Advanced Search

• [...]

  The Eastern High Arctic and Baffin Bay population of Beluga Whale, which spends its winter in the Jones Sound – North Water polynya area, does not appear to be adversely affected by exploitation or subject to any other negative anthropogenic impacts. Possible overexploitation outside of Canadian waters is viewed as a concern for this population which winter in this area. Although commercial fisheries for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) and pink shrimp (Pandalus borealis) take place in the area occupied by this population in the winter, potentially harmful effects of competition between fisheries for resources have not yet been studied. In May 2004, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (“COSEWIC”) assessed this Beluga Whale (Eastern High Arctic and Baffin Bay population) and classified it as a species of special concern.

  The benefits of listing the species would be limited. Listing the Beluga Whale (Eastern High Arctic and Baffin Bay population) as special concern would require the preparation of a SARA management plan. As there are no known threats in Canadian waters, this management plan would have a limited impact on the population and would be unable to address harvesting issues outside Canada. Furthermore, the management plan would not change the level of harvest in Canadian waters (approximately 100 belugas of this population per year). By not listing the species, no impacts are anticipated for the Inuit populations, general population in Canada, industry or government.

  There is limited evidence to support listing the Beluga Whale (Eastern High Arctic and Baffin Bay population) as a species of special concern since the population is only lightly harvested in Canada and there is no evidence of any anthropogenic threats on the Eastern High Arctic and Baffin Bay population of Beluga Whale or its habitat in Canadian waters. Listing the Beluga Whale (Eastern High Arctic and Baffin Bay population) would not address hunting outside Canadian waters.

  As well, the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on the Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga concluded in 2009 that the Canadian population is healthy, and that population modeling of the Greenland portion of the beluga stock (following the reduction in quotas after 2004) suggests a reversal of the previous stock decline.

  [...]

  Fisheries and Oceans Canada (“DFO”) will continue to discuss with its international partners issues related to sustainable hunt management and scientific information needed for stock assessment of marine mammal populations that are found inside and outside Canadian waters. Under SARA, COSEWIC reviews the status of a species at risk as new information becomes available which might cause it to adjust its assessment of the species. DFO will consider any new information that will be reviewed by COSEWIC as part of its next assessment of the Beluga Whale (Eastern High Arctic and Baffin Bay population).

• [...]

  In November 2004, COSEWIC assessed the Striped Bass (Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population) and classified it as threatened. Although this population spawns at a single location, meeting COSEWIC’s criteria for classifying a species as endangered because of its small distribution area it was classified as threatened “because of the high degree of resilience evident from recent spawner abundance estimates”. COSEWIC identified threats that included bycatch in commercial Gaspereau and Rainbow Smelt fisheries as well as illegal fishing.

  The Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population of Striped Bass was historically an important commercial and recreational species. Climatic constraints, past overfishing, illegal fishing, incidental catch in commercial fisheries, habitat alteration and the presence of contaminants have all been identified as probable causes of this population’s decline. All commercial fisheries for this population have been closed since 1996. In addition, all recreational and Aboriginal food, social and ceremonial fisheries have also been closed since 2000. Live release of incidentally caught Striped Bass of this population is also mandatory.

  Listing the Striped Bass (Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population) as threatened would trigger automatic prohibitions under sections 32 and 33 of SARA, which would result in significant socio-economic impacts on communities. The closure of some coastal fisheries would create a loss of profits for fish harvesters, the fish processing sectors and recreational fisheries. It is anticipated that such impacts on the Rainbow Smelt, Gaspereau and American Eel fisheries could result in an annual loss of profits for the industry that is estimated to range from $134,000 to $671,000. Listing the Striped Bass (Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population) as threatened with a more flexible harm threshold would mitigate some of these impacts. However, this approach would result in additional costs related to the development and implementation of a recovery strategy and action plan required under SARA and would not result in a substantially different biological outcome in terms of the long-term recovery of this population.

  The scientific assessment of the potential for recovery of the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population of Striped Bass concluded that recovery is feasible so long as no additional activities cause mortality beyond current levels. The directed fishery for Striped Bass in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence continues to be closed. Recent studies confirm that the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence population of Striped Bass is recovering under the current prohibition. Since the last COSEWIC assessment, a number of management measures have been implemented under the Fisheries Act to ensure this population’s recovery. The recovery is underway as a result of the use of existing legislation and tools.

  [...]

• [...]

  In May 2003, COSEWIC assessed Cusk and classified it as threatened. The same assessment was resubmitted in 2006, following the referral of the matter back to COSEWIC by the Governor in Council. COSEWIC identified mortality from fishing, both direct and incidental, as the principle threat to Cusk.

  Cusk is primarily caught as bycatch in the Atlantic Cod, Haddock, Pollock and Atlantic Halibut longline fisheries, although it is also caught as bycatch in lobster and other trap or pot fisheries. There is currently no known way to exclude Cusk from trawls, longlines, traps or pots. Under the Groundfish Integrated Fishery Management Plan (“Plan”), a directed fishery for Cusk is prohibited and Cusk can only be landed as bycatch within established caps set out in the Plan for each fleet and area in the groundfish fishery. At the time of the 2007 Recovery Potential Assessment (“RPA”), Cusk bycatch was estimated at 900 tonnes per year. Since 2007, DFO has lowered the bycatch cap for Cusk to approximately 650 tonnes per year and implemented a number of other measures to manage Cusk. No other fisheries are authorized to retain Cusk. Cusk is also harvested under the Native Council of Nova Scotia’s food, social and ceremonial license and as a bycatch in food, social and ceremonial and Aboriginal commercial fisheries.

  There are no estimates of absolute Cusk abundance in Canadian waters. There is consensus that Cusk abundance has declined in the 1970’s and 1980’s. However, there is conflicting evidence as to whether Cusk abundance has continued to decline since the 1990’s.

  The COSEWIC status report relied mainly on trawl survey data (designed to catch haddock) that showed declines ranging from 60% to 95.5% in Canadian waters, with the largest declines seen in the Scotian Shelf region. However, there is evidence that the trawl surveys grossly underestimate actual Cusk abundance, as there are issues with the ability to catch Cusk in otter trawls and the fact that the trawl surveys do not sample the Cusk in its preferred habitat or depth. Analyses of the Halibut Longline Survey and commercial landings data in the 2007 Cusk RPA suggests that Cusk are still common and widespread and that abundance has fluctuated without trend since the mid-1990s.

  [...]

  DFO is committed to managing Cusk and has put in place a number of new management measures since 2007, such as the reduction in the bycatch cap to 650 tonnes per year. In addition, DFO will be implementing additional measures outlined below as part of the Plan to manage Cusk going forward. These measures include

  [...]

  As a consequence of these new management measures, the probability of the biomass of Cusk increasing would be higher as compared to that estimated under the baseline scenario and, therefore, the additional benefits of listing Cusk on Schedule 1 of SARA would be less important.

  [...]

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

[...]

Listing the ABT as endangered under SARA and the subsequent closure of the directed and by-catch fisheries, including commercial harvesting, charter boat and Aboriginal commercial-communal fisheries, would result in significant socio-economic impacts on industry and communities in the region, including Aboriginal communities. The non-listing option received support from most of those who responded during consultations during the information-gathering stage, including the majority of the provinces, Aboriginal organizations and potentially impacted stakeholders.

As the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (“ICCAT”) recommends the annual total allowable catch (“TAC”) and allocates it among contracting parties, including Canada, listing the species under SARA would not be expected to have a significant positive impact on the species, since the closure of the Canadian fishery could result in ICCAT reallocating or transferring the Canadian quota to other countries, resulting in no net decrease in fishing mortality for ABT. Furthermore, some of the other contracting parties to ICCAT do not have the comprehensive tagging and dockside monitoring requirements that the Canadian fishery has and, therefore, reallocated quota may not be as tightly monitored. Additionally, the Canadian fishery provides key indexes of abundance for the assessment of the stock, which would be lost if the fishery were discontinued.

[...]

Yellowmouth Rockfish (Sebastes reedi)

[...]

If it is not listed under SARA, the Yellowmouth Rockfish will continue to be managed under the Fisheries Actas part of the integrated groundfish fishery. Current management measures in this fishery include the establishment of individual transferable quotas and TAC provisions guided by scientific advice and the SFF, mandatory 100% at-sea and dockside monitoring, and accountability for all rockfish catches (released and retained).

Since the implementation of the Commercial Groundfish Integration Program in 2006, all reported rockfish catches have remained within the prescribed TAC and conservation objectives for rockfish have been met. Additional management measures will be implemented to enhance existing mechanisms, including more frequent updates to stock assessments to enable timely implementation of management measures under the Fisheries Act. As the current harvest is 1% of the current biomass and the Yellowmouth Rockfish is considered to be in the healthy zone of the SFF, no changes to the TAC are proposed at this time. If the population falls below the healthy zone, the TAC will be adjusted based on updated scientific information. These management measures can achieve the conservation outcomes associated with the species.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

[...]

Listing the ABT as endangered under SARA and the subsequent closure of the directed and by-catch fisheries, including commercial harvesting, charter boat and Aboriginal commercial-communal fisheries, would result in significant socio-economic impacts on industry and communities in the region, including Aboriginal communities. The non-listing option received support from most of those who responded during consultations during the information-gathering stage, including the majority of the provinces, Aboriginal organizations and potentially impacted stakeholders.

As the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (“ICCAT”) recommends the annual total allowable catch (“TAC”) and allocates it among contracting parties, including Canada, listing the species under SARA would not be expected to have a significant positive impact on the species, since the closure of the Canadian fishery could result in ICCAT reallocating or transferring the Canadian quota to other countries, resulting in no net decrease in fishing mortality for ABT. Furthermore, some of the other contracting parties to ICCAT do not have the comprehensive tagging and dockside monitoring requirements that the Canadian fishery has and, therefore, reallocated quota may not be as tightly monitored. Additionally, the Canadian fishery provides key indexes of abundance for the assessment of the stock, which would be lost if the fishery were discontinued.

[...]

Yellowmouth Rockfish (Sebastes reedi)

[...]

If it is not listed under SARA, the Yellowmouth Rockfish will continue to be managed under the Fisheries Actas part of the integrated groundfish fishery. Current management measures in this fishery include the establishment of individual transferable quotas and TAC provisions guided by scientific advice and the SFF, mandatory 100% at-sea and dockside monitoring, and accountability for all rockfish catches (released and retained).

Since the implementation of the Commercial Groundfish Integration Program in 2006, all reported rockfish catches have remained within the prescribed TAC and conservation objectives for rockfish have been met. Additional management measures will be implemented to enhance existing mechanisms, including more frequent updates to stock assessments to enable timely implementation of management measures under the Fisheries Act. As the current harvest is 1% of the current biomass and the Yellowmouth Rockfish is considered to be in the healthy zone of the SFF, no changes to the TAC are proposed at this time. If the population falls below the healthy zone, the TAC will be adjusted based on updated scientific information. These management measures can achieve the conservation outcomes associated with the species.

[...]

[...]

Eleven submissions opposed the Minister’s recommendation based on claims that it was inconsistent with the Act and, in their opinion, supported by weak scientific and economic rationales. Concerns were also expressed that the Minister’s reliance on the limited occurrence of those species in Canada as a reason for his recommendation may set a precedent which could lead to a degradation of Canada’s southern ecosystems.

[...]

Laura’s Clubtail (Stylurus laurae)

[...]

This species has an extremely small range in Canada and COSEWIC acknowledged that a close estimation of population size and population trend information are not available. There is no evidence that Canada’s contribution to this species’ global status is significant. Moreover, the species is only known to occur on land other than federal land in Ontario and is already afforded legal protection under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007. Similarly to the Act, the Endangered Species Act, 2007, among other things, prohibits the killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking of a living member of a species that is listed under section 7 of the Ontario Act as extirpated, endangered or threatened. It also prohibits the possession, transportation, collection, buying, selling, leasing or trading of, or the offering to buy, sell, lease or trade, those species. In light of the existing protection afforded to the Laura’s Clubtail under the Ontario Act, its only known occurrence exclusively on land other than federal land in Ontario, its extremely small range in Canada and the limited contribution that recovery efforts in Canada could make to its conservation, it is not being added to the List so that available resources can be allocated more efficiently to species for which Canada can make a more significant difference.

Coast Manroot (Marah oreganus)

[...]

According to COSEWIC, the Coast Manroot was never common in British Columbia since it is at the northern edge of its range. There is no evidence that Canada’s contribution to the global status of the Coast Manroot is significant. Although the COSEWIC assessment was able to establish existing threats, the degree of impact of those threats is uncertain and it is unlikely that the Coast Manroot would be naturally re-established from outside populations. With the exception of one individual that occurs on a federal property, the Coast Manroot is only known to occur on land other than federal land in British Columbia and is included on the Red List established by the government of British Columbia to, among other things, provide a practical method to assist in making conservation and land-use decisions and to prioritize environmental research, inventory, management and protection activities. Given its extremely small range in Canada, and in light of the limited contribution that recovery efforts in Canada would make to its conservation, it is not being added to the List so that available resources can be allocated more efficiently to species for which Canada can make a more significant difference. However, the Garry Oak ecosystem, of which this species is a part, has been a priority ecosystem for the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk (HSP) since the program’s inception in 2000. In the current five year plan for HSP, this ecosystem remains a priority. As part of Canada’s national strategy for the protection of species at risk, the Government of Canada established the HSP, which allocates between $9 and $13 million a year to projects that conserve and protect species at risk and their habitats.

Four-leaved Milkweed (Asclepias quadrifolia)

[...]

COSEWIC’s assessment of the Four-leaved Milkweed indicates that there is no information on recent trends in extant Canadian populations, although limited observations do not suggest any declines since 2006-2007. The Four-leaved Milkweed has an extremely small range in Canada and there is no evidence that Canada’s contribution to the global status of the Four-leaved Milkweed is significant. Moreover, the Four-leaved Milkweed is only known to occur on land other than federal land in Ontario and is already afforded legal protection under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007. Similarly to the Act, the Endangered Species Act, 2007, among other things, prohibits the killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking of a living member of a species that is listed under section 7 of the Ontario Act as extirpated, endangered or threatened. It also prohibits the possession, transportation, collection, buying, selling, leasing or trading of, or the offering to buy, sell, lease or trade, those species. In light of the existing protection afforded to the Four-leaved Milkweed under the Ontario Act, its only known occurrence exclusively on land other than federal land in Ontario, its extremely small range in Canada and the limited contribution that recovery efforts in Canada could make to its conservation, it is not being added to the List so that available resources can be allocated more efficiently to species for which Canada can make a more significant difference.