Recovery

strategies, critical

habitat

identification and

the federal safety

net

C. Scott Findlay

University of Ottawa

I. Recovery strategies and

critical habitat identification

Recovery strategies must be prepared for “rollover” species within three years for endangered and four years for threatened or extirpated species (SARA s. 42(2))

For all subsequently listed species, within one year for endangered and two years for threatened or extirpated species (SARA s. 42(1)).

Recovery strategies must include identification of the species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible, based on the best available information (SARA s. 41 ((c).

The UO SARA database

Tracks key information concerning species

assessed by COSEWIC.

Information sources: COSEWIC status

reports, RENEW reports, federal recovery

strategies, provincial/territorial SAR

legislation, provincial RSs etc.

A series of relational database tables that can

be queried and are continuously updated

Now includes extensive data; extracted from

reports by > 350 trained volunteer students

over 7 years using rigorous QA/QC protocols.

Species fate

under SARA (as

of March 2009)

85% of species

recommended by

COSEWIC were listed

109/322 (34%) had

recovery strategies

(RS)

22% of RS completed

within statutory time-

lines

17% of species with

RSs had critical habitat

identified.

Rec

omm

ende

d

Listed

Rec

over

y stra

tegy

delay

ed)

RS c

omplet

ed la

te

RS c

omplet

ed o

n tim

e

Partia

l CH ID

Com

plet

e CH ID

Num

ber

of

specie

s0

100

200

300

400

500

March 2009 versus June 2012

Rec

omm

ende

d

Listed

Rec

over

y stra

tegy

delay

ed)

RS c

omplet

ed la

te

RS c

omplet

ed o

n tim

e

Partia

l CH ID

Com

plet

e CH ID

Num

ber

of

specie

s

0

100

200

300

400

500

Rec

omm

ende

d

Listed

Rec

over

y stra

tegy

delay

ed)

RS c

omplet

ed la

te

RS c

omplet

ed o

n tim

e

Partia

l CH ID

Com

plet

e CH ID

0

100

200

300

400

500

Correlates of CH identification

Critical habitat identification variables

Jurisdiction and ownership variables

Existing habitat protection (Protected areas)

variables

Socioeconomic conflict variables

Information gaps variables

Schedule of studies variables

Threat variables

Recovery target and distribution variables

Listing variables

Associations with CH identification for

terrestrial species, excluding information gaps

Probability of critical

habitat identification

increases if the

species is found in a

protected area, or

mining is identified risk

factor, or is listed

provincially or

territorially, and …

… decreases if found

on municipal lands, or

urbanization is an

identified threat. Pro

tect

ed A

rea

Munic

ipal

ly o

wned

Prov.

/Ter

r lis

ting

Urb

anizat

ion

Min

ing

Pro

po

rtio

n w

ith

CH

id

en

tifi

cati

on

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Factor present

Factor absent

Associations with

CH identification:

information gaps

Marginal probability of

critical habitat

identification increases

if recovery target is an

identified information

gap…

… and decreases if

landownership or

historical distribution

is an identified

information gap. Lan

d ow

nersh

ip(IG

)

Land o

wner

ship

(SS)

Rec

overy

Tar

get

His

toric

al D

istrib

ution

Pro

po

rtio

n w

ith

CH

id

en

tifi

cati

on

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6Factor present

Factor absent

Summary I

From 2006-2009, only a small proportion

of recovery strategies identified CH, and in

almost all cases, only partially.

Strong positive predictors of CH

identification include the presence in a

protected area and provincial listing.

Strong negative predictors include:

municipal land ownership, conflicts with

urbanization, information gaps related to

land ownership (for terrestrial species).

Conclusions I

Until March 2009, there is evidence consistent wit h

the hypothesis that CH identification in RSs was

determined in part by concerns about the

consequences of doing so with respect to (a) federal-

provincial relations; and (b) potential socioeconomic

consequences.

Yet: “Once a final recovery strategy is prepared, an

action plan involving recovery measures is required to

be developed and implemented; s. 49(1)(e) of SARA

makes it clear that it is only at this stage of the

process that “socio-economic costs” are considered.”

(Justice Campbell, Environmental Defence Canada vs.

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans 2009)

SARA’s safety net provisions

“The Minister must recommend that the order

be made if the Minister is of the opinion that

the laws of the province do not effectively

protect the species, or the residences of its

individuals.” (SARA, s. 34(3))

“…the Minister must make a recommendation

if he or she is of the opinion… that… the laws

of the province or territory do not effectively

protect the critical habitat.” (SARA s. 61(4b))

Indicators of “effectively protect”

Is the species listed under a provincial or

territorial act that provides specific

protection measures (direct harm,

residence, critical habitat)? (SARA s.

34(3))

Does the species have a provincial

recovery strategy? (SARA s. 61(4b))

Provincial/territorial listing of SARA-listed

species

Provincial listing

varies from 100%

(e.g. Ontario) to 0

(e.g. PEI)

Of 298 Schedule 1

species (November

2010), 102 (36%) are

not listed in any

provincial/territorial

jurisdiction in which

they occur. Jurisdiction (province or territory)

ON NL NS AB MB QC SK NB BC PEI YT NT NU

Pro

port

ion o

f S

AR

A s

pecie

s lis

ted

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Wildlife act or equivalent

Endangered species act or equivalent

Provincial/territorial listing for

species in multiple jurisdictions

Of the 298 species,

196 (64%) are

listed in at least

one province in

which they occur,

but only 33% are

listed in all of the

jurisdictions in

which they occur.

Range (number of jurisdictional occurrences)

1 (N=231) 2 (N=41) 3 (N=15) >3 (N=11)

Pro

port

ion o

f S

AR

A s

pecie

s lis

ted

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Listed in all jurisdictions

Listed in more than one jurisdiction

Listed in no jurisdictions

Probability of listing: legislation type

Probability of

provincial/territorial

listing greater in

jurisdictions that

have dedicated

endangered

species legislation

rather than more

generic wildlife acts

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f S

AR

A s

pecie

s lis

ted

Provincial legislation type

ESA WA ESA & WA

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2(c)

Probability

of listing:

association

with decline

Probability of

provincial/territorial

listing greater for

species that were

considered to be

declining in the

previous decade. Pro

port

ion o

f S

AR

A s

pecie

s lis

ted

Population trend in preceding decade

Declining Not declining

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8(b)

Probability

of listing:

time since

SARA

listing Probability of

provincial/territorial

listing increases

with the length of

time listed under

SARA

Number of months since listing under SARA

Quartile 1 [1

0-39]

Quartile 2 [3

9-68]

Quartile 3 [6

8-97]

Quartile 4 [9

7-126]Pro

port

ion o

f S

AR

A s

pecie

s lis

ted

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8(a)

Provincial recovery strategies

for SARA-listed species

Only 28 (24%) of species with a federal RS also

have a draft or final provincial recovery strategy

in at least one jurisdiction (22 of which occur in

only one jurisdiction)

For provincial RSs, 14 are federal with an

addendum to meet provincial criteria,13 are

jurisdiction-specific, and 1 is a provincial strategy

that was adopted federally with an addendum to

meet SARA criteria.

No species occurring in multiple jurisdictions

has a recovery strategy in them all.

Summary

Of 298 species listed under SARA as of November

2010:

36% are not listed under any provincial/territorial

endangered species or wildlife statute or equivalent;

of those 66 species that occur in 2 or more jurisdictions,

only 33% are listed in all jurisdictions in which they

occur;

only 26% of SARA-listed species have provincial

recovery strategies,

76% of species with federal recovery strategies have no

provincial or territorial counterpart.

A precautionary approach to

effective protection

Question: what is the threshold of

plausibility required to trigger Ministerial

issue of a recommendation for a safety net

order?

Answer: either (a) no provincial/territorial

listing or (b) no provincial/territorial

recovery strategy.

SARA-listed species not

effectively protected as of

November 2010

Conclusions II

Many SARA-listed species are not being

effectively protected on non-federal lands.

As of November 2010, no safety net order

had been issued.

For these species, the threshold of

plausibility required to trigger a

precautionary obligation has been

exceeded; in such cases, the Minister

ought to recommend that a safety order be

issued.

Support for variables based on model

selection with no information gap variables:

terrestrial species

Very strong for effect

of protected areas,

strong support for

effects of mining,

urbanization and

municipal land

ownership, minimal

support for recovery

target and amount of

habitat required to

achieve recover target.

Variable Support

Protected area 0.97 (+)

Provincial listing 0.55 (+)

Municipal lands 0.45 (-)

Urbanization

(threat)

0.38 (-)

Mining (threat) 0.31 (+)

Habitat for

recovery

0.05 (-)

Recovery target 0.01 (+)

Associations with CH

identification: marine

and aquatic species

Marginal probability of CH

ID increases if species is

found in a protected area,

power development is

identified risk factor,

recovery target is an

information gap, or

unsuitable habitat is

identified, and

… decreases if current

distribution is known.

Pro

tected

Are

a

Pow

er d

evelop

men

t

Rec

over

y ta

rget

(IG)

Cur

rent

distri

ubut

ion

Uns

uita

ble

habita

tP

rop

ort

ion

wit

h C

H i

den

tifi

cati

on

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8Factor present

Factor absent