Chimney Swift recovery strategy

2. Species status information

Canada includes approximately one quarter of the Chimney Swift’s breeding range (COSEWIC 2018). The Chimney Swift has been listed as threatened on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29) since 2009. In Manitoba, it is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act (C.C.S.M. c. E111). It has been listed as a threatened species under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (S.O. 2007, c. 6) since 2007 and appears on the Liste des espèces de la faune vertébrée susceptibles d’être désignées menacées ou vulnérables au Québec (Gouvernement du Québec 2010). In New Brunswick, it is designated threatened under the Species at Risk Act (RSNB 2012, c. 6). In Nova Scotia, the species has been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (1998, c. 11, s. 1.) since 2007. Although COSEWIC does not consider it to be a breeder in Newfoundland and Labrador, the species is nonetheless listed as threatened under the Newfoundland and Labrador Endangered Species Act (SNL 2001 c. E-10.1). Lastly, the species has no legal provincial status as a species at risk in Saskatchewan. The Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA), and its regulations apply across Canada.

In North America, the Chimney Swift’s conservation status rank is G5 (Secure) (NatureServe 2019). In Canada, its rank is N4B (apparently secure, breeding), and in the United States, it is N5B (secure, breeding). In addition, the Chimney Swift’s conservation status ranks vary by province (see Table 1).

* See Appendix A for definitions of status ranks used by NatureServe (2019).

3. Species information

3.1 Species description

The Chimney Swift is a small bird that, in flight, resembles a flying cigar because of its shape. It has a dark brown body and a pale grey throat. The species has long wings that extend beyond the tip of its tail when it roosts. Each tail feather ends in a spiny tip. When the Chimney Swift perches, it clings to vertical surfaces inside chimneys, hollow trees, or similar structures. The species is mostly seen when flying. Its flight is rapid. Its call is a distinctive, high-pitched, twittering “tchit-tchit-tchit” that can be heard over a long distance and fades into a long warble (Godfrey 1986). The Chimney Swift’s call is often the first indicator of its presence and is an effective way of distinguishing it from swallows and other aerial insectivores. ^{footnote 7[7]}

3.2 Species population and distribution

The Chimney Swift population in Canada is estimated at between 20,000 and 70,000 mature individuals (COSEWIC 2018). For its part, Partners in Flight estimates the Canadian population at 74,000 birds and the US population at 8.5 million birds (Partners in Flight 2019). Annual monitoring of Chimney Swift roosts (during spring migration) was carried out over most of the species’ Canadian range between 2013 and 2018, and a maximum of 17,128 birds was recorded in a single night in 2015, which included both breeding and non-breeding individuals (COSEWIC 2018). Since the monitoring was restricted to known roosts, this number represents a minimum estimate. The species’ exact abundance by province is unknown. Based on data from the monitoring program, it is estimated that Ontario and Quebec likely have the highest number of Chimney Swifts, followed by New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba (Canadian Wildlife Service, Birds Canada and Manitoba Chimney Swift Initiative, unpublished data 2018). Saskatchewan, located at the northwestern limit of the species’ range, also has a small population.

The Chimney Swift breeds in central and eastern North America (Figure 1). In Canada, the species nests in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (Figure 2). It is occasionally observed in Prince Edward Island and in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was detected as a probable or possible breeder in Prince Edward Island when the first Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces was compiled (1986 to 1990), but there were no confirmed breeding records (Erskine 1992). Furthermore, it was not detected during the development of the second Atlas (Stewart et al. 2015). In Newfoundland and Labrador, the species is observed mainly during the spring and fall migration and there are no records of confirmed nesting (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2019). The Canadian extent of occurrence ^{footnote 8[8]} is 200,000 km² and the index of area of occupancy ^{footnote 9[9]} is estimated at 12,424 km² (COSEWIC 2018). Chimney Swifts winter in South America, mainly in the Amazon basin (COSEWIC 2018). Individuals fly over Central America, the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean Sea on their migration between breeding and wintering grounds.

The Chimney Swift is part of a group of aerial insectivores (including swallows and nighthawks) that feed in flight, and whose North American populations have declined significantly over the past 40 to 50 years. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) ^{footnote 10[10]} results for the period between 1966 and 2015 show a significant decline of 2.5% per year in Chimney Swift populations in North America and an identical decline of 2.5% in the United States, for a cumulative decline of 70.64% (Sauer et al. 2017). In Canada, BBS data show a sharp decline of 4.28% per year between 1970 and 2019, which is equivalent to a total population loss of 88.3% (Smith et al. 2022). For the 2009 to 2019 period, the data show that the decline has levelled off in Canada, to 0.9% per year (Smith et al. 2022). The overall reliability of the long-term trend (1970 to 2019) was assessed as “high” and the short-term trend (2009–2019) as “medium” (Smith et al. 2022).

3.3 Needs of the Chimney Swift

In Canada, the Chimney Swift is primarily associated with urban and suburban areas as well as small towns. It spends most of the day in flight feeding on flying insects wherever it can find them. This includes urban areas, rural and agricultural areas, aquatic and wetland environments and forests. It is thus difficult to associate the species with one specific type of habitat since its presence in an area depends mainly on the abundance of flying insects and the availability of suitable nesting and roosting sites (COSEWIC 2018). The Chimney Swift needs a vertical cavity with rough surfaces to which it can cling, spend the night and attach its nest (COSEWIC 2018). These sites protect the birds from inclement weather and predators (Graves 2004). Both nesting and roosting sites are generally occupied year after year (Fischer 1958; Gauthier et al. 2007). It is important to note that since the Chimney Swift is rarely observed in its natural habitat except in flight, human-made sites used for nesting or roosting are currently the main elements that can be used to characterize its habitat.

Prior to European settlement in North America, it is likely that the Chimney Swift nested and roosted mainly inside large hollow trees in old-growth forests (COSEWIC 2018). When large-scale logging began in the early 19th century, forests containing suitable trees for the species became increasingly scarce, leading the Chimney Swift to use human-made structures, particularly chimneys, for nesting and roosting. The species has thus shown adaptability in choosing its nesting sites. Today, the Chimney Swift is primarily associated with urban and suburban areas where chimneys are available. An unknown proportion of the population is associated with mature forests (COSEWIC 2018).

The Chimney Swift most often nests in chimneys (generally having an opening diameter greater than 28.5 cm), although it also uses large hollow trees (> 50 cm in diameter at breast height, or DBH) (COSEWIC 2018). The species commonly nests in old brick or stone chimneys built before the 1960s; however, it occasionally uses vent pipes, wells, silos, barns, tobacco-drying sheds and abandoned buildings. Quebec data appear to show that in the summer, the temperature inside chimneys used as nesting sites rarely drops below 13 ºC at night (COSEWIC 2018), while the lowest temperatures recorded in a study at nesting sites in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were 9.7 ºC and 11.7 ºC, respectively (le Roux et al. 2019). This latter study found that Chimney Swifts preferred chimneys that buffered the nesting site from excess ambient heat.

The species is known for its gregariousness. At night and on days with inclement weather (e.g., heavy rain, wind, cold temperature), Chimney Swifts gather at roosting sites in flocks ranging in size from several dozen to more than 1,000 birds (Steeves et al. 2014). Chimneys used as roosting sites are generally bigger than those used for nesting. Roosts are used primarily during migration, when the birds arrive on their breeding grounds, and after the breeding season just before the birds migrate to their wintering area (Steeves et al. 2014). Some non-breeding individuals and failed breeders continue to congregate in roosts at night throughout the breeding season (Steeves et al. 2014). All along the migration route, the birds spend their nights in such roosting sites (Steeves et al. 2014).

Chimney Swifts arrive on their breeding grounds in Canada between late April and late May. The period of possible occupancy of the nesting structure is about four months, from the beginning of May to the beginning of September. Once the nest site is selected, the birds will start the nesting season which usually extends from late May to mid-August (COSEWIC 2018). The nest takes close to 18 days or more to build. The egg-laying period can vary and may take about seven days for a clutch of four eggs, since eggs are generally laid at a rate of one every two days (COSEWIC 2007). Incubation takes on average 19 days (Fischer 1958, Steeves et al. 2014). The chicks remain in the nest for an average of 19 days, after which they leave it to cling to the interior walls of the structure (Fischer 1958). Juveniles take their first flight outside the structure at about 30 days of age (Fischer 1958). They may return to the nesting structure for another one or two weeks (Steeves et al. 2014), and may also be able to use other structures during this period (Manitoba Chimney Swift Initiative, unpublished data, 2021). Fall migration occurs from late July to late September. In Ontario, the majority of Chimney Swifts have left for their wintering grounds by October, although a small number of birds remain until the end of the month (Birds Canada, unpublished data). During migration, the Chimney Swift requires access to an abundance of insects and high-quality roosting sites to meet its significant energy needs (Steeves et al. 2014).

Information on the Chimney Swift’s wintering habitat is incomplete. However, its roosting sites in wintering areas appear to resemble those used in its breeding range or during migration (COSEWIC 2018). At night the species roosts in chimneys, churches, caves (Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990) and hollow trees in the Amazon forest (Whittemore 1981). Habitats used include open areas, riparian forests, tropical lowland deciduous forest, and areas undergoing regeneration (Rappole et al. 1983; Stotz et al. 1996). The species also frequents irrigated farmland and suburban and central urban areas (Hughes 1988). It regularly occurs on the Peruvian coast and can also be seen annually in regions at elevations of up to 2,500 metres and sometimes even 3,000 metres (Hughes 1988).

Little is known about the Chimney Swift’s diet, but it is known to feed on insects, in particular Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, Diptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera and Hemiptera. An abundant supply of insects is required to meet the dietary needs of both adults and chicks (Steeves et al. 2014). Chimney Swifts also need water sources, from which they drink while in flight by skimming the surface with their bills (Steeves et al. 2014).

4. Threats

The threat assessment for the Chimney Swift is based on the IUCN-CMP (World Conservation Union–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threats classification system. Limiting factors are not considered during this assessment process. Threats are defined as the proximate activities or processes that have caused, are causing, or may cause the destruction, degradation, and/or impairment of the entity being assessed (population, species, community, or ecosystem) in the area of interest (global, national, or subnational). This threat assessment is adapted from that in COSEWIC (2018). For more detailed information on how the values are assigned in the table (Table 2), see the table footnotes. For purposes of threat assessment, only present and future threats are considered. Historical threats, indirect or cumulative effects of the threats, or any other relevant information that would provide a better understanding of the nature of the threats are presented in the Description of Threats section.

4.1 Threat assessment

^a Impact – The degree to which a species is observed, inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly threatened in the area of interest. The impact of each stress is based on the severity and scope ratings and considers only present and future threats. Threat impact reflects a reduction of a species population or decline/degradation of the area of an ecosystem. The median rate of population reduction or area decline for each combination of scope and severity corresponds to the following classes of threat impact: very high (75% decline), high (40%), medium (15%) and low (3%). Unknown: category used when impact cannot be determined (e.g., when the values for scope and severity are unknown). Not calculated: impact was not calculated when the threat does not occur within the assessment period (e.g., timing is insignificant/negligible or low because the threat existed only in the past). Negligible: when the value for scope or severity is negligible. Not a threat: when the value for severity is neutral or there is a possible benefit.

^b Scope – Proportion of the species that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within 10 years. Usually measured as a proportion of the species’ population in the area of interest (pervasive = 71 to 100%; large = 31 to 70%; restricted = 11 to 30%; small = 1 to 10%; negligible < 1%).

^c Severity – Within the scope, the level of damage to the species (usually measured as the percentage of reduction in the species’ population) expected to be caused by the threat within a 10-year or three-generation timeframe (extreme = 71 to 100%; serious = 31 to 70%; moderate = 11 to 30%; slight = 1 to 10%; negligible < 1%; neutral or possible advantage ≥ 0%).

^d Timing – High = continuing. Moderate = only in the future (could happen in the short term [< 10 years or 3 generations]) or now suspended (could come back in the short term). Low = only in the future (could happen in the long term) or now suspended (could come back in the long term). Insignificant/Negligible = only in the past and unlikely to return, or no direct effect but limiting.

4.2 Description of threats

The Chimney Swift faces a number of threats. Although each of these on its own can have a varying impact on the population, the combined effects of these threats make their overall impact high (COSEWIC 2018). The main threats to the species are presented in section 4.2.1, and threats with a negligible or unknown impact are outlined in section 4.2.2. The COSEWIC status report (2018) can be consulted as a complement to the description of threats in this section.

4.2.1 Main threats

IUCN threats 1.1 Housing and urban areas and 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas (medium cumulative impact)

Chimney demolition or modification

Chimney Swifts are dependent on chimneys in urban and suburban areas for nesting and roosting sites. Residential and commercial development is a medium impact threat for the Chimney Swift (Table 2) since it results in the demolition or modification of chimneys and thus the loss and degradation of habitat for the species (COSEWIC 2018). Most of the chimneys that provide suitable habitat for Chimney Swifts were built before 1960 (Gauthier et al. 2007); therefore, many of them have reached the end of their service life and need to be demolished or renovated. More recent buildings do not have chimneys (because electric heating is more common) or they have chimneys that are unsuitable for the Chimney Swift (natural gas) (COSEWIC 2018). Newer chimneys, along with older ones that have been renovated, have an inner metal liner that is too smooth for the Chimney Swift to cling to. In addition, a number of municipalities require that chimneys that are still being used for heating have spark arresters and that inactive chimneys be closed or capped (Lamoureux 2012), both of which make them inaccessible to the species. Similarly, the installation of exclusion devices to keep out undesirable species can block access to otherwise suitable chimneys. Depending on the region, 14% to 29% of chimneys known to be used by the Chimney Swift in Canada were destroyed or rendered unsuitable for the species between 1998 and 2017 (COSEWIC 2018). The scope assessment for threats 1.1 (Housing and urban areas)  and 1.2 (Commercial and industrial) is based in part on this known decrease in chimney availability. Although each were found to have a restricted scope (11–30% of population affected within 10 years; Table 2), their combined effect is such that the scope of the threat posed by residential and commercial development is large (Table 2), particularly since the scope of threat of housing and urban areas is at the upper limit of the “restricted” category. However Fitzgerald et al. (2014) found in 36 communities in southern Ontario, 24% of suitable chimneys were occupied by the species, suggesting that this habitat component is not limiting in this portion of the range at the current time.

Urban and suburban development – Change or decline in insect populations

Draining or filling of wetlands for residential or commercial development can result in changes in insect populations or reduce the availability of insect prey for the Chimney Swift and thus adversely affect the species’ productivity (COSEWIC 2018).

Collisions with buildings

This aspect of the threat was not assessed in COSEWIC (2018). According to the Global Bird Collision Mapper, a citizen science tool, nearly 75,000 bird collisions with buildings were recorded in Canada between 2000 and 2022, 19 of which involved Chimney Swifts (0.03%), mainly during migration (Global Bird Rescue 2022). Although these data are not exhaustive, the adverse effect on the population (i.e. severity) will likely be negligeable (< 1%) over the next decade (or the next three generations of the species).

IUCN threat 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting (low impact)

Forestry practices on the breeding grounds

The fragmentation and loss of old-growth forests through forestry operations can reduce the availability of natural nest and roost sites for the Chimney Swift (COSEWIC 2018). Before the European colonization of North America, the sites used by Chimney Swifts for nesting and roosting consisted mainly of hollow trees greater than 50 cm in diameter at breast height (Gauthier et al. 2007; Steeves et al. 2014; Zanchetta et al. 2014). Historical and present-day forest clearing in a large part of eastern North America has considerably reduced the number of trees of suitable size for this species (Gauthier et al. 2007). In addition, current logging practices, which favour a relatively short harvesting cycle to meet market demand, translate to a smaller percentage of trees that are old enough or large enough to serve as Chimney Swift nesting or roosting sites. The possibility of preserving suitable trees is also reduced by forestry practices that favour the removal of hollow trees in logging areas for safety reasons. To reflect this situation and given 36.7% of the Chimney Swift’s Canadian range (see Figure 2) is located in areas of managed forest (National Forest Inventory of Canada 2020), the scope of this threat, assessed as “small” (1 to 10%) in COSEWIC (2018), was modified to “small - restricted” (1 to 30%) in Table 2. No more specific information is available on the proportion of the species that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within 10 years (or 3 generations); however, the proportion concerned could exceed the range for the “small” category (1 to 10%).

Logging on the wintering grounds

Since the Chimney Swift uses hollow trees in its South American wintering range, the species is likely threatened by the intensive logging taking place in the Amazon forest (COSEWIC 2018). No information is available on the effects of logging on the wintering grounds.

IUCN threat 6.3 Work and other activities (low impact)

Chimney sweeping and heating during the breeding season

Chimney sweeping is essential for maintaining the integrity of the inner walls of chimneys and to reduce the risk of fire. When done outside of the breeding period, this work is not harmful to the species because the nest often falls to the bottom of the chimney in fall or winter or is simply not reused by birds from one year to the next. However, chimney sweeping that is conducted during the period of possible occupancy, namely between early May and early September, can pose a threat to the species (Table 2), because it can destroy the nest, eggs and chicks (COSEWIC 2018). A survey of professional chimney sweeps in the Maritimes revealed that this work is done mainly in the fall; however, it can be done at any time of year, and certain municipalities in Quebec request that chimney sweeping be done during the summer (Lamoureux 2012; COSEWIC 2018).

Some chimneys are used for heating in cold weather during the breeding season, preventing their use by swifts or destroying nests or killing adults (sometimes large numbers of roosting swifts) (COSEWIC 2018).

IUCN threat 7.3 Other ecosystem modifications (high - medium impact)

Decline in insect populations

A reduction in insect prey availability to the Chimney Swift, an aerial insectivore, represents a change in the ecosystem to which it belongs and is the most significant threat to the species (Table 2; COSEWIC 2018). The use of insecticides in forestry and agriculture, in urban insect control programs, and in control programs for insects that carry pathogens, such as the West Nile virus, affects the abundance and composition of insect communities (Avian Effects Dialogue Group 1994; Poulin et al. 2010; Wood and Goulson 2017; COSEWIC 2018) and thus affects the Chimney Swift’s food sources. A number of recent studies have established a probable link between the use of insecticides, particularly neonicotinoids, and declines in populations of insect pollinators (Goulson 2013; Godfray et al. 2014). The use of insecticides is widespread throughout the species’ range and has intensified in recent decades (COSEWIC 2018). Certain herbicides (e.g. glyphosate, atrazine or 2,4-D ^{footnote 12[12]} based herbicides) can also cause direct or indirect adverse effects on insect populations (see, for example, Brust 1990; Feber et al. 1996; Kraus and Stout 2019).

Draining and filling of wetlands to control mosquito populations on the Chimney Swift’s breeding and wintering grounds as well as along its migration routes may also lead to decreases in insect prey availability for the species (COSEWIC 2018).

Ecosystem modifications have the potential to reduce food availability at key times in the Chimney Swift’s life cycle, which could have a significant impact on the survival of individuals. However, the quantitative data on this subject are limited (COSEWIC 2018).

4.2.2 Threats with a negligible or unknown impact

IUCN threat 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops (unknown impact)

Although the direct impact of this threat was not assessed in COSEWIC (2018), the information presented there suggests that this threat would likely have a negative impact on the Chimney Swift. For example, the conversion of natural habitats to annual or perennial crops could destroy woodlands or trees with potential as nesting or roosting habitats. However, the scope of the threat is difficult to assess since the species’ use of natural cavities is poorly documented. Some prey insect-producing environments could also be destroyed or degraded during these types of conversions. Furthermore, a decline in the diversity of cultivated plant species—for example, due to the conversion of perennial crops (e.g. hay) to annual crops (e.g. corn or soybeans)—could reduce the diversity and abundance of prey insects (Haddad et al. 2001). Across the species’ global range, changes in agricultural practices (e.g. agricultural intensification) have contributed to the decline in flying insects, which is the main threat faced by the Chimney Swift (COSEWIC 2018). The impact of agricultural activities on the decline of flying insects is taken into account in IUCN threat 7.3 (Other ecosystem modifications).

IUCN threat 4.1 Roads and railroads (negligible impact)

Collisions with vehicles

Chimney Swifts are at risk of being killed by vehicle strikes when they fly over roads (Bohlen 1989; COSEWIC 2018). This seems to occur more often in cold weather, when insects also fly at a lower level.

IUCN threat 4.2 Utility and service lines (negligible impact)

Collisions with communication towers

The species may occasionally be at risk from collisions with communications towers (COSEWIC 2018).

IUCN threat 5.1 Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals (negligible impact)

Destruction of nests

Many homeowners consider the presence of Chimney Swifts in their chimneys to be a nuisance or concern. For example, they dislike hearing the chicks’ begging calls and they incorrectly believe that Chimney Swifts produce large accumulations of droppings or create a fire risk. Some homeowners may arrange to have their chimneys cleaned to get rid of the birds (Steeves et al. 2014). Public misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about the species are therefore likely to lead to the destruction of nests every year (COSEWIC 2018).

IUCN threat 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (unknown impact)

Fires in the wintering range

On the species’ wintering grounds, fires set to clear land for agriculture that end up destroying large, hollow trees may pose a threat to the Chimney Swift (COSEWIC 2018). However, not enough information is available at present to assess the impact of this threat.

IUCN threat 8.2 Problematic native species (negligible impact)

Predation

Predation by certain native species may at times have a negative impact on Chimney Swift populations (COSEWIC 2018). For example, raccoons (Procyon lotor) and squirrels (Sciurus spp.) are suspected predators of Chimney Swift chicks (Steeves et al. 2014). Accounts of predation on adult swifts usually involve birds of prey, such as the Merlin (Falco columbarius) (COSEWIC 2018). The Merlin has become increasingly widespread in urban areas (Warkentin et al. 2005) and its population is on the rise in Canada (Smith et al. 2022). In addition, a study by Evans et al. (2017) reported 38 cases of predation by Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) at a roost in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario in 2015.

IUCN threat 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (unknown impact)

Pesticide use

The direct effects of pesticide use in agriculture and forestry on insectivorous birds vary with the chemical composition of the products concerned and may include acute toxicity, sublethal effects or reduced reproductive success (COSEWIC 2018). Little information is available at present to assess the severity of this threat to the Canadian population of the Chimney Swift.

IUCN threat 9.5 Air-borne pollutants (unknown impact)

Acid rain and bioaccumulation of mercury

Acid rain and bioaccumulation of mercury may affect certain Chimney Swift populations, especially if swifts consume insects originating from contaminated wetlands (COSEWIC 2018). Although the effects of mercury on the Chimney Swift have not been documented, studies have shown that this pollutant can reduce reproductive success, impair immune function and modify the behaviour of some bird species (COSEWIC 2018).

IUCN threat 11. Climate change and severe weather (unknown impact)

Climate change and extreme weather could have adverse effects on Chimney Swift populations, but their impact and severity are currently unknown (Table 2; COSEWIC 2018). More specific threats associated with this broad category are described below. It should be noted that the impact, scope, severity and timing were assessed only for the broad threat category and not for the subcategories (Table 2).

As an aerial insectivore, the Chimney Swift is affected by weather conditions that influence the presence and abundance of flying insects. Climate change is likely to generate changes for many insect populations and the ecosystems they inhabit (Stange and Ayers 2010; Jonsson et al. 2015). There is a strong synchronization between birds’ reproductive timing (egg hatching) and peak food (insect) abundance. Climate change could create a temporal mismatch between the energetic requirements of the Chimney Swift and the availability of insect prey (COSEWIC 2018).

Drought causing a decrease in the abundance of insect prey for the Chimney Swift could represent a threat to the species (COSEWIC 2018).

In Canada, prolonged periods of rain, wind and cold in late spring or early summer, shortly after the Chimney Swifts arrive on their breeding grounds, could cause mortality or reduce reproductive success due to a lack of food resources (Newton 2007; Steeves et al. 2014; COSEWIC 2018). Excessively high temperatures could also result in dehydration and mortality of nestlings (COSEWIC 2018). According to Parry et al. (2007), episodes of extreme weather conditions could become more frequent with climate change.

Climate change could also reduce the lifespan of chimneys by accelerating their deterioration due to more frequent freeze-thaw cycles, which degrade the cement between the bricks and stones (COSEWIC 2018). The weakened chimney structure would then require repair or removal, which would result in a loss of chimneys suitable for nesting and roosting.

Climate change could affect the frequency, intensity and trajectory of hurricanes (NOAA 2005). Hurricanes are likely to cause Chimney Swift mortality during the fall migration period as well as on the wintering grounds. In 2005, Hurricane Wilma caused the death of a large number of Chimney Swifts (likely a few thousand), and this had an impact on the breeding population across a large part of the species’ breeding range (Dionne et al. 2008).

Changes in wind patterns could have certain effects on the Chimney Swift (COSEWIC 2018). A study on the Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), another aerial insectivore, showed that wind could affect the breeding phenology ^{footnote 13[13]} of this species and that windy conditions could delay clutch initiation (Irons et al. 2017).

5. Population and distribution objectives

The long-term population and distribution objective is to maintain a stable Chimney Swift population trend ^{footnote 14[14]} in the current known extent of occurrence (i.e. the area that encompasses the geographic distribution of all known populations) in Canada, for a period of 10 years following the achievement of the short-term objective (approximately 2033 to 2043).

The short-term population and distribution objective for the Chimney Swift in Canada is to halt the population decline within 10 years ^{footnote 15[15]} and to maintain the current known extent of occurrence. These timeframes for the objectives begin on the date that the final version of the recovery strategy is posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry.

5.1 Rationale for the population and distribution objectives

Over the past decades, the Chimney Swift population has experienced a significant decline across Canada, and it was specifically this criterion (decline of > 30% to 50%) that led to the species’ designation as Threatened (COSEWIC 2018). To improve the species’ status (i.e. from Threatened to Special Concern), the rate of decline must be reduced to less than 30% over 10 years or three generations.

Several threats to the species still exist as explained in the threat section above, but there is no simple way to address them. Specifically, changes and declines in insect populations have occurred as a result of a variety of factors that have adversely affected them, through mechanisms that are not yet all well understood. Action will have to be taken to restore the insect populations, but it could take years before the benefits are seen.

Today, the vast majority of the species’ known nesting and roosting sites, which comprise the species’ entire current known extent of occurrence, are located in human-made structures that are part of the built heritage. These include primarily chimneys and, to a lesser extent, silos, barns and wells, which have gradually declined in number. Even when they are retained, these structures are likely to require renovations or repairs to meet safety standards or comply with new construction standards. Such changes may render them unsuitable for Chimney Swifts.

In addition, prior to European colonization in the 16th century, mature forests provided the Chimney Swift with hollow trees suitable for nesting and roosting. Forests containing large-diameter hollow trees have long since given way to agriculture and urban development. Forest harvesting cycles are such that there is not enough time for trees to reach a size and conditions suitable for Chimney Swifts.

In short, given the threats that still exist to the Chimney Swift population and its habitat, it could be very difficult to return the population to its pre-decline level. Chimney Swift recovery efforts cannot be based solely on the availability of existing human-made structures, since the number of such structures will decline over time. With the gradual loss of existing human-made structures and the challenge posed by the return of Chimney Swifts to their natural habitat, as well as the uncertainties regarding the use of Chimney Swift towers, increasing the population in the short and long term is not a realistic objective. The objective must be to first halt the species’ decline and to then maintain the population for a period of 10 years. Considerable time and effort will be required to achieve this objective as a number of factors that adversely affect the species still exist.

Outreach to owners of buildings used by Chimney Swifts and the implementation of stewardship activities to preserve a sufficient number of suitable human-made structures for breeding and roosting activities by the species for as long as possible will contribute to the achievement of the objectives. Maintaining existing human-made structures will be necessary to achieve the short-term recovery objective. It will also contribute to the long-term recovery objective, although it is currently difficult to estimate the proportion of structures that will have to be maintained over time. This information will be needed before the short-term recovery objective is met. Best management practices for chimneys suited to the species will have to be developed and distributed to owners of buildings with chimneys and to chimney-cleaning companies. A network of Chimney Swift towers (freestanding or attached to buildings) will, if proven to be effective and appropriate, be established to offset the gradual loss of existing human-made structures (during the period of transition to natural habitat use). Additional approaches, including public outreach, SARA compliance promotion, protection of residences within the meaning of SARA, and protection under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, will also have to be used to conserve and protect a sufficient number of human-made nesting and roosting sites, as well as adult swifts, their eggs and their young. The achievement of the recovery objectives will also require a better understanding of the threats to the species. Known threats to the Chimney Swift are both numerous and complex, and they are likely to have a cumulative effect. Filling knowledge gaps related to the main threats to the species is therefore relevant to facilitating its recovery.

To achieve the long-term recovery objective, the species’ decline will first have to be halted (short-term objective). In the longer term, action will have to be taken to restore flying insect populations and to increase the number of suitable nesting and roosting sites in the natural environment, specifically hollow trees of a sufficient diameter as well as mature trees that can ensure the long-term availability of these hollow trees. A number of unknowns exist, however, with regard to the present and future distribution, abundance, and availability of these trees and the extent to which they can help maintain a stable population in the species’ current Canadian range. Acquiring this knowledge and implementing measures to enable the species to use these trees are part of the strategic direction for recovery (section 6.2) and could take several decades.

The 10-year time frame for achieving the recovery objectives (consecutively) was considered an appropriate period for assessing changes in the Chimney Swift population. This time frame was chosen not only because halting the decline of a species is challenging and cannot be achieved in just a few years, but also because COSEWIC species assessments are prepared every 10 years. The assessment criteria often include reviewing population changes within 10-year windows. The BBS will be used for this purpose since it currently provides the best available estimates of changes in population trends. In addition, this source of data was used to support the species’ designation as Threatened. These objectives will be reviewed (and updated if needed) when preparing the report required five years after the recovery strategy is posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry, and every five years thereafter, to assess the implementation of the recovery strategy and the progress made towards meeting its stated objectives (section 46, SARA).

Aerial insectivores, including the Chimney Swift, are currently in decline in eastern North America. It is important to note that population changes at the continental level may have a significant effect on the feasibility of recovery in Canada. The risk of decline is increased by the limited possibilities for effectively reducing or mitigating some of the significant threats to the species (e.g., chimney modification or demolition, pesticide use, unfavourable weather conditions produced by climate change). Therefore, despite the best efforts described in this recovery strategy to mitigate the main threats and to ensure that a sufficient number of suitable nesting and roosting sites are available, the number of Chimney Swifts in Canada may continue to decline.

6. Broad strategies and approaches for meeting recovery objectives

6.1 Actions already completed or currently underway

For a number of decades, Environment and Climate Change Canada has been funding projects related to Chimney Swift conservation across its Canadian range through various programs (e.g. Habitat Stewardship Program and Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk). Projects have included activities such as: undertaking targeted surveys for the species; identifying important habitat; studying the severity of and/or mitigating threats; soliciting observations and encouraging public reporting of sightings; and educating landowners on species identification, threats, and stewardship options. Some of these projects, along with those funded by the provinces and others, are described below.

• Identification and monitoring of certain nesting and roosting sites in Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan Breeding Bird Atlas), Manitoba (Manitoba Chimney Swift Initiative; Stewart et al. 2017; Poole and Ogilvie 2020), Ontario (Algoma SwiftWatch (Great Lakes Wildlife Research and Algoma University), Bert Miller Nature Club, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, City of Mississauga, Essex County Field Naturalists’ Club, Birds Canada (Ontario SwiftWatch), Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve, Halton/North Peel Naturalist Club, Hamilton Conservation Authority, Nature Aurora, Nature Barrie, Nature London (McIlwraith Field Naturalists), Nipissing Naturalists Club, Parry Sound Nature Club, Prince Edward County Field Naturalists Club, Sault Naturalists, Stratford Field Naturalists and Canadian Wildlife Service), Quebec (Canadian Wildlife Service, Nionwentsïo Office of the Huron-Wendat Nation Council, Regroupement QuébecOiseaux and several other conservation organizations), in New Brunswick (Birds Canada, Nature NB and Canadian Wildlife Service), and in Nova Scotia (Birds Canada, Blomidon Naturalists Society (Jim Wolford), Canadian Wildlife Service and Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute)
• Installation and assessment of Chimney Swift towers (freestanding or attached to buildings) in Manitoba (Manitoba Chimney Swift Initiative 2016; Firlotte et al. 2020), Ontario (Finity and Nocera 2012; Bird Studies Canada 2019), Quebec (Canadian Wildlife Service, Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, Société Provancher d’histoire naturelle, Sanatorium historique du Lac-Édouard, Montreal Botanical Garden, Musée des sciences et de la nature, Éco-Nature, Groupement Agro-Forestier Lotbinière Mégantic Inc., Club ornithologique des Hautes-Laurentides, Club des ornithologues de l’Outaouais, Héritage Saint-Bernard, Club des ornithologues de Québec, Centre de recherche industrielle du Québec, municipality of La Trinité-des-Monts, Centre 24-Juin, Centre de formation professionnelle Rimouski-Neigette, Zoo de Granby and private property owners), in New Brunswick (Nature NB), and in Nova Scotia (Government of Nova Scotia). Only a few of the many attempts to install Chimney Swift towers have been successful: five towers have been used as roosts (Bridgetown, NS; La Trinité-des-Monts, QC; and Selkirk, MB [n=3]) and nine have been used as nesting sites (Winnipeg, MB; Selkirk, MB; Etobicoke, ON; Lévis, QC; Lac-Édouard, QC [n=4]; and Granby, QC)
• Preparation of an overview of the implications of the presence of Chimney Swifts for insurance companies, chimney-cleaning companies and fire departments (Birds Canada, Regroupement QuébecOiseaux)
• Design and production of a Chimney Swift-friendly chimney cap (Éco-Nature et Regroupement QuébecOiseaux)
• Development of a decision support tool to assess nest and roost sites for maintenance, repair or reconstruction in Ontario and the Atlantic region by Birds Canada
• Establishment of the Chimney Swift Chimney Restoration Fund by Birds Canada, with the support of ECCC, Nature Saskatchewan, Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, the Nature Trust of New Brunswick, Nature NB, and the Nova Scotia Bird Society. This fund provides support for owners of chimneys and other structures used by Chimney Swifts as nesting sites or roosts that require repairs
• Production, by Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, of a guide on the conservation of the Chimney Swift and its habitat (Perreault and Pérez 2021). This guide, which is intended primarily for conservation organizations and wildlife experts, provides guidelines and references on the various aspects of conserving the species in Quebec (e.g. characteristics of suitable habitats [chimneys, natural environments], surveys and data management, possible stewardship actions, available tools, resource organizations)
• Outreach and stewardship to municipalities and owners of buildings with chimneys used by the Chimney Swift in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (Canadian Wildlife Service and Birds Canada), Quebec (Regroupement QuébecOiseaux and other conservation organizations), Ontario (Birds Canada) and Manitoba (Government of Manitoba, Manitoba Chimney Swift Initiative)
• Reopening of chimneys with blocked access previously used by Chimney Swifts, required by the Government of Manitoba as a mitigation measure for projects involving the modification of chimneys used by the species
• Outreach to increase awareness of best practices and chimney sweep regulations among chimney sweeps and municipalities (Regroupement QuébecOiseaux and other conservation groups)
• Consideration of the Chimney Swift in conservation planning initiatives such as Species at Risk Partnerships on Agricultural Lands (SARPAL) in New Brunswick and Kespukwitk/Southwest Nova Scotia Priority Place
• Research on foraging behaviour, on the birds’ daily movements around nest sites, on breeding success and reproductive rates, on changes in diet that have occurred in recent decades, on the history of the presence of contaminants in the species’ diet and on the relationship between ambient temperature and bird behaviour in roost sites (Finity et al. 2010; Nocera et al. 2012; Stewart and Stewart 2013; Farquar et al. 2018)
• Research on Chimney Swift habitat, including the availability of chimneys, the use of trees by Chimney Swifts, temperature conditions at nesting sites, and the species’ use of territory during breeding and migration (Regroupement QuébecOiseaux 2008; Fitzgerald et al. 2014; Zanchetta et al. 2014; Société zoologique de Granby 2018; Devost et al. 2019; le Roux et al. 2019)
• Development of a pan-Canadian survey protocol for nesting and roosting sites (Rioux et al. 2010; Shaffer et al. 2022) and study on a survey protocol aimed at limiting the incidence of nondetection error and reducing threats to nest sites (Purves et al. 2019)
• Consolidation of data on the existence of nesting sites in natural environments in the Prairies (Manitoba Chimney Swift Initiative), Ontario (Birds Canada), Quebec (Regroupement QuébecOiseaux and Canadian Wildlife Service) and Atlantic Canada (Birds Canada)

6.2 Strategic direction for recovery

6.3 Narrative to support the recovery planning table

The recovery of the Chimney Swift will require the collaboration and cooperation of international, federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions, Indigenous communities, local communities, landowners, industry and other interested parties. Since the majority of Chimney Swift nesting and roosting sites are currently associated with human-made structures, communication and stewardship strategies will be particularly important.

Conservation and stewardship of the species and its habitat

Conservation actions aimed at maintaining the diversity and abundance of insects are crucial to supporting the recovery of the Chimney Swift: promoting a reduction in pesticide use (particularly broad-spectrum pesticides) is a critical step to be taken to support the species’ recovery. Conserving, managing and restoring suitable insect-producing habitats (e.g. wetlands and aquatic environments) is also a priority in order to maximize swifts’ survival when they are in Canada.

Owners of human-made structures (including those in residential, commercial, public or religious buildings) and all stakeholders involved in some aspect of the species habitat will play a key role in supporting the species’ recovery. Therefore, it is important to work closely with all of these owners and stakeholders to increase awareness and to support them in carrying out suitable stewardship actions. Another priority will be to promote the conservation or creation of natural habitats to encourage the species to rely more on natural sites as it did in the past. For example, in cooperation with forestry stakeholders, best management practices must be developed and implemented to reduce the threats in managed forests and increase the availability of large hollow trees in these areas. Given that not all of the chimneys or other human-made structures currently used will be conserved in the long-term, new human-made nesting or roosting sites will have to be created. These new sites are designed to provide habitat and are part of a transitional or complementary strategy that may help maintain the species’ numbers until it begins making greater use of natural habitat in the long-term. A large number of researchers, governments, stakeholders from various relevant sectors, Indigenous communities and volunteers will have to be called upon to coordinate activities, effectively communicate results, pool resources, and share findings in an efficient manner. It could also be advisable to reopen sites that were once used by the species, but that have recently been capped or otherwise blocked, provided the site is still suitable. Carrying out conservation and stewardship actions in collaboration with the appropriate authorities and with stakeholders in other countries visited by the species during migration and wintering is one approach that should be developed and implemented. Together, these actions should have a positive effect on other species at risk whose habitat needs are similar to those of the Chimney Swift (see Appendix B). The implementation of this recovery strategy will require significant financial resources over the short- and medium-term.

Surveys and monitoring

Prior to the publication of the 2007 COSEWIC report, knowledge about population status and distribution was limited. Although progress has been made (see COSEWIC 2018), there is still a need to enhance the existing monitoring programs (e.g. the BBS provides poor coverage of urban centres) and to expand their coverage to the species’ entire range. To obtain high-quality data, monitoring needs to be conducted over several decades. A number of key sector stakeholders, such as researchers, governments, Indigenous communities, conservation organizations, and volunteers, could take part in surveys and monitoring. The monitoring data will shed light on the species’ distribution, clutch size, reproductive success and population size and trends. The data can also be used to identify locations where action needs to be taken, including urgent measures, to protect nesting sites and roosts. Monitoring can also provide information on the effectiveness of the conservation measures (e.g. Chimney Swift towers) put in place. This information will be useful for measuring progress and re-assessing the species’ status.

Research

Over the long term, as existing human-made structures become less available for use as nesting and roosting sites, the Chimney Swift will need to make greater use of natural habitat, such as hollow trees. Consequently, increasing our knowledge about habitat use in natural areas is a priority. Although some evidence exists that the species still nests in hollow trees, such behaviour has rarely been observed. It is therefore not possible at this time to accurately determine the attributes of the natural habitat needed by the species, and this makes it difficult to promote the maintenance or development of suitable natural habitat for the species. In this context, it would also be useful to obtain (if available ^{footnote 17[17]} ) and take into account Indigenous traditional knowledge.

To ensure the availability of nesting sites and roosts, cost-effective models of Chimney Swift towers will be needed. This will require increased knowledge of the structures used. However, it is important to find ways to extend the useful life of human-made structures currently used by the species in order to buy time to ensure a gradual transition to natural habitat to the extent possible. If the long-term recovery objective is to be achieved, it will also be necessary to identify the existing human-made structures that will have to be maintained on a priority basis over time, as well as structures that have been closed off but could be reopened (if feasible).

The threats to insectivorous bird species are serious. A better understanding of the multiple facets of those threats is needed in order to develop appropriate responses. Learning more about the species’ diet, identifying habitats that produce the types of insects consumed by Chimney Swifts (see section 7.2), and identifying the threats and factors affecting those environments are avenues of knowledge acquisition (including Indigenous knowledge) that should be given priority. Similarly, some threats have an unknown (or poorly documented) impact on the Chimney Swift breeding population in Canada (e.g., climate change and severe weather). Studies are needed to fill these knowledge gaps.

The Chimney Swift is a migratory species. During its annual cycle, it winters in South America, migrates through Central America, and breeds in North America. Each of these regions has an influence on the species’ survival. Collaboration with partners in these regions is necessary to obtain the knowledge required to improve our understanding of the threats to the species and to develop appropriate recovery strategies. Increasing our knowledge about the location of the wintering grounds and the threats to the species in those regions is also a priority. In addition, it would be useful to clarify the species’ use of natural and anthropogenic habitats—for example, to determine if swifts using human-made structures in Canada use natural cavities elsewhere (which would help in assessing the feasibility of swifts returning to their natural habitats).

Communication, partnerships, outreach and education

The majority of known Chimney Swift nesting and roosting sites are closely associated with human-made structures, and the species forages in natural areas as well as in urban, agricultural and forested areas. The recovery of the Chimney Swift is therefore closely linked to several facets of human activities. To promote the species’ recovery, communication, outreach and education strategies must be used to reach the many stakeholders who can have an influence on the species’ habitat. These stakeholders include: chimney sweeps, ‘pest’ control companies, insurance companies, fire departments, building standards organizations, and companies involved in the installation and repair of heating systems. Farmers, woodlot owners and land-use planners are examples of other stakeholders that are important to engage due to their influence on the availability of natural habitats such as insect-producing habitats. In addition, monitoring of the Chimney Swift population relies mainly on public participation, which needs to be encouraged, highlighted and supported. Observers in the field often act as an early warning system, since they can report specific problems related to nesting or roosting sites, allowing corrective measures to be taken more rapidly. Utilizing on-the-ground observers' experiences to their fullest potential can enhance the knowledge and resources available to promote recovery.

Given the complexity of implementing the strategic directions set out in section 6.2, the coordination of recovery efforts at different spatial scales (e.g., national and provincial) is required, whether this involves the data collection, best management practices or educational tools to assist the stakeholders concerned. Such coordination is also likely to accelerate the discovery of effective species’ recovery measures.

Legislation and policy

Legal tools also exist under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA) and the Species at Risk Act (SARA) to protect nests, eggs and individuals and their habitat. It is crucial to ensure that these tools are well understood and used appropriately to promote the protection of the Chimney Swift. For example, promoting the integration and consideration of such provisions in municipal-level permitting systems is essential.

The damage or destruction of the Chimney Swift’s residence is prohibited on all lands in Canada. Section 33 of the SARA prohibits damaging or destroying the residence of one or more individuals of a listed threatened, endangered, or extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended the re-introduction of the species into the wild in Canada. With respect to a listed wildlife species that is an aquatic species or a species of bird protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the prohibition applies automatically upon listing wherever the residences are found in Canada.

A description of residence for the Chimney Swift is published on the Species at Risk Public Registry for the purposes of providing clarity to enable Canadians to comply with the residence protection provision of SARA (s.33). The residence description indicates that nesting and roosting structures (e.g., chimneys, hollow trees) are considered residences throughout the year and remain residences until the species has not used them for nesting or roosting for three consecutive years. The nest is a residence only when occupied typically from May to September; the nest is no longer considered part of a residence when it is abandoned at summer’s end.

The Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 protects individuals, nests and eggs anywhere they are found in Canada, regardless of land ownership. The new Migratory Birds Regulations, 2022 (MBR), provide protection to migratory bird nests when they are considered to have a high conservation value for migratory birds. As stipulated in section (5) of the MBR, the nests of all migratory bird species are protected when they contain a live bird or a viable egg (generally during the nesting period).

Chimney sweeping carried out during the breeding season can destroy eggs and nests which is prohibited by SARA and the MBCA. Appropriate municipal regulations that incorporate and are consistent with MBCA and SARA prohibitions should therefore be developed in cooperation with the relevant authorities to ban chimney sweeping during the breeding season at sites occupied by the species. The same is true for ‘pest’ control companies.

Initiatives aimed at reducing the risks related to the use of pesticides (including neonicotinoids) and encouraging the adoption of alternative pest management approaches, practices and technologies are already underway (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2016). These initiatives target a variety of habitats, including agricultural areas, forests and golf courses. To promote the recovery of the Chimney Swift, it is important to encourage the implementation of such initiatives and promote the development of additional legislation and policies, should this become necessary.

Federal, provincial and municipal legislation exists and deals with safety and construction standards related to the renovation and/or reparation of existing chimneys. It will therefore be important to work closely with all stakeholders in the construction industry to find and develop innovative means by which to renovate and/or repair chimneys to meet those standards while maintaining their suitability for Chimney Swifts.

7. Critical habitat

SARA defines critical habitat as “the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species.” Under paragraph 41(1)(c) of SARA, recovery strategies must include an identification of the species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible, as well as examples of activities that are likely to result in its destruction. Under subparagraph 41(1)(c)(1) of SARA, the recovery strategy must also include a schedule of studies to identify critical habitat where available information is inadequate, as it is in the case of the Chimney Swift.

7.1 Identification of the species’ critical habitat

The identification of critical habitat for the Chimney Swift is based on two criteria: habitat occupancy and biophysical attributes of suitable habitat.

Given that almost all currently known Chimney Swift nesting sites or roosts in Canada are located in human-made structures, the current identification of critical habitat comprises exclusively human-made structures, which are required for the species recovery. Maintaining existing human-made structures is of paramount importance to achieve the short-term recovery objective. It will also contribute to the long-term recovery objective, although it is currently difficult to estimate the proportion of structures that will have to be maintained over time. This information will be needed to meet the short-term recovery objective.

The critical habitat of the Chimney Swift is partially identified in this recovery strategy, taking into account the best information that is available because basic information on the biophysical attributes and the location of suitable habitat used by the species in the natural environment, namely forested areas, is lacking. Available information on natural areas that produce insects that are part of the species’ diet is also very limited. Additional critical habitat units may be identified as new knowledge becomes available. A schedule that sets out the studies required to complete the identification of the species’ critical habitat is included (section 7.2, table 5).

7.1.1 Habitat occupancy

This criterion is intended to identify, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the suitable nesting and roosting sites used by the species. Since it is very difficult to find Chimney Swift nests, eggs and young because they are located in confined spaces, such as inside chimneys, it is necessary to rely on observations of swifts entering or leaving a structure. Habitat occupancy is determined on the basis of standardized survey data and incidental observations. Since the Chimney Swift is a bird species that is easily recognized by its characteristic shape, flight pattern and call, sightings reported by observers are considered reliable.

Chimney Swifts exhibit high nest and roost site fidelity. A site that is occupied as a nesting or roosting site is likely to be occupied again in subsequent years. Since a Chimney Swift may enter a structure in which it does not actually nest or roost, at least two observations of a swift entering or exiting a structure, on two different days, are required for it to be considered critical habitat. A single record of a swift observed entering or exiting a chimney, barn, or other human-made structure is considered insufficient to meet the occupancy criterion. An activity was added to the schedule of studies in order to validate records that require more details before they can be considered critical habitat. A single confirmed breeding record, within the sense of the breeding bird atlas, namely the presence of a nest, eggs or young in a structure, or the observation of a bird entering the structure with a twig, from 2011 to 2017 inclusive, was considered to be a good indicator of habitat occupancy. This time period was considered adequate to indicate recent occupancy, given the high degree of site fidelity exhibited by Chimney Swifts.

Knowledge of Chimney Swift occupancy of nesting and roosting sites has increased considerably over the last 20 years (since 2001) in Canada. Before this period, very little effort was devoted to locating nesting and roosting sites. As a result, the data used for the identification of critical habitat in this recovery strategy consist solely of observations made from 2001 to 2017, inclusive. Data for 2017 were available during the selection of critical habitat units. In addition, observations from 2001 to 2010 inclusive must be corroborated by a more recent sighting, i.e. one made from 2011 to 2017 inclusive, in order to demonstrate that the site has been recently occupied. The data sources consulted to establish critical habitat are presented in Appendix C.

The habitat occupancy criteria in human-altered areas are as follows:

• any confirmed breeding record between 2011 and 2017, namely the observation of a nest, eggs or young inside a structure or the observation of a bird entering a structure with a twig, or
• any observation of at least one Chimney Swift entering or leaving a structure, on at least two different days, including at least one between 2011 and 2017 and another between 2001 and 2017

The habitat occupancy criteria in natural areas will be developed once data have been obtained on the natural environment from the activities set out in the schedule of studies.

7.1.2 Biophysical attributes of suitable habitat

This criterion refers to the biophysical attributes of the various habitats in which individuals can carry out activities related to breeding (such as courtship, defence of territory, nest building, and foraging) and activities associated with roosting (Table 4). Given that all identified critical habitat sites are human-made structures, this table presents only the biophysical characteristics of this type of structure. Research on habitat characteristics in natural areas is identified in the schedule of studies (section 7.2). The biophysical characteristics of suitable habitat in natural areas will be defined when we have obtained data on this type of habitat from the activities outlined in the schedule of studies.

7.1.3 Application of critical habitat identification criteria

In this recovery strategy, critical habitat for the Chimney Swift is partially identified as human-made structures occupied as nesting or roosting sites during the period from 2001 to 2017 (see section 7.1.1) that have suitable biophysical attributes as defined in section 7.1.2 (see also Figure 3).

The location of critical habitat of the Chimney Swift is presented using 10 × 10 km UTM grid squares (Appendix D: Tables D-1 to D-5; Figures D-1 to D-4.7). The UTM grid is part of a standardized grid system that indicates the general geographic area containing the critical habitat. This information can be used for planning and environmental assessment purposes. Critical habitat within each grid square consists of human-made structures that meet the criteria described in sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. Each human-made structure that was selected corresponds to a critical habitat unit (Figure 3). The geographical coordinates of each critical habitat unit are presented in Tables D-1 to D-5 and are indicated by a yellow dot within the associated 10 × 10 km square in Figures D-1 to D-4. Tables D-1 to D-5 also provide the thoroughfare and city where each human-made structure is located and information to correctly identify it if the building or property has more than one structure. More detailed information may be obtained on the location of each critical habitat unit to support the protection of the species and its habitat, on a case-by-case basis, by contacting Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Recovery Planning section at RecoveryPlanning-Planificationduretablissement@ec.gc.ca.

By applying the identification criteria described in sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2, based on the most recent data for the 2001 to 2017 period, it is possible to identify a total of 1,026 units for the entire Canadian population, specifically 122 units in Manitoba, 381 in Ontario, 456 in Quebec, 28 in New Brunswick, and 39 in Nova Scotia. There are no known occupied chimneys in Saskatchewan for the 2001 to 2017 period, and therefore no critical habitat units have been identified in that province.

7.2 Schedule of studies to identify critical habitat

7.3 Activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat

Understanding what constitutes destruction of critical habitat is necessary for the protection and management of critical habitat. Destruction is determined on a case-by-case basis. Destruction occurs when part of the critical habitat is degraded, either permanently or temporarily, such that it can no longer serve its function when needed by the species. Destruction may result from a single activity at one point in time or from the cumulative effects of one or more activities over time.

Examples of activities likely to result in destruction of critical habitat for the Chimney Swift include, but are not limited to, activities that eliminate nesting or roosting sites, prevent the birds from gaining access to those sites, or modify structures to the extent that they are unsuitable for the species. Examples are presented in Table 6.

It is recognized that human-made structures used for nesting and roosting are temporary and may need periodic maintenance or may need to be removed for health and safety reasons. When such structures are identified as critical habitat, priority will be given to stewardship, voluntary measures, mitigation or other appropriate measures, in order to protect them. Where, for public health and safety reasons, it is unavoidable to remove a human-made structure used by the Chimney Swift for nesting or roosting or to modify it in such a way as to compromise its habitat function, a permit would be required before work can proceed.

In the event that repairs or changes to the interior or exterior of a human-made structure used by the Chimney Swift for nesting or roosting are needed, if the work is done outside the breeding period, it will not be considered destruction of critical habitat provided it does not impair habitat function. A permit would be required before work could proceed.

8. Measuring progress

The performance indicators presented below provide a way to define and measure progress toward achieving the population and distribution objectives.

The performance indicators for the recovery of the Chimney Swift are as follows:

• in the short-term (the 10-year period, beginning on the date the final version of the recovery strategy is posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry): the decline in the Canadian population trend has been halted, and the cumulative rate of decline has not exceeded 10% (including 95% confidence or credibility intervals). The BBS will be used to measure this indicator
• in the long-term: the population trend has remained stable (i.e. when the 95% confidence or credibility interval surrounding the estimates includes a value of zero) over a 10-year period following the achievement of the short-term objective, approximately 2033 to 2043. The BBS will be used to measure this indicator
• the Chimney Swift’s current extent of occurrence in Canada has been maintained

9. Statement on action plans

One or more action plans will be posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry within five years of the final publication of this recovery strategy.

10. References

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2016. Pesticide Risk Reduction Program. [Également disponible en français : Agriculture et agroalimentaire Canada. 2016. Programme de réduction des risques liés aux pesticides.]

Avian Effects Dialogue Group. 1994. Assessing pesticide impacts on birds: final report of the Avian Effects Dialogue Group, 1988-1993. Resolve, Center for Environmental Dispute Resolution, Arlington, VA, 156 p.

Bird Studies Canada. 2019. Chimney Swift habitat creation and restoration projects in Ontario: Year 2 report for MNRF Species at Risk Stewardship Fund. Unpublished report. Bird Studies Canada. 6 p.

Bohlen, H.D. 1989. The birds of Illinois. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis (IN), 221 p.

Brust, G.E. 1990. Direct and indirect effects of four herbicides on the activity of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pestic. Sci. 30 (3):309–20.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2007. Assessment and Status Report on the Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. vii + 49 pp. [Également disponible en français : COSEPAC (Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada). 2007. Évaluation et Rapport de situation sur le Martinet ramoneur (Chaetura pelagica) au Canada. Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. viii + 56 p.]

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2015. Instructions for the Preparation of COSEWIC status Reports. (accessed July, 30 2019). [Également disponible en français : COSEPAC (Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada). 2015. Instructions pour la préparation des rapports de situation du COSEPAC.]

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2018. Assessment and Status Report on the Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, xii + 63 pp. (accessed July 30, 2019). [Également disponible en français : COSEPAC (Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada). 2018. Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Martinet ramoneur (Chaetura pelagica) au Canada. Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada. Ottawa. xiii + 71 p.]

Devost, I., F. Shaffer, J. Tremblay, P. Paré, P. Côté, C. Bégin-Marchand, F. Gagnon, V. Lamarre and P.-A. Dumas. 2019. Natural habitat use during breeding season and migration patterns of a northern population of Chimney Swifts (Chaetura pelagica). Annual Meeting of the Society of Canadian Ornithologists.

Dionne, M., C. Maurice, J. Gauthier and F. Shaffer. 2008. Impact of hurricane Wilma on migrating birds: the case of the Chimney Swift. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:784-792.

Erskine, A.J. 1992. Atlas of the breeding birds of the Maritimes Provinces. Nimbus Publishing Limited and Nova Scotia Museum. 274 p.

Evans, D., J. Pearce and J.R. Foote. 2017. Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) Depredate Chimney Swifts (Chaetura pelagica) at a Migratory Roost. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 129(3):632-636.

Farquar, M.L., A. Morin and J.J. Nocera. 2018. High ambient temperatures induce aggregations of chimney swifts Chaetura pelagica inside a roost. Journal of Avian Biology 49 (8): e01754.

Feber, R., H. Smith and D. Macdonald. 1996. The effects on butterfly abundance of the management of uncropped edges of arable fields. J. Appl. Ecol. 33:1191–205.

Finity, L., J.P. Smol, T.K. Kyser, M.W. Reudink, J.M. Blais, C. Grooms and J.J. Nocera. 2010. Historical declines in chimney swift populations are associated with dramatic changes in insect prey consumption. Summary of an oral presentation, Ecological Society of America, 95th meeting, August 1-6, 2010. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Finity, L. and J.J. Nocera. 2012. Vocal and visual conspecific cues influence the behavior of Chimney Swifts at provisioned habitat. Condor 114:323-328.

Firlotte, N., T.F. Poole, C. Artuso, C-J. C. Breiter, L.D. Burns, S.D. Petersen, B.E. Stewart and R.E.A. Stewart. 2020. The first use of purpose-built artificial Chimney Swift habitat in Manitoba. Blue Jay 78(3): 30-33.

Fjeldså, J. and N. Krabbe. 1990. Birds of the High Andes. Zoological museum, University of Copenhagen, Apollo Books, Svendborg, Denmark. 876 p.

Fischer, R.B. 1958. The breeding biology of the Chimney Swift, Chaetura pelagica (Linnaeus). New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin. No. 368.

Fitzgerald, T.M., E. van Stam, J.J. Nocera and D.S. Badzinski. 2014. Loss of nesting sites is not a primary factor limiting northern Chimney Swift populations. Population Ecology 56: 507-512.

Gauthier, J., M. Dionne, C. Maurice, J. Potvin, M.D. Cadman and D. Busby. 2007. Status of the Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) in Canada. Technical Report Series, No. 477. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Québec. xiv + 111 pp. [Également disponible en français : Gauthier, J., M. Dionne, C. Maurice, J. Potvin, M.D. Cadman et D. Busby. 2007. Situation du Martinet ramoneur (Chaetura pelagica) au Canada, Série de rapports techniques n^o 477, Service canadien de la faune, Environnement Canada, Québec. xiv + 119 p.]

Global Bird Rescue. 2022. Global Bird Collision Mapper. (data downloaded on October 6, 2022).

Godfray, C.J.T. Blacquière, L.M. Field, R.S. Hails, G. Petrokofsky, S.G. Potts, N.E. Raine, A.J. Vanbergen and A.R. McLean. 2014. A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 281: 20140558.

Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The Birds of Canada, Revised Edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 650 p. [Également disponible en français : Godfrey, W.E. 1986. Les oiseaux du Canada, édition révisée. Musée national des sciences naturelles. Musées nationaux du Canada, Ottawa. 650 p.]

Goulson, D.C. 2013. An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:977-987.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 2019. Species at Risk – Birds. Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Gouvernement du Québec. 2010. Arrêtés ministériels dans Lois et Règlements, Partie 2, 142^e année, no 9, Gazette officielle du Québec, 3 mars 2010, p. 861-916.

Graves, G.R. 2004. Avian commensals in colonial America: when did Chaetura pelagica become the chimney swift? Archives of Natural History 31(2): 300-307.

Haddad, N.M., D. Tilman, J. Haarstad, M. Ritchie and J.M.H. Knops. 2001. Contrasting effects of plant richness and composition on insect communities: a field experiment. American Naturalist 158: 17-35.

Hughes, R. A. 1988. Nearctic migrants in southwest Peru. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 108: 29-43.

Irons R.D., A.H. Harding Scurr, A.P. Rose, J.C. Hagelin and D.F. Doak. 2017. Wind and rain are the primary climate factors driving changing phenology of an aerial insectivore. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284: 20170412. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Jonsson, M., P. Hedström, K. Stenroth, E.R. Hotchkiss, F.R. Vasconcelos, J. Karlsson and P. Byström. 2015. Climate change modifies the size structure of assemblages of emerging aquatic insects. Freshwater Biology 60:78-88.

Kraus, E.C. and M.J. Stout. 2019. Direct and Indirect Effects of Herbicides on Insect Herbivores in Rice, Oryza sativa. Scientific Reports 9: 6998.

Lamoureux, S. 2012. État des connaissances sur la règlementation des municipalités en lien avec le ramonage et l’entretien des cheminées. Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, Montréal, Québec. 58 p.

le Roux, C. E., L.A.M. Tranquilla and J.J. Nocera. 2019. Ambient temperature preferences of chimney swifts (Chaetura pelagica) for nest site selection. Journal of Thermal Biology 80: 89-93.

Manitoba Chimney Swift Initiative. 2016. Guidelines for creating Chimney Swift nesting or roosting chimneys in Manitoba. Environment Canada, Manitoba Conservation, Bird Studies Canada, Nature Manitoba. 23 p. [accessed July 30, 2019].

National Forest Inventory of Canada. 2020. Map of Forest Management in Canada, 2020 version. Natural Resources Canada – Canadian Forest Service, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, (data uploaded November 2, 2022). [Également disponible en français : Inventaire forestier national du Canada. 2020. La carte des forêts aménagées du Canada, version 2020. Ressources naturelles Canada – Service canadien des forêts, Conseil canadien des ministres des forêts, (données téléchargées le 2 novembre 2022)].

NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [Web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Newton, I. 2007. Weather-related mass-mortality events in migrants. Ibis 149(3): 453-467.

NOAA (National Oceanic Atmosphere Association). 2005. National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Hurricanes and Tropical Storms for Annual 2005. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Nocera, J.J., J.M. Blais, D.V. Beresford, L.K. Finity, C. Grooms, L.E. Kimpe, K. Kyser, N. Michelutti, M.W. Reudink and J.P. Smol. 2012. Historical pesticide applications coincided with an altered diet of aerially foraging insectivorous chimney swifts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 279 (1740): 3114-3120.

Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, C.E. Hanson and P.J. van der Linden (eds.). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Partners in Flight. 2019. Landbird population estimates database 3.0. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Perreault, G. and L. Pérez. 2021. Guide d’intendance pour la protection du Martinet ramoneur. QuébecOiseaux, Montréal, 112 pages.

Poole, T.F. and G. Ogilvie. 2020. Occupancy of unconventional nest and roost habitats by the Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) in Manitoba. Blue Jay 78 (1): 10-15.

Poulin, B., G. Lefebvre and L. Paz. 2010. Red flag for green spray: adverse trophic effects of Bti on breeding birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:884-889.

Purves, E.F., C. Myles Falconer, D.C. Tozer and K. Richardson. 2019. Timing matters: cloud cover and date influence probability of detecting nesting Chimney Swifts (Chaetura pelagica). Avian Conservation and Ecology14(1): 8. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Rappole, J. H., E. S. Morton, T. E. Lovejoy and J. L. Ruos. 1983. Nearctic avian migrants in the neotropics. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Regroupement QuébecOiseaux. 2008. Analyse des activités de conservation établies en 2008 pour la protection du Martinet ramoneur. Montréal, 36 p. + appendices.

Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young and J.R. Zook. 2007. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 3.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

Rioux, S., J.-P. L. Savard and F. Shaffer. 2010. Scientific and cost effective monitoring: the case of an aerial insectivore, the chimney swift. Avian Conservation and Ecology 5(2): 10. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Sauer, J.R., D.K. Niven, J.E. Hines, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., K.L. Pardieck, J.E. Fallon and W.A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Shaffer, F., V. Connolly and C. Maurice. 2022. National Chimney Swift Roost Survey Protocol. Technical Report Series Number 539. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Quebec. 12 p. + appendices. [Également disponible en français: Protocole national d’inventaire des dortoirs du Martinet ramoneur. Série de rapports techniques no 539. Environnement et Changement climatique Canada, Québec, 12 p. + annexes]

Smith, A.C., M-A.R. Hudson, V. Aponte and C.M. Francis. 2022. North American Breeding Bird Survey – Canadian Trends Website, Data-version 2019. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Quebec. (accessed October 18, 2022). [Également disponible en français : Smith, A.C., M-A.R. Hudson, V. Aponte et C.M. Francis 2022. Site Web du Relevé des oiseaux nicheurs de l’Amérique du Nord – Tendances démographiques au Canada, version des données de 2019. Environnement et Changement climatique Canada, Gatineau (Québec) K1A 0H3. (consulté le 18 octobre 2022).

Société zoologique de Granby (Zoo de Granby). 2018. Utilisation du territoire en période de nidification et migration chez le Martinet ramoneur (Chaetura pelagica). Rapport présenté à Protection des oiseaux du Québec. 14 p. + annexes.

Stange, E.E. and M.P. Ayres. 2010. Climate change impacts: Insects. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, John Wiley and Sons.

Steeves, T.K., S.B. Kearney-McGee, M.A. Rubega, C.L. Cink and C.T. Collins. 2014. Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A.F. Poole, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.

Stewart, B.E. and R.E.A. Stewart. 2013. Nesting site use, breeding success and reproductive rates of chimney swifts in St. Adolphe, MB, 2010-2013. Blue Jay 71:166-182.

Stewart, R.L. M., K.A. Bredin, A.R. Couturier, A.G. Horn, D. Lepage, S. Makepeace, P.D. Taylor, M.-A. Villard and B.M. Whittam (eds.). 2015. Second Atlas of the Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Natural History Society of Prince Edward Island, Nature New Brunswick, New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, Nova Scotia Bird Society, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Sackville, NB. 528 pp.

Stewart, R.E.A., T.F. Poole, C. Artuso and B.E. Stewart. 2017. Loss and preservation of Chimney Swift habitat in Manitoba, 2007-2016. Blue Jay 75(2): 11-15.

Stotz, D.F., J.W. Fitzpatrick, T.A. Parker III and D.K. Moskovits. 1996. Neotropical birds: ecology and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 478 pp.

Warkentin, I.G., N.S. Sodhi, R.H.M. Espie, A.F. Poole, L.W. Oliphant and P.C. James. 2005. Merlin (Falco columbarius), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A.F. Poole, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.

Whittemore, M. 1981. Chimney swifts and their relatives. Nature Books Publishers, Jackson, MS, 168 pp.

Wood, T. and D. Goulson. 2017. The Environmental Risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: a review of the evidence post-2013. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24: 17285-17325.

Zanchetta, C., D.C. Tozer, T.M. Fitzgerald, K. Richardson and D. Badzinski. 2014. Tree cavity use by Chimney Swifts: implications for forestry and population recovery. Avian Conservation and Ecology 9(2): 1. [accessed July 30, 2019].

Appendix A: Definitions of NatureServe conservation ranks

The table below lists the conservation status ranks used by NatureServe and their definitions. These ranks are appended to the letter “G” (global rank, applies to the entire range), “N” (national rank, applies on a national scale) or “S” (subnational rank, applies to a province or state). A numeric range rank (e.g., S1S2) is used to indicate uncertainty about the status of the species or community in question.

Appendix B: Effects on the environment and other species

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery planning documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals ^{footnote 18[18]}The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making and to evaluate whether the outcomes of a recovery planning document could affect any component of the environment or any of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy’s^{footnote 19[19]} (FSDS) goals and targets.

Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts on non-target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself, but are also summarized below.

Like several other bird species that are considered aerial insectivores, the Chimney Swift feeds on insects that it captures in flight. Several of the recommended activities may therefore benefit the following species at risk: Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Eastern Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) and Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia). The proposed measures may also benefit several other aerial insectivores that are not at risk, such as other swallow and flycatcher species. Measures to preserve hollow trees could also have a positive impact on forest species that use tree cavities.

The potential for this recovery strategy to inadvertently lead to adverse effects on the environment and other species was considered. It can be concluded that this strategy will have no significant adverse effects.

Appendix C: Acquisition dates of best available data

Biodiversity datasets are regularly updated with new or historical occurrences. Critical habitat is based on all suitable occurrence data available to Environment and Climate Change Canada. The following list indicates for each region the main sources of the data that were consulted and the dates on which the data were obtained in order to establish the list of critical habitat units. These datasets are likely to be regularly updated with new or historical occurrences and are therefore not an exhaustive list of the datasets that constitute the best available data.

Prairie Region

Manitoba Chimney Swift Initiative database, December 23, 2020

Ontario Region

Birds Canada database; various datasets including SwiftWatch - September 2018, eBird - 2016, and Project NestWatch – 2016. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, April 2012

Québec Region

SOS-POP database, March 02, 2021

Atlantic Region

Birds Canada database, January 26, 2021

Appendix D: Critical habitat for the Chimney Swift