Terms of Reference

Science Advice to Support the Jeopardy Assessment Framework for Permitting under the Species at Risk Act

National Science Advisory Process – National Capital Region

November 6-8, 2018
Ottawa, Ontario

Chairperson: Keith Clarke

Context

Sections 73 and 74 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) state that the competent Minister may enter into an agreement authorizing an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals, if the Minister is of the opinion, among satisfying other conditions, that the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species^{Footnote 1}. An activity is considered to jeopardize the survival or recovery of a species if the activity would prevent the attainment of the population and distribution objectives described in a recovery strategy for the species. Making a determination about whether a proposed activity places species in jeopardy relates to the expected residual harm after the implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures, and the extent to which offsets and recovery measures provide a net balance or gain in survival or recovery potential. If an activity is accompanied by measures (i.e., avoidance, mitigation, offsetting, and/or recovery measures) that prevent, reduce or counterbalance the effects on the species such that the survival or recovery is not jeopardized, a permit may be issued by the competent Minister, under the assumption that all other conditions under subsection 73(2) to (7) have also been met.

In order to assist the Department in making scientifically-defensible decisions about the impacts of an activity to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat, or its residence; a framework that builds upon and complements the department’s existing approaches to assess allowable harm is required. Allowable harm assessments are conducted as part of the species at risk recovery potential assessment process, and seek to look at how increases in human-induced mortality or habitat destruction alter recovery or survival probabilities and recovery timelines. This framework would be used to:

• evaluate the impact of a proposed activity in terms of direct (e.g., mortality) and indirect (e.g., habitat degradation) effects on the probability of attaining population and distribution objectives; and,
• inform the estimated level of residual harm expected as a result of an activity, along with the extent to which offsetting and/or recovery measures are required to provide a net balance or gain in survival or recovery potential.

Following this peer review, it is expected that the resulting components for a framework would be operationalized into a tool to be used by departmental biologists in determination of whether or not a proposed activity will jeopardize the survival or recovery of a species at risk.

Objective

The overarching objective of this National Advisory Process is to assess proposed components for a framework that can determine if an activity will jeopardize the survival or recovery of an aquatic species at risk. A series of working papers will be reviewed and will provide the basis for discussion on the specific objectives outlined below:

1. Determine the suitability of metrics (e.g., change in a species’ population growth rate) to evaluate losses (i.e., residual harm) and gains (i.e., offsets, recovery measures); and, determine if the proposed metrics are appropriate for a wide-range of taxonomic groups including marine mammals, marine fishes, diadromous fishes, freshwater fishes, marine invertebrates, and freshwater invertebrates;
2. Determine if the following are well-founded in ecological theory: criteria to evaluate baseline population status for data-poor species; criteria to evaluate direct and indirect effects; criteria to evaluate population responses to offsetting and/or recovery measures; and, proposed approach to account for uncertainty (i.e., data and knowledge gaps) in the application of the criteria;
3. Identify the primary assumptions associated with objectives 1 and 2;
4. Determine if the proposed components for a framework are a complement to the department’s existing approaches to assess allowable harm; and,
5. Determine the information needs to operationalize the framework into a tool for use in the species at risk permitting process.

Expected Publications

• Science Advisory Report
• Research Document(s)
• Proceedings

Expected Participation

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
• Other government departments
• Other invited experts