DOCSLIB.ORG

Natureserve Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natureserve Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk NatureServe Report Revised Edition April 2012 NatureServe is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to providing the scientific basis for effective conservation action. NatureServe and its hemisphere-wide network of natural heritage programs are the leading source for information about rare and endangered species and threatened ecosystems. Citation: Master, L. L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow, A. Teucher, and A. Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. © NatureServe 2012 Cover photo: Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) © Larry Master (www.MasterImages.org) NatureServe 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor Arlington, VA 22203 703-908-1800 www.natureserve.org NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk Lawrence L. Master, Don Faber-Langendoen, Roxanne Bittman, Geoffrey A. Hammerson, Bonnie Heidel, Leah Ramsay, Kristin Snow, Andy Teucher, and Adele Tomaino Revised Edition April 2012 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS his 2012 revision to NatureServe workshop in November 2000. The ideas Tconservation status builds on the presented also draw upon discussion 2009 version developed by Element with and input from staff of the member Ranking Work Group. Members active programs of the NatureServe network. during the bulk of the 2009–2012 We especially thank Bill Nichols for work include the authors of this helping improve our global, national and report: Lawrence L. Master, Don subnational rank definitions. In addition, Faber-Langendoen, Roxanne Bittman, external data users and agency staff Geoffrey A. Hammerson, Bonnie Heidel, have provided much useful input. Leah Ramsay, Andy Teucher, and Adele Tomaino. Kristin Snow provides key The revision draws heavily from the data programming skills for the Rank Standards and Petitions Subcommittee Calculator and its interface with Biotics. of the IUCN Species Survival We thanks other members currently Commission and from the IUCN–CMP serving on the ERWG for their support, alliance to develop standard taxonomies including Bruce Young, Margaret Ormes, of threats and actions. Some of the and, most recently, Marilyn Anions. concepts incorporated here draw from Past members include Steve Rust, draft invasiveness assessment factors Paul Hendricks, Bryce Maxell, and Ben (Randall et al. 2001). Wigley. Previous revisions were done in consultation with Syd Cannings, Gwen Funding for 2009 revisions was Davis, Kathy Goodin, Paul Hendricks, generously provided by the National Kat Maybury, Larry Morse, Bryce Council for Air and Stream Improvement Maxwell, Leah Oliver, Donna Reynolds, (NCASI), Office Depot, U.S. Fish & Dale Schweitzer, Steve Taswell, Alan Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, Weakley, Troy Weldy, and Ben Wigley; and the Sarah K. de Coizart Article participants at the National Center TENTH Perpetual Charitable Trust. for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis We thank the generous support of an (NCEAS) workshops (2000–2004) anonymous donor for providing funds on methods for assessing extinction to revisit some key issues for this 2012 risk; and NatureServe ecologists at a revision. ii NatureServe PREFACE he NatureServe Conservation Status Response: It would be very challenging TAssessments: Factors for Assessing to assign all species to specific life- Extinction Risk was released in 2009 history strategies, since many species (Master et al. 2009), along with the are intermediate between the two Ranking Methodology document strategies. Furthermore, it was most (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2009). These straightforward to suggest that methods have greatly improved our population size should sometimes not approach to assessing the conservation be used in calculating a conservation status of species and ecosystems. In status for those species or species the years since its release, several groups in which either the life-history issues arose that required additional strategy led to very dynamic population review. The Element Ranking Working numbers from year to year, or for Group (ERWG) (see Acknowledgments) which it was very difficult to estimate was asked to review these issues population size. The calculator draws and propose solutions. Below, we upon other “rarity” characteristics when summarize the main issues and provide population size is not used. We have details on our proposed solutions that reworded the text for the Population guided our revisions. Size rank factor accordingly. There were five main issues that we Trends (Short-Term, Long-Term) felt needed review: Population size/ Issue: The 2009 rank calculator method scales, Trends, Area of Occupancy for for scoring trends is not ideal in that ecosystems, Threats, and the Biotics it does not adequately distinguish Upgrade to incorporate the revised rank decreasing trend from increasing trend, methods. and the calculator method did not seem to be sensitive to changes in trends Population Size unless they are extreme. Issue: We considered whether to incorporate a systematic evaluation Response: We found that the rank of life-histories (r-selected, k-selected calculator method for scoring trends is species), because, for example, not ideal for two reasons: the method some species can have very high, but for scoring trend and the insensitivity of dynamic, population numbers (e.g., the trends factors to changes in trend. annual plants, some insects), and others can have lower, less dynamic, Scoring of Trend population numbers (e.g., whales). Our typical approach to scoring rank Scoring both types with one set of factors sets the maximum score of 5.5, population size scales and weightings which if all factors are scored at that may not accurately assess extinction level, leads to a status of G5 (secure). risk. But the trends scale is different from the Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk iii rest in that the scale goes from varying concerning, the more at risk a species levels of decline (A–F), to stable (G), to is due to rarity factors, the greater the increasing rate (H–I). Thus, in principle, decline has to be in order to calculate a population or ecosystem with an a rank that is more imperiled. And the increasing trend could actually have converse is true as well: a presumptive its rank lowered (e.g., from G3 to G4). G5 with stable trends will get pushed To make that happen, the maximum towards G4. weighting of 5.5 should occur at G in the rating scale, and then should either be Under further review, it also became kept constant for H and I, or continue to apparent that ranks generated using increase above 5.5. the 2009 calculator, if different from the preexisting ranks in Biotics, tended Insensitivity of the Trend Factor to to vary more strongly on the side of Changes in Trend lowering the rank (less imperiled). We After testing the above adjustment now think this is in large part due to the to scoring of trend, a still more method for scoring the trends factors. fundamental issue remained: the trends factors, based on linear changes The Trend Subtraction Method in points, were not sensitive enough For all these reasons, we turned to to changes in trends. The reason for a new method for scoring trend, the lack of sensitivity is that the trend developed by Andy Teucher, a method categories are split finely (6 categories, we call the Trend Subtraction Method. some with only 10% spreads). The The method is based on the assumption result of having so many categories that a negative trend should move is that even with a pretty substantial a rank toward greater imperilment decline (30-50%, or even 50-70%), the (proportional to the size of the decline), assigned points for such a decline are and an increasing trend should likewise quite high (2.75 and 2.06 respectively), push a rank toward a more secure value. contributing to a smaller change The basic approach of this method is to in rank than may be expected for calculate an initial score based on rarity such a decline. These patterns were and threats factors, and then either not changed when various linear or subtract from that score when there is exponential weightings were tested. a negative trend or add to it when there is an increasing trend, to obtain a final Further investigation showed that the rank score. The procedure is as follows: effect of trend on the final rank was very dependent on the values of the other 1. An initial rank score is calculated factors, in that it had a centralizing from a weighted average of rarity tendency: it was biased against the and threats factors, with the rarity extremes, and tended to pull ranks score weighted 0.7, and threats away from G1 or G5 unless the trend weighted 0.3. value was also extreme (>90% decline 2. Trend scores (long- and short-term) or >25% increase). For example, if all are given values (points). These of the rarity factors combine to give are scaled exponentially from -0.50 a calculated value of 1.9, this would (>90% decline) to 0.00 (stable trend) place the species firmly in G2. Using and up to 0.14 (>25% increase). the original trend scoring, a trend of D 3. Long- and short-term trend values (50-70% decline) would actually make are multiplied by their weights, and the final calculated rank LESS imperiled, the weighted values are summed to because the trend score (2.06) is higher give a total overall trend score. Long- than the overall combined score from term Trend has a weight of 1, and the other factors (1.9). A decline of Short-term Trend has a weight of 2. 70% or more would be required to push the rank towards G1. Even more iv NatureServe 4. The total overall trends score is Area of Occupancy for Ecosystems added to the initial rank scorerarity / Issue: The guidance in the 2009 threats to give a final calculated rank description of Area of Occupancy for score.
Load more

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
    [Show full text]
  • US Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan Conservation Seabird Pacific Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region 120 0’0"E 140 0’0"E 160 0’0"E 180 0’0" 160 0’0"W 140 0’0"W 120 0’0"W 100 0’0"W RUSSIA CANADA 0’0"N 0’0"N 50 50 WA CHINA US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region OR ID AN NV JAP CA H A 0’0"N I W 0’0"N 30 S A 30 N L I ort I Main Hawaiian Islands Commonwealth of the hwe A stern A (see inset below) Northern Mariana Islands Haw N aiian Isla D N nds S P a c i f i c Wake Atoll S ND ANA O c e a n LA RI IS Johnston Atoll MA Guam L I 0’0"N 0’0"N N 10 10 Kingman Reef E Palmyra Atoll I S 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W L Howland Island Equator A M a i n H a w a i i a n I s l a n d s Baker Island Jarvis N P H O E N I X D IN D Island Kauai S 0’0"N ONE 0’0"N I S L A N D S 22 SI 22 A PAPUA NEW Niihau Oahu GUINEA Molokai Maui 0’0"S Lanai 0’0"S 10 AMERICAN P a c i f i c 10 Kahoolawe SAMOA O c e a n Hawaii 0’0"N 0’0"N 20 FIJI 20 AUSTRALIA 0 200 Miles 0 2,000 ES - OTS/FR Miles September 2003 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W (800) 244-WILD http://www.fws.gov Information U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Gunnison Sage Grouse Biological Opinion
    United States Department of Agriculture December 22, 2014 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Programmatic Consultation for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Attached is the regionally developed Biological Opinion for the Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) in the States of Colorado and Utah. This Opinion takes effect concurrent with the effective date of the grouse’s listing as a threatened species on December 22nd, 2014. This Opinion replaces the 2010 SGI Conference Report for the Gunnison sage-grouse. Continue to use the 2010 SGI Conference Report for the Greater sage-grouse. Section 1.2 describes the Conversion of the Conference Report to a Biological Opinion. Document expires on 07/30/2040. Citation: DOI, 2014. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for the Natural Resources Conservation Services’ USDA Farm Bill programs, including the Sage Grouse Initiative, and associated procedures, conservation practices, and conservation measures for the Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus). Denver, Colorado. Contact Chanda Pettie, State Biologist, at 720-544-2804 or [email protected] for information regarding the content of this notice. FOTG, Section II NRCS, CO SEC, T&E December 2014 BIOLOGICAL OPINION 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. [ESA],), and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402), this document transmits the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) for the Natural Resources Conservation Services’ (NRCS) USDA Farm Bill programs, including the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI), and associated procedures, conservation practices, and conservation measures for the Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus).
    [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]
  • Threatened Species Status Assessment Manual
    THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 THREATENED SPECIES STATUS ASSESSMENT MANUAL A guide to undertaking status assessments, including the preparation and submission of a status report for threatened species. Knowledge of species and their status improves continuously. Due to the large numbers of both listed and non-listed species, government resources are not generally available to carry out regular and comprehensive assessments of all listed species that are threatened or assess all non-listed species to determine their listing status. A status assessment by a group of experts, with their extensive collection of knowledge of a particular taxon or group of species could help to ensure that advice is the most current and accurate available, and provide for collective expert discussion and decisions regarding any uncertainties. The development of a status report by such groups will therefore assist in maintaining the accuracy of the list of threatened species under the EPBC Act and ensure that protection through listing is afforded to the correct species. 1. What is a status assessment? A status assessment is a assessment of the conservation status of a specific group of taxa (e.g. birds, frogs, snakes) or multiple species in a region (e.g. Sydney Basin heathland flora) that occur within Australia. For each species or subspecies (referred to as a species in this paper) assessed in a status assessment the aim is to: provide an evidence-based assessment
    [Show full text]
  • IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ to Identify the Level of Threat to Plants
    Ex-Situ Conservation at Scott Arboretum Public gardens and arboreta are more than just pretty places. They serve as an insurance policy for the future through their well managed ex situ collections. Ex situ conservation focuses on safeguarding species by keeping them in places such as seed banks or living collections. In situ means "on site", so in situ conservation is the conservation of species diversity within normal and natural habitats and ecosystems. The Scott Arboretum is a member of Botanical Gardens Conservation International (BGCI), which works with botanic gardens around the world and other conservation partners to secure plant diversity for the benefit of people and the planet. The aim of BGCI is to ensure that threatened species are secure in botanic garden collections as an insurance policy against loss in the wild. Their work encompasses supporting botanic garden development where this is needed and addressing capacity building needs. They support ex situ conservation for priority species, with a focus on linking ex situ conservation with species conservation in natural habitats and they work with botanic gardens on the development and implementation of habitat restoration and education projects. BGCI uses the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ to identify the level of threat to plants. In-depth analyses of the data contained in the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Red List are published periodically (usually at least once every four years). The results from the analysis of the data contained in the 2008 update of the IUCN Red List are published in The 2008 Review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; see www.iucn.org/redlist for further details.
    [Show full text]
  • Natura 2000 and Forests
    Technical Report - 2015 - 089 ©Peter Loeffler Natura 2000 and Forests Part III – Case studies Environment Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union New freephone number: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://ec.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2015 ISBN 978-92-79-49397-3 doi: 10.2779/65827 © European Union, 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Disclaimer This document is for information purposes only. It in no way creates any obligation for the Member States or project developers. The definitive interpretation of Union law is the sole prerogative of the Court of Justice of the EU. Cover Photo: Peter Löffler This document was prepared by François Kremer and Joseph Van der Stegen (DG ENV, Nature Unit) and Maria Gafo Gomez-Zamalloa and Tamas Szedlak (DG AGRI, Environment, forestry and climate change Unit) with the assistance of an ad-hoc working group on Natura 2000 and Forests composed by representatives from national nature conservation and forest authorities, scientific institutes and stakeholder organisations and of the N2K GROUP under contract to the European Commission, in particular Concha Olmeda, Carlos Ibero and David García (Atecma S.L) and Kerstin Sundseth (Ecosystems LTD). Natura 2000 and Forests Part III – Case studies Good practice experiences and examples from different Member States in managing forests in Natura 2000 1. Setting conservation objectives for Natura 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk Act
    Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act Terrestrial Species November 2011 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: Olive Clubtail © Jim Johnson Peacock Vinyl Lichen © Timothy B. Wheeler Cerulean Warbler © Carl Savignac Title page photo credits: Background photo: Dune Tachinid Fly habitat © Sydney Cannings Foreground, large photo: Dwarf Lake Iris © Jessie M. Harris Small photos, left to right: Butler’s Gartersnake © Daniel W.A. Noble Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle © Steve Marshall Barn Swallow © Gordon Court Spring Salamander © David Green Available also on the Internet. ISSN: 1710-3029 Cat. no.: EN1-36/2011E-PDF © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2011 Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act Terrestrial Species November 2011 Please submit your comments by February 8, 2012, for terrestrial species undergoing normal consultations and by November 8, 2012, for terrestrial species undergoing extended consultations.
    [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]