DOCSLIB.ORG

Species at Risk Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act Terrestrial Species November 2010 Information contained in this publication or product may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, for personal or public non-commercial purposes, without charge or further permission, unless otherwise specified. You are asked to: • Exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; • Indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author organization; and • Indicate that the reproduction is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada and that the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Government of Canada. Commercial reproduction and distribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada’s copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC). For more information, please contact PWGSC at 613-996-6886 or at [email protected]. Cover photo credits: Whitebark Pine, © Peter Achuff Chestnut-collared Longspur, © Nick Saunders Rusty-patched Bumble Bee, © Johanna James-Heinz Title page photo credits: Background photo: Bicknell’s Thrush habitat, © Dan Busby Foreground, large photo: Chestnut-collared Longspur, © Nick Saunders Small photos, left to right: Rusty-patched Bumble Bee, © Johanna James-Heinz Northern Barrens Tiger Beetle, © Michael Runtz Virginia Mallow, © Melinda Thompson Black Bicknell’s Thrush, © Dan Busby Available also on the Internet. ISSN: 1710-3029 ISBN: 978-1-100-52505-1 Cat. no.: En1-36/2010 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2010 Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act Terrestrial Species November 2010 Please submit your comments by February 4, 2011, for terrestrial species undergoing normal consultations and by February 4, 2012, for terrestrial species undergoing extended consultations. For a description of the consultation paths these species will undergo, please see www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/listing/table_1210_e.cfm. Please email your comments to the Species at Risk Public Registry at: [email protected] Comments may also be mailed to: Director General Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 For more information on the Species at Risk Act, please visit the Species at Risk Public Registry at: www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act: Terrestrial Species, November 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS ADDITION OF SPECIES TO THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT ..............................................2 The Species at Risk Act and the List of Wildlife Species at Risk .............................................................. 2 COSEWIC and the assessment process for identifying species at risk .................................................. 2 Terms used to define the degree of risk to a species .............................................................................. 2 Terrestrial and aquatic species eligible for Schedule 1 amendments .................................................. 2 Public comments solicited on the proposed amendment of Schedule 1 .......................................... 3 THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT LISTING PROCESS AND CONSULTATION ..........................................................3 The purpose of consultations on amendments to the List ...................................................................... 3 Legislative context of the consultations: the Minister’s recommendation to the Governor in Council ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1: The species listing process under SARA ................................................................................ 4 The Minister of the Environment’s response to the COSEWIC assessment: the response statement ....................................................................................................................... 5 Normal and extended consultation periods ........................................................................................... 5 Who is consulted and how ........................................................................................................................ 5 Role and impact of public consultations in the listing process .............................................................. 6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ADDITION OF A SPECIES TO SCHEDULE 1 .............................................................7 Protection for listed Extirpated, Endangered and Threatened species ............................................... 7 Recovery strategies and action plans for Extirpated, Endangered and Threatened species ......... 7 Protection for listed species of Special Concern .................................................................................... 8 Management plans for species of Special Concern ............................................................................. 8 THE LIST OF SPECIES PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION OR RECLASSIFICATION ON SCHEDULE 1 ..............................................................................................9 Status of the recently assessed species and consultation paths .......................................................... 9 Providing comments ................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 1: Terrestrial species recently assessed by COSEWIC eligible for addition to Schedule 1 or reclassification ............................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Terrestrial species recently reassessed by COSEWIC (species status confirmation) ...... 11 THE COSEWIC SUMMARIES OF TERRESTRIAL SPECIES ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITION OR RECLASSIFICATION ON SCHEDULE 1 ................................................................ 12 INDEXES .................................................................................................. 72 Species by Common Name ..................................................................................................................... 72 Species by Scientific Name ...................................................................................................................... 73 Species by Province and Territory of Occurrence ................................................................................. 74 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................ 75 1 Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act: Terrestrial Species, November 2010 ADDITION OF SPECIES TO THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT The Species at Risk Act and the List status. To be accepted, status reports must be peer- of Wildlife Species at Risk reviewed and approved by a subcommittee of species specialists. In special circumstances, assessments The Government of Canada is committed to can be done on an emergency basis. When the status preventing the disappearance of wildlife species at report is complete, COSEWIC meets to examine it risk from our lands. As part of its strategy for realizing and discuss the species. COSEWIC then determines that commitment, on June 5, 2003, the Government whether the species is at risk, and if so, then assesses of Canada proclaimed the Species at Risk Act (SARA). the level of risk and assigns a conservation status. Attached to the Act is Schedule 1, the list of the species provided for under SARA, also called the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. Endangered or Threatened Terms used to define the degree of risk species on Schedule 1 benefit from the protection of to a species SARA’s prohibitions and recovery planning. Special The conservation status defines the degree of Concern species benefit from its management risk to a species. The terms used under SARA are planning. Schedule 1 has grown from the original 233 Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened and Special to 470 wildlife species at risk. Concern. Extirpated species are wildlife species that The complete list of species currently on no longer occur in the wild in Canada but still exist Schedule 1 can be viewed at: elsewhere. Endangered species are wildlife species that are likely to soon become extirpated or extinct. www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/schedules_e.cfm?id=1 Threatened species are likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading Species become eligible for addition to Schedule 1 to their extirpation or extinction. The term Special once they have been assessed as being at risk by the Concern is used for wildlife species that may become Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in threatened or endangered due to a combination of Canada (COSEWIC). The decision to add a species biological characteristics and threats. Once COSEWIC to Schedule 1 is made by the Governor in Council has assessed a species as Extirpated, Endangered, following a recommendation from the Minister of the Threatened or Special Concern, it is eligible for Environment. The Governor in Council is the formal inclusion on Schedule 1. executive body that gives legal effect to Cabinet decisions that are to have the force of law. For more information on COSEWIC, visit: www.cosewic.gc.ca COSEWIC and the assessment process for
Recommended publications

  • Critically Endangered - Wikipedia

    Critically endangered - Wikipedia Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Critically endangered From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Main page Contents This article is about the conservation designation itself. For lists of critically endangered species, see Lists of IUCN Red List Critically Endangered Featured content species. Current events A critically endangered (CR) species is one which has been categorized by the International Union for Random article Conservation status Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.[1] Donate to Wikipedia by IUCN Red List category Wikipedia store As of 2014, there are 2464 animal and 2104 plant species with this assessment, compared with 1998 levels of 854 and 909, respectively.[2] Interaction Help As the IUCN Red List does not consider a species extinct until extensive, targeted surveys have been About Wikipedia conducted, species which are possibly extinct are still listed as critically endangered. IUCN maintains a list[3] Community portal of "possibly extinct" CR(PE) and "possibly extinct in the wild" CR(PEW) species, modelled on categories used Recent changes by BirdLife International to categorize these taxa. Contact page Contents Tools Extinct 1 International Union for Conservation of Nature definition What links here Extinct (EX) (list) 2 See also Related changes Extinct in the Wild (EW) (list) 3 Notes Upload file Threatened Special pages 4 References Critically Endangered (CR) (list) Permanent
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
  • Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi

    Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi

    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Honors Theses Honors College Spring 5-2016 Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi Hanna M. Miller University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses Part of the Biodiversity Commons, and the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Hanna M., "Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi" (2016). Honors Theses. 389. https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses/389 This Honors College Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi by Hanna Miller A Thesis Submitted to the Honors College of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in the Department of Biological Sciences May 2016 ii Approved by _________________________________ Mac H. Alford, Ph.D., Thesis Adviser Professor of Biological Sciences _________________________________ Shiao Y. Wang, Ph.D., Chair Department of Biological Sciences _________________________________ Ellen Weinauer, Ph.D., Dean Honors College iii Abstract The North American Coastal Plain contains some of the highest plant diversity in the temperate world. However, most of the region has remained unstudied, resulting in a lack of knowledge about the unique plant communities present there.
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018

    State of New York City's Plants 2018

    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R

    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R

    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R. and Zeuss, D. 2016. Colour lightness of dragonfly assemblages across North America and Europe. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.02578 Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures A1–A12, Table A1 and A2 1 Figure A1. Scatterplots between female and male colour lightness of 44 North American (Needham et al. 2000) and 19 European (Askew 1988) dragonfly species. Note that colour lightness of females and males is highly correlated. 2 Figure A2. Correlation of the average colour lightness of European dragonfly species illustrated in both Askew (1988) and Dijkstra and Lewington (2006). Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Note that the extracted colour values of dorsal dragonfly drawings from both sources are highly correlated. 3 Figure A3. Frequency distribution of the average colour lightness of 152 North American and 74 European dragonfly species. Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Rugs at the abscissa indicate the value of each species. Note that colour values are from different sources (North America: Needham et al. 2000, Europe: Askew 1988), and hence absolute values are not directly comparable. 4 Figure A4. Scatterplots of single ordinary least-squares regressions between average colour lightness of 8,127 North American dragonfly assemblages and mean temperature of the warmest quarter. Red dots represent assemblages that were excluded from the analysis because they contained less than five species. Note that those assemblages that were excluded scatter more than those with more than five species (c.f. the coefficients of determination) due to the inherent effect of very low sampling sizes.
  • PETITION to LIST the Western Ridged Mussel

    PETITION to LIST the Western Ridged Mussel

    PETITION TO LIST The Western Ridged Mussel Gonidea angulata (Lea, 1838) AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Photo credit: Xerces Society/Emilie Blevins Submitted by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Prepared by Emilie Blevins, Sarina Jepsen, and Sharon Selvaggio August 18, 2020 The Honorable David Bernhardt Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Dear Mr. Bernhardt: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation hereby formally petitions to list the western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. This petition is filed under 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 50 CFR 424.14(a), which grants interested parties the right to petition for issue of a rule from the Secretary of the Interior. Freshwater mussels perform critical functions in U.S. freshwater ecosystems that contribute to clean water, healthy fisheries, aquatic food webs and biodiversity, and functioning ecosystems. The richness of aquatic life promoted and supported by freshwater mussel beds is analogous to coral reefs, with mussels serving as both structure and habitat for other species, providing and concentrating food, cleaning and clearing water, and enhancing riverbed habitat. The western ridged mussel, a native freshwater mussel species in western North America, once ranged from San Diego County in California to southern British Columbia and east to Idaho. In recent years the species has been lost from 43% of its historic range, and the southern terminus of the species’ distribution has contracted northward approximately 475 miles. Live western ridged mussels were not detected at 46% of the 87 sites where it historically occurred and that have been recently revisited.
  • Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants

    Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants

    University of Southern Maine USM Digital Commons Maine Collection 1990 Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants Maine State Planning Office Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/me_collection Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Botany Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Forest Biology Commons, Forest Management Commons, Other Forestry and Forest Sciences Commons, Plant Biology Commons, and the Weed Science Commons Recommended Citation Maine State Planning Office, "Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants" (1990). Maine Collection. 49. https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/me_collection/49 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by USM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Collection by an authorized administrator of USM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BACKGROUND and PURPOSE In an effort to encourage the protection of native Maine plants that are naturally reduced or low in number, the State Planning Office has compiled a list of endangered and threatened plants. Of Maine's approximately 1500 native vascular plant species, 155, or about 10%, are included on the Official List of Maine's Plants that are Endangered or Threatened. Of the species on the list, three are also listed at the federal level. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. has des·ignated the Furbish's Lousewort (Pedicularis furbishiae) and Small Whorled Pogonia (lsotria medeoloides) as Endangered species and the Prairie White-fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) as Threatened. Listing rare plants of a particular state or region is a process rather than an isolated and finite event.
  • Native Maine Plants Found in Watchic Lake – 2020 Screening Day Update

    Native Maine Plants Found in Watchic Lake – 2020 Screening Day Update

    Native Maine Plants Found in Watchic Lake – 2020 Screening Day Update On August 22 and August 27, 2020, a group of 10 WLA volunteers surveyed Watchic Lake for invasive plant species – none were found. As a member of the Lake Stewards of Maine Invasive Plant Patrol Program, we are asked to submit an inventory of the native plants found in the lake (this list of plants). Most of the materials below come from the Lakes Stewards of Maine (LSM), formerly VLMP. Materials from other agencies are noted in the summary along with links to more detail. GoBotany has also been a good source of information. https://gobotany.nativeplanttrust.org/ In August 2020 water clarity was good (limited rain led to better clarity), and plants were generally immature and sparse. Metaphyton was spotted at numerous locations but seem to be less than 2019. Aquatic Moss (likely Fontinalis antipyretica) Many aquatic mosses are found in North America. It is a native plant to Maine. It grows attached to submerged rocks in fast- flowing water. It also occurs attached to the substrate in lakes and as floating masses in still water and may be cast up on beaches at the waterside. It thrives in shady positions and prefers acid water. There are many kinds of aquatic moss and the noting of Fontinalis antipyretica may not be accurate. This moss sample was confirmed by Lake Stewards of Maine. Observed in 2020 on the southwest shore of the lake. Aquatic Moss 2020 Alpine or Red Pondweed Potamogeton alpinus Red/Alpine pondweed has two distinct leaf types: submersed leaves and floating leaves.
  • A Checklist of North American Odonata

    A Checklist of North American Odonata

    A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) Dennis R. Paulson1 and Sidney W. Dunkle2 Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Copyright © 2009 Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 edition published by Jim Johnson Cover photo: Tramea carolina (Carolina Saddlebags), Cabin Lake, Aiken Co., South Carolina, 13 May 2008, Dennis Paulson. 1 1724 NE 98 Street, Seattle, WA 98115 2 8030 Lakeside Parkway, Apt. 8208, Tucson, AZ 85730 ABSTRACT The checklist includes all 457 species of North American Odonata considered valid at this time. For each species the original citation, English name, type locality, etymology of both scientific and English names, and approxi- mate distribution are given. Literature citations for original descriptions of all species are given in the appended list of references. INTRODUCTION Before the first edition of this checklist there was no re- Table 1. The families of North American Odonata, cent checklist of North American Odonata. Muttkows- with number of species. ki (1910) and Needham and Heywood (1929) are long out of date. The Zygoptera and Anisoptera were cov- Family Genera Species ered by Westfall and May (2006) and Needham, West- fall, and May (2000), respectively, but some changes Calopterygidae 2 8 in nomenclature have been made subsequently. Davies Lestidae 2 19 and Tobin (1984, 1985) listed the world odonate fauna Coenagrionidae 15 103 but did not include type localities or details of distri- Platystictidae 1 1 bution.
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
  • Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer Tarandus Caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada

    Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer Tarandus Caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada

    PROPOSED Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population 2011 Recommended citation: Environment Canada. 2011. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vi + 55 pp. For copies of the recovery strategy, or for additional information on species at risk, including COSEWIC Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk Public Registry (www.sararegistry.gc.ca). Cover illustration : Courtesy Dr. Crichton Également disponible en français sous le titre « Programme de rétablissement du Caribou des bois (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Population boréale, au Canada » © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2011. All rights reserved. ISBN Catalogue no. Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population 2011 PREFACE The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996) agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) (SARA), the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of recovery strategies for listed Extirpated, Endangered, and Threatened species and are required to report on progress within five years. The Minister of the Environment is the competent Minister for this recovery strategy.
  • The Species at Risk Act: an Overview

    The Species at Risk Act: an Overview

    THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT: AN OVERVIEW Report No. 408 ISBN: 1-894158-47-4 Prepared by: Richard D. Lindgren September 25, 2001 CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION L’ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DU DROIT DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT 517 COLLEGE STREET + SUITE 401 + TORONTO, ONTARIO + M6G 4A2 TEL: 416/960-2284 + FAX 416/960-9392 + E-MAIL: [email protected] www.cela.ca TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I – INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 PART II – BACKGROUND: THE RATIONALE FOR REFORM ........................................ 4 (a) Why Protect Species At Risk?................................................................................................4 (b) Canada’s Legal and Policy Framework for Protecting Species at Risk................................. 7 (c) Constitutional Basis for the SARA....................................................................................... 11 PART III – OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT ................................................. 13 (a) Species Assessment and the Listing Process........................................................................ 14 (b) Protection of Species and Residences .................................................................................. 16 (c) Recovery and Management Planning................................................................................... 19 (d) Public Involvement and Citizen Action ............................................................................... 21 PART IV – CONCLUSIONS