status designations of eight species assessed by COSEWIC and received by the GIC on June 11, 2009

Species proposed for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA (4)
Fishes (freshwater)
9Misty Lake Lentic SticklebackEndangered
10Misty Lake Lotic SticklebackEndangered
11Westslope Cutthroat Trout (British Columbia population)Special concern
Fishes (marine)
12Basking Shark (Pacific Population)Endangered
Species for which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is considering advising the Minister of the Environment that he not recommend their addition to Schedule 1 of SARA (4)
Fishes (marine)
1Winter Skate (Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population)Endangered
2Chinook Salmon (Okanagan population)Threatened
3Winter Skate (Eastern Scotian Shelf population)Threatened
4Winter Skate (Georges Bank-Western Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy population)Special concern

SARA has prohibitions that make it an offence to kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of an aquatic species that is listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA. SARA also has prohibitions that make it an offence to possess, collect, buy, sell or trade such individuals and to damage or destroy the residence of one or more such individuals.

Under section 37 of SARA, once an aquatic species is listed on Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered or threatened, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is required to prepare a strategy for its recovery. Pursuant to section 41 of SARA, the recovery strategy must, inter alia, address threats to the species’ survival and to its habitat, describe the broad strategy to address those threats, identify the species’ critical habitat to the extent possible based on the best available information, state the population and distribution objectives that will assist the recovery and survival of the species and identify research and management activities needed to meet the population and distribution objectives. The recovery strategy also provides a timeline for completion of one or more action plans. A management plan must be prepared for species listed as special concern.

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

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

As required in the Species at Risk Act, on receiving a copy of an assessment from COSEWIC, the Minister of the Environment includes, within 90 days, a report in the Public Registry stating how the Minister intends to respond to the assessment. The receipt of status assessments by the Governor in Council triggers a process in which the Governor in Council may review that assessment and may, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, (1) accept the assessment and add the species to Schedule 1 of SARA; (2) decide not to add the species to Schedule 1; or (3) refer the assessment back to COSEWIC for further information or consideration.

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

The second option is not to add the species to Schedule 1. Although the species would neither benefit from prohibitions afforded by SARA, nor the recovery or management activities required under SARA, species may still be protected under other federal, provincial or territorial legislation. When deciding to not add a species to Schedule 1, it is not referred back to COSEWIC for further information or consideration. COSEWIC may also call for the reassessment of any species when there is reasonable evidence that its status has changed.

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

If the GIC has not taken a course of action in response to COSEWIC’s assessments by March 11, 2010, the Minister of the Environment shall by order amend the List in accordance with COSEWIC’s assessments.

Consultation

Under SARA, the scientific assessment of species status and the decision to add a species to Schedule 1 (the List of Wildlife Species at Risk) are comprised of two distinct processes. This separation guarantees that scientists may work independently when making assessments of the biological status of wildlife species and that Canadians have the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process in determining whether or not species will be listed under SARA.

Public consultations were conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 2008 and 2009 on eight aquatic species’ status assessments. Consultations were facilitated through mail- outs, meetings, public sessions, consultation workbooks, and other supporting documents which were made available on the SARA Public Registry and other government Internet sites. Consultations were conducted with fish harvesters, industry sectors, recreational fishers, Aboriginal groups, environmental organizations (ENGOs), other levels of government and the public. The consultation results for the individual species are outlined further below.

Benefit and costs

Description and rationale

This proposed Order will address four aquatic species proposed for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA. The four aquatic species for which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is considering advising the Minister of the Environment that he not recommend their addition to Schedule 1 of SARA are also outlined in this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for consultation purposes. Listing a species on Schedule 1 of SARA entails both benefits and costs in terms of social, environmental and economic considerations through the implementation of SARA’s general prohibitions upon listing and the recovery planning requirements.

Upon listing on Schedule 1, aquatic species, wherever they are found, will benefit from immediate protection through general prohibitions under SARA. Moreover, this proposed order will result in recovery of the species through the development and implementation of recovery strategies, action plans and management plans. Recovery strategies must be drafted for all species listed on Schedule 1 as extirpated, endangered or threatened. These are followed by action plans that identify measures to implement the recovery strategy. For species listed on Schedule 1 as species of special concern, management plans are required that include measures for the conservation of species and their habitat.

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

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

Benefits

Protecting species at risk can provide numerous benefits to Canadians beyond direct economic benefits, such as the protection of essential ecosystems. Moreover, many of the species serve as an indicator of environmental quality. Various studies indicate that Canadians place value on preserving species for future generations to enjoy and from knowing the species exist, even if they will never personally see or otherwise enjoy them. Furthermore, the unique characteristics and evolutionary histories of many species at risk, such as the Misty Lake Sticklebacks, make them of special interest to the scientific community.

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

  • Direct Use -- refers to the consumptive use of a resource, such as fishing;
  • Indirect Use -- includes non-consumptive activities, such as whale watching, which represents recreational value;
  • Option Use Value -- represents the value of preserving a species for future direct and indirect use; and
  • Passive Values (or non-use value) -- include bequest value, which is the value of preserving a species for future generations, and existence value, which represents the altruistic value individuals derive from simply knowing that a given species exists, regardless of potential for any future use. (see footnote 2)

Passive values mostly dominate the TEV of species at risk. (see footnote 3) When a given species is not readily accessible to society, existence value may comprise the major or only benefit of a particular species. (see footnote 4)

Passive values can be estimated by willingness to pay -- the amount an individual is willing to pay per year to preserve a species.

With regard to the species under consideration in this regulatory proposal there is limited information available regarding quantification of benefits. Willingness to pay studies on species included in this proposed Order have not been conducted in Canada. However, various studies of similar species in the United States could be an indication that Canadians do derive substantial non-use economic benefits from conservation programs targeting species at risk, including relatively low-profile species. (see footnote 5) In the absence of existing data in the Canadian context, the data from the United States studies will be used.

With regard to Canadians’ willingness to pay for the preservation of species under consideration in this Order, information is limited. However, studies on other at-risk species indicate that Canadians do place substantial economic value upon targeted conservation programs, even for relatively low-profile species. (see footnote 6) Although specific studies are not available, it is not always necessary to quantify benefits in order to determine their likely magnitude in comparison to the costs imposed on Canadians. The proposal in this Order reflects that understanding, using the best available quantitative and qualitative information. Where this information was inconclusive, a benefits value transfer method was used to the extent possible.

Costs

Major categories of costs attributed to the proposed Order include compliance promotion, enforcement, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. These costs could arise from the application of SARA, in particular the enforcement of the SARA prohibitions and/or the development and implementation of recovery strategies, action plans, or management plans depending on the classification of the species.

Costs attributed to affected parties, including industries, individuals and different levels of governments vary and would be proportional to some key parameters, such as threats, population size and distribution, as well as economic activities surrounding the species. Also, impacts will vary depending on the classification of the species under SARA. For example,

  • for the one aquatic species that is proposed for addition as species of special concern, Westslope Cutthroat Trout (British Columbia population), the prohibitions under sections 32 and 33 of SARA would not apply, meaning there are no associated costs. Rather the affected stakeholders may incur costs that would stem from the development and implementation of a management plan required for species of special concern under SARA. For example, the Westslope Cutthroat Trout (British Columbia population) will be the responsibility of the province of British Columbia.
  • the three proposed new additions to Schedule 1 under the endangered categories would result in the application of general prohibitions upon listing; a more detailed analysis will follow.

In addition to the original federal resources dedicated to SARA upon launching of the Act in 2004, $275 million was allocated in 2006 by the Government of Canada to address the administration of the Act over a five-year period, from 2007/08 to 2011/12, with 63% of funding allocated to EC, 24% to DFO, and 13% to Parks Canada.

Amendments to Schedule 1 trigger certain requirements, and there are direct costs associated with these requirements. Many of these costs stem from the development of recovery strategies for species being added to Schedule 1 of SARA. Specific actions needed to implement those strategies are identified in action plans, and SARA requires that each action plan include an evaluation of the socio-economic costs of the actions. The costs are likely to vary widely depending on the species, context, and actions required.

Costs arising from the enforcement activities associated with the listing recommendations under this Order are anticipated to be low. Incremental activities related to enforcement costs to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are not expected to create a significant additional burden on the enforcement officers.

Species included in this Order and proposed to be listed in the endangered category would require a recovery strategy and action plan. Cost may arise from foregone economic activities. These costs stem from restricting human activities that would have occurred in the absence of general prohibitions and recovery actions. Although the specific costs are difficult to quantify at this time, it is expected that costs associated with this proposed Order would be low to moderate.

The present analysis focuses on the four aquatic species proposed for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA and the four aquatic species for which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is considering advising the Minister of the Environment that he not recommend their addition to Schedule 1 of SARA.

The benefits and costs to Canadian society have been estimated to the greatest extent practicable, according to the 1999 benefit-cost guidelines (see footnote 7) set out by the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada. Dollar estimates are presented as changes in net economic value (consumer and/or producer surplus) wherever possible. When quantitative estimation was not possible or expected impacts were too low to warrant extensive analysis, the potential impacts are described in qualitative terms.

Aquatic species proposed for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA

Four aquatic species (three freshwater fishes and one marine fish) are proposed for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA. Three of the species, the Misty Lake Lotic Stickleback, the Misty Lake Lentic Stickleback, and the Basking Shark (Pacific population) are proposed for addition as endangered, while the Westslope Cutthroat Trout (British Columbia population) is proposed for addition as a species of special concern.

Misty Lake Stickleback (Lentic and Lotic populations)

According to COSEWIC’s assessment, the Misty Lake Lentic and Lotic Sticklebacks are a highly divergent species pair restricted to a single lake-stream complex on Vancouver Island, and thus have an extremely small area of occurrence. This species pair could quickly become extinct due the introduction of non-native aquatic species or perturbations to the habitat. (see footnote 8)

Consultations

During the fall dialogue sessions held in British Columbia in 2008, there was little interest expressed concerning the potential listing of the Misty Lake Stickleback (Lentic and Lotic populations). In addition to the dialogue sessions, 14 consultation workbooks were completed by First Nations and other stakeholder groups, none of which indicated any opposition to listing the species. None of the Aboriginal groups that provided feedback indicated that either population of the species is used for food, social or ceremonial purposes. The Province of British Columbia wanted to assess the implications of protecting Stickleback critical habitat before confirming their listing recommendation. However, they felt relatively confident that risks outside of the ecological reserve could be mitigated with existing legislation.

Benefits

Benefits can only be estimated for this analysis by examining specific studies of other fish species, and there are few examples with characteristics similar to the Misty Lake Stickleback for which humans have similar uses and familiarity. However, the scientific value for these species is high. The species pair is considered of great value for studying evolutionary processes due to a very high level of adaptive radiation within the genus.

Costs

It is anticipated that the socio-economic costs of listing the two Misty Lake Stickleback populations will be very low overall. The species is not known to be commercially or recreationally harvested, nor is there any indication of use by First Nations for food, social or ceremonial purposes. Furthermore, it is not known how a listing under SARA is likely to change the probability of survival of the populations. However, the cost of listing these species is not prohibitive and the implementation of best forestry practices can likely reduce the costs substantially below those estimated here.

The populations of Misty Lake Stickleback (Lentic and Lotic) are currently stable (COSEWIC 2007) and reside within the Misty Lake ecological reserve. However, additional protective actions may be undertaken to decrease the chance (by an unknown amount) that the population will be lost. To address the main threats to the population, the Misty Lake Ecological Reserve could be expanded, an adjacent highway (Highway 19) rest stop could be relocated to minimize contamination from highway runoff and to reduce the chance of introduction of invasive species, and logging activities could be restricted. These actions would result in annual costs (based on the 2008 commercial price) to the forest industry of approximately $306,000 in foregone profits if all activity were stopped, and annual costs to government of $16,000 to $20,000 over 10 years ($30,000 to $32,000 over 5 years) for alterations to the reserve and the rest stop.

Additional costs to the government of Canada for research, education, and public involvement associated with a recovery strategy and an action plan would also be incurred if these populations were listed. Costs are estimated to be less than $70,000 (annualized) for five years.

Total costs are therefore estimated to be, at most, $400,000 per year (over five years).

Rationale

Cost estimates represent upper limits and the unlikely scenario of the complete cessation of logging activity in the species’ watershed. Actual costs are in fact likely to be much lower, and the net benefits of listing the Misty Lake Sticklebacks are expected to be positive when research and existence values are taken into account.

Basking Shark (Pacific population)

Canada’s Pacific population of Basking Sharks has virtually disappeared. There are only six confirmed records of Basking Sharks in the Canadian Pacific since 1996, four of which are from trawl fishery observer records. It is estimated that their rate of decline has exceeded 90% within about 60 years, or two to three generations. (see footnote 9) Due to the significant lack of knowledge on current abundance, migratory behaviour and range, or on the relative impacts of past and present human activities, there is great uncertainty around projections for the future.

Consultations

The fall 2008 consultation sessions regarding the potential listing of the Basking Shark (Pacific population) generated some interest from Aboriginal groups and commercial fishers, and a great deal of interest from the general public and ENGOs. Significant feedback was received, including over 250 emails and numerous letters in support of listing this species. Among advocates, the reasons for listing the Basking Shark included there being little to no economic impact on commercial activities and the species being at imminent risk of extinction in Canada’s Pacific waters. Twenty-seven consultation workbooks were completed regarding the Basking Shark, 20 of which supported listing the species. The workbook results indicated commercial fishers were the only sector to register a mild lack of support for listing the Basking Shark as endangered under SARA. Some commercial fishers mentioned that they did not believe numbers were down because they were still encountering Basking Sharks in their gear. The Province of British Columbia had no objections to listing Basking Shark due to high public interest and no apparent economic impacts to fishers.

Benefits

The rarity, uniqueness, size and conspicuous surface behaviour of the Basking Shark make the existence value for this species high. The Canadian public has demonstrated its desire to preserve this species through a high volume of written appeals to government for its protection.

Costs

It is anticipated that the socio-economic impacts of listing the Basking Shark will be minimal due to the low encounter rate. Protection measures include stewardship, monitoring and reporting, and increased public awareness. Some stewardship activities for the commercial fishing industry could be implemented through licensing conditions, but these are unlikely to pose significant expense to the industry. Costs associated specifically with improved monitoring and reporting for Basking Shark are also expected to be minimal, as the ground fish fishery has 100% observer coverage in place (whereby licence holders are required to carry an officially recognized observer onboard), and work has already begun towards implementing improved monitoring in the salmon fishery. Costs are also anticipated to be low for recreational fishers, aquaculture, and other industries such as the energy sector. If Basking Shark populations increase and encounters become more frequent, measures to avoid collision and entanglement will be required for the commercial fishing sector. Similar measures may be required for the aquaculture sector to minimize the chance of shark entanglement in the nets of rearing pens.

If the Basking Shark were to be listed, costs to the Government of Canada could include data collection and research in order to identify and quantify the most serious threats, and to implement a public awareness program. Should shark populations increase and interactions become more frequent, additional education for boaters may be required to ensure avoidance of collision with surface-feeding sharks.

Rationale

Net benefits of listing the Basking Shark are expected to be positive as there are few costs associated with listing. A great deal of support for listing this species was expressed through emails and letters, indicating that the non-market benefits associated with the survival and recovery of this species are high. Human activities may be more affected in the future if Basking Shark populations increase and the frequency of interactions increase accordingly.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout (British Columbia population)

According to COSEWIC’s assessment, the Westslope Cutthroat Trout found in Canada are restricted to southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta. Globally, their range has become extremely fragmented and the heart of their distribution now centres on the upper Kootenay River drainage in southeastern British Columbia. The species inhabits large rivers and lakes in British Columbia, as well as many small mountain streams. It is estimated that native populations have been reduced by almost 80% through over-exploitation, habitat degradation, and hybridization/competition with introduced, non-native trout. (see footnote 10)

Consultations

In regards to the Westslope Cutthroat Trout, the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (a regional advisory body to DFO) was consulted directly, while local sports fishermen, guides and/or communities were given an opportunity to provide comments through the workbooks available on DFO’s consultation Web site. These consultations occurred in the fall of 2008.

The Westslope Cutthroat Trout is a very popular sport fish managed by the province of British Columbia. Sixteen consultation workbooks were completed by stakeholders, the majority of which indicated support for listing. There is considerable interest in this species on the part of First Nations, with two groups indicating that the Westslope Cutthroat Trout is used for food, social and ceremonial purposes. In addition to the workbooks, a meeting was held with the Upper Columbia Aquatic Management Partnership (UCAMP) Technical Working Group in February 2009.

Benefits

The species is a very popular sport fish, and is considered a world class fishery that attracts international recreational anglers. Accordingly, benefits from its protection are likely to be very large. However, these benefits have not yet been estimated quantitatively. Activities undertaken to protect Westslope Cutthroat Trout populations could have spill over benefits in protecting other species and their habitats, and in maintaining the value of the species’ range areas for other recreation and tourism. However, any restrictions on angling for this fish may displace fishing pressure to other species. The Westslope Cutthroat Trout is also an important species to First Nations groups and is used by some for food, social and ceremonial purposes.

Costs

A large number of economic activities are undertaken within the distribution range of this trout. These include mining, forestry, agriculture, urban development, dam operation, and transportation (highway and railway corridors). Best Management Practices in some of these sectors (extractive industries, agriculture, and urban development) are anticipated to be sufficient protection for cutthroat trout, and impacts are not expected to be large. More information will become available when the Province’s Management Plan is completed. Nevertheless, due to the species’ proposed status as special concern, the general prohibitions will not apply, meaning the socio-economic impacts of listing on these sectors are expected to be low, if any.

Listing on Schedule 1 as special concern will result in the implementation of a management plan by the Province of British Columbia to undertake activities that will ensure this species does not become threatened or endangered. These activities are not anticipated to significantly impact the sport fishing industry; however, mitigation measures could be put in place that could include, for example, adjustments to catch quotas.

Rationale

Potential impacts are confined to those arising from a SARA-compliant management plan, currently under development by the Government of British Columbia. The Westslope Cutthroat Trout sport fishery is internationally renowned, and benefits from its protection are likely to be very large while potentially affording spill over benefits in protecting other species and their habitats. Accordingly, this species has already been managed carefully by the Province of British Columbia as an important sport fish for some time. Management actions can be chosen and undertaken to ensure positive net benefits from listing this species.

Aquatic species for which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is considering advising the Minister of the Environment that he not recommend their addition to Schedule 1 of SARA

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is considering advising the Minister of the Environment that he not recommend the addition of four aquatic species to Schedule 1 of SARA. Three of these species are Winter Skate populations, and one is Chinook Salmon (Okanagan population). In regard to the Winter Skate, it is proposed that the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population not be listed as endangered, that the Eastern Scotian Shelf population not be listed as threatened, and that the Georges Bank–Western Scotian Shelf–Bay of Fundy populationnot be listed as a species of special concern. It is proposed that the Chinook Salmon (Okanagan population) not be listed as a threatened species.

A decision not to list a species means that the prohibition and recovery measures under SARA will not apply. In some cases, other existing tools, including legislation, such as the Fisheries Act, and non-legislative tools, such as government programs and actions by non-governmental organizations, industry, and Canadians will continue to protect and recover the species.

Winter Skate (Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population, Eastern Scotian Shelf population, and the Georges Bank–Western Scotian Shelf–Bay of Fundy population)

Winter Skate are a fish species endemic to the western North Atlantic with a considerable portion of their range in Canadian waters. Winter Skate considered in this analysis are concentrated in three areas and treated as distinct populations: the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Eastern Scotian Shelf, and the Canadian portion of Georges Bank. Winter Skate, also known as the big or eyed skate, are among the most ancient of existing species of vertebrates.

According to COSEWIC, abundance of mature Winter Skate individuals in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence is estimated to have declined 98% since the early 1970s, while the Eastern Scotian Shelf population is estimated to have declined by more than 90%. Both are now at historically low levels. In contrast, estimates of the population status for the Georges Bank–Western Scotian Shelf–Bay of Fundy population (hereafter referred to as the Georges Bank population) show no discernible trend over time. There is a high probability that this population receives immigrants from the species inhabiting the American portion of Georges Bank. (see footnote 11)

All three populations of Winter Skate were assessed by COSEWIC in 2005. The Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population was assessed as endangered, the Eastern Scotian Shelf population as threatened and the Georges Bank population as special concern. The probable cause of decline for all three populations, as identified by COSEWIC, is attributed to the rate at which the species was captured as bycatch in groundfish fisheries, and where applicable, was subjected to a directed fishery.

The potential socio-economic impacts of listing the Southern Gulf or the Eastern Scotian Shelf populations are significant. Impacts of listing would likely include closures of some or all commercial groundfish and shellfish fisheries in these areas, with a subsequent loss of revenue of millions of dollars for the fishing industry, communities, and Aboriginal groups. It is estimated that significant job losses would occur. These costs to society are likely to have limited or no bearing on the outcome of recovery for the species. The costs associated with listing the Georges Bank population are not quantified, but would likely be more modest as SARA prohibitions would not apply due to its designation as a species of special concern; however, the benefits of such a listing would also be limited, since a SARA listing is unlikely to affect the overall population trajectory for the species.

Also of note, is that the natural mortality of adult Skate in the Eastern Scotian Shelf and Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence populations has increased over the same period that grey seal abundance has increased. This suggests that the decline of adult Winter Skate in these populations could possibly be related to increased predation by grey seals.

Despite a sharp decrease in bycatch numbers across the three populations, the decline in adult Winter Skate appears to be on-going in the Eastern Scotian Shelf and Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence populations. In fact, bycatch at the most recent level is estimated to have a negligible effect on the anticipated rate of decline. Recovery Potential Assessments have indicated that even if fisheries bycatch is held to zero, recovery is not expected for these two populations. The Eastern Scotian Shelf population was the only population to be subjected to a directed commercial fishery, although it has been closed since 2005.

Reductions in bycatch and the closure of directed skate fisheries have had little to no impact on the decline of the species thus far. Therefore it is possible that high levels of natural mortality may be the dominant factor responsible for the decline of, and lack of recovery potential for, this species. Winter Skate possess life history characteristics such as delayed age of maturity, and large size at birth that increase vulnerability to exploitation, reduce rates of recovery, and increase risk of extinction.

Rationale

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is considering advising the Minister of the Environment that he not recommend the addition of the three Winter Skate populations to Schedule 1 of SARA, as benefits would be limited, costs would be substantial, recovery of the endangered and threatened populations is not expected without a decrease in natural mortality, provinces and most stakeholders do not support listing, and conservation measures will be implemented through other means at lower cost.

In lieu of listing Winter Skate under Schedule 1 of SARA, targeted conservation measures will be added to new Integrated Fisheries Management Plans. Management measures will include, but may not be limited to, the live release of all Winter Skate caught as bycatch, continued closure of the commercial skate fishery, and monitoring to determine discard rates. Additionally, the existing study on the diet of grey seals could be expanded to determine their impact on Winter Skate populations.

Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population

There is currently insufficient information to determine the specific management measures that would need to be undertaken to protect this Winter Skate population should it be listed on Schedule 1 as Endangered. Levels of bycatch and the fisheries in which it occurs are not well understood. However, because there is little prospect for recovery of this species even if it is given SARA protection, it is almost certain that the impact on society associated with listing would be negative.

Eastern Scotian Shelf population

The magnitude of impacts from listing the Eastern Scotian Shelf population of Winter Skate depends critically upon whether or not the scallop, clam, sea cucumber, and shrimp fisheries are found to be responsible for skate mortality. Losses could increase by more than $10 M annually if these fisheries must be closed. If only the directed skate and groundfish fisheries must be restricted, benefits from protection would have to be in the range of ~$2.8 – $4.4 M annually for the net economic impacts of listing to be positive.

Georges Bank – Western Scotian Shelf – Bay of Fundy population

A management regime already exists for activities with the potential to impact Winter Skate through the groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP). The IFMP provides a strongtool for protecting Winter Skate, as the provisions of the IFMP are implemented through regulatory mechanisms under the Fisheries Act that are legally enforceable. The socio-economic impacts of listing under SARA are estimated to be very low. Additional observer costs could, however, be imposed upon license holders engaged in groundfish, shrimp, scallop, sea cucumber and offshore clams fisheries. Furthermore, a management plan for a species of special concern may restrict the amount of skate which can be landed as bycatch and mandatory discard may be required, leading in loss of commercial value. Based on current bycatch levels, this is not expected to lead to significant impacts.

Winter Skate(Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population)

Cost-Benefit StatementBase Year: 2004Total (PV) -- 10 yearsAverage Annualized
A. Quantified impacts ($)
Benefits  Estimate not available
CostsGovernment Increased Research$0.40 M–$0.45 M$0.05 M
Commercial Fisheries Sector Restrictions/closures of groundfish, sea scallop, and shrimp fisheries$5.7 M–$34.6 M$0.8 M–$4 M
Total costs$6 M–$35 M$0.9 M–$4.1 M
Net benefits Cannot be calculated
B. Quantified impacts in non-$
Biological
Impacts
Median estimate of population sizes in 2004 is 1.89 million adults, with bycatch rates of about 10 tonnes per year. Taking into account the variance of population projections, there is a < 25% probability that the population decline could be reversed, but an equal probability that the population would become virtually extinct. The 95% credible limits around the projected abundance over the next 10 years do not include recovery to target levels.Under full SARA protection and zero catch, median estimated trend of population decline is projected to be slowed slightly, from a 72% decline in 10 years to a 67% decline.
C. Qualitative impacts
Canadian Public (Consumers and Households)Listing may slightly increase the chances that the value placed on this species by the public as a component of biodiversity would be preserved, but there is evidence that sources of natural mortality would also have to be reduced.
Aboriginal (FSC Fisheries)Food, social, and ceremonial access to shrimp, groundfish, and sea scallop could be impacted if these fisheries are required to undergo severe restrictions. This could lead to loss of the value of the associated cultural traditions.
Fish Processing SectorRestriction of groundfish, sea scallop, or shrimp fisheries would lead to additional losses of economic profits for processors, on a similar scale to that experienced in the fish harvesting sector.
GovernmentAdditional costs to government would include administrative costs for the development of a recovery strategy and an action plan, and possibly costs for issuing permits for allowable harm. There is also the potential for increases in uptake of social assistance, most acutely in the near term, while harvesters adjust to the fishery restrictions.
Gulf of St. Lawrence RegionThe impacts cited above would be concentrated in the Gulf of St. Lawrence region of Atlantic Canada.

Winter Skate(Eastern Scotian Shelf population)

Cost-Benefit StatementBase Year: 2005Total (PV) -- 20 yearsAverage Annualized
A. Quantified impacts ($)
Benefits  Estimate not available
CostsSkate and Groundfish Harvesting$8.6 M–$36 M$0.8 M–$2.4 M
Skate and Groundfish Processing$21.4 M–$30 M$2.0 M
Scallop, Clam, Sea Cucumber, and Shrimp fisheries -- harvesting plus processing. (Low estimate represents increased observer coverage only; high end represents possibility of closure of these fisheries [depends on outcome of increased observation]).$0.2 M–$157 M$0.02 M–$10.6 M
Total costs$30 M–$223 M$2.8 M–$15.0 M
Net benefits Cannot be calculated
B. Quantified impacts in non-$
Biological ImpactsAbundance in 2004 is estimated at approximately 488 150 adults, with catch rates of approximately 300 tonnes per year. Uncertainty in population projections is great, and both extirpation and recovery are encompassed in the 95% credible limits around the median trend. Based on the most probable trend, even with zero catch, no recovery is expected without a decrease in adult natural mortality (or unknown human-induced mortality that is currently interpreted as natural mortality in the models).Under full SARA protection, median estimated trend of population decline is projected to be slowed, from a 68% decline in 10 years, to a 36% decline.
EmploymentPotential impacts on workers in groundfish harvesting and processing due to closures. (Some individuals would experience minor income decreases, while others may experience complete job loss.)800 individuals impacted, to various extents (about 530 in harvesting and about 270 in processing)
Potential impacts on workers in scallop, clam, sea cucumber, and shrimp fishing/processing due to closures. (Some individuals would experience minor income decreases, while others may experience complete job loss.)~ 800 additional individuals impacted (about 520 in harvesting and up to 270 in processing).
C. Qualitative impacts
Canadian Public (Consumers and Households)Protection through listing would slow the rate of population decline and increase the chances that the value placed on this species by the public as a component of biodiversity would be preserved. Non-market value is not quantified at this time.
AboriginalAboriginal groups hold a number of communal commercial licences for groundfish and shrimp (dollar values included in Part A), and communities would be impacted by fishery closures. Food, social, and ceremonial catches from the groundfish, scallop and shrimp fisheries also exist, though the actual volumes are not known.
Offshore oil and gasIf voluntary monitoring efforts by this sector reveal that offshore projects are causing harm, additional mitigation measures may be required, with associated costs. Furthermore, if the species is listed and harm cannot be sufficiently mitigated, then existing and future development projects could be suspended. Given existing information, it is not considered likely that the latter would be necessary.
GovernmentAdditional enforcement costs could be incurred by DFO if the closure of major fisheries is required. However, enforcement costs could potentially decline, as it may be easier to enforce zero fishing. The ultimate effect could depend upon stakeholder response to closures.
Communities and Region

The impacts described above would be concentrated in Nova Scotia if only skate and groundfish fisheries are closed. About 3/4 of the groundfish impacts would be experienced in 5 landing ports, which on average depend on groundfish for about 1/4 of their fishery revenues.

Closures of the scallop, clam, sea cucumber and shrimp fisheries would also heavily impact some N.L. ports.

Indirect and induced impacts in these affected regions have not been estimated.

Chinook Salmon (Okanagan population)

The Okanagan Chinook is the only remaining Columbia Basin population of Chinook Salmon in Canada. Local First Nations report that Okanagan Chinook were numerous enough to support an important food and commercial/economic trade fishery prior to non-native human settlement. Although there are no food, social, and ceremonial fisheries on Okanagan Chinook at this time, First Nations in the area would harvest Okanagan Chinook for these purposes if the stock could support this use in the future.

Consultations

Consultations regarding the Okanagan Chinook Salmon were undertaken primarily in the fall of 2008 with Aboriginal groups, commercial and recreational fishers, ENGOs, the province of British Columbia, and the general public. The province of British Columbia expressed concern with a listing designation based on the possibility that Okanagan Chinook may not be demographically isolated or genetically distinct, given that the feasibility of recovery is uncertain and that listing could effectively shut down commercial and recreational fisheries in Canadian waters. Modest feedback was received in response to the ten consultation sessions that were held in 2006. In addition to the sessions, consultation workbooks were made available. Of the five that were completed, four proposed listing the species. Neither commercial nor recreational fishers supported listing the Okanagan Chinook. Both stakeholder groups expressed their belief that the potential socio-economic impacts on their sectors had been underestimated. In contrast, feedback and consultations with ENGOs such as the David Suzuki Foundation and Aboriginal groups such as the Okanagan Nation Alliance revealed their belief that the estimated socio-economic costs of listing were too high and the non-market valuation too low. Consultations with First Nations involved in marine harvest that could intercept individuals of this population in the ocean were not undertaken.

The Okanagan Chinook Salmon underwent an emergency assessment by COSEWIC in 2005, which resulted in a status designation of endangered. In 2006, the species was re-assessed as threatened.

Threats to the existence of Okanagan Chinook include mortality associated with dams on the Columbia River in the United States, exploitation by marine and freshwater fisheries, and habitat loss.

Recent scientific studies have confirmed that, as indicated in the COSEWIC report, the Canadian population is comprised of strays from the Upper Columbia Summer Chinook population in the United States and therefore the two populations are related. Consequently, the most promising option to achieve species recovery would be through hatchery augmentation of Upper Columbia Summer Chinook. Construction of a US$41M Chinook hatchery by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reserve in Washington State is scheduled to start in Spring 2010. The hatchery will release about three million Chinook young each year starting in 2012; this will lead to a significant increase in the Chinook salmon population on the Upper Columbia River system, including the population of Okanagan Chinook.

Also, Canada and the United States have already recognized the need to address Chinook conservation and recovery on a coast-wide basis, and have made changes to their commercial salmon fishery regimes. Amendments to the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which came into force on January 1, 2009, have reduced catch limits on the West Coast of Vancouver Island by 30%, and in Southeast Alaska by 15%. This is a significant measure that will contribute to the long-term conservation and recovery of Chinook stocks.

A listing on Schedule 1 under SARA has the potential to prevent marine harvest of all fisheries in which Okanagan Chinook is intercepted. While the Canadian commercial fishery is directed at other Chinook populations, Okanagan Chinook cannot be easily distinguished from these other populations. Significant closures of the West Coast of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands as commercial fisheries may be required to avoid capture of Okanagan Chinook. Consequently, listing this species would likely result in significant economic impacts to Canadian commercial fishers, who have already been impacted by harvest reductions under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

There could also be significant reductions to the West Coast of Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Islands recreational salmon fisheries, if potential fishing mortality from this source must be reduced. Reductions would impact all recreational Chinook fisheries where Okanagan Chinook is intercepted.

The public’s willingness to pay to conserve salmon species is known to be high, but the benefits of listing remain very difficult to estimate. Annual willingness to pay for increased Okanagan Chinook runs could easily exceed $1M annually, and would probably be much higher, based on stated preference studies carried out for other salmon species in different geographic regions.

Potential significant negative social and economic impacts of listing the Okanagan population of Chinook Salmon exist, in relation to several marine fisheries. Therefore, it is proposed that the Okanagan Chinook not be listed on Schedule 1 under SARA.

Rationale

The U.S. hatchery to be built in 2010 will provide a mechanism for conserving and recovering the species. Actions already taken to reduce catch limits for the commercial salmon fishery by Canada and the United States will also serve to conserve and recover the species.

Given the above considerations, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is considering advising the Minister of the Environment that he not recommend the addition of the Okanagan Chinook to Schedule 1 of SARA. If the species is listed, all salmon fisheries where Okanagan Chinook is intercepted would likely be closed in order to reduce fishing mortality.

Okanagan Chinook Salmon

Base Year: 2005Total (PV): 10 yearsAverage Annualized
A. Quantified impacts ($)
BenefitsCanadian Consumers/Households Estimated consumer surplus: non-use, non-market value$24.9–$0 M$1.3–$0 M
CostsChinook Salmon Troll Fisheries -- harvesting and processing (producer surplus or profits)$0–$20.1 M$0–$4.2 M
Recreational Fishing Industry (producer surplus or profits)$0–$16.7 M$0– $3.5 M
Recreational Anglers (consumer surplus)$0–$7.7 M$0–$1.6 M
Wages Lost$0–$104 M$0–$13.5 M
Loss of Commercial Licence Value$0–$56 M$0–$7.3 M
Total costs$0 to $204 M$0 to $30 M
Net Benefits+$25 M to - $204 M+$1.3M to - $30 M
B. Quantified impacts in non-$
Biological ImpactsThe population of Okanagan Chinook has consisted of fewer than 50 spawners since at least 1977. Recovery is not deemed possible without large scale hatchery augmentation far in excess of what can be naturally produced from recent levels of spawner abundance.Extirpation is expected by 2050 for the Canadian population of Okanagan Chinook whether listed under SARA or not, if an improvement regarding the situation of hatcheries is not initiated.
C. Qualitative impacts
Aboriginal GroupsMembers of the Okanagan Nation Alliance place a cultural importance on the Okanagan Chinook. Furthermore, harvests of salmon provide an important source of food to aboriginal people. The Okanagan Nation Alliance views a lack of access to salmon resources as increasing their reliance on a less traditional diet, raising associated health issues. Aboriginals will not realize benefits of access to Okanagan Chinook unless hatchery production can be used to enhance this population and allow sustainable food, social, and ceremonial use.
Regional and community impactsThe impacts of listing this species would be experienced in British Columbia, in communities where Area F & G license holders live (Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, and 38 small communities) and where these fish are processed (northern area of Skeena-Queen Charlotte, Vancouver, Nanaimo). The majority of the recreational fishing sector employment is located in small, and often remote, coastal communities or areas.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

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

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

At the time of listing, timelines apply for the preparation of recovery strategies, action plans or management plans. The implementation of these plans may result in recommendations for further regulatory action for protection of the species. It may draw on the provisions of other acts of Parliament, such as the Fisheries Act, to provide required protection.

SARA provides for penalties for contraventions to the Act, including liability for costs, fines or imprisonment, alternative measures agreements, seizure and forfeiture of things seized or of the proceeds of their disposition. SARA also provides for inspections and search and seizure operations by enforcement officers designated under SARA. Under the penalty provisions of the Act, a corporation found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $300,000, a non-profit corporation is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000, and any other person is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both. A corporation found guilty of an indictable offence is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000,000, a non-profit corporation to a fine of not more than $250,000, and any other person to a fine of not more than $250,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both.

Contact

Susan Mojgani
Director
Program Management, Species at Risk Directorate
Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk Sector
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0E6
Telephone: 613-990-0280
Email: susan.mojgani@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 27 of the Species at Risk Act (see footnote a) proposes to make the annexed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act.

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Order within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Susan Mojgani, Director, Program Management, Species at Risk Directorate, Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6 (fax: 613-998-8158; e-mail: susan.mojgani@dfo-mpo.gc.ca).

Ottawa, November 26, 2009

JURICA ČAPKUN
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 1 TO THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT

AMENDMENTS

1. Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (see footnote 12) is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “FISH”:

Shark, Basking (Cetorhinus maximus) Pacific population
Pèlerin population du Pacifique

Stickleback, Misty Lake Lentic (Gasterosteus sp.)
Épinoche lentique du lac Misty

Stickleback, Misty Lake Lotic (Gasterosteus sp.)
Épinoche lotique du lac Misty

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

Trout, Westslope Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) British Columbia population
Truite fardée versant de l’Ouest population de la Colombie-Britannique

COMING INTO FORCE

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

[49-1-o]

Footnote a
S.C. 2002, c. 29

Footnote 1
For further information on the CBD, visit www.cbd.int.

Footnote 2
Wallmo, K. Threatened and Endangered Species Valuation: Literature Review and Assessment (Online), www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/documents/bibliography/
Protected_Resources_Valuation%20.pdf

Footnote 3
Ibid. 23

Footnote 4
Jakobsson, Kristin M.; Dragun, Andrew K., Contingent valuation and endangered species: Methodological issues and applications, New Horizons in Environmental Economics series. Cheltenham, U.K. and Lyme, N.H.: Elgar; distributed by American International Distribution Corporation, Williston, Vt., 1996.

Footnote 5
M. A. Rudd. Memorial University of Newfoundland EVPL Working Paper 07-WP003 (2007).

Footnote 6
Ibid.

Footnote 7
Most analyses were carried out prior to the release of the 2007 Interim guidelines. (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/gl-ld/analys/analys-eng.pdf)

Footnote 8
COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Misty Lake Sticklebacks Gasterosteus sp. (Misty Lake Lentic Stickleback and Misty Lake Lotic Stickleback) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 27 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1447).

Footnote 9
COSEWIC 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (Pacific population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 34 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1387).

Footnote 10
COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi (British Columbia population and Alberta population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 67 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1420).

Footnote 11
COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the winter skate Leucoraja ocellata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 41 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=666).

Footnote 12
S.C. 2002, c. 29


| Introductory Page |