Multi-species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park of Canada

Species at Risk Act

Action Plan Series

2026

On this page

• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Executive Summary
• 1. Context
  • 1.1 Parks Canada Multi-species Action Planning
  • 1.2 Grasslands National Park
  • 1.3 Scope of the action plan
    • 1.3.1. Geographic scope
    • 1.3.2. Species scope
• 2. Site-based population and distribution objectives
• 3. Conservation and recovery measures
  • 3.1 Conservation and recovery measure approaches
  • 3.2 Classification of measures
• 4. Critical habitat
  • 4.1 Identification of Critical Habitat for Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer
    • Biophysical Attributes
    • Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat
  • 4.2 Identification of Critical Habitat for Mountain Plover
    • Biophysical Attributes
    • Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat
  • 4.3 Identification of Critical Habitat for Prairie Loggerhead Shrike
    • Biophysical Attributes
    • Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat
  • 4.4 Identification of Critical Habitat for Sprague's Pipit
    • Biophysical Attributes
    • Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat
  • 4.5 Identification of Critical Habitat for Swift Fox
    • Biophysical Attributes
    • Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat
  • Proposed measures to protect critical habitat
• 5. Evaluation of socio-economic costs and of benefits
  • 5.1 Costs
  • 5.2 Benefits
• 6. Measuring progress
• 7. References
• Appendix A: Species information, objectives and monitoring plans for species at risk in GNP
• Appendix B: Conservation and recovery measures that will be implemented
• Appendix C: Other conservation and recovery measures that will be implemented if partnerships or additional resources become available

Preface

The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996)^{Footnote 2} agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada. The Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) (SARA) was enacted to protect wildlife species at risk in Canada and to complement other legislation in conserving Canada's biodiversity. Today, SARA is a key contributor Canada's 2030 Nature Strategy – Halting and Reversing Biodiversity Loss in Canada, which charts a path for how Canada will implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Under SARA, the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of action plans for species listed as Extirpated, Endangered, and Threatened for which recovery has been deemed feasible. They are also required to report on progress five years after the publication of action plans on the Species at Risk Public Registry.

Species at risk action plans provide detailed recovery planning that supports the strategic direction set out in recovery strategies. They outline what needs to be done to achieve the population and distribution objectives identified in recovery strategies, including the measures to be taken to address the threats, the monitoring of the recovery of the species, as well as the proposed measures to protect critical habitat identified for the species. Action plans also include an evaluation of the socio-economic costs of the plan and the benefits to be derived from its implementation. Action plans are considered one in a series of documents that are linked and should be taken into consideration together, including COSEWIC status reports, recovery strategies, and other action plans produced for the species.

The Minister responsible for Parks Canada is the competent minister under SARA for species found in Grasslands National Park (GNP) of Canada and has prepared this action plan to implement recovery strategies that apply to the park as per section 47 of SARA. It has been prepared in cooperation with Indigenous communities, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the province of Saskatchewan as per section 48(1) of SARA.

Success in the recovery of these species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies and will not be achieved by Parks Canada or any other jurisdiction alone. All Canadians are invited to join in supporting and implementing this action plan for the benefit of multiple species and Canadian society as a whole.

Implementation of this action plan is subject to appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints of Parks Canada and participating jurisdictions and organizations.

Acknowledgments

Parks Canada would like to acknowledge those who have contributed to the development of this action plan.

We acknowledge that Grasslands National Park is part of Treaty 4 territory and homeland to the Métis. These prairies are home to Indigenous nations who for millennia linked their lives to the migrations of the buffalo including the A'aninin (Gros Ventre), Nakoda (Assiniboine), Nehiyawak (Plains Cree), Niitsitapi (Blackfoot), Dakota, Lakota, and the Métis.

This action plan has been prepared in consultation and engagement with Indigenous communities, and key stakeholders and partners including the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, Wood Mountain Lakota First Nation, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Department of Fisheries & Oceans, South of the Divide Conservation Action Plan, Saskatchewan Species At Risk Coordinating Committee, Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo, Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Royal Alberta Museum, Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, and other species experts. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment was consulted by providing them with an opportunity to comment on the draft plan.

An initial phase of consultation with species experts took the form of a two-day site analysis workshop held virtually on October 22 to 23, 2024, to support prioritization of recovery measures, as well as identify cross-functional opportunities and impacts. Over 40 participants were invited to the workshop, representing eight organizations as well as individual interests. Regular updates were also provided throughout the process at Saskatchewan Species at Risk Coordinating Committee meetings, and South of the Divide core team meetings.

A draft action plan was prepared following the first phase of consultation. A second phase of consultation on the draft action plan was held from December 24th, 2025 to January 31st, 2026, when the draft plan was circulated to a broader range of stakeholder groups to solicit feedback. Lastly, a third phase of consultation occurred when the document was posted online on the Species at Risk Public Registry for public comment.

A special thanks goes out to all of those who contributed to the content of this plan and contributed their time, expertise and information. Many thanks to all who participated. Your feedback has helped shape the updated Multi-species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park.

Executive Summary

This Multi-species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park of Canada updates and replaces content in the 2016 action plan for the site^{Footnote 3}. It applies to land and waters occurring within the boundaries of Grasslands National Park (GNP). The plan identifies measures to conserve or recover SARA-listed species, species of conservation concern, and culturally important species that regularly occur^{Footnote 4} in GNP and fulfills SARA s47 requirements for those species that require an action plan. Considerations related to landscape-scale conservation, ecological connectivity, climate-smart conservation, and culturally important species were central themes in the development of this action plan.

38 species that regularly occur in GNP are addressed in this action plan: 33 SARA-listed species and 5 additional species of conservation concern, e.g., COSEWIC assessed but not SARA-listed, provincially listed. Twenty-one of the SARA-listed species are Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened (and require an action plan as per SARA) and 12 are Special Concern. Including non-SARA-listed species of conservation concern provides a comprehensive plan for species conservation and recovery at the site.

10 site-based population and distribution objectives are identified in this plan and represent the site's contribution to range-wide objectives for the species as identified in SARA recovery strategies and management plans. Measuring progress towards achieving site-based objectives over time will determine the ecological impacts of implementing the action plan.

Conservation and recovery measures were developed to mitigate the main threats to the species within the park. In addition to filling knowledge gaps, the top five known threats addressed within this action plan are:

21 conservation and recovery measures are identified as commitments in this action plan. An additional 24 measures will be implemented if resources and/or partnerships become available to support the work. Committed measures fall within the following categories:

Critical habitat is identified in this action plan for the Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer, Mountain Plover, Prairie Loggerhead Shrike, Sprague's Pipit and Swift Fox. The critical habitat for these species is carried forward from the 2016 multi-species action plan into this action plan to ensure continuity of legal protection. Measures to protect critical habitat already identified for species addressed in this plan are described.

The financial cost to implement this action plan will be borne by Parks Canada, and through partnerships if resources become available. The main costs of implementing the measures in this plan are expected to be minimal, mainly through visitor restrictions to certain areas of the park during management or protection activities. Lease holders may be impacted by best management practices to protect species at risk and their habitat. Benefits of this action plan include the targeted recovery of species at risk and an overall positive impact on biodiversity, contributing to federal and global sustainability goals. Benefits also include increased engagement with visitors on species conservation, increased awareness of environmental issues, bison rematriation, stewardship opportunities, and grazing access within the park for lessees.

Progress toward implementation of this action plan and meeting the site-based population and distribution objectives will be assessed and a report summarizing the results will be published on the Species at Risk Public Registry after five years, as per section 55 of SARA.

1. Context

This Multi-species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park of Canada updates and replaces content in the 2016 action plan (Parks Canada Agency 2016). Under Section 52 of the Species at Risk Act, the competent minister may amend an action plan at any time. This amendment is being published now to update species information and integrate knowledge and new information gained during implementation of the 2016 action plan. The five-year implementation report for the 2016 action plan is available on the Species at Risk Public Registry^{Footnote 5}.

1.1 Parks Canada Multi-species Action Planning

Parks Canada takes a multi-species, site-based approach to action planning that identifies and prioritizes conservation and recovery measures for a suite of species at one or more Parks Canada sites. This approach enables Parks Canada to consider the needs of multiple species and identify and prioritize measures that can be implemented at the site(s) to provide the greatest contributions to species conservation and recovery.

Parks Canada multi-species action plans focus on lands and waters under Parks Canada's administration; however, Indigenous communities, neighbouring jurisdictions, partners, stakeholders, and species and subject-matter experts are engaged throughout development and implementation of the plans. This collaborative approach facilitates cooperation on species conservation and recovery at a landscape scale.

The action planning process considers a suite of species that occur regularly at the site(s), including species at risk listed in Schedule 1 of SARA, species assessed by COSEWIC and under consideration for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA, provincially listed species, and other species of interest, including those of cultural importance. Including species that don't legally require a SARA action plan enables Parks Canada to take a holistic approach and develop a comprehensive plan for species conservation and recovery at the site(s).

In many cases, federal and provincial recovery strategies and plans, management plans, and action plans have been prepared for the species included in this action plan. Along with COSEWIC status assessments, those documents provide guidance for the recovery of individual species, including the identification of threats, recovery objectives, strategic direction to achieve objectives, and identification of critical habitat. This action plan is consistent with those recovery documents and should be viewed as part of this body of linked strategies and plans.

Parks Canada's approach to multi-species action planning aligns with the Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation in Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service, 2018). It considers priorities of landscape-scale conservation, ecological connectivity, climate-smart conservation, Indigenous conservation, and cultural species. In addition, Parks Canada is increasingly using the adaptive management framework Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (i.e., Conservation Standards) to support and inform the action planning process.

Implementation of the conservation and recovery measures identified in these action plans is often integrated into the existing framework of Parks Canada conservation programs. Ecological integrity is a cornerstone of Parks Canada's mandate to protect and present significant examples of Canada's natural heritage. It is the first priority in the management of Canada's National Parks. In addition to the protections provided under SARA, species at risk, their residences, and their habitat in Parks Canada places are often protected under additional federal acts and regulations, including but not limited to the Migratory Birds Convention Act and regulations, Fisheries Act, Canada National Parks Act, and the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act.

1.2 Grasslands National Park

Grasslands National Park (GNP) was established in 1981 and covers 844 km2 of southwestern Saskatchewan (Figure 1). The park is Canada's first and only national park established to represent the mixed-grass prairie and to protect a representative example of the Prairie Grasslands Natural Region. Erosion by glacial melt-water formed many of the park's characteristic features. The West Block centers on the Frenchman River Valley and the East Block features the Badlands of Rock Creek and the Wood Mountain Uplands. The landscape is unique with a harsh, semi-arid climate where grasses are the dominant plant form in the park. Where there is more moisture in coulees and valley floors, shrubs and trees have established. Historically, grazing has always been on the landscape and is required for ecosystem function.

Despite its small size, the park supports a high diversity of flora and fauna including many species at risk, many of which are at the northern extent of their range in North America. Over 90% of the park is critical habitat and is home to over 40 species listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act. In particular, the park protects the last known active lek (mating ground) of the Greater Sage-grouse in Saskatchewan, with approximately two-thirds of the park being protected by an Emergency Protection Order for the species. Additionally, the only remaining wild population of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs (not included in this action plan because they are already addressed in the Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Canada (2021)) exists within Grasslands National Park and its immediate surroundings, supporting several other species at risk including the Burrowing Owl, Mountain Plover, American Badger, Prairie Rattlesnake and Ferruginous Hawk. Lastly, previously extirpated species such as Plains Bison and Swift Fox have been reintroduced in the park. The Plains Bison herd in Grasslands National Park is one of the largest and genetically diverse herds on undisturbed mixed-grass prairie in Canada. These are a few of the many examples of how the park plays an important role in species at risk conservation.

This Grasslands National Park action plan complements the larger Action Plan for Multiple Species at Risk in Southwestern Saskatchewan: South of the Divide developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Province of Saskatchewan (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2017). The South of the Divide Action Plan encompasses the Saskatchewan portion of the Milk River drainage basin excluding Grasslands National Park. Together the Federal Government and the Government of Saskatchewan are working to ensure unified wildlife conservation in this area of southwest Saskatchewan.

1.3 Scope of the action plan

The geographic scope of this action plan focuses on lands and waters managed by Parks Canada within Grasslands National Park (Figure 1). This plan does not include the national historic sites included in the 2016 multi-species action plan (Fort Walsh and Cypress Hills Massacre National Historic Sites).

1.3.1. Geographic scope

The geographic scope of this action plan includes all federally owned lands and waters managed by GNP (national park and program lands in Figure 1). This action plan has been written specifically for GNP to fulfill Parks Canada's legal responsibilities, and to respond to specific threats, legislation, and management priorities at this site, which may differ in areas outside the site. However, this plan has been developed and will be implemented collaboratively with partners in the broader landscape to maximize conservation benefits to species conservation and recovery.

1.3.2. Species scope

This action plan addresses 33 SARA-listed species and 4 species of conservation concern that regularly occur in GNP (Table 1). This includes 21 SARA-listed Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened species (for which an action plan is required under s.47 of SARA) and 12 SARA-listed Special Concern species. The species addressed in this plan were chosen based on the following criteria: 1) the level of influence Parks Canada and partners could have on recovery and helping to achieve population and distribution objectives; 2) the ability of the species to represent the needs of other species at risk; and 3) the need for regional perspectives and desire to test existing approaches to species conservation to inform effectiveness. Note that over the course of implementation of this action plan, some species' COSEWIC assessment or SARA status may change.

2. Site-based population and distribution objectives

The potential for Parks Canada to undertake direct management action at the site that will measurably contribute to the recovery of each species was assessed. Site-specific population and distribution objectives were developed for 10 species (Appendix A). These objectives identify the contribution that conservation and recovery measures implemented by the site or in collaboration with partners can make towards achieving the national objectives identified in SARA recovery strategies and management plans.

Monitoring progress towards achieving the site-based objectives over time will help determine whether implementation of the conservation and recovery measures (identified in Appendices B & C) is having the desired influence on species recovery.

For several species, Parks Canada's primary contribution to conservation is ensuring that protection measures are maintained to protect species and their habitats. In these cases, recovery cannot be measurably influenced by site-level management actions, and therefore, setting site-specific population and distribution objectives are not appropriate. This may be due to one or more of the following circumstances within the site: (1) there are no or few known threats; (2) there are no feasible management actions to address threats; and/or (3) only a small portion of the species' range is within the site and therefore the impact of management actions cannot be measured. In such cases, conservation efforts may be limited to protection measures in place under federal legislation including the Canada National Parks Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act and SARA. Additional efforts may include recovery measures such as education and outreach, habitat maintenance, and addressing knowledge gaps through inventory, research, and monitoring.

3. Conservation and recovery measures

Conservation and recovery measures aimed at addressing threats to the species at the site and making progress towards achieving site-based population and distribution objectives were identified and prioritized. The prioritization process primarily considered ecological effectiveness, but also considered opportunities for landscape-scale conservation, ecological connectivity, climate-smart conservation, Indigenous conservation and cultural species, strengthened partnerships, and opportunities for visitor experience and increased awareness through education and outreach. Prioritization also considered budgetary opportunities and constraints. Wherever possible, Parks Canada is taking an ecosystem approach, prioritizing measures that benefit multiple species to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of species protection and recovery.

In total, 21 conservation and recovery measures are identified for implementation by PC in GNP (Appendix B). An additional 24 measures will be encouraged through partnerships or when additional resources become available (Appendix C). Each measure is associated with one or more identified threats. The five main threats addressed in this action plan are: roads and railroads; recreational activities; biological systems management; invasive non-native/alien species; and problematic native species. Each recovery measure has an objective and timeline for completion. Recovery objectives are designed to be quantifiable and achievable over the implementation period of this plan.

3.1 Conservation and recovery measure approaches

The identification and prioritization of conservation and recovery measures considered opportunities to integrate the following recovery measure approaches: landscape-scale conservation, climate-smart conservation, ecological connectivity, and Indigenous conservation and cultural species.

Landscape-scale Conservation:
Although GNP protects 844 km2 of native prairie, it is an island within a larger landscape of privately and provincially owned grassland and farmland. As ecological processes and wildlife movements are not bound by jurisdictions, expanding efforts beyond the park's boundaries by engaging private landowners and the public will complement recovery actions being implemented inside GNP by Parks Canada. Such ecosystem-based, landscape-scale, collaborative approaches are necessary to maximize conservation gain, particularly for species that require large, connected and ecologically diverse habitats. Cooperation and coordination across jurisdictions and with private landowners are essential to protect and manage species at risk habitat, improve grassland management at the landscape scale, build ecosystem resilience, and result in long-term improvements to biodiversity.

Grasslands National Park is situated in the South of the Divide Priority Place, a mixed-grass prairie region identified by Environment and Climate Change Canada as one of 12 national Priority Places^{Footnote 6} because of significant biodiversity, concentrations of species at risk, and opportunities to advance conservation. However, even within the South of the Divide Priority Place, native grasslands face escalating threats. Land conversion, invasive species, expanding resource development, and unsustainable land management practices are steadily eroding these diverse and ecologically rich landscapes. Therefore, collaborative action with partners and stakeholders at the landscape scale will be critical to achieve conservation gains and aid species recovery moving forward. Effective coordination with neighboring jurisdictions and agencies (i.e., Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Water Security Agency, SK Ministry of Environment, SK Ministry of Agriculture) will be achieved through existing frameworks such as the Saskatchewan SAR Coordinating Committee, the Priority Places and Priority Species initiatives (lead: Environment and Climate Change Canada), the Transboundary Grasslands Partnership, and SAR-specific recovery teams (e.g., Canadian Greater Sage-grouse Working Group). Two key partners include South of the Divide Conservation Action Program Inc. and Nature Conservancy of Canada, both of which have conservation agreements on large tracts of land in the Canadian prairie and are able to maximize opportunities for conservation gain.

Climate-smart Conservation:
A climate-smart lens was used during the planning process to prioritize measures that are expected to be sustainable and/or effective based on projected climate change scenarios. Site-specific and species-specific impacts of climate change were considered based on International Union on Conservation of Nature threat assessments, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada assessments, other recovery documents and existing research where available. Climate change projections indicate that GNP is expected to experience warmer temperatures, increased frequency and severity of drought and extreme weather, as well as shifting precipitation patterns (Rizzo and Wiken 1992, Lemmen et al. 1997, Sushama et al. 2010, Hufkens et al. 2016). Ensuring ecosystem resilience in the face of these threats will be accomplished through activities such as selecting resilient seed mixes for native prairie restoration, strategically using prescribed fire and invasive plant management to reduce the severity of wildfires and implementing beneficial grazing practices in a way that increases rangeland resilience and ecosystem sustainability. Where climate change impacts are unknown, efforts will focus on research and monitoring to better understand impacts on species, and to inform long-term adaptation approaches and potential threat mitigation. Lastly, it is important to consider the influence climate change will have on Parks Canada's ability to achieve population and distribution objectives for species at risk, and what current and new pressures species and ecosystems face due to anticipated climate change threats.

Ecological Connectivity:
Grasslands National Park consists of two discrete blocks, the West Block and the East Block, with remaining land to be acquired within the park's proposed boundary through a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis. The continually growing land base has resulted in a patchwork of park-owned, province-owned, and privately-owned lands within the proposed boundaries. Even in areas where the physical habitat is healthy, anthropogenic infrastructure (e.g., fences, power poles, yard sites, abandoned buildings, contaminated sites, etc.) fragments and reduces the functionality of habitat for many species. GNP aims to restore or improve habitat functionality and connectivity through beneficial management practices (e.g., road mortality mitigation, wildlife-friendly fencing, installation of perch deterrents), management and removal of anthropogenic infrastructure, and coordination with neighboring jurisdictions and land managers, e.g., Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, transitioned Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration and Saskatchewan Pastures Program community pastures.

Improving ecological connectivity through habitat restoration, management of invasive and non-native species, and beneficial grazing practices are also key management objectives. Habitat restoration activities have been identified for sites that provide critical/suitable habitat for priority species at risk in the park. GNP plans to maintain native vegetation communities through prevention, early detection, and control of priority invasive alien plants that impair the quality of species at risk habitat. Beneficial grazing practices and the rangeland health assessment program will continue to be implemented on an annual basis across the park using an adaptive management framework.

Indigenous Conservation and Cultural Species:
The landscape and waterways that Grasslands National Park occupies today has a rich and diverse cultural and natural heritage. For millennia this land has been in relation with many First Nations and continues to be today. There are many pieces of history, heritage, knowledge, and culture that are intertwined with the landscapes and species in the park. In order to conserve and protect both cultural and natural resources, engagement with Indigenous nations is paramount. Grasslands National Park will support specific cultural knowledges and practices of the prairie Indigenous nations (First Nations and Metis) that have or used to have connections with this place and their non-human relations that reside here. Furthermore, the activities, programs, and management of both cultural and natural resources undertaken by Grasslands National Park will be done with continued engagement with Indigenous nations in ways that support their access and connection goals as well as Parks Canada goals for visitor experience and conservation.

3.2 Classification of measures

Measures identified in this plan are categorized based on Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) Conservation Actions Classifications^{Footnote 7}. The following action classifications are addressed in this plan:

Land / Water Management:
Site stewardship to reduce stressors and threats on species at risk and enhance existing ecosystem processes is a key focus of many conservation and recovery measures in this plan. Prescribed fire, beneficial grazing (with bison and cattle), habitat restoration and invasive alien plant management are key strategies that maintain important natural processes that are integral to grassland ecosystem health and native prairie integrity. These practices maintain and enhance habitat for Greater Sage-grouse, songbirds, Burrowing Owls, and many other species at risk. Water management including restoring natural flow regimes and maintaining dugouts and water infrastructure are also important for maintaining habitat for Plains Minnow, amphibians and bats. Anthropogenic infrastructures (e.g., buildings, powerlines, fences, etc.) are a significant threat to Greater Sage-grouse survival and habitat selection by providing perching and nesting/denning opportunities for predators, as well as causing habitat avoidance. GNP will continue infrastructure removal and mitigation efforts to benefit Greater Sage-grouse recovery. Wildlife-friendly fencing methods such as fence marking, fence removal or replacement will be targeted in priority habitats to improve Greater Sage-grouse survival and decrease fence-mediated wildlife mortality. Lastly, human-wildlife coexistence measures include implementing GNP's traffic management strategy to reduce road mortality of a variety of species (particularly snakes, Burrowing Owls, and Loggerhead Shrikes), and addressing conflicts between Barn Swallows and campgrounds visitors.

Species Management:
Species management is a core component of this action plan with several conservation and recovery measures directly focused on recovery to support population and distribution objectives. Plains Bison are strategically managed as a conservation herd and regularly monitored for disease, genetic purity, and diversity. The Greater Sage-grouse population continues to decline and faces imminent extirpation in GNP without sustained conservation efforts; population augmentation continues to be considered as a key strategy to prevent its disappearance. If resources permit, predator monitoring and management through indirect methods will also be considered, as reducing factors that enhance predator success is currently considered one of the highest priorities to ensure Greater Sage-grouse persistence in Canada (Environment Canada 2014a). Lastly, as extreme weather events become more frequent and severe, supplemental feeding of Burrowing Owls will continue to be considered to support their survival.

Awareness Raising:
Due to GNP's small and fragmented nature, species at risk recovery often relies on partnerships, outreach, and education with stakeholders and visitors. Parks Canada staff will continue to communicate conservation issues related to Greater Sage-grouse, Burrowing Owl, Plains Bison, and snakes, with the intention of influencing human behaviour to reduce threats. As a Priority Species,^{Footnote 8} Greater Sage-grouse will be the focus of a dedicated communications plan to support recovery efforts. Increasing awareness among Indigenous communities of bison management and Indigenous stewardship opportunities will also be a priority, ensuring community-identified initiatives are supported.

Conservation Designation & Planning:
Planning restoration and enhancement activities is an essential early step in species recovery. If resources become available, GNP aims to develop a spatially explicit action plan to optimize sagebrush habitat for Greater Sage-grouse. Relative to other areas, GNP has low sagebrush coverage even within sagebrush-dominated habitat. Improving the quality of existing sagebrush flats, in coordination with wet meadow restoration, would contribute to enhancing nesting and brood-rearing habitat for Greater Sage-grouse and other species that rely on the sagebrush community in GNP.

Research & Monitoring
Knowledge gaps are a major barrier to the development and implementation of effective conservation and recovery measures for many species at risk. Research, surveys and monitoring are essential for improving site-level and regional understanding of species ecology, distribution, status, and population trends. This information enables more effective protection and timely implementation of active management and threat mitigation. Monitoring species distribution, population trends, habitat use, disease, genetic diversity, road mortality, predators, and use of anthropogenic structures will provide valuable data to guide conservation decisions, while maintaining a healthy balance between monitoring and active management.

Partnerships/collaborations^{Footnote 9}:

Relationship building, partnerships, and collaborations are at the heart of this action plan. Research and collaborations are of particular interest for understanding landscape-scale population dynamics and habitat use of Burrowing Owls, songbirds, bats, Greater Short-horned Lizards and Swift Foxes; although many of these measures would require additional funding. As a wide-ranging species, Greater Sage-grouse recovery depends on coordinated, landscape-level action with partners and stakeholders to achieve conservation gain; continued collaboration with the South of the Divide Priority Place^{Footnote 10} and Priority Species initiatives remains vital to this effort. Additionally, GNP will continue to engage local communities, visitors, and volunteers to improve ecological integrity and support species recovery. The park's diverse visitor base offers valuable opportunities to connect with the public through direct involvement in citizen science and volunteer programs in resource conservation.

4. Critical habitat

Critical habitat is "the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species' critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species" (SARA s.2(1)). Where the recovery strategy for a species states that the identification of critical habitat is not complete, a schedule of studies is included towards gathering additional information to complete the identification. Additional critical habitat can be identified in an amended recovery strategy or in an upcoming or amended action plan for the species.

Critical habitat was identified in GNP within the recovery strategies for the Black-footed Ferret (Tuckwell and Everest 2009), Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Parks Canada Agency 2021), Burrowing Owl (Environment Canada 2012), Chestnut-collared Longspur (Environment Canada 2018), Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer (Parks Canada Agency 2010), Greater Sage-grouse (Environment Canada 2014a), and Plains Minnow (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2025).

Additional critical habitat is identified in GNP in this action plan for the Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer, Mountain Plover, Prairie Loggerhead Shrike, Sprague's Pipit and Swift Fox. These identifications have been carried forward from the 2016 multi-species action plan for GNP. Because the Greater Short-horned Lizard and Mormon Metalmark have been down-listed from Threatened to Special Concern, the critical habitat identified in that 2016 action plan for these species no longer applies. Where available, critical habitat spatial data is found in the Critical Habitat for Species at Risk National Dataset ^{Footnote 11}.

4.1 Identification of Critical Habitat for Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer

Biophysical Attributes

Because of a lack of knowledge regarding Eastern Yellow- bellied Racer habitat requirements, only active dens are identified as critical habitat in Canada at this time. Seven active hibernacula (over-wintering sites) were identified as critical habitat in the Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor flaviventris) in Canada (Parks Canada 2010) and two areas of critical habitat are identified in this action plan (Figure 2). Additional critical habitat may be identified in the future as new information is obtained.

The biophysical attributes of the critical habitat are described in the Recovery Strategy (Parks Canada Agency 2010).

Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat

Examples of activities that are likely to result in destruction of Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer critical habitat include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Activities that cause in filling-in or flooding of a hibernaculum, resulting in collapse, blocking the entrance, or changing thermal conditions (slope, aspect, position and surface reflectance), such that the hibernaculum can no longer be used.

2. Excessive trampling resulting in the collapse of the hibernaculum or compaction of soil, reducing the suitability of the hibernaculum or the surrounding area which may contain egg laying sites.

3. Activities that result in the loss of mixed-grass prairie or sagebrush thickets or permanently change the composition and structure of vegetation, leading to reduction of cover and soil stability such that the Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer's ability to detect predators and prey is compromised.

4.2 Identification of Critical Habitat for Mountain Plover

Biophysical Attributes

Critical habitat for Mountain Plover was not previously identified in the Recovery Strategy due to lack of data (Environment Canada 2006). Since the posting of the final Recovery Strategy, sufficient data has been gathered and habitat criteria developed to allow identification of critical habitat in this action plan. Additional critical habitat may have to be identified in order to fully provide for the recovery of the species.

The national recovery objective for Mountain Plover is to maintain this species' recent Canadian abundance and distribution (Environment Canada 2006). Historical and current abundance data is lacking due to low population density, likely because the species occurs at the northern edge of its range, coupled with the difficulty in observing individuals. However, it can be assumed that at a minimum the GNP distribution must be maintained in order to contribute to meeting the national recovery objective. Therefore, all available habitat likely to be used by breeding Mountain Plovers in GNP is identified as critical habitat.

In this action plan, Mountain Plover critical habitat includes the occurrence of Black-tailed Prairie Dog colonies as high quality habitat. Prairie dog colonies represent a highly suitable and much preferred habitat type for Mountain Plover (Knowles and Stoner 1982, Dinsmore et al. 2005, Childers and Dinsmore 2008, Tipton et al. 2009). The majority of breeding or potentially breeding Mountain Plovers in Saskatchewan have been on prairie dog colonies. Colonies also support the highest rate of chick survival when compared with other habitats (Dreitz 2009). Given the species' preference for prairie dog colonies, and the ease with which this species can be missed in surveys, all colonies are considered high quality breeding habitat in which the likelihood of species occurrence is high.

Mountain Plovers may also breed outside of prairie dog colonies, which are limited in their distribution and extent in southwestern Saskatchewan (Knapton et al. 2006). In order to maintain the species' distribution, it is important to also include probable breeding sites. Therefore, identification of critical habitat is also based on reliable or probable breeding occurrence data plus a 500 m radius around the occurrence. The 500 m radius zone is based on observed movements of breeding individuals from nest sites and is expected to provide the area needed for completing nesting and brood-rearing activities (Graul 1975, Knopf and Rupert 1995, Dreitz et al. 2005). The following two criteria were used to identify critical habitat:

• Breeding occurrence (e.g. territorial pairs, nests, eggs, or fledged young) or probable breeding occurrence (e.g. individuals in suitable habitat at the appropriate time of year) has been precisely documented with an accurate geographic referencing system or accurate mapping, and
• Suitable nesting habitat still exists in the areas.

The biophysical attributes of Mountain Plover critical habitat are as follows (Graul 1975, Knowles and Stoner 1982, Knopf and Rupert 1995, Dechant et al. 1998, Environment Canada 2006):

• occurrence of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs and their associated colony habitat characteristics; and/or
• a combination of the following:
  • large tract of open native prairie (≥80 ha)
  • native prairie management units that are moderate to heavily grazed (mixed- or short-grass that is usually less than 10 cm high)
  • presence of bare ground (between 30% and 70%)
  • high horizontal visibility (open areas with a slope less than 5%)
  • limited woody vegetation
  • limited invasion by exotic grasses.

The critical habitat identified in this action plan represents all the known habitat used by the Mountain Plover in the GNP area and is therefore deemed sufficient for ensuring that the GNP area contributes meaningfully to national population and distribution objectives of the species (Figure 3).

Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat

Examples of activities that may result in destruction of Mountain Plover critical habitat include, but are not limited to:

1. Activities that remove and/or convert native prairie, rendering it inhospitable to Mountain Plovers or limiting their ability to forage, breed, nest and rear young.

2. Activities that fragment large tracts of native prairie, thereby increasing predation pressure and reducing reproductive success.

3. Activities that destroy the extent and function of Black-tailed Prairie Dog colonies.

4. Activities that promote or enhance vegetation growth, both native and non-native, such that the area becomes unsuitable for nesting or foraging. Such areas are also known to be more attractive to predators such as foxes and squirrels that are known to feed on plover eggs.

4.3 Identification of Critical Habitat for Prairie Loggerhead Shrike

Biophysical Attributes

Partial critical habitat for the Prairie Loggerhead Shrike was previously identified in the Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada 2014b) for an area in Alberta. The critical habitat in GNP is identified in this action plan.

The Prairie Loggerhead Shrike occurs in two different habitat types in the GNP area and across the species' range. The first is where tall shrubs occur in farmland. The second is where tall shrubs are interspersed within large contiguous areas of natural grassland. While this species shows the distinctive behavior of impaling prey items on sharp objects, and may use thorny bushes for this purpose, the essential role of tall shrubs is in providing nesting habitat and perching locations. The Recovery Strategy calls for maintaining the recent prairie distribution and regional population levels (Environment Canada 2014b). Within the GNP area, at a very minimum the distribution must be maintained to contribute to meeting the national recovery objective. Therefore, all-natural grassland habitat known to be used by Loggerhead Shrikes and meeting the established criteria is identified as critical.

In this action plan, critical habitat within natural grassland habitats was determined following the two criteria described in the Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada 2014b). These criteria are based on expert opinion, which constitutes the best available information at this time, but may be refined in the future as better information becomes available:

• Large contiguous areas of natural grassland within 400 m of well-dispersed tall shrubs, 2 to 3 m in height and low in density (less than 30% cover, variable among sites);
• Shrike density at least 0.5 apparent breeding pairs / km2, based on 2003-2010 surveys.

Critical habitat was identified using high-resolution satellite imagery to manually create a minimum-area polygon bounding tall shrubs used for nesting with the addition of a 400 m radius area of grassland. The 400 m radius zone is based on observed movements of shrikes from nest sites and is expected to provide foraging habitat for shrikes nesting along the periphery of the area of tall shrubs. Most of this area of critical habitat is estimated to have < 5% tall shrub cover, which is within the above criteria. It is located along the glacial meltwater channel of the Frenchman River (Figure 4).

Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat

Examples of activities that may result in destruction of Prairie Loggerhead Shrike critical habitat include, but are not limited to:

1. Significant reduction of shrub coverage and prevention of shrub growth. These activities can destroy critical habitat because they eliminate nesting and/or perching habitat, thereby reducing the probability that shrike population levels will be maintained across the range.
   
   Such activities include but are not limited to:
   

2. Conversion of large areas of natural grasslands to cropland, infrastructure or buildings. This may reduce the quality of habitat to the extent that it is avoided by shrikes or can no longer support a sufficient prey base for foraging.
   
   Examples of such activities include, but are not limited to:

3. Excessive livestock grazing to the extent that prey availability is significantly reduced in grassland foraging areas, or that nesting and perching sites in tall shrubs are reduced due to excessive damage from livestock. These effects can reduce shrike productivity, thereby reducing the probability that shrike population levels will be maintained across the range.

Insufficient information is available to provide thresholds of activity levels that would result in destruction of critical habitat. Alterations or proposed alterations to shrub and grassland cover within critical habitat will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether they qualify as destruction of such habitat.

Any given single action may or may not result in the destruction of critical habitat; however, when considered in the context of all current and future actions, the cumulative impacts of such actions may result in the destruction of critical habitat.

4.4 Identification of Critical Habitat for Sprague's Pipit

Biophysical Attributes

Partial critical habitat for Sprague's Pipit has previously been identified in the amended recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2012). The critical habitat identified in this action plan replaces the critical habitat identified in the amended recovery strategy for GNP.

The biophysical attributes are described in the amended recovery strategy for the Sprague's Pipit (Environment Canada 2012).

In this action plan, Sprague's Pipit critical habitat was determined using the approach outlined in the South of the Divide (SoD) Action Plan (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017). In summary, "Approach 2" was used as described in the recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2012) and was guided by a spatially explicit predictive model based on pipit occurrence data collected from 2002-2011 as well as remotely-sensed habitat data. The models were based on 1,153 randomly selected sites where territorial Sprague's Pipits occurred, and a further 3,997 randomly selected sites that were used to characterize the habitat generally available in the SoD area. Reliance on predictive models was necessary because surveys and observations are widely scattered and tend to sample only a small proportion of a given area. Use of predictive models is a precautionary approach that allows one to determine the potential suitability of sites that were not sampled but can reasonably be expected to be inhabited by pipits. Models were validated using independent data sets, which demonstrated that the final model correctly predicted 90% of known pipit locations. The predictive model was ground-truthed in the park and the critical habitat polygons were adjusted accordingly (Figures 5 & 6).

Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat

The amended recovery strategy for the Sprague's Pipit (Environment Canada 2012) describes examples of activities likely to result in destruction of critical habitat.

4.5 Identification of Critical Habitat for Swift Fox

Biophysical Attributes

Critical habitat has been identified based on a range-wide analysis of the amount, locations, and attributes of the currently occupied range of Swift Fox in Canada. However, recent estimates of the Canadian Swift Fox population are lower than the long-term recovery goal for this species (COSEWIC 2009, Pruss et al. 2008). Therefore, any suitable habitats in which the species currently occurs, or is reasonably expected to occur based on best available information, necessarily represents critical habitat for survival or recovery of the species in Canada.

Information and methods used to identify critical habitat

The locations and attributes of critical habitat were identified using the best available information, including the output from a habitat modeling study, other scientific information about habitat requirements of the species, and field data collected by provinces, universities, non-profit organizations, and federal departments.

A predictive model for Swift Fox occurrence was created following the preliminary approach of Moehrenschlager et al. (2007a). Development of the new model by Parks Canada, in collaboration with Moehrenschlager of the Calgary Zoo, included modifications and refinements from the original version. Critical habitat is identified as those areas within the current range of the species in which the combination of habitat attributes is at least as favourable for Swift Fox as the majority of locations where Swift Fox occurrences were documented.

Fourteen summer landscape-scale habitat variables were analysed within 3 km of Swift Fox captures during the last (2005-06) winter live trap survey. These results indicated that Swift Fox avoid selecting habitats that have a high proportion of cropland, high average wetness, high standard deviation in wetness, and high average slope within 3 km. This habitat selection is consistent with the species known affinity for intact, dry prairie habitats that are relatively homogeneous with gradually sloping hills (Pruss 1999, Moehrenschlager et al. 2007a).

The predictive model for Swift Fox occurrence was tested by comparing its predictions against other Swift Fox survey results from three previous winter surveys. For all datasets assessed (1996-97, 2000-2001, 2008-2009), the model was found to strongly discriminate sites where Swift Foxes had (versus had not) been detected by live trapping and baited camera stations. Evaluation of the spatial map of predicted Swift Fox occurrence indicated 53% (approx. 8765 km2) of the total area of the species range provides habitat attributes that are suitable to contain 89% of Swift Fox occurrences. It is the subset of these areas in Grasslands National Park that are identified as critical habitat for Swift Fox in this Action Plan (Figures 7 and 8).

The biophysical attributes of Swift Fox critical habitat are as follows (Pruss 1999, Moehrenschlager et al. 2007a, COSEWIC 2009):

• Large tracts of intact (i.e. native) prairie.
• Short (< 25 cm high), sparse and relatively homogeneous vegetation.
• Level or low variation in terrain roughness (gently sloping terrain or few. topographic features such as canyons, steep hills, or coulees).
• Dry, well-drained soils.
• High density of burrows created by fossorial mammals.
• Limited cropland.
• Limited invasive species.
• Adequate availability of prey items (small mammals and insects).

Existing, non-suitable habitats comprised of urban areas, annual cropland, roads and water bodies that occur within the mapped boundaries of critical habitat do not constitute critical habitat. Suitability of habitat for Swift Fox is identified according to habitat attributes measured within a radius of 3 km from capture locations representing the relatively large areas that breeding Swift Foxes utilize. As such, the zone of influence for potential activities that may affect critical habitat extends 3 km from the boundaries of critical habitat polygons. Horizontal accuracy of the mapped critical habitat polygon boundaries is estimated at 37 m.

Examples of Activities Likely to Result in Destruction of Critical Habitat

The habitat model showed that activities within 3 km of Swift Fox occurrences could have an impact on habitat suitability. Therefore, certain activities outside of the identified critical habitat could still negatively impact that habitat. Examples of activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat may include but are not limited to:

1. Activities that remove or convert intact prairie to annual cropland or tame pasture, rendering the habitat inhospitable to Swift Fox, or limiting their ability to forage, breed, disperse, burrow or rear young. Swift Fox prefer large tracts of intact prairie, while avoiding cropland or highly fragmented areas (Carbyn 1998, Moehrenschlager et al. 2007a, COSEWIC 2009). Activities that remove or convert intact prairie may reduce prey and burrow availability, increase risk of predation, increase interspecific competition with Coyotes and Red Foxes, and reduce gene flow among populations. This can result in extirpation at the local scale, which may impede metapopulation dynamics (Babak and He 2009).

2. Activities that fill in, destroy or lead to a reduction in the number of prairie dens, holes or burrows that Swift Foxes rely on, compromising the ability of individuals to use them for shelter from weather extremes, rearing young, or refuge from predators (Egoscue 1979, Herrero et al.1986, Pruss 1999, Harrison and Whittaker-Hoagland 2003). The Swift Fox is the most burrow-dependent canid; it relies on a number of burrows and dens that are used throughout the year. Although Swift Foxes are thought to be able to dig their own burrows, they often modify burrows dug by other species such as American Badgers (Taxidea taxus), prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), and ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) (Herrero et al.1986, Pruss 1999).

3. Activities that permanently change vegetation composition and structure, leading to inability of Swift Fox to detect predators and prey, as well as increase predation risks and interspecific competition. Swift Foxes are known to avoid densely vegetated habitats. Trees can be used as perches for raptors while dense, tall vegetation can attract predators and competitors such as Coyotes and Red Foxes.

4. Activities that reduce prey abundance such that foraging opportunities and food delivery to young are decreased, leading to starvation, den abandonment, or disappearance of individuals from area. The Swift Fox diet is primarily comprised of grasshoppers (suborder Caelifera), beetles (order Coleoptera), and ground squirrels (Hines and Case 1991, Pruss 1994). A reduction in mammalian prey (microtine) populations has been found to negatively impact the closely related San Joaquin Kit Fox (White and Ralls 1993, White et al. 1996, Moehrenschlager et al. 2007b).

Proposed measures to protect critical habitat

Critical habitat identified in GNP in recovery strategies or action plans is legally protected from destruction as per section 58 of SARA. SARA requires that critical habitat identified in a federally protected area^{Footnote 12} be described in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the final recovery strategy or action plan that identified the critical habitat is posted to the SAR public registry. The prohibition against destruction of critical habitat under subsection (ss.) 58(1) will apply 90 days after the description of that critical habitat is published in the Canada Gazette. For critical habitat located on other federal lands (e.g., National Historic Sites or National Park Reserves), the competent minister must either make a statement on existing legal protection or make an Order so that the prohibition against destruction of critical habitat applies. If it is determined that any portions of critical habitat are not protected, and steps are being taken to protect those portions, those steps will be communicated via the Registry through the reports referred to in section 63 of SARA.

5. Evaluation of socio-economic costs and benefits

The Species at Risk Act requires the competent minister to undertake an evaluation of the socio-economic costs of the action plan and the benefits to be derived from its implementation (s.49(1)(e)). This socio-economic assessment is narrow in scope, as it applies only to protected lands and waters in Grasslands National Park (GNP) which are often subject to fewer threats (e.g., industrial activities) compared to other areas because the lands are managed to maintain and restore ecological and commemorative integrity. Further, this evaluation addresses only the incremental socio-economic costs and benefits of implementing the measures outlined in this action plan and does not include socio-economic impacts of existing activities or management regimes in those Parks Canada sites. It does not address total cumulative costs or benefits of species recovery in general, nor does it attempt to conduct a full cost-benefit analysis as is done to support a regulatory initiative.

The protection and recovery of species at risk can result in both costs and benefits, which affect various groups of Canadian society in different ways. The proposed measures in this action plan seek a balanced approach to reducing or eliminating threats to species at risk populations and habitats. Potential socio-economic costs as well as the social and environmental benefits that may occur through implementation of this action plan are outlined below. Information for this summary was collected through cooperation and consultation, and focuses on the potential impact to lessees, Indigenous communities, and visitors to GNP.

5.1 Costs

The total incremental cost to implement the measures outlined in Appendix B will be borne by Parks Canada out of existing salaries and goods and services dollars that are integrated into the operational management of the sites and thereby will not result in additional costs to society. Implementation of the measures in this plan is subject to appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints. Measures outlined in Appendix C will only be implemented through partnerships or if additional resources become available.

Socio-economic costs to Indigenous communities, park visitors, and lessees may result from implementation of this action plan. These costs were determined through consultation and discussion and wherever possible, minimized. The main impacts of implementing this action plan were identified as restricted access to certain areas of the park due to management activities and seasonal closures to protect species at risk and associated habitat. This may negatively impact park visitors' enjoyment and access to the landscape, and Indigenous communities' access to areas for traditional usage. Lease holders may be impacted by best management practices to protect species at risk and their habitat. Parks Canada has given these costs considerable examination and does not underestimate their potential significance to our stakeholders. In many cases mitigations are currently in practice to minimize impacts and, where possible, have been anticipated and built into this plan to minimize impacts.

5.2 Benefits

Potential economic benefits of the conservation and recovery of species at risk at this site cannot be easily quantified, as many of the values derived from wildlife are non-market commodities that are difficult to appraise in financial terms. Wildlife, in all its forms, has value in and of itself, and is valued by Canadians for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual, recreational, educational, historical, economic, medical, ecological, and scientific reasons.

The conservation of species at risk is an important component of the Government of Canada's commitment to conserving biological diversity and is important to Canada's current and future economic and natural wealth. Measures in this plan help to meet the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy goal of protecting and recovering species and conserving Canadian biodiversity. It also contributes to the global goal of ensuring "biodiversity is sustainably used and managed and nature's contributions to people, including ecosystem functions and services, are valued, maintained and enhanced, with those currently in decline being restored" (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, December 2022).

The protected natural capital assets (forests, grasslands, wetlands, freshwater, coastal and marine areas) of national parks and national marine conservation areas provide a flow of ecosystem services (e.g.: climate regulation, provision of habitat, water supply and regulation) that benefit individuals and communities across Canada. Parks Canada works to sustain and improve the ecological condition of the national network of protected places. Efforts that improve species' condition and their role in the ecosystem, such as recovery measures in this action plan, have an impact on the overall health of the ecosystem. For GNP, the potential annual value of ecosystem services has been estimated to range between $123 million and $471 million (median value $297 million) (Mulrooney and Jones, 2023). Implementing the measures within this action plan will contribute to sustaining the valuable flow of ecosystem services to Canadians.

Measures presented in this action plan will contribute to meeting recovery strategy objectives for threatened and endangered species and will also contribute to meeting management objectives for species of special concern. Recovery Strategies, Action Plans and Management Plans for SARA listed species are an integral part of species management aimed at species' survival and recovery, maintaining biodiversity in Canada and conserving Canada's natural heritage.

The measures outlined in this document are expected to have an overall positive impact on ecological integrity and enhance opportunities for appreciation of the park and the species by visitors and the general public. The measures are expected to have overall positive benefits to the environment and Canadians, such as positive impacts on biodiversity and the value individuals place on preserving biodiversity. Additional benefits include positive impacts experienced by park visitors, volunteer groups, and naturalists resulting from the preservation of areas for future enjoyment, and increased opportunities to participate in species conservation. Additionally, partner organizations (academic institutions, NGO's, neighbouring Parks Canada sites) may benefit through research and collaboration activities which support the shared needs of these groups. Continuing to support bison rematriation, stewardship opportunities, and grazing access within the park are intended to benefit Indigenous communities and lessees.

6. Measuring progress

Reporting on implementation of the action plan (under section 55 of SARA) will be done by assessing progress towards implementing the measures listed in Appendix B, and Appendix C when possible. Reporting on the ecological impacts of the action plan will be done by assessing progress towards meeting site-based population and distribution objectives (Appendix A). Progress will be monitored and an implementation report summarizing the results of this plan will be posted to the SAR Public Registry five years following publication of the final version. The five-year report will also include a summary of the socio-economic impacts from implementing the action plan.

7. References

Babak, P., and F. He. 2009. A neutral model of edge effects. Theoretical Population Biology 75: 76-83.

Canadian Wildlife Service. 2018. Pan-Canadian approach to transforming species at risk conservation in Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Quebec. 12p.

Carbyn, L.N. 1998. Updated COSEWIC status report: Swift fox (Vulpes velox). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 62 pp.

Childers, T.M., and S.J. Dinsmore. 2008. Density and abundance of Mountain Plovers
in northeastern Montana. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:700-707.

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2022. Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework. CBD/COP/DEC/15/4. Montreal, Canada. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf

COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Swift Fox Vulpes velox in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 49 pp.

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldale, M.P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 1998. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Mountain Plover. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota.

Dinsmore, S.J., G.C. White, and F.L. Knopf. 2005. Mountain Plover population responses to Black-tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1546-1553.

Dreitz, V. J. 2009. Parental behaviour of a precocial species: implications for juvenile survival. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 870–878.

Dreitz, V.J., M.B. Wunder, and F.L. Knopf. 2005. Movements and home ranges of Mountain Plovers raising broods in three Colorado landscapes. Wilson Bulletin 117:128-132.

Egoscue, H.J. 1979. Mammalian Species: Vulpes velox. Lawrence, Kansas, American Society of Mammalogists 122:1–5.

Environment Canada. 2006. Recovery Strategy for the Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. iv + 16 pp.

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. viii + 34 pp

Environment Canada. 2012. Amended Recovery Strategy for the Sprague's Pipit (Anthus spragueii) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vi + 46 pp.

Environment Canada. 2014a. Amended Recovery Strategy for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vi + 53 pp.

Environment Canada. 2014b. Recovery Strategy for the Loggerhead Shrike, excubitorides subspecies (Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides), in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. iv + 23 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017. Action Plan for Multiple Species at Risk in Southwestern Saskatchewan: South of the Divide. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. xi + 127 pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2018. Amended Recovery Strategy for the Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius ornatus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. vii + 31 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2025. Recovery Strategy for the Plains Minnow (Hybognathus placitus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. v + 37 pp

Graul, W.D. 1975. Breeding biology of the Mountain Plover. Wilson Bulletin 87: 6-31.

Harrison, R.L. and J. Whitaker-Hoagland. 2003. A literature review of swift fox habitat and den-site selection. In M. Sovada and L. Carbyn, Editors. The Swift Fox: Ecology and Conservation in a Changing World. Canadian Plains Research Centre, University of Regina. 250 pp.

Herrero, S., C. Schroeder, and S. Scott–Brown. 1986. Are Canadian foxes swift enough? Biological Conservation 36:159–167.

Hines, T.D., and R.M. Case. 1991. Diet, home range, movements, and activity periods of swift fox in Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 23(3): 131-138.

Hufkens, K., T. F. Keenan, L. B. Flanagan, R. L. Scott, C. J. Bernacchi, E. Joo, N. A. Brunsell, J. Verfaillie, and A. D. Richardson. 2016. Productivity of North American grasslands is increased under future climate scenarios despite rising aridity. Nature Climate Change 6:710.

Knapton, R., G.L. Holroyd, and H.E. Trefry. 2006. Mountain Plover in Canada: surveys and records up to 2005. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 448. Canadian Wildlife Service – Prairie and Northern Region, Edmonton, Alberta. iii + 49 pp.

Knopf, F.L,. and J.R. Rupert. 1995. Habits and habitats of Mountain Plovers in California. Condor 97:743-751.

Knowles, C.J., and C.J. Stoner. 1982. Selective use of Black-tailed Prairie Dog towns by Mountain Plovers. Condor 84:71-74.

Lemmen, D., R. Vance, S. Wolfe, and W. Last. 1997. Impacts of future climate change on the southern Canadian Prairies: a paleoenvironmental perspective. Geoscience Canada 24:1-13

Moehrenschlager, A., S.M. Alexander, and T. Brichieri-Columbi. 2007a. Habitat suitability and population viability analysis for reintroduced Swift Foxes in Canada and northern Montana. Calgary Zoo Centre for Conservation Research Report No. 2. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Unpublished internal Calgary zoological society report.

Moehrenschlager, A., R. List, and D.W. Macdonald. 2007b. Escaping intraguild predation: Mexican kit foxes survive while coyotes and golden eagles kill Canadian swift foxes. Journal of Mammalogy 88:1029-1039.

Mulrooney, D. and B. Jones. 2023. The value of natural capital in Canada's national parks and national marine conservation areas. PARKS 29(2):41-51.

Parks Canada Agency. 2010. Recovery Strategy for Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor flaviventris) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Parks Canada Agency. Ottawa. vii + 22 pp.

Parks Canada Agency. 2016. Multi-species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park of Canada. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa. iv + 57 pp.

Parks Canada Agency. 2021. Implementation Report: Multi-species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park of Canada (2016 – 2021). Species at Risk Act Action Plan Report Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa. v + 37 pp.

Parks Canada Agency. 2021. Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa. vi + 51 pp.

Pruss, S.D. 1999. Selection of natal dens by the swift fox (Vulpes velox) on the Canadian prairies. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 646-652.

Pruss, S.D. 1994. An observational natal den study of wild Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) on the Canadian Prairie. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 214 pp.

Pruss, S.D., P. Fargey, and A. Moehrenschlager. 2008. Recovery strategy for the swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Canada. Prepared in consultation with the Canadian Swift Fox Recovery Team. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Parks Canada Agency. vi + 25 pp.

Rizzo, B., and E. Wiken. 1992. Assessing the sensitivity of Canada's ecosystems to climatic change. Climatic Change 21:37-55.

Solymos, P., Matsuoka, S.M., Bayne, E.M., Lele, S.R., Fontaine, P., Cumming, S.G., Stralberg, D., Schmiegelow, F. K.A. and S.J. Song. 2013. Calibrating indices of avian density from non-standardized survey data: making the most of a messy situation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:1047-1058.

Sushama, L., N. Khaliq, and R. Laprise. 2010. Dry spell characteristics over Canada in a changing climate as simulated by the Canadian RCM. Global and Planetary Change 74:1-14.

Tipton, H.C., P.F. Doherty and V.J. Dreitz. 2009. Abundance and density of Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) and Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in eastern Colorado. Auk 126:493-499.

Tuckwell, J., and T. Everest. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Parks Canada Agency. Ottawa. vii + 36 pp.

Warrick, G.D., and B.L. Cypher. 1998. Factors affecting the spatial distribution of San Joaquin kit foxes. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2): 707-717.

White, P. J., and K. Ralls. 1993. Reproduction and spacing patterns of kit foxes relative to changing prey availability. The Journal of Wildlife Management 57(4): 861-867.

White, P. J., G. Saunders and S. Harris. 1996. Spatio-temporal patterns of home range use by foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in urban environments. Journal of Animal Ecology 65(1): 121.

Appendix A: Species information, objectives and monitoring plans for species at risk in GNP

Appendix B: Conservation and recovery measures that will be implemented

Appendix C: Other conservation and recovery measures that will be implemented if partnerships or additional resources become available

Date modified :

2026-07-02