DOCSLIB.ORG

Endangered Species Act and Its Impact on Forestry in South Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Endangered Species Act and Its Impact on Forestry in South Carolina The Endangered Species Act and Its Impact on Forestry in South Carolina Jimmy Bullock South Carolina SAF Meeting June 23, 2016 ESA History • Endangered Species Act of 1973 • Protection for endangered and threatened plants and animals • Requires all Federal agencies to conserve listed species • Taking prohibitions • Amended 1978, 1982, 1988 ESA - Purpose “…provide a means whereby the ecosystem upon which endangered species and threatened species may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species…” ESA - Definitions • Conservation - methods for improving the status of listed species to the point they can be delisted • Endangered Species - in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range • Threatened Species - likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future ESA - Critical Habitat • The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological features: • Essential to the conservation of the species • May require special management considerations or protection and specific areas outside their geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed if such areas are determined to be essential to the conservation of the species ESA - Critical Habitat • Can be designated at time of listing or within one year of the date of listing • USFWS has no enforcement power to prevent modification of privately owned critical habitat (except where a prohibited taking also occurs) • Federal agencies can not adversely modify designated critical habitat • Critical habitat designation may take economic impacts into account, but not to point of causing extinction ESA - Key Elements • Sections Seven and Nine - “Take” • Prohibits “taking” of a listed species • Requires consultation if federal nexxus • Take prohibitions apply to private and federal lands • On non-federal lands, Section 9 applies to animals only - not to plants - unless take would violate CITES or state law • USFWS under ESA Section 4(d) has some latitude to apply different management standards to threatened species ESA – 4(d) Rule • Section Four - directs the Service to issue regulations deemed “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species” • For threatened species only, can relax the normal ESA restrictions to reduce conflicts between people and the protections provided to the threatened species by the ESA • Can provide protection from “take” associated with lawful activities that can contribute to conservation of a species ESA – Key Elements • Section Eleven - Enforcement • Civil Penalties • USFWS enforces • $500 - $25,000 per violation • Criminal Penalties • Department of Justice enforces • $50,000 / 1 year in jail for endangered species violations • $25,000 / 6 months in jail for threatened species violations ESA – State of Play • Over 1400 species listed nationwide • ESA has broad ability for citizen petitions to list • ENGO strategy of “propose, sue and settle” • ~20 petitions/year from 1994 to 2006 • Over 1250 petitions to list since 2007 • Legal settlement set timeframes for action • 250+ petitions addressed by 2017 • Additional 450+ petitions to be decided by 2023 ESA – State of Play Region 4 “In the next 10 years, the Southeast Region will have to evaluate a record number of fish, wildlife and plant species for possible listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Our goal is to conserve them in voluntary and innovative ways for future generations of Americans.” Cindy Dohner, USFWS SE Regional Director ESA – State of Play Region SC • 1 candidate # of Species species • 60 petitioned species • 1 species proposed for listing amphibians birds crayfish insects mammals mussels plants reptiles At-Risk Species with Forestry Impact Gopher Tortoise • Candidate species for listing in eastern part of range • Species need open canopy, herbaceous vegetation conditions • Forest management and harvesting considered threats by some • States, notably GA and FL, taking lead role to preclude need to list • Private forest landowners have engaged in proactive management • Decision may come as early as 2017 At-Risk Species with Forestry Impact Gopher Frog • Associated with gopher tortoise burrows, upland habitats • Needs seasonal wetlands to breed • Proposal includes most southern states • Threats include harvesting and silviculture activity, intensive pine management, pine straw removals, ORV traffic in breeding season At-Risk Species with Forestry Impact Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake • USFWS petitioned to list in 2011 • EDR needs open canopy, herbaceous understory habitat favorable to small mammal prey species • Stated threats include loss of longleaf pine habitat, intensive “closed canopy” forestry • Primary threat may be direct capture or killing of snakes • NCASI, private forest owners collecting data on sightings/habitat associations Recent Listings - Black Pine Snake • Localized in SE MS and west central Alabama • Secretive nature; few individuals known • Threats include destruction of root wads where snake lives • Needs open canopy, herbaceous understory conditions Black Pine Snake Proposed Listing • Initial proposal focused on 4(d) rule that promoted longleaf restoration, low basal area conditions • Clearcutting was not given 4(d) protection • Critical habitat designation included significant private land, some in state WMAs • Forestry stakeholders were aligned and vocal in comments due to precedents being set in listing and 4(d) rule proposal Black Pine Snake Final Rule • The USFWS engaged and listened • Final 4(d) rule encouraged active forest management to provide habitat conditions needed by BPS • Heavy mechanical disturbance (site prep that disturbed stump root wads) was prohibited • 4(d) coverage not given if longleaf converted to another species • USFWS still working on critical habitat implications Northern Long Eared Bat Proposed Listing • Wide ranging species, covers 37 states • Threat to species is white nose syndrome • Any activity that could “take” bat included in listing proposal • Proposed 4(d) rule covered some forestry activities, with notable exceptions: • Conversion to any pine species • Wide buffers around known hibernacula and occupied roost or maternity trees • Strong and concerted forest stakeholder comments voiced throughout comment process Northern Long Eared Bat Final Rule • The USFWS engaged and listened • Final 4(d) rule clearly stated threat to NLEB was white nose syndrome, not forestry • All conversion language dropped • Realistic buffer widths around occupied hibernacula • Protect occupied maternity trees • No unreasonable survey requirements Louisiana Black Bear Proposed Listing “Spotted Owl of the South” A Successful Partnership Model Best example of 4(d) rule from forest landowner perspective “Normal forest management activities within the historic range of the Louisiana black bear are not prohibited, except for activities causing damage to or loss of den trees. den tree sites or candidate den trees. For purposes of this exemption, normal forest management activities are defined as those activities that support a sustained yield of timber products and wildlife habitats…” Summary of Final Rule Federal Register 1/7/92 “Maintaining occupied bear habitat in some form of timberland may be the single most important factor in conserving the species …. The principal threat to the bear is not normal forest management, but conversion of forested habitat to other uses.” USFWS Delists Louisiana Black Bear March 10, 2016 The Teddy Bear is Back: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Delists Louisiana Black Bear Due To Recovery Milestone highlights successful partnerships between states, private landowners, conservation groups, universities and federal agencies in saving the animal that inspired creation of the “teddy bear” TALLULAH, La. – U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell today announced that due to 24 years of dedicated recovery efforts by a broad array of partners, the Louisiana black bear—the inspiration for the teddy bear—will be removed from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The species restoration is a significant conservation success….. Forest Landowners and USFWS: Partners in Species Conservation NAFO Leading A New Paradigm Working forests help conserve at risk and listed species, particularly those species found in early succession, open canopy or riparian and aquatic habitats This proactive initiative will minimize risk to forest landowners through USFWS policy and actions that recognize active forest management as a conservation tool rather than species threat NAFO members will work proactively to conserve at risk and listed species found in working forest landscapes This initiative becomes a collaborative model for forest landowners and the USFWS to build trust and be true partners NAFO Brings To the Table….. • ~50 million acres of land and management expertise • NCASI • Strong forest research credentials and expertise • Ability to aggregate landowner specific data • Forest Industry • Fiber sourcing standard extends BMP and at-risk species requirements to tens of thousands of family forest landowners • Strong linkages to FLA, AFF and state forestry associations • Ability to advocate for collaborative approach with private sector and policy makers Initiative Has Roots in Region 4 • Five large landowners approached SFWS with concept that managed forests benefit species which need early succession,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: a Review and Analysis
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service 2009 The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: A Review and Analysis Ray T. Sterner U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Sterner, Ray T., "The Economics of Threatened Species Conservation: A Review and Analysis" (2009). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 978. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/978 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. In: ÿ and book of Nature Conservation ISBN 978-1 -60692-993-3 Editor: Jason B. Aronoff O 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Chapter 8 Ray T. Sterner1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521-2154, USA Stabilizing human population size and reducing human-caused impacts on the environment are lceys to conserving threatened species (TS). Earth's human population is =: 7 billion and increasing by =: 76 million per year. This equates to a human birth-death ratio of 2.35 annually. The 2007 Red List prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) categorized 16,306 species of vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and other organisms (e.g., lichens, algae) as TS.
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus
    STATUS AND PROTECTION OF GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES IN THE CAUCASUS CEPF Biodiversity Investments in the Caucasus Hotspot 2004-2009 Edited by Nugzar Zazanashvili and David Mallon Tbilisi 2009 The contents of this book do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CEPF, WWF, or their sponsoring organizations. Neither the CEPF, WWF nor any other entities thereof, assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or process disclosed in this book. Citation: Zazanashvili, N. and Mallon, D. (Editors) 2009. Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus. Tbilisi: CEPF, WWF. Contour Ltd., 232 pp. ISBN 978-9941-0-2203-6 Design and printing Contour Ltd. 8, Kargareteli st., 0164 Tbilisi, Georgia December 2009 The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. This book shows the effort of the Caucasus NGOs, experts, scientific institutions and governmental agencies for conserving globally threatened species in the Caucasus: CEPF investments in the region made it possible for the first time to carry out simultaneous assessments of species’ populations at national and regional scales, setting up strategies and developing action plans for their survival, as well as implementation of some urgent conservation measures. Contents Foreword 7 Acknowledgments 8 Introduction CEPF Investment in the Caucasus Hotspot A. W. Tordoff, N. Zazanashvili, M. Bitsadze, K. Manvelyan, E. Askerov, V. Krever, S. Kalem, B. Avcioglu, S. Galstyan and R. Mnatsekanov 9 The Caucasus Hotspot N.
    [Show full text]
  • Listing a Species As a Threatened Or Endangered Species Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Listing a Species as a Threatened or Endangered Species Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is one of the most far- reaching wildlife conservation laws ever enacted by any nation. Congress, on behalf of the American people, passed the ESA to prevent extinctions facing many species of fish, wildlife and plants. The purpose of the ESA is to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend as key components of America’s heritage. To implement the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service works in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), other Federal, State, and local USFWS Susanne Miller, agencies, Tribes, non-governmental Listed in 2008 as threatened because of the decline in sea ice habitat, the polar bear may organizations, and private citizens. spend time on land during fall months, waiting for ice to return. Before a plant or animal species can receive the protection provided by What are the criteria for deciding whether refer to these species as “candidates” the ESA, it must first be added to to add a species to the list? for listing. Through notices of review, the Federal lists of threatened and A species is added to the list when it we seek biological information that will endangered wildlife and plants. The is determined to be an endangered or help us to complete the status reviews List of Endangered and Threatened threatened species because of any of for these candidate species. We publish Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) and the List the following factors: notices in the Federal Register, a daily of Endangered and Threatened Plants n the present or threatened Federal Government publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforestation with Native Species in the Dry Lands of Panama
    Reforestation with Native Species in the Dry Lands of Panama Raíces Nativas Carla Chízmar, José De Gracia & Mauricio Hoyos Conservation Leadership Programme: Final Report ID: 02141513 Project name: Reforestation with Native Species in the Dry Lands of Panama Host country/site location: Republic of Panama/La Toza, Nata, Cocle Authors: Carla Chízmar, Mauricio Hoyos and José De Gracia Contact address: Bella Vista, #37, 2A, Panama, Republic of Panama. E-mail [email protected] [email protected] Website: https://www.facebook.com/reforestaciontoza Date completed: September 24th, 2015 2 Conservation Leadership Programme: Final Report Table of Contents Project Partners & Collaborators Page 4 Section 1 Summary Page 4 Introduction Page 5 Project members Page 5 Section 2 Aim and objectives Page 6 Changes to original project plan Page 6 Methodology Page 7 Outputs and Results Page 7 Communication & Application of results Page 15 Monitoring and Evaluation Page 15 Achievements and Impacts Page 16 Capacity Development and Leadership capabilities Page 17 Section 3 Conclusion Page 17 Problems encountered and lessons learnt Page 17 In the future Page 18 Financial Report Page 19 Section 4 Appendices Page 19 3 Conservation Leadership Programme: Final Report Project Partners & Collaborators Miambiente - Panama's environmental ministry regulates all activities affecting the protection, conservation, improvement and restoration of the country's environment. Formerly known as environment authority ANAM. They helped us with trainers and seeds to start the nursery facilities. Ministry of Education of Panama - They supported us with the space for nursery facilities and permitted us to develop all the training activities in the local school grounds.
    [Show full text]
  • ESA (Endangered Species Act) Basics
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ESA Basics 40 Years of Conserving Endangered Species When Congress passed the Endangered Critical habitat may include areas that are Species Act (ESA) in 1973, it recognized not occupied by the species at the time of that our rich natural heritage is of listing but are essential to its conservation. “esthetic, ecological, educational, An area can be excluded from critical recreational, and scientifc value to habitat designation if an economic analysis our Nation and its people.” It further determines that the benefts of excluding expressed concern that many of our it outweigh the benefts of including it, nation’s native plants and animals were in unless failure to designate the area as danger of becoming extinct. critical habitat may lead to extinction of the listed species. The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the Candidates for Listing ecosystems upon which they depend. The FWS also maintains a list of The Interior Department’s U.S. Fish USFWS “candidate” species. These are species for and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the which the FWS has enough information to Commerce Department’s National warrant proposing them for listing but is Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) precluded from doing so by higher listing administer the ESA. The FWS has priorities. While listing actions of higher primary responsibility for terrestrial priority go forward, the FWS works with and freshwater organisms, while the States, Tribes, private landowners, private responsibilities of NMFS are mainly partners, and other Federal agencies to marine wildlife such as whales and carry out conservation actions for these anadromous fsh such as salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Saving Habitats Saving Species Since 1989 Inside This
    WLTnews ISSUE No. 59 AUTUMN 2018 Inside this issue: • Save Jungle for Jaguars in Belize • Donations doubled in Big Match Fortnight • 400 acres saved in Amazonian Andes • New project in Colombia Saving habitats Saving species since 1989 Sponsored by worldlandtrust.org 2 Donations between 3-17 October will be matched Saving land for Belize’s Jaguars We’re raising £600,000 to protect 8,154 acres of Jungle for Jaguars Belize’s Jaguars are still under threat. We need your help to protect their home and ensure the future of this vital habitat, creating a corridor of protected areas in the northeast of the country. 30 years on from World Land Trust’s very first project in Belize, we are returning to embark on one of our most ambitious projects yet. Saving highly threatened but wildlife- rich habitats from deforestation in Belize is even more urgent now than it was 30 years ago. In the past 10 years, 25,000 acres of wildlife habitat has been cleared for agriculture and development in northern Belize, and we need to create a corridor to ensure the connectivity of one of the few pieces of habitat left to Jaguars and other wildlife in the region. We must act now. By supporting this appeal today, you will be saving this jungle for Jaguars, Endangered Baird’s Tapir, and other key species including Nine-banded Armadillo, Keel-billed Toucan and Ornate Hawk-Eagle. If this land is not purchased for conservation and protected by our partner, Corozal Sustainable Future Initiative (CSFI), this habitat will be fragmented and we will have missed the last opportunity to create a corridor for Belizean wildlife that connects the natural and rare habitats in the northeast of the country with existing protected areas in the south.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Descriptions About Ranking Species and Plant Communities Have Been Provided Verbatum for Informational Purposes from the Following Location
    IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SPECIES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES AT RISK: BC TIMBER SALES – PRINCE GEORGE BUSINESS AREA The following descriptions about ranking species and plant communities have been provided verbatum for informational purposes from the following location: NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.3 NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer . Accessed: February 21, 2008). ************************************************************************************* Interpreting NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks The conservation status of a species or community is designated by a number from 1 to 5, preceded by a letter reflecting the appropriate geographic scale of the assessment (G = Global), N = National, and S = Subnational). The numbers have the following meaning: 1 = critically imperiled. 2 = imperiled. 3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction. 4 = apparently secure. 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure. For example, G1 would indicate that a species is critically imperiled across its entire range (i.e., globally). In this sense the species as a whole is regarded as being at very high risk of extinction. A rank of S3 would indicate the species is vulnerable and at moderate risk within a particular state or province, even though it may be more secure elsewhere. Extinct or missing species and ecological communities are designated with either an "X" (presumed extinct or extirpated) if there is no expectation that they still survive, or an "H" (possibly extinct or extirpated) if they are known only from historical records but there is a chance they may still exist. Other variants and qualifiers are used to add information or indicate any range of uncertainty.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened Species PROGRAMME Threatened Species: a Guide to Red Lists and Their Use in Conservation LIST of ABBREVIATIONS
    Threatened Species PROGRAMME Threatened Species: A guide to Red Lists and their use in conservation LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AOO Area of Occupancy BMP Biodiversity Management Plan CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EOO Extent of Occurrence IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature NEMA National Environmental Management Act NEMBA National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act NGO Non-governmental Organization NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment PVA Population Viability Analysis SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SANSA South African National Survey of Arachnida SIBIS SANBI's Integrated Biodiversity Information System SRLI Sampled Red List Index SSC Species Survival Commission TSP Threatened Species Programme Threatened Species: A guide to Red Lists and their use in conservation OVERVIEW The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List is a world standard for evaluating the conservation status of plant and animal species. The IUCN Red List, which determines the risks of extinction to species, plays an important role in guiding conservation activities of governments, NGOs and scientific institutions, and is recognized worldwide for its objective approach. In order to produce the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™, the IUCN Species Programme, working together with the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and members of IUCN, draw on and mobilize a network of partner organizations and scientists worldwide. One such partner organization is the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), who, through the Threatened Species Programme (TSP), contributes information on the conservation status and biology of threatened species in southern Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Near-Threatened Species
    Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Near-threatened species From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Main page Contents This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations Featured content to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2012) Current events (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Random article Donate to Wikipedia A near-threatened species is a species which has been categorized as "Near Wikipedia store Conservation status Threatened" (NT) by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as that may by IUCN Red List category Interaction be considered threatened with extinction in the near future, although it does not Help currently qualify for the threatened status. The IUCN notes the importance of re- About Wikipedia evaluating near-threatened taxa at appropriate intervals. Community portal The rationale used for near-threatened taxa usually includes the criteria of vulnerable Recent changes which are plausible or nearly met, such as reduction in numbers or range. Near- Contact page threatened species evaluated from 2001 onwards may also be ones which are Tools dependent on conservation efforts to prevent their becoming threatened, whereas prior to this conservation-dependent species were given a separate category What links here Extinct Related changes ("Conservation Dependent"). Extinct (EX) (list) Upload file Additionally, the 402 conservation-dependent taxa may also be considered
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Terrestrial Wildlife Species
    Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Terrestrial Wildlife Species 2020 Forest Plan for the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest Prepared by: /s/ Wendy E. Clark 03/13/2020 Wendy E. Clark, Wildlife Biologist Date /s/ David B. Kemp 03/13/2020 David B. Kemp, Wildlife Biologist Date Page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Federally designated species and designated critical habitat ........................................................ 1 Consultation history ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Description of the proposed action ................................................................................................ 2 Need for and purpose of the proposed action .............................................................................................. 2 Need ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Action area ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Forest planning framework
    [Show full text]
  • Buglife Strategy 2021-2030
    Buglife Strategy 2021-2030 The winning image in the ‘Aquatic Bugs’ category 2020. A diamond squid, shot in Siladen, Indonesia during a blackwater dive © Galice Hoarau Cover photo - An acorn weevil Curculio glandium takes flight, first place in the ‘Beetles’ category 2020 © Christian Brockes Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust is a company limited by guarantee, Registered in England at The Lindens, 86 Lincoln Rd, Peterborough, PE1 2SN Company no. 4132695 Registered charity no. 1092293 Scottish charity no. SC040004 President – Germaine Greer Chairman – Steve Ormerod Chief Executive – Matt Shardlow Contents Why bugs need Buglife ............................................................................................................ 3 Buglife’s identity ..................................................................................................................... 4 Our Vision ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Our Mission ................................................................................................................................... 4 Our Strapline ................................................................................................................................. 4 Our Character ................................................................................................................................ 4 Buglife’s outcomes .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Adequacy of Existing Assessment Procedures for Identifying the Conservation Status of Threatened Fauna
    Submission to the Senate Inquiry on Australia’s faunal extinction crisis The adequacy of existing assessment procedures for identifying the conservation status of threatened fauna National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery (TSR) Hub The Threatened Species Recovery (TSR) Hub’s research aims to support recovery of terrestrial and freshwater threatened species and biodiversity. Among the authors of this submission are individuals who have devoted decades of their lives to understanding threatened species and the factors that affect them, and worked with many policy-makers, on-ground managers and the community to help conserve these species. The Threatened Species Recovery Hub (TSR Hub) includes a number of research projects aiming to inform or contribute to threatened species listing processes. Representatives from these projects are among the authors of these submissions. Authors: Professor John Woinarski (TSR Hub Theme Leader, Charles Darwin University), Assoc. Professor Sarah Legge (TSR Hub Theme Leader, Australian National University and University of Queensland), Dr Ayesha Tulloch (TSR Hub Research Fellow, University of Sydney and University of Queensland), Chris Sanderson (TSR Hub Researcher, Australian National University and University of Queensland), Professor Stephen Garnett (TSR Hub Theme Leader, Charles Darwin University), Natasha Cadenhead (TSR Hub Research Associate, University of Melbourne), Dr Rachel Morgain (TSR Hub Knowledge Broker, Australian National University) This submission addresses the following terms of reference for the Inquiry: (j) the adequacy of existing assessment processes for identifying threatened fauna conservation status Premise of submission The list of Australia’s threatened species should be justified, up-to-date and appropriately include all Australian species that are threatened with extinction.
    [Show full text]