Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY AND TRANSBOUNDARY SPECIES WORKING DRAFT SPECIES OF COMMON CONSERVATION CONCERN IN NORTH AMERICA Commission for Environmental Cooperation Montreal, Canada 18 October 2000 SPECIES OF COMMON CONSERVATION CONCERN IN NORTH AMERICA TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3 I. INTRODUCTION 4 II. SPECIES PROFILES 8 Ferruginous Hawk, Buteo regalis 8 Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus 11 Loggerhead Shrike, Lanius ludovicianus 14 Piping Plover, Charadrius melodus 18 Mountain Plover, Charadrius montanus 21 Burrowing Owl, Athene cunicularia 24 Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina 27 Mexican Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis lucida 29 Golden-cheeked Warbler, Dendroica chrysoparia 31 Whooping Crane, Grus americana 34 California Condor, Gymnogyps californianus 37 Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Cynomys ludovicianus 40 Sonoran Pronghorn, Antilocapra americana sonoriensis 43 Lesser longnosed bat, Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae 47 (Greater) Mexican longnosed bat, Leptonycteris nivalis Black Bear, Ursus americanus 51 Gray Wolf, Canis lupus 54 III. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 57 ANNEX – TRANSBOUNDARY AND MIGRATORY BIRDS AND MAMMALS—LISTINGS BY 63 COUNTRY Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America 18 October 2000 Working Draft Preface Canada, Mexico, and the United States not only share many ecosystems and migratory species, but are also increasingly linked through economic, social and cultural exchange. Existing strategies for biodiversity conservation on the continent are not coping with the impacts caused by ever-increasing levels of development. Nor are they likely to address adequately the relatively new problems of climate change and increased numbers of invasive species. Quality of life, access to ecological services, and sustainable use of natural resources are at stake. It is time to seek new ways and means to protect the richness of life on our continent. New strategies must find acceptance and be implemented at national and local levels. Importantly, it is becoming clearer that regional and continental action is not only a potentially effective approach but also an essential one. There are some remarkable precedents for such shared action, especially for migratory birds. The question is what more can be done to identify and act upon biodiversity matters of continental significance, and effectively catalyze the concerted efforts of the continent’s three countries? There is an untapped potential that arises from the three country's different socioeconomic and cultural realities, management and conservation perspectives, and institutional arrangements to conserve the continent's natural wealth. For the most part, this potential has been interpreted as an obstacle for conservation. However, obstacles can be removed, lessons can be shared, and potential can be realized—such is the primary aim of this project. Work begun with the identification of migratory and/or transboundary species of "common conservation concern" which a trinational experts working group (hereafter referred to as the Parties) agreed on. For this set of species, the status of the species has been defined, and gaps and opportunities for collaboration have been identified. The Parties proposed species that demonstrated both the need and opportunity of working on a continental scale. The resulting list is very diverse: ferruginous hawk, whooping crane, peregrine falcon, piping plover, mountain plover, California condor, spotted owl, loggerhead shrike, burrowing owl, golden-cheeked warbler, black bear, gray wolf, black-tailed prairie dog, Sonoran pronghorn and Leptonycteris bats. These species are not fifteen new problems to solve but one opportunity to collaborate. Not fifteen flagships, but the flags of the continental vessel of conservation. What are the emergent properties as well as past and future collaboration efforts both within and between strategies for species at risk? Perhaps an incipient sign of collaboration is the report itself. Each profile represents a synthesis of key work done over the years in collaborative arrangements or within a single country. For the most part, the work we, as conservationists, have done too often looked at the challenges ahead of us with our blinders on, stopping our vision at our borders. This report represents an opportunity to share our visions and look for the common thread. How will the basically academic and biologically intense analyses found in this report be turned into conservation action that involves all necessary stakeholders in a broader socioeconomic framework? That is the challenge for the North American conservation community. Conservation efforts for the species of common conservation concern represent work in progress of different levels of intensity. The intent is not to change the classification within each country or seek to homogenize them, but to have a new, shared, continental vision. A new sense of purpose that may advance conservation more rapidly. Success can and will be measured using 1 Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America 18 October 2000 Working Draft these individual species as indicators, but the result should be an overall positive impact on biodiversity of North America as a whole. Biodiversity and Trilateral Cooperation—Two examples In recognition of the shared environment and the consequent shared responsibility, environmental provisions were included in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These provisions in NAFTA were supplemented by a side agreement, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was created by the NAAEC to facilitate this cooperation with the goal of conserving, protecting and enhancing the North American environment. The work of the CEC is organized around four core program areas: Conservation of Biodiversity; Environment, Economy and Trade; Pollutants and Health; and Law and Policy. The participation of a broad spectrum of stakeholders—including all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, indigenous groups, the private sector, scientific and professional organizations and individuals—is vital to each program. Many of the CEC programs build upon or complement efforts at the local, regional and national levels. CEC has also supported biodiversity conservation efforts through the North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation (NAFEC). Since 1996, NAFEC has made 127 grants totaling USD 4.8 million to community-based environmental projects. Many communities have used these grants to implement innovative approaches to conserving biodiversity while strengthening their economic base. Others have collaborated to protect transboundary species and habitat. Along with the CEC, the Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management (“The Trilateral”) also has seen the need to assist efficient and effective conservation of biodiversity in North America. Created in 1996, and comprised of members of the three national wildlife agencies, the mandate of the Trilateral is to “facilitate and enhance coordination, cooperation and the development of partnerships among the wildlife agencies of the three countries, and with other associated and interested entities, regarding projects and programs for the conservation and management of wildlife, plants, biological diversity and ecosystems of mutual interest…such projects and programs will include scientific research, law enforcement, sustainable use and any other aspect related to this purpose.” Together, the CEC, with its connection to public and private organizations involved in the economy, trade, pollution, law, and all sectors of biodiversity, and the Trilateral, with its area of concentration primarily being wildlife conservation of the three national governmental agencies, can work to help conserve the rich biodiversity found in North America. And although the fifteen flags offered from this report are all individually worthy, read, analyze and commit to all of them because now it is up to us to raise our flags and man this vessel. 2 Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America 18 October 2000 Working Draft Acknowledgements This project benefited from the involvement of many individuals. We thank David Brackett, Director General of the Canadian Wildlife Service and Chairman of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission, for helping to establish the scope of this project and for chairing the Montreal workshop held September 22-25, 1999 to a successful conclusion. Hans Herrmann and Tara Wilkinson provided essential guidance and logistic support throughout this project. Other people in the Commission for Environmental Cooperation also provided invaluable assistance especially Jocelynne Morin and Darlene Pearson, whom we thank for their efforts. We also thank Ernesto Enkerlin for his efforts in reviewing the document and providing essential information in terms of commonalties and differences between the three North American countries. We would especially like to thank all of the participants to the Montreal Workshop: Chuck Dauphine, Lynda Maltby, and Steve Wendt from Canada; Hesiquio Benitez, Humberto Berlanga, and Rodrigo Medellín from Mexico; and Nancy Gloman and Susan Jewell from the United States. Finally, we would like to extend our appreciation to all those individuals that contributed to the preparation of the species profiles. They are: Diane Amirault, Hector Arita, Ursula Banasch, Ed Bangs,

Load more