This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Species at Risk Act

2 THE LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES AT RISK

2.1 Background

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

2.2 COSEWIC Assessments

2.2.1 Supporting COSEWIC Assessments

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.

2.2.2 Incorporating Community Knowledge

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.

2.2.3 COSEWIC Subcommittee on Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

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 COSEWIC species assessment meeting to meet Committee members and observe the species assessment process;
• selected members to participate on COSEWIC Species 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.

2.2.4 Examining the Ecosystem Approach

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.  

2.2.5 Species Assessments

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.

Sea Otter Conservation Status Improving The Sea Otter, the smallest marine mammal to carry out its entire life in the ocean, was once common across the Pacific rim, from Japan to southern California, but was hunted to near extinction during the fur trade of the 18th and 19th centuries. The Canadian population was extirpated until sea otters were successfully re-introduced to British Columbian waters in the early 1970s. Since that time, the Sea Otter has been protected from harm under various laws, including the Fisheries Act and later, SARA. Today, as a result of ongoing protective measures, the sea otter population in British Columbia numbers more than 3000 and growing. In 2007, COSEWIC re-assessed the species and re-classified its status from threatened to the lower risk of special concern. Although this species has been successfully re-introduced, it remains vulnerable to a number of factors, especially oil spills.

2.3 Federal Government Response to COSEWIC Assessments

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 COSEWIC assessment 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.

2.4 Public Consultations

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.

Community Consultations on the Bowhead, Narwhal and Atlantic Walrus An example of the type of consultations Fisheries and Oceans conducts in the North is the community-based consultations with the Inuit in much of Nunavut and all of Nunavik (located in the northernmost part of Quebec) about the possible SARA listing of the bowhead whale, narwhal and Atlantic walrus. The department held radio phone-in shows and face-to-face meetings with hunter and trapper organizations, community councils and the general public.  In January 2006, Fisheries and Oceans officials visited 13 Nunavut communities to consult on the bowhead whale and narwhal. In January 2007, the department visited 11 communities to consult on the Atlantic walrus. Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducted similar community consultations in Nunavik for the same three species. All meetings were conducted in both English and Inuktitut. Typically, 15 to 60 people attended the public meetings, representing a significant number of the hunters in those small communities. Attendees actively participated by asking questions, sharing their knowledge of wildlife, and expressing their views and concerns. In addition to the meetings, consultation workbooks, which contained a questionnaire, were distributed to Inuit organizations and many communities within Nunavut and Nunavik to provide information on the SARA listing process for the three species and to solicit responses. The workbooks were available in English, French and Inuktitut.

2.5 Listing Decisions

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 COSEWIC because 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 COSEWIC assessment;
  • 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 COSEWIC because 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 COSEWIC as new information regarding the species’ population was obtained after the COSEWIC assessment.

Table 1: Summary Status of Listing Process for Species in Batches 1 to 5 at year-end 2007

COSEWIC assessments	Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Special concern	Minister’s Receipt	Consultation process			Governor in Council receipt	Governor in Council proposal (CGI)*	Governor in Council final decision (CGII)*	Listing decisions
			Normal	Extended					Listed	Up-listed**	Not listed	Referred back
Schedule 1 at proclamation	233	N/A	N/A	N/A		N/A	N/A	N/A	233
Batch 1 May 2002, Nov 2002 & May 2003 115 species	91	Jan. 2004	79			April 2004	Oct. 2004	Jan. 2005	73		5***	1
								July 2005				1
				12		July 2005	Dec. 2005	April 2006	2		4	6
Batch 2 Nov. 2003 & May 2004 59 species	51	July 2004	44			Oct. 2004	May 2005	July 2005	39		4	1
				7		Nov. 2005	June 2006	Aug. 2006	4****		8****
Batch 3 Nov. 2004 & May 2005 73 species	55	Aug.  2005	39			Nov. 2005	June 2006	Aug. 2006	38			1
				16	- 6 were received by the Governor in Council - 10 remained under extended consultations	April 2007     [2009]	July 2007     [2009]	Dec. 2007     [2009]	4		2
Batch 4 April 2006 68 species	50	Aug. 2006	34			April 2007	July 2007	Dec. 2007	32	1		1
				16		[2008]	[2008]	[2008]
Batch 5 Nov. 2006 & April 2007 64 species	45	Aug. 2007	23			[2008]	[2008]	[2008]
				22		[2009]	[2009]	[2009]

*    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.

2.6 Schedule 1: List of Wildlife Species at Risk

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.

Table 2: Summary of Numbers of Species Listed under Schedule 1 of SARA as of December 2007

Year Added	Total Number of Species	Risk status
		Extirpated	Endangered	Threatened	Special Concern
June 2003 (Proclamation)	233	17	105	68	43
2005	112	4	47	30	31
2006	44	0	18	14	12
2007	36	0	20	5	11
Total	425	21	190	117	97

 

---

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.