White Sturgeon in Jeopardy: Gauging the Law and Policy Currents

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Funding

This research was supported by the Ocean Tracking Network (OTN), based at Dalhousie University, with funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). Special thanks go to Richard Apostle, Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Dalhousie University, and Glenn Crossin, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, for their helpful comments on the draft of this article.

Notes

1 COSEWIC, COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the White Sturgeon Acipenser Transmontan, Lower Fraser River Population, Upper Fraser River Population, Upper Columbia River Population, Upper Kootenay River Population in Canada 20 (Eric Taylor ed., 2012).

2 J.D. McPhail, The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia 35 (2007). For a more comprehensive summary of the biology, distribution, and threats to white sturgeon, see Fisheries & Oceans Can., Species at Risk Act: Recovery Strategy Series, Recovery Strategy for White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) in Canada (2014).

3 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at x.

4 Id. at 2.

5 Id.

6 For example, green sturgeon are also found along the Pacific coast, while Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon occur along the Atlantic coast, and lake sturgeon are frequent in the Great Lakes and Hudson-James Bay drainage areas. Douglas F. Williamson, Caviar and Conservation: Status, Management, and Trade of North American Sturgeon and Paddlefish 21, 72, 88 (TRAFFIC North America ed., 2003).

7 COSEWIC, supra note 1, at 7.

8 D. W. Welch et al., Large-scale Marine and Freshwater Movements of White Sturgeon, 135 Transactions of the Am. Fisheries Soc’y 386, 386 (2006).

9 IUCN, IUCN Red List Version 2015-4: Acipenser transmontanus, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/234/0 (last visited 15 November 2015).

10 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 28–30.

11 Id.

12 Because of relatively large, albeit fluctuating, adult populations along the West Coast of the United States, overall the species is ranked as of “least concern” at this time. IUCN, supra note 9.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id. Note that in Canada, the Kootenai River is referred to as the “Kootenay.”

16 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 [hereinafter LOSC].

17 For a review of key soft law documents and initiatives including UN General Assembly resolutions addressing fisheries conservation, see Dawn A. Russell & David L. VanderZwaag, The International Law and Policy Seascape Governing Transboundary Fisheries, in Recasting Transboundary Fisheries Management Arrangements in Light of Sustainability Principles: Canadian and International Perspectives 9, 16–23 (Dawn A. Russell & David L. VanderZwaag eds., 2010).

18 FAO, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, FAO Doc. 95/20/Rev/1 (31 October 1995).

19 FAO, FAO Technical Guidelines For Responsible Fisheries, No. 4, Supp. 2, Fisheries Department, The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (2003).

20 FAO, FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 2, Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions (1996).

21 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 3 March 1973, 993 U.N.T.S. 243 [hereinafter CITES].

22 Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79 [hereinafter CBD].

23 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 23 June 1979, 1651 U.N.T.S. 333 [hereinafter CMS].

24 For a further discussion, see Donald R. Rothwell & Tim Stephens, The International Law of the Sea 342–344 (2010).

25 LOSC, supra note 16, at art. 192.

26 Id. at art. 194(5).

27 Not all white sturgeon are anadromous, that is, spending some of their time in ocean and coastal areas. For example, the Kootenai sturgeon population, inhabiting a unique headwater river system, has been isolated from oceans and other downstream Columbia River populations for over 10,000 years. See U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Idaho Fish & Wildlife Office, Status Review for Kootenai River White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) 6 (2010).

28 LOSC, supra note 16, at art. 66(1).

29 Id. at art. 66(2).

30 Id. at art. 66(4).

31 Phillipe Le Prestre & Peter Stoett, International Initiatives, Commitments, and Disappointments: Canada, CITES and the CBD, in Politics of the Wild: Canada and Endangered Species 190, 193 (Karen Beazley & Robert Boardman eds., 2001).

32 CITES, supra note 21.

33 Id.

34 Id. at art. III.

35 Le Prestre & Stoett, supra note 31, at 194.

36 CITES, supra note 21, at art. IV.

37 Id. at art. V.

38 Le Prestre & Stoett, supra note 31, at 193.

39 CITES, Appendices I, II, III (12 June 2013), available at http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/ eng/app/2013/E-Appendices-2013-06-12.pdf.

40 CITES, supra note 21, at art. IV(2).

41 As certified by the scientific body of the state. Id. at art. IV(2)(a).

42 Id. at art. IV(2)(b).

43 Id. at art. IV(2)(c).

44 Id. at art. IV(4).

45 CITES, Res. Conf. 12.7 (Rev. COP12): Conservation of and Trade in Sturgeons and Paddlefish (2002).

46 CITES, Res. Conf. 12.7 (Rev. COP16): Conservation of and Trade in Sturgeons and Paddlefish (2013), available at http://www.cites.org/eng/res/12/12-07R16.php.

47 Id.

48 Id.

49 CITES, Guidelines for a Universal Labelling System for Trade in and Identification of Caviar, in id., Annex 1.

50 Id.

51 Le Prestre & Stoett, supra note 31, at 201.

52 CBD, supra note 22, at art. 8(d).

53 Id. at art. 9.

54 Id. at art. 10.

55 Id. at art. 5.

56 Although the CBD does not refer to the precautionary approach by name, the spirit is captured, not only in the Preamble but also in Article 3, which provides that states have a responsibility to ensure that activities do not have a negative impact on the environment, as opposed to placing the burden of proof on those who claim there will be damage. CBD, supra note 22, at Preamble & art. 3.

57 CBD, COP 10 Decision X/2: The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2010).

58 CBD, Strategic Goals and the Biodiversity Targets, in id. at Annex 1.

59 CBD, COP 11 Decision XI/2: Review of Progress in Implementation of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and Related Capacity-building Support to Parties (2012).

60 CBD, COP 12 Decision XII/1: Mid-term Review of Progress in Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, at para. 6 (2014).

61 CMS, supra note 23, at art. II.

62 Id. at art. III.

63 Id. at art. IV.

64 For example, star sturgeon and Baltic sturgeon are listed under both Appendix I and II, while lake sturgeon, green sturgeon, Italian sturgeon, Persian sturgeon, and Chinese sturgeon are listed under Appendix II. Id. at apps. I, II, Species List (8 February 2015), available at http://www.cms.int/ en/species.

65 As of 11 June 2015. CMS, Parties and Range States, http://www.cms.int/en/parties-range-states (last visited 11 June 2015).

66 It is noted in an analysis by Elizabeth A. Baldwin, Twenty-five Years under the Convention on Migratory Species: Migration Conservation Lessons from Europe, 42 Envtl. L. 535, 552 (2011), that a number of agreements and memorandums of understanding made under the CMS have included non-parties.

67 Treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to Cooperative Development of the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin, US-Can., 17 January 1961, 15 U.S.T. 1555 (entered into force 16 September 1964) [hereinafter CRT].

68 The Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative represents the main transboundary collaboration, infra sec. 3.2. While the technical working group is directly involved in recovery planning and implementation, responsibility and accountability for management still lies with the individual countries. Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Plan: 2012 Revision 7–8 (Larry Hildebrand & Mike Parsley eds., 2013), available at http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/6836165/uppercolsturgeonplandec2012.pdf.

69 CRT, supra note 67, at art. II.

70 Id. at arts. V, VI.

71 Id. at art. XII.

72 Id. at art. XIV.

73 Providing for Certain Arrangements Under the Columbia River Treaty, Exec. Order No. 11,177, 3 C.F.R. 475 (16 September 1964).

74 CRT, supra note 67, at Canada-B.C. Agreement (8 July 1963).

75 CRT, supra note 67, at Attachment Relating to Terms of Sale.

76 Nigel Bankes & Barbara Cosens, Munk School of Global Affairs, The Future of the Columbia River Treaty iv-v (2012), available at http://powi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Future-of-the-Columbia-River-Treaty-2012.pdf.

77 As described infra sec. 5.1.3.

78 US Entity for the Columbia River Treaty, Record of Decision Libby Coordination Agreement 2, US-Can, 15 February 2000.

79 Id. at 3.

80 Id.

81 CRT, supra note 67, at art. XIX. This would require a situation that cannot be adequately controlled by storage facilities in the United States and is a right that has not been exercised to date. Bankes & Cosens, supra note 76, at 8.

82 CRT, supra note 67, at art. XIX.

83 Information from these consultations is made available via Canadian and American websites at British Columbia, Columbia River Treaty Review, blog.gov.bc.ca, http://blog.gov.bc.ca/ columbiarivertreaty (last visited 21 November 2015); US Army Corps of Engineers & Bonneville Power Admin., Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review, http://www.crt2014-2024review.gov/ (last visited 21 November 2015).

84 Columbia River Treaty Review, B.C. Decision, supra note 83.

85 Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review, U.S. Entity Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 (2013), available at http://www.crt2014-2024review.gov/Files/Regional%20Recommendation%20Final,%2013%20DEC%202013.pdf.

86 See John Currie, Public International Law ch. 2 (2001) (stating that International agreements can be entered into only by subjects of international law, typically sovereign states).

87 See Int’l Kootenay Lake Bd. of Control, 2014 Annual Report to the International Joint Commission 3 (2014), available at http://www.ijc.org/files/ publications/IKLBC%202014%20Annual%20Report_final.pdf.

88 See Int’l Columbia River Bd. of Control, 2014 Annual Report to the International Joint Commission 1 (2014), available at http://www.ijc.org/files/ publications/ColumbiaRBC_2014AnnRept.pdf.

89 Int’l Joint Comm’n (IJC), Columbia River, IJC – Protecting Shared Waters, http://www.ijc.org/en_/Columbia_River_Basin (last visited 25 November 2015). The Kootenay Lake Board oversees operations of the Corra Linn Dam operated by Fortis BC in British Columbia, while the Columbia River Board monitors and reports on water levels and discharges from the Grand Coulee Dam and reservoir. Id.

90 Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, supra note 68, at 7.

91 Id.

92 These were formerly known as the Action Planning Group and the Recovery Team, respectively, but were restructured in 2005 to better match the recovery process under the Canadian Species at Risk Act. See id. at 7–8 (describing the full tasks and responsibilities of each group).

93 Id. at 7.

94 Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Plan (2002), available at http://www.sgrc.selkirk.ca/bioatlas/pdf/ Upper_Columbia_White_Sturgeon_Recovery_Plan.pdf.

95 Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative (2012), supra note 68.

96 Id. at 80.

97 Id. at 81–82.

98 Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, Operational Plan 2013-2017 (April 2015 version).

99 The federal recovery plans for Canada and the United States are discussed infra secs. 4.1.1 and 5.1.3, respectively.

100 USFWS, Recovery Plan for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon (Acipenser Transmontanus), at ii (1999).

101 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at viii.

102 Based on the success of the binational, jointly written whooping crane recovery strategy, the American plan advocated for collaborating on white sturgeon in a similar fashion. While this may have seemed a reasonable goal at the time, as of 2015 the whooping crane strategy remains the only jointly written plan. Andrea Olive, The Road to Recovery: Comparing Canada and US Recovery Strategies for Shared Endangered Species, 58 Can. Geographer 263, 271 (2014).

103 Id. at 271 (finding that for the 24 species listed in both countries that had separate recovery plans completed in each country, only seven acknowledged the former plan existed—the Canadian recovery strategy for white sturgeon had not been released at the time of this analysis).

104 Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29, §§ 15-36 (Can.) [hereinafter SARA].

105 Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, § 6.1 (Can.).

106 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 1.

107 COSEWIC, supra note 1, at xxvii (noting that the designation was formerly listed as “vulnerable” from 1990–1999 and “rare” prior to 1990).

108 David L. VanderZwaag & Jeffrey A. Hutchings, Canada's Marine Species at Risk: Science and Law at the Helm, but a Sea of Uncertainties, 36 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 219, 221 (2005).

109 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 1.

110 The NSPs were as follows: Lower Fraser, Middle Fraser, Upper Fraser, Nechako, Upper Columbia, and Kootenay. COSEWIC, supra note 1, at xxvi.

111 Id.

112 Id. at xxvii.

113 This is an issue that many environmental groups campaigned for during the drafting of SARA. See generally, e.g., William Amos et al., In Search of a Minimum Winning Coalition: The Politics of Species-at-Risk Legislation in Canada, in Politics of the Wild: Canada and Endangered Species, supra note 31, at 137–162.

114 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 25(1) (Can.).

115 Id. § 2.

116 Id. § 25(3). It should be noted that there is absolutely nothing enforceable about the timeline given, and many ministerial responses do not feature any sort of timeline. There also is no SARA-mandated limit as to when the recommendation must be forwarded. This has led to many species, particularly marine, being left in a sort of listing limbo. VanderZwaag & Hutchings, supra note 108, at 232.

117 COSEWIC, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Response Statement for White Sturgeon (22 October 2004).

118 Id.

119 Id.

120 Id.; SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 25(3) (Can.).

121 Order Acknowledging Receipt of the Assessment Done Pursuant to Subsection 23(1) of the Act, C.R.C., SI/2005-115 (Can.).

122 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 25(3) (Can.).

123 Id. § 27(1.1).

124 Order Amending Schedules 1 to 3 to the Species at Risk Act, C. Gaz. II, SOR/2006-189 (Can.).

125 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 15(2) (Can.).

126 Order Amending Schedules 1 to 3 to the Species at Risk Act, C. Gaz. II, SOR/2006-189 (Can.). It should be noted that this decision is consistent with what has been described as a systematic failure on the part of SARA to protect marine species. Species that have been considered severely at risk by COSEWIC have often been refused status based on socioeconomic grounds, and the white sturgeon listing emphasizes this by leaving the only populations that support economic industry unprotected. A.Ø. Mooers et al., Biases in Legal Listing under Canadian Endangered Species Legislation, 21 Conservation Biology 572, 574–575 (2007); Jamie Marie McDevitt-Irwin et al., Missing the Safety Net: Evidence for Inconsistent and Insufficient Management of At-risk Marine Fishes in Canada, 72 Can. J. Fisheries & Aquatic Sci. 1596, 1599–1603 (2015), available at http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0030.

127 Provisions automatically apply because it is an aquatic species. If the species were not aquatic, a migratory bird, or located on federal lands, then SARA would not automatically provide any protection. SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 34 (Can.).

128 Id. § 32(1). It should be noted that exceptions can be made to this rule under § 83(4). This allows for activities that violate § 32(1) to be permitted, as long as they have been authorized by an Act of Parliament to do something that is permitted by the recovery strategy. The only activity that the recovery strategy currently allows an exception to be made for is conservation fish culture activities. Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 175.

129 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 32(2) (Can.).

130 This is something that SARA has been criticized for, as habitat loss is the most common threat affecting species at risk in Canada. See generally Oscar Venter et al., Threats to Endangered Species in Canada, 56 BioScience 903 (2006).

131 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 58(4) (Can.). Instead of an order, the Minister may instead make a statement in the public registry describing how the critical habitat is already protected by existing legislation. Id. § 58(5)(b). However, a legal challenge against the federal government determined that discretionary protection in legislation could not be used to meet this obligation. David Suzuki Found. v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2012 FCA 40, [2013] 4 F.C.R. 155 (Can. Fed. Ct.).

132 See infra secs. 4.1.2, 4.2.4.

133 See supra sec. 2.2.

134 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 130 (Can.).

135 Id. § 132.

136 Id. §§ 42(1), 43.

137 COSEWIC, supra note 1.

138 Id. at xxvi.

139 Id. at 26.

140 Id. at iii-iv.

141 Can., Minister of the Env’t, Response Statement—White Sturgeon, Upper Fraser River Population (18 December 2013), available at http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/ virtual_sara/files/statements/rs_1218_610_2013-9_e.pdf; Can., Minister of the Env’t, Response Statement—White Sturgeon, Lower Fraser River Population (18 December 2013), available at http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/statements/rs_1217_616_2013-9_e.pdf; Can., Minister of the Env’t, Response Statement—White Sturgeon, Upper Kootenay River Population (18 December 2013), available at http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/statements/rs_1216_609_2013-9_e.pdf; Can., Minister of the Env’t, Response Statement—White Sturgeon, Upper Columbia River Population (18 December 2013), available at http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/ statements/rs_1219_611_2013-9_e.pdf.

142 Response Statement—White Sturgeon, Upper Kootenay River Population, supra note 141; Response Statement—White Sturgeon, Upper Columbia River Population, supra note 141.

143 Response Statement—White Sturgeon, Upper Fraser River Population, supra note 141; Response Statement—White Sturgeon, Lower Fraser River Population, supra note 141.

144 Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [2014] F.C.J. No. 151, 2014 F.C. 148 (Can. Fed. Ct.). For a description of the standing of public interest groups in environmental litigation, see Marcia Valiante, The Courts and Environmental Policy Leadership, in Canadian Environmental Policy and Politics: Prospects for Leadership and Innovation 30, 31 (Debora L. VanNijnatten & Robert Boardman eds., 3d ed. 2009).

145 These four species were chosen to represent the broad, systemic problems underlying recovery planning for species at risk. Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), 2014 F.C. 148, at para. 35.

146 Id. at para. 25.

147 Id.

148 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 43(1) (Can.).

149 Id. § 43(2).

150 Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), 2014 F.C. 148, at para. 24.

151 Id. at paras. 128–131.

152 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2.

153 Id. at x.

154 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 41(1)(c) (Can.). This means that, if possible, geographic habitat area must be identified, as well as the characteristics that make that habitat vital. Environmental Defence Canada v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [2009] CarswellNat 2698, 2009 F.C. 878 (Can. Fed. Ct.).

155 The idea of NSPs is still used in the recovery plan, as it was designed as a product of the 2006 SARA listing that was based on the 2003 COSEWIC Assessment, not the 2012 Assessment.

156 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 62–136.

157 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 58(5) (Can.).

158 Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), 2014 F.C. 148, at para. 128. (Can. Fed. Ct.).

159 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 47 (Can.).

160 This separation of science and policy is not seen in the American Endangered Species Act and is one of the complaints levelled against that legislation. E.g., Olive, supra note 102.

161 E.g., Ecojustice et al., Canada's Species at Risk Act: Implementation at a Snail's Pace (April 2009), available at http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2009/SpeciesAtRisk_April29.pdf.

162 Gov't of Can., Action Plans, Species at Risk Public Registry, http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/recovery/actionPlansTimelines_e.cfm (last visited 25 January 2016).

163 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, § 41(g) (Can.).

164 Id. § 50(4).

165 The Recovery Strategy proposes the publication of an action plan or plans within five years. Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 174.

166 See, e.g., Comm’r on the Env't & Sustainable Dev., Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons: Protecting Fish Habitat 8 (Spring 2009).

167 Jobs, Growth & Long-term Prosperity Act, R.S.C. 2012, c.19 (Can.) (amending Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, (Can.)).

168 Although the former purpose of protecting fish has never been explicitly articulated by government, it has long been viewed as the objective of the Fisheries Act. The new purpose is very clearly articulated in the Fisheries Act. Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, § 6.1 (Can.).

169 Jeffrey A. Hutchings & John R. Post, Gutting Canada's Fisheries Act: No Fishery, No Fish Habitat Protection, 38 Fisheries 497, 497 (November 2013).

170 Commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries are defined in the Fisheries Act at section 2, and what supports one is discussed in Fisheries & Oceans Can., Implementing the New Fisheries Protection Provisions under the Fisheries Act, 5 Fisheries & Oceans Can. (April 2013).

171 Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, § 35 (Can.).

172 Id. § 2(2).

173 EcoJustice, Legal Backgrounder: Fisheries Act, at 3–4 (2013), available at http://www.ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Ecojustice-Fisheries-Act-Feb-2013.pdf.

174 Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, §§ 35(2)(c), 43(1)(i.3) (Can.).

175 EcoJustice, supra note 173, at 8.

176 James C. Echols, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Review of Fraser River White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) 17 (1995).

177 Although aboriginal fishing is not permitted at this time as either directed or by-catch, it is acknowledged that at a future time it may be allowed. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, supra note 2, at 177–178.

178 This uncertainty on whether a conservation ban causes a loss of aboriginal fishery status is one of multiple issues that the Assembly of First Nations has against the amended Fishery Act. These issues are briefly discussed in Assembly of First Nations, Technical Overview: Fisheries Act Amendments, at 3 (21 November 2012), available at http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/12-11-21_fisheries_technical_overview.pdf.</FN178>

179 Originally created under the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Paul M. Wood & Laurie Flahr, Taking Endangered Species Seriously? British Columbia's Species-at-Risk Policies, 30 Can. J. Pub. Pol’y 381, 386 (2004).

180 BC Ministry of Env’t, B.C. Conservation Data Centre: About the CDC, Ministry of Env’t, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cdc/about.html (last visited 22 November 2015).

181 Andrew P. Harcombe, The Conservation Data Centre: For the Greatest about the Least, in Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, 13, 15–16 (L.M. Darling ed., BC Ministry of Env’t, Lands & Parks & U.C. of the Cariboo 2000).

182 Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488 (Can.).

183 Forest and Range Protection Act, 2002 R.S.B.C., c. 69 (Can.) [hereinafter FRPA]. This act largely replaced the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, R.S.B.C., c. 159 (1996) (Can.).

184 This lack of stand-alone environmental protection has been the source of criticism from many ENGOs. This has led to the initiation of a campaign encouraging the provincial government to adopt more appropriate legislation. See British Columbia: The Last Place on Earth, David Suzuki Found., http://www.protectbiodiversity.ca/homepage (last visited 28 July 2015). British Columbia and Alberta are currently the only Canadian provinces that do not have stand-alone legislation. Id.

185 For a detailed discussion on this issue, see Maria-Lena Di Giuseppe, Bridging Science and Law Across Jurisdictions in Canadian Species at Risk Policy: Four Case Studies ch. 6.0 (2011) (unpublished MASc thesis, Ryerson University), available at http://digital.library.ryerson.ca/islandora/object/RULA%3A1099/datastream/OBJ/view.

186 Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, Recovery Plan for Nechako White Sturgeon, at i, 51 (2004), available at http://nechakowhitesturgeon.org/uploads/files/Recovery%20Plan%20July07%202004.pdf.

187 Harcombe, supra note 181, at 14–15.

188 Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, supra note 186, at 51.

189 Harcombe, supra note 181, at 14–15.

190 Id. at 14-15.

191 Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, supra note 186, at 51.

192 Gov't of BC, Conservation Status Report: Acipenser transmontanus pop. 1–6, BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer, http://a100.gov.bc.ca/ pub/eswp (last visited 28 July 2015).

193 Id.

194 Gov't of Canada, Accord for Protection of Species at Risk (1996), Species at Risk Public Registry, https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=92D90833-1 (last updated 3 October 2014).

195 Wood & Flahr, supra note 179, at 384.

196 This would classify a species as endangered. Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488, § 6(1) (Can.).

197 This would designate a species as threatened. Id. § 6(2).

198 Gov't of BC, BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer, gov.bc.ca, http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (last visited 26 December 2015) (showing that these species are the Burrowing Owl, Sea Otter, Vancouver Island Marmot, and American White Pelican).

199 Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488, § 26(1)(a) (Can.).

200 Id. § 78.

201 Id. § 4(2).

202 Id. § 5.

203 Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488 (Can.) (stating that the Wildlife Act was amended by Wildlife Amendment Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 56 (Can.)).

204 Faisal Moola et al., Waiting for the Ark: The Biodiversity Crisis in British Columbia, Canada, and the Need for a Strong Endangered Species Law, 8 Biodiversity 3, 10 (2007).

205 Wood & Flahr, supra note 179, at 388.

206 Canada–British Columbia Agreement on Species at Risk, Can.-B.C., § 2.4, 19 April 2005.

207 Gov't of BC, supra note 198 (stating that in comparison to the four species legally listed under the Wildlife Act, there are currently 823 species and populations listed under the CDC Red List).

208 FRPA, 2002 R.S.B.C., c. 69 (Can.). Protection is provided by Government Action Regulations, BC Reg. 582/2004 (Can.), made under the authority of FRPA.

209 Government Action Regulations, B.C. Reg. 582/2004 § 13(1) (Can.).

210 Id. § 11(1).

211 Ministry of Env’t, Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, British Columbia, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/index.html (last visited 22 November 2015).

212 Water Act, R.S.B.C.1996, c. 483 (Can.).

213 British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations, SOR/96-137 (Can.).

214 Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 (UK), reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, app. II, no. 5 (Can.).

215 For a discussion of the jurisdiction in the other provinces, see Fisheries & Oceans Can., Freshwater Initiative: Discussion Document 4–5 (1999).

216 Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14 (Can.). Tidal refers to brackish and ocean waters found downstream of Mission Bridge. Echols, supra note 176, at 16.

217 Fishery (General) Regulations, SOR/93-53, § 6(3) (Can.). Note that this does not apply to Pacific salmon, which is managed by the federal government under British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations, SOR/96-137 (Can.).

218 Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, supra note 68, at 70.

219 Echols, supra note 176, at 19.

220 Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, supra note 68, at 69.

221 Troy C. Nelson et al., Status of White Sturgeon in the Lower Fraser River, British Columbia, 38 Fisheries 197, 199 (2013).

222 Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, supra note 68, at 70.

223 Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, supra note 186, at 52.

224 For the period from April 2013 to March 2015, fisheries were broken into a number of different regions, with each zone having specific guidelines. British Columbia, 2013–2015 Freshwater Fishing Regulations Synopsis, British Columba Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations (last visited 22 November 2015).

225 Angling and Scientific Collection Regulation, BC Reg. 125/90, § 2.001 (Can.).

226 British Columbia, White Sturgeon Conservation Licence, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/licences (last visited 22 November 2015).

227 British Columbia, Guidelines for Angling White Sturgeon in BC, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/docs/ ws_guidelines.pdf (last visited 22 November 2015).

228 Fish Protection Act, S.B.C.1997, c. 21. (Can.).

229 Id. § 4(1)(g).

230 Id. § 4(3).

231 Id. § 6(2).

232 Id. § 6(3).

233 Id. § 6(4). More information on the type of information required to fulfill these criteria are provided in the Sensitive Streams Designation and Licensing Regulation, BC Reg. 89/2000 (Can.).

234 Fish Protection Act, S.B.C.1997, c. 21, § 7(2)(a) (Can.).

235 Id. § 7(2)(b).

236 Id. § 7(4).

237 Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1531–1544 (2012).

238 Mary Illical & Kathryn Harrison, Protecting Endangered Species in the US and Canada: The Role of Negative Lesson Drawing, 40 Can. J. Pol. Sci. 367 (2007).

239 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A).

240 Id. § 1532(15).

241 Robin S. Waples et al., A Tale of Two Acts: Endangered Species Listing Practices in Canada and the United States, 63 BioScience 723, 724 (2013).

242 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16).

243 Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act, 61 Fed. Reg. 4722 (7 February 1996).

244 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) (2012). In comparison, over 95 percent of SARA listings were initiated by COSEWIC. Waples et al., supra note 241, at 726.

245 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A).

246 Id. § 1533(b)(3)(B).

247 Id. § 1533(b)(3)(B)(ii).

248 Id. § 1533(b)(6)(A).

249 Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, 70 Fed. Reg. 2664 (14 January 2005).

250 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2).

251 E.g., Fla. Home Builders Ass’n v. Norton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (where the USFWS was successfully sued based on its failure to conduct five-year reviews for 89 species).

252 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a).

253 Id. § 1533(d).

254 Id. § 1532(19).

255 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687 (1995).

256 16 U.S.C. § 1539.

257 Id. § 1533(f)(1).

258 Via the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives. Id. § 1533(f)(3).

259 Id. § 1533(a)(3)(A)(i).

260 Id. § 1533(a)(3)(A)(ii).

261 Id. § 1533(b)(2).

262 Id. §1536(a)(2).

263 50 C.F.R. § 402.16 (2013).

264 As of 2013, there were no existing plans or petitions to list other populations of white sturgeon as a species at risk. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Comm’n et al., Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework 26 (Ray Beamesderfe & Paul Anders eds., 2013) [hereinafter Columbia Basin Framework]. Management responsibility for populations not classified as at risk lies with the individual states. For a description of state measures taken for white sturgeon conservation, see infra sec. 5.2.

265 Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 56 Fed. Reg. 58,804 (21 November 1991).

266 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 58 Fed. Reg. 19,401 (14 April 1993).

267 Id.

268 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A) (2012).

269 Proposed Endangered Status for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 58 Fed. Reg. 36,379 (7 July 1993).

270 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B).

271 58 Fed. Reg. 54,549 (22 October 1993).

272 Determination of Endangered Status for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 59 Fed. Reg. 45,989 (6 September 1994).

273 The comments received are summarized and responded to in id.

274 Id.

275 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(6)(A).

276 Determination of Endangered Status for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 59 Fed. Reg. at 45,992–45,995.

277 Id.

278 Notice of Availability of a Draft Recovery Plan for the Kootenai River Population of White Sturgeon in Idaho and Montana for Review and Comment, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,441 (2 July 1996).

279 USFWS, supra note 100, at 29.

280 Id. at ii.

281 Id. at vi.

282 Id. at app. F-3.

283 Which is also legally listed as a threatened species.

284 USFWS, supra note 100, at 76–83.

285 Id. at 40.

286 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, No. C-99-32092, slip op. (N.D. Cal. 4 March 1999). This suit was seeking critical habitat designation for the Kootenai white sturgeon, as well as the Bay checkerspot butterfly, Monterey spineflower, and robust spineflower. Id.

287 See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, No. C-99-3202, slip op. at 19 (N.D.Cal. 2000).

288 Id.

289 Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,698, 80,700 (21 December 2000).

290 Frequently Asked Questions about Designated Critical Habitat and the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, USFWS, http://www.fws.gov/pacific/press/q&a/Sturgeonq&a.htm (last visited 28 July 2015).

291 See generally Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,698 (21 December 2000).

292 See id. at 80,702.

293 See id. at 80,698.

294 Reopening of Public Comment Period and Notice of Availability of Draft Economic Analysis for Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Kootenai River Population of White Sturgeon, 66 Fed. Reg. 20,962 (26 April 2001). The draft economic analysis was completed in February 2001 but was released to the public when the comment period reopened. It is available at www.fws.gov/pacific/news/pdf/2001-60.pdf.

295 See N.M. Cattle Growers Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that US Fish and Wildlife Service must analyze all economic impacts of designating critical habitat regardless of whether the impacts are also caused by another circumstance, such as listing a species as endangered).

296 USFWS, Final Addendum to Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon (2001).

297 Id.

298 Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 66 Fed. Reg. 46,548 (6 September 2001).

299 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. US Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CV 03-29-M-DWM (D. Mont. 25 May 2005).

300 Id.

301 Id.

302 Id. (referenced in 71 Fed. Reg. 6383 (8 February 2006)).

303 Id.

304 See id. The suitability of gravel substrate for spawning had previously been tested by the government over two years. To make reaches with gravel substrate accessible during spawning season, flow from Libby Dam was increased, but there was no evidence of spawning detected. Id.

305 Order, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. US Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CV 03-29-M-DWM (D. Mont. 25 May 2005).

306 See id.

307 Critical Habitat Designation for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 71 Fed. Reg. 6383, 6387 (8 February 2006).

308 See id.

309 Nw. Econ. Assocs., Draft Revised Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Kootenai River White Sturgeon (2006).

310 Critical Habitat Designation for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 71 Fed. Reg. at 6387.

311 Id. (noting that designating critical habitat without public consultation is legally permissible if necessary, as per 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B) (2012)).

312 This was originally reported as 11.1 river kilometers but was recognized as a mathematic error. Critical Habitat Revised Designation for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), 73 Fed. Reg. 39,506, 39,512 (9 July 2008).

313 Critical Habitat Designation for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 71 Fed. Reg. at 6387.

314 Id. at 6383.

315 See Motion, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. US Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. CV 03-29-M-DWM (D. Mont. 21 April 2006) (stipulated settlement agreement).

316 See Complaint, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. US Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. CV 03-29-M-DWM (D. Mont. 17 September 2007).

317 See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. US Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. CV 03-29-M-DWM (D. Mont. 2 September 2008).

318 Id.

319 Critical Habitat Revised Designation for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), 73 Fed. Reg. 39,506, 39,517 (9 July 2008) (referring to Entrix, Final Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Kootenai River White Sturgeon (2008)).

320 Id.

321 Via the impact to a hop farm owned by Anheuser-Busch brewing company, Critical Habitat Revised Designation for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), 73 Fed. Reg. at 39,517.

322 See id.

323 Id. at 39,507, 39,509.

324 Motion, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. US Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. CV 03-29-M-DWM (D. Mont. 21 April 2006) (stipulated settlement agreement).

325 Id.

326 For more information on the ecosystem restoration project, see Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Project Master Plan: A Conceptual Feasibility Analysis and Design Framework (2009).

327 Order, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. US Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. CV 03-29-M-DWM (D. Mont. 11 September 2008).

328 16 U.S.C. § 1533(g) (2012).

329 5-Year Status Reviews of 69 Species in Idaho, Washington, Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 75 Fed. Reg. 17,947 (8 April 2010).

330 US Fish & Wildlife Serv., Idaho Fish & Wildlife Office, supra note 27.

331 Id. at 4.

332 Id. at 18–20.

333 Idaho Code Ann. § 36–103 (2014).

334 Idaho Code Ann. § 67-818 (2014).

335 Idaho Dep't of Fish & Game, Management Plan for the Conservation of Snake River White Sturgeon in Idaho (2008); Idaho Dep't of Fish & Game, Fisheries Management Plan 2013–2018 (2013).

336 Fisheries Management Plan 2013–2018, supra note 335.

337 Id.

338 Idaho Dep't of Fish & Game, White Sturgeon: “Low Impact” Fishing Rules & Tips, available at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/fish/sturgeonFishingTips.pdf (last visited 23 November 2015).

339 Management Plan for the Conservation of Snake River White Sturgeon in Idaho, supra note 335, at 19.

340 Mont. Code. Ann. § 87-1-201 (2013); USFWS, supra note 100, at 32.

341 Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Montana Statewide Fisheries Management Plan 2013–2018 (2013); Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Draft Montana's State Wildlife Action Plan (2014).

342 Draft Montana's State Wildlife Action Plan, supra note 341, at 254.

343 Jones et al., Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lower Columbia River and Oregon Coast White Sturgeon Conservation Plan 11 (2011).

344 Or. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Native Fish Conservation Policy 3 (2003).

345 Jones et al., supra note 343.

346 Columbia Basin Framework, supra note 264, at 21.

347 For a full timeline of fishery regulations in the state, see Jones et al., supra note 343, at 22–28.

348 Bruce E. Rieman & Raymond C. Beamesderfer, White Sturgeon in the Lower Columbia River: Is the Stock Overexploited?, 10 N. Am. J. Fisheries Mgmt. 388, 394 (1990).

349 For a full description of the origin of the shared management arrangement, see Fronda Woods, The Columbia River Compact (2008), available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/crc/ files/col_r_compact_2008.pdf.

350 Act of 2 March 1853, ch. 90, § 21, 10 Stat. 172, 179.

351 See, e.g., In re Mattson, 69 F. 535 (Or. Cir. Ct. 1895) (determining that a person fishing in Washington could not be punished for fishing during a time the fishery in Oregon was closed, given that there was no closure in Washington at that time).

352 Woods, supra note 349, at 2.

353 Id.

354 42 Or. Rev. Stat. § 507.010 (2011); 77 Wash. Rev. Code § 77.75.020 (2014).

355 As per H.R. 2617, 65th Cong. ch. 47 (1918); US Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3, agreements or compacts between states require approval from Congress.

356 Jones et al., supra note 343, at 66.

357 Id. at 26.

358 Id.

359 Id. at 27.

360 Id.

361 United States v. Oregon, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969).

362 Id. at 908.

363 Id. at 907.

364 United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 343 (W.D. Wash. 1974) was subsequently applied to the ongoing management of United States v. Oregon. Columbia Basin Framework, supra note 264, at 24.

365 Columba River Inter-Tribal Fish Comm’n, CRITFC Mission & Vision, critfc.org, http://www.critfc.org/about-us/mission-vision/ (last visited 28 July 2015).

366 Parties to United States v. Oregon, 2008–2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement (2008), available at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/salmon_steelhead/sr–079.2008-2017.usvor.management.agreement_042908.pdf.

367 Id. at 58.

368 Id.

369 Jones et al., supra note 343, at 26.

370 Id.

371 Id.

372 Id. at 26–27.

373 Columbia Basin Framework, supra note 264, at 71.

374 Wash. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Washington State Species of Concern Lists, wdfw.wa.gov, http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/All/ (last visited 10 November 2015).

375 This list also includes all the species listed as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. Wash. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species List 39 (2008).

376 Columbia Basin Framework, supra note 264, at 19.

377 Wash. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species (PHS), wdfw.wa.gov, http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs (last visited 28 July 2015).

378 Columbia Basin Framework, supra note 264, at 20.

379 Wash. Fish & Wildlife Comm’n, Policy Decision C-3001 (2014).

380 Columbia Basin Framework, supra note 264, at 20.

381 Cal. Fish & Game Code § 7370(a) (2014).

382 Id.

383 Id. § 7145(a).

384 Id.

385 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 5.79(a)­–(b) (2014) (inland); id. § 27.92(a)­–(b) (ocean).

386 Id. § 5.80(b) (inland); id. § 27.90(b) (ocean).

387 Id. § 5.80(c) (inland); id. § 27.90(c) (ocean).

388 Id. § 5.80(e) (inland); id. § 27.90(e) (ocean).

389 Id. § 5.80(d) (inland); id. § 27.90(d) (ocean).

390 Id. § 5.80(a) (inland); § id. 27.90(a) (ocean). For areas closed to sturgeon fishing, see id. § 5.80(g), (i).

391 White Sturgeon Planning Comm., Pac. States Marine Fisheries Comm’n, White Sturgeon Management Framework Plan (1992).

392 Columbia Basin Framework, supra note 264, at 15.

393 Id.

394 The NPCC is a regional planning group created by the government under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. 16 U.S.C. § 839 (2012).

395 SARA, S.C. 2002, c. 29, §§ 15–36 (Can.).

396 Determination of Endangered Status for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon, 59 Fed. Reg. 45,989 (6 September 1994).

397 Columbia Basin Framework, supra note 264.

398 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 174.

399 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Idaho Fish & Wildlife Office, supra note 27, at 20.

400 Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, supra note 68, at iii.

401 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 45–48.

402 See Troy C. Nelson et al., Research Tools to Investigate Movements, Migrations, and Life History of Sturgeons (Acipenseridae), with an Emphasis on Marine-oriented Populations, 8 PLOS One 1 (2013).

403 Order Amending Schedules 1 to 3 to the Species at Risk Act, C. Gaz. II, SOR/2006-189 (Can.).

404 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 26.

405 See David L. VanderZwaag, Transboundary Challenges and Cooperation in the Gulf of Maine: Riding a Restless Sea toward Misty Shores, in Law of the Sea: The Common Heritage and Emerging Challenges 265, 281–282 (Harry N. Scheiber ed., 2000).

406 Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Initiative, supra note 98, at 1.

407 The possibility of experimenting with and implementing hydro-operation alternatives to improve natural recruitment is already listed as a future action item. Id. at 12.

408 Fisheries & Oceans Can., supra note 2, at 50–51.

409 Welch et al., supra note 8, at 387.

410 Id. at 388.

411 See Dawn A. Russell & David L. VanderZwaag, Ecosystem and Precautionary Approaches to International Fisheries Governance: Beacons of Hope, Seas of Confusion, in Transboundary Fisheries Management Arrangement in Light of Sustainability Principles: Canadian and International Perspectives 25 (Dawn A. Russell & David L. VanderZwaag eds., 2010).

412 See Emily J. Pudden & David L. VanderZwaag, Canada-United States Bilateral Fisheries Management in the Gulf of Maine: Struggling towards Sustainability Under the Radar Screen, in Transboundary Fisheries Management Arrangement in Light of Sustainability Principles: Canadian and International Perspectives, supra note 411, at 177, 188.

413 Framework for Cooperation between the US Department of the Interior and Environment Canada in the Protection and Recovery of Wild Species at Risk, U.S.-Can., 7 April 1997, available at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/borderline_species01.pdf.

414 Minister of Pub. Works & Gov't Servs. Can. & US Dep't of the Interior, Conserving Borderline Species 1 n.1 (2011).

415 Ted L. Mcdorman, Salt Water Neighbors: International Ocean Law Relations Between The United States and Canada (2009).

416 David L. VanderZwaag, Sustaining Atlantic Marine Species at Risk: Scientific and Legal Coordinates, Sea of Governance Challenges, in Science, Technology, and New Challenges to Ocean Law 149, 164 (Harry N. Scheiber, James Kraska, and Moon-Sang Kwon eds., 2015).