RENEW 1998 99 -

RENEW 1998 99 -
Report No. 9
What is RENEW?
The Wildlife Ministers’ Council of Canada
answered the call in 1988 for a cooperative
response to the growing number of endangered
species in Canada by establishing RENEW,
the committee on the REcovery of Nationally
Endangered Wildlife. The committee
recognizes the critical importance of joint
efforts to protect species at risk. Along with
non-governmental organizations, it involves
federal, provincial and territorial agencies in
coordinating and promoting wildlife
conservation. The government agencies each
remain responsible for management of species
in their own jurisdictions.
The committee’s mandate, as outlined in
the 1988 strategy, has the following national
• No endangered species in Canada will be
allowed to become extirpated or extinct;
• No new species will be allowed to become
threatened or up-listed to endangered;
• When and where possible, extirpated species
will be reintroduced to Canada;
• Recovery plans will be prepared for all
threatened and endangered species;
• Recovery programs will be initiated, where
feasible, to work towards removing species
from threatened, endangered, or extirpated
The RENEW committee is chaired by
David Brackett, Director General of the
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada.
The committee consists of federal, provincial and
territorial wildlife directors and representatives
from the Canadian Nature Federation, the
Canadian Wildlife Federation, and the World
Wildlife Fund Canada. Recovery teams, made
up of representatives and experts from a wide
variety of organizations, work to ensure the
survival of endangered species across Canada.
The RENEW Secretariat, based at the Canadian
Wildlife Service in Ottawa, functions as the link
between the RENEW committee, the recovery
teams and the public.
The RENEW committee’s activities stem
from the work of the Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC),
a body of government, academic and nongovernment experts which lists species at risk
and evaluates the level of risk. By April 1998,
COSEWIC had listed 307 species at risk.
Over the past 11 years, the RENEW
committee’s activities have focused primarily
on the protection and recovery of terrestrial
vertebrates, which includes mammals, birds,
reptiles and amphibians. However, the scope of
activities is expanding and now includes an
ecosystem recovery team and teams for
The RENEW Report is also accessible at
Species at Risk in Canada — Web Site
A new searchable database provides information on species at risk listed by the Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) — facts about biology, habitat,
population, distribution, risk factors, protection and recovery efforts.
The web site was developed in partnership by Environment Canada (CWS), the Canadian
Wildlife Federation, the Canadian Museum of Nature and Natural Resources Canada.
What is RENEW?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside cover
Letter from the Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Species Recovery Updates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
American marten (Newfoundland population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
Peary caribou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Swift fox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Vancouver Island marmot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Wood bison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11
Acadian flycatcher and hooded warbler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Burrowing owl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-14
Harlequin duck (Eastern population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15
Henslow’s sparrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
King rail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Loggerhead shrike. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-19
Marbled murrelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Peregrine falcon (anatum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Piping plover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23
Prothonotary warbler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Roseate tern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Spotted owl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Whooping crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Black rat snake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Blanding’s turtle (Nova Scotia population). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Blue racer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Eastern massasauga rattlesnake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Spiny softshell turtle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-33
Fernald’s braya and Long’s braya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Red mulberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
South Okanagan Ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Update Wrap-Up/Category Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
RENEW Recovery Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-41
Status of RENEW Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42-43
1998 List of Canadian Species at Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-45
Funding by Donors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46-47
Funding per Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
For More Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside back cover
RENEW Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back cover
Researched and coordinated by
Mary Rothfels, Lisa Twolan and Simon Nadeau, Canadian Wildlife Service
Research, editing and production coordination by West Hawk Associates Inc.
Cover Whooping Crane illustration by John Cooper, from a drawing by John Crosby
Maps created by Dawn Phillips
Design and layout by ACR Associates Inc.
©Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada/1999
Cat. No. CW70-3/1999E
ISBN: 0-662-28080-6
RENEW Report No. 9
Letter from the Chair
It is my pleasure to present the ninth report of
the committee on the REcovery of Nationally
Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), covering the
period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999. The
report documents a number of recovery
successes — and the challenges posed by
species that continue to decline despite our
efforts. Recovery teams for several plants and
an ecosystem have been added under the
RENEW umbrella, which until recently focused
on terrestrial vertebrates. RENEW will be
looking at encompassing more taxonomic
groups in the future.
RENEW is undergoing a period of selfevaluation. In consultation with interested
parties, we are grappling with how to streamline
the existing national recovery system to make
it more effective and efficient, while ensuring
broader participation of those affected by
recovery actions. In 1998/99, consultation
workshops on renewing the national endangered
species program, held in Hull, Quebec, resulted
in several recommendations. These include
that: a specified time-frame should be followed
in producing recovery plans; habitat should be
considered an inherent component of recovery
planning; all stakeholders should be involved in
the recovery process; jurisdictional
responsibilities should be respected; and the
cost of species conservation should be shared
among all Canadians.
Options being explored to improve the
recovery process include adopting a new, more
concise format for drafting recovery plans, so
that more effort would be directed towards
recovery actions instead of plan writing. A twostage Recovery Plan is being discussed, that
would consist of a Recovery Strategy to be
developed within a short time frame, followed
by a Recovery Action Plan. The concept for a
two-stage Recovery Plan was presented to
Wildlife Ministers at their meeting in September
1998. As well, the review and approval process
is being streamlined to reduce the time
required to obtain jurisdictional approval for
RENEW Report No. 9
A report outlining recommendations for
improving the recovery system is being
developed by the National Recovery Working
Group, which reports to the Canadian Wildlife
Directors’ Committee. The group is composed
of recovery team members, federal and
provincial agency representatives, and a nongovernment representative. Their report,
expected in 1999/2000, will be based on
results from the national consultation
workshops and discussions within the group
and with various stakeholders.
As you read the RENEW ninth report,
I am sure that you will be impressed by the
number of organizations and individuals involved
in recovery activities and their earnest dedication
to the recovery of endangered and threatened
species. As the second millennium dawns, we
must build on the existing cooperation to meet
the growing challenges ahead.
David Brackett
Chair, RENEW
Executive Summary
From broad surveys in the field to isolated captivebreeding programs in zoos and other facilities,
RENEW teams undertook extensive recovery
activities in 1998/1999. This report details those
efforts, and provides a comprehensive overview
of the status of RENEW recovery plans and the
funding and person years allocated to the
recovery of species at risk during the year.
The work of 28 particularly active RENEW
teams is featured in the “Species Recovery
Updates” section (pages 4-36), which outlines
the research/monitoring and recovery actions
undertaken in 1998/99, the progress achieved
in recovering the species, and the objectives for
the 1999/2000 fiscal year. Photographs and
range maps accompany these summaries. The
activities of five teams that were less active
during the reporting period are summarized on
page 37. Where recovery actions are on hold,
species appear only in the “Status of RENEW
Plans Table”, pages 42-43.
RENEW team members enjoyed some
encouraging results during the year. Captive-bred
stocks of whooping cranes were considered to
be self-sustaining and representative of the wild
population, such that biologists were able to stop
collecting whooping crane eggs for captiverearing. After several years of captive-raised
swift foxes being released into the wild, the
species was downlisted by COSEWIC in 1998
from extirpated to endangered. In southern
Ontario, 14 active Acadian flycatcher nests
were found; historically, only 36 nests had ever
been reported in Canada. The eastern loggerhead
shrike population increased to 31 pairs from
18 pairs in 1997, and the two captive breeding
facilities now have a total of 44 founder shrikes.
Finally, as a result of recovery work in the South
Okanagan, a new species was discovered for
Canada: the Merriam’s shrew (Sorex merriami).
Species at risk recovery often addresses
conservation problems that are chronic in nature.
The challenges faced in 1998/99 included the
decline of Vancouver Island marmot numbers in
the wild, to less than 100 individuals (the entire
world population); the death over the winter of
two of the 10 marmots at the Toronto Zoo; the
fledging of only two young by the largest
roseate tern colony (50 breeding pairs); and the
continued decline in Canada of burrowing owls,
at the rate of 16% per year.
In 1998/99, 33 recovery teams were in
place covering 37 species. A recovery team
was formed for the black rat snake, and for the
first time, RENEW recovery teams have been
established for plants (Long’s braya / Fernald’s
braya, and the red mulberry). In addition to
having one team for the two brayas, multiplespecies teams exist for the Acadian flycatcher /
hooded warbler, and for the four species covered
by the South Okanagan ecosystem plan. There
are two teams for each of the loggerhead shrike
(eastern and prairie populations) and piping
plover (Atlantic and prairie populations).
Recovery teams have not yet been formed for
the Pacific water shrew, Townsend’s mole,
northern bobwhite, and the B.C. populations of
the northern leopard frog and sage grouse.
During the year, considerable progress was
made in developing recovery plans for several
species. A recovery plan was approved for
Blanding’s turtle, bringing to 16 the number of
plans that have been approved for species on the
1998 COSEWIC list. The eastern massasauga
rattlesnake recovery plan was revised following
external review, and will soon be submitted to
the RENEW committee for final approval. The
review process has been completed for the
Acadian flycatcher/hooded warbler and king
rail plans, which are now undergoing approval
by the responsible jurisdictions. Plans for the
Vancouver Island marmot, piping plover, and
prothonotary warbler were revised and
distributed for external review. A recovery
strategy prepared for the Peary caribou, testing
a new draft recovery plan format developed by
the National Recovery Working Group, is being
revised. Plans have been drafted but not yet
submitted to RENEW for the black rat snake,
spiny softshell turtle, red mulberry, and wood
bison. Plans are in preparation for the wolverine
(eastern population), blue racer, Lake Erie
water snake, South Okanagan ecosystem, and
the Fernald’s and Long’s brayas.
In addition to providing a structure for
recovery efforts across Canada, RENEW attracts
considerable funding. In 1998/99, 98 donors
representing government agencies, companies,
non-governmental organizations, universities and
others contributed $6.26 million to recovery
work. This total does not include the cost of
salaries, which amounted to 126.33 person
years (PYs), about 17 PYs less than last year’s
total. Funding of direct expenses increased
significantly in 1998/99 over the previous
year’s value of $4.02 million. Increased funding
for the prothonotary warbler, spiny softshell
turtle, Vancouver Island marmot, loggerhead
shrike, whooping crane, burrowing owl, spotted
owl, Peary caribou and marbled murrelet
accounts for most of this difference.
RENEW Report No. 9
Species Recovery Updates
This section details recovery efforts undertaken
for RENEW species in 1998/99. The summaries
are ordered alphabetically within taxonomic
groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, plants, and
one ecosystem. The summaries and maps are
based on the best available information as of
March 31, 1999. While extensive research and
recovery activities have been undertaken for
many species, for others, recovery activities
have been limited. On page 37 at the end of
this section, a quick rundown is included of five
species for which few recovery activities are
currently underway. Species for which recovery
efforts are on hold are mentioned in the “Status
of RENEW Plans” table (pages 42-43).
Each summary indicates when the
species was listed by COSEWIC, and whether it
has been listed in the United States and/or by
the World Conservation Union (IUCN). If a
category is missing, it means the category
is not relevant for that particular species. The
category definitions given by COSEWIC, the
U.S. Endangered Species Act, and by the IUCN
are listed on page 37 at the end of this section.
[Newfoundland population] (Martes americana atrata)
photo by J.D. Taylor
American Marten
Recovery team chair: J. Brazil, Nfld./Labrador
Dept. of Forest Resources & Agrifoods
Recovery plan status: approved 1995
RENEW Report No. 9
Plan goal: to increase the free-living marten
population in Newfoundland to a level at which
it will not become threatened with imminent
extinction or extirpation
American Marten
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• research continued on marten
demographics; individuals were
radio-collared and followed over
an extended period; parameters
measured included home
range, habitat selection,
productivity, and mortality;
• marten were surveyed in
predominantly black spruce
forests in Terra Nova National
Park, and factors influencing
marten survival were investigated;
• a study continued into the impact of
applying modified wood harvesting
on local marten populations.
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• captive breeding of three females and
one male continued at Salmonier
Nature Park; no young were born
in 1998;
• a modified snare and trap were
made mandatory in two parts of
the island in order to reduce
accidental marten mortalities;
• two marten were introduced into remote
parts of Terra Nova National Park, where no
marten occurred.
Progress (1998/99):
• the population remained stable during
the year;
• both animals introduced to remote parts of
Terra Nova National Park are doing well;
• two juvenile marten born in the park were
found dead in the fall; one of them died in
an illegal snare.
COSEWIC: Not at Risk, 1979; Threatened, 1986;
Endangered, 1996
Latest population estimate: about 300 marten in
Newfoundland (1998)
Present causes for concern: habitat loss from timber
harvesting and fires; accidental trapping and snaring;
competition with other mammals for prey species
Objectives (1999/2000):
• revise the recovery plan and submit a draft
for review in 1999/2000;
• continue to meet with the forest industry on
devising a strategy to protect sufficient
marten habitat in the short and long term;
• continue to consider establishing a
provincial ecological and wildlife reserve in
the Little Grand Lake area to protect the
core marten population.
RENEW Report No. 9
Peary Caribou
[Banks Island, High Arctic and Low Arctic populations]
(Rangifer tarandus pearyi)
Recovery team chair: A. Gunn, N.W.T.
Dept. of Resources, Wildlife and Economic
Recovery plan status: a draft National
Recovery Strategy is currently being edited and
Plan goals: to prevent extinctions; to enable
Endangered populations to improve their status
to Threatened; to enable Threatened populations
to improve their status to Vulnerable
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
photo courtesy Parks Canada
• Western Queen Elizabeth Islands (Bathurst
Island): monitored calf production; sampled
plant biomass and collected caribou antlers
for genetic analysis of population structure;
• Banks Island and northwest Victoria Island:
monitored population size and structure and
calf production;
• Banks Island: completed 5-year research on
diet, habitat, snow conditions, and caribou
condition in winter;
RENEW Report No. 9
• Melville, Banks and Victoria islands and
mainland: initiated genetic analysis of
population structures and relationships;
• Banks Island and northwest Victoria Island:
collected wolf scats to determine diet and
potential impacts of wolf predation on
caribou; Sachs Harbour (Banks Island) has
requested research on the effects of wolves
on caribou.
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• held meetings with stakeholders to draft
regional implementation plans;
• held a Population Viability Analysis meeting,
using predictive modeling to guide recovery
Progress (1998/99):
• the harvest quota was continued on Banks,
northwest Victoria, and Bathurst islands.
Peary Caribou
Objectives (1999/2000):
• finalize and approve implementation plans
for the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and
• develop methods to determine population
boundaries, and to estimate trend in
population size, vital rates and
immigration/emigration for the eastern
Queen Elizabeth Islands;
• establish a program to monitor trends for
Prince of Wales-Somerset islands-Boothia
Peninsula caribou, and initiate research on
gaps in ecological knowledge;
• monitor spring movements between Prince
of Wales and Somerset islands;
• monitor calf production on Banks, northwest
Victoria, and Melville islands;
• use satellite telemetry to determine seasonal
movements and estimate mortality on
Banks and Victoria islands;
• determine timing, locations and mortality
during seasonal sea-ice crossings of caribou
on Victoria Island (Dolphin and Union herd);
• establish community-based monitoring of
winter conditions, snow conditions and wolf
diet on Banks, northwest Victoria and
Melville islands;
• implement wolf management on Banks
Island, if necessary.
COSEWIC: Banks Island / High Arctic, Endangered, 1991;
Low Arctic, Threatened, 1991
IUCN: Endangered, 1996
Latest population estimate: western High Arctic: 1100
caribou at least one year old (1997); eastern High Arctic:
unknown, but hunters report local increases (1997);
Banks Island, 365-507 caribou at least one year old
(1998); NW Victoria Island, 433-583 caribou at least one
year old (1998); Dolphin and Union Herd (Victoria
Island) 28,000 caribou, including calves (1997); Prince
of Wales-Somerset islands, <100, no calves seen
(1995); and Boothia Peninsula (includes barren-ground
caribou) 6700 (1995)
Present causes for concern: uncertainty of climate trends
for the western High Arctic population; unknown levels
of wolf predation; and unknown relationship among
muskoxen, wolves, and caribou on Banks and Prince of
Wales-Somerset islands
RENEW Report No. 9
Swift Fox
(Vulpes velox)
photo by Lu Carbyn
• the census to assess the health of the core
population on the Alberta/Saskatchewan
border area indicated a stable to increasing
population and healthy reproduction; at least
80% of the population is comprised of the
wild-borne offspring of released animals;
• the recovery team is poised to achieve its
initial goal by the year 2000; the central
population in the core area is growing and
the range is slowly expanding into adjacent
Objectives (1999/2000):
Recovery team chair:
S. Brechtel, Alberta Dept.
of Environment
Recovery plan status:
approved 1995
Plan goal: to achieve a
viable, self-sustaining
population of swift foxes,
well distributed across
suitable habitats on the
Canadian prairies, which
would result in its removal
from the Endangered
category by the year 2000
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• repeated part of a 1996 census
to assess the health of the core population in
the Alberta/Saskatchewan border area;
• completed graduate research on the ecology
and habitat use of Canadian swift foxes.
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• continued to integrate swift fox habitat
conservation into government land use
Progress (1998/99):
• after completing a five-year release program,
further releases were deferred in 1998/99 to
allow analysis of the health and growth of
the wild population;
RENEW Report No. 9
• strengthen habitat and natal den site
protection through established government
land-use planning and management
programs; incorporate new site and
ecological information into management
• work with the state of Wyoming to define the
size and extent of the swift fox population
that has spread from Canadian releases into
the United States;
• undertake low-level tracking of the Canadian
population (focusing on the more easterly
range in and around Grasslands National
Park) to ensure population survival;
document distribution, and prepare for a
repeat of the overall census scheduled for
the winter of 2000/2001;
• continue production and distribution of
communication and educational materials;
• clarify the overall impact of poison and
trapping programs aimed at coyotes, and
implement management strategies to
prevent swift fox mortality;
• integrate and distribute results of graduate
research on the ecology and habitat use of
Canadian swift foxes.
COSEWIC: Extirpated, 1978; Endangered, 1998
IUCN: Lower risk: conservation dependent (1996)
Latest population estimate: 289 foxes in the wild in
Canada, majority on Alberta/Saskatchewan border
(1996), plus a small population in adjacent areas of
Wyoming, USA
Present causes for concern: small population subject to
severe climatic variation; accidental poisoning or
trapping; cultivation and industrial development of key
mixed-grass prairie habitats; predation by coyotes
Vancouver Island Marmot
(Marmota vancouverensis)
Recovery team chair: D. Janz, B.C. Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks
Revised plan goals: to maintain the existing
Nanaimo-Cowichan Lake population at not
fewer than 200 animals, within the currently
known distribution of the species; when a
second stable or increasing population of 100200 animals is discovered or established, to
request that COSEWIC downlist the species to
Threatened; when a third stable or increasing
population of 100-200 animals is established,
to request downlisting of the species to
photo by Andrew Bryant
Recovery plan status: first plan was approved
in 1994; review of a new plan is being
coordinated by the RENEW Secretariat
• continued population counts;
• used radio-telemetry to track dispersion of
• collected fecal and blood samples, and
tested these for Yersinia and other potential
pathogens; although several species of
Yersinia were identified, mortality could not
be attributed to a particular pathogen.
• captive breeding efforts were
expanded at the Toronto
Zoo (another 4 marmots
were added to the
original 6; 2 of the 10
subsequently died), and
the Calgary Zoo received
4 marmots in August to
establish a second captive
Progress (1998/99):
Objectives (1999/2000):
• the Marmot Recovery Foundation was
established and obtained Registered
Charitable status; the Foundation is tasked
with implementing the recovery plan and
raising the funds necessary to do so;
• there were 237 “adoptions” of marmots in
1998, including adoptions from Finland,
Japan, Switzerland and the Czech Republic
(up from 102 adoptions in 1997);
• musicians from Victoria organized a
“Marmot-Aid” benefit concert;
• over 4000 people responded to the “Save
the Marmot” campaign;
• the BC government and MacMillan Bloedel
Limited each pledged $1 million to support
recovery efforts;
• a conceptual plan for the Mount Washington
breeding facility was completed;
• add 6-8 animals to the Calgary
Zoo captive-breeding program;
• plan additional reintroductions,
habitat assessment, and the
dedicated breeding facility on
Vancouver Island;
• continue population counts and
radio-telemetry work;
• continue public extension
• initiate a graduate study of
habitat availability for
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
RENEW Report No. 9
COSEWIC: Endangered 1979
U.S. and IUCN: Endangered 1984;
reconfirmed by IUCN in 1996
Latest population estimate: fewer
than 100 individuals (1998)
Present causes for concern: small
population and confined geographic
distribution (90% within ~150 km2);
structural population change (>50%
of the world’s population now lives
in regenerating clearcuts);
associated impacts due to logging;
disease; and predation by cougars,
wolves and eagles
Wood Bison
(Bison bison athabascae)
Recovery team chair: C. Gates,
University of Calgary
Recovery plan status: in draft
Plan goal: to re-establish a minimum of four
viable, healthy, free-roaming wood bison
populations in their original range, and other
herds where the potential exists; and to
establish long-term cooperative management
programs for wood bison in which rural
communities and Aboriginal people play an
integral role
• census done of the Yukon herd in March
1999 (450 bison);
• continued research on the effects of
prescribed burning on riparian meadow
habitat in the Slave River Lowlands;
• continued to actively monitor and exclude
bison in a Bison Control Area, to protect the
Nahanni and Mackenzie herds from infection
by diseased bison dispersing out of Wood
Buffalo National Park;
• completed a disease risk assessment for
captive wild bison and cattle;
• initiated two graduate research projects to:
(a) incorporate local ecological knowledge
in a landscape model to predict the
occurrence of infected bison; and (b)
determine a culturally acceptable direction
for long-term management of the recovery
project, through a study of the attitudes of
First Nations people to the Hook Lake
project in Fort Resolution, NWT;
COSEWIC: Endangered, 1978; Threatened, 1988
U.S.: Endangered in Canada, 1970
IUCN: Lower risk: conservation dependent, 1996
Latest estimate: 3500 (2800 in six wild populations, and
700 disease-free animals in four captive breeding herds)
Present causes for concern: some herds infected with
tuberculosis and brucellosis; potential for infection of
other populations; small number of viable populations;
genetic impoverishment of some populations; expansion
of bison ranching and escape of commercial plains bison
into the wild; loss of habitat to agriculture; containment
of a wild plains bison herd; wolf predation; poaching;
and accidental deaths
RENEW Report No. 9
photo by Cormack Gates
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• continued graduate research on the
population genetics of bison;
• initiated a study of competition between
woodland caribou and the rapidly increasing
wood bison herd in the Aishik Lake area of
southern Yukon;
• continued the Hook Lake Wood Bison
Recovery Project to determine the feasibility
of eliminating disease by capturing and
treating wild juveniles;
• monitored the population status of the Little
Buffalo River herd (west of the Slave River);
• conducted aerial surveys to determine size
and composition of the Nahanni herd, and
composition of the Mackenzie herd;
• conducted a course on post-mortem of
diseased bison (Fort Resolution, NWT);
Wood Bison
• surveyed the Chitek Lake population,
and radio-collared two more animals
(to total 5);
• censused the Hay Zama herd;
• COSEWIC has commissioned a
10-year review on the status of
wood bison.
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• 19 wood bison were moved to a
holding site in northeastern BC
to be habituated before release to
the wild;
• the recovery team met to review a
draft national recovery plan,
coordinate activities, and review
• a meeting of stakeholders was held
to discuss recovery actions and wood
bison management in northeastern
• BC drafted a provincial recovery plan, which
is being implemented, and undertook to
complete the national plan;
• work continued towards a transfer of wood
bison from Canada to Russia;
• the Yukon released a new management plan.
• Slave River Lowlands captive bison herd
now numbers 59 disease-free animals, 10 of
which are pregnant two-year-old females;
• a disease risk assessment estimated the
probability of healthy wood bison herds
adjacent to Wood Buffalo National Park
becoming infected at one in eight years for
brucellosis and one in six years for
• the reintroduction of wood bison to Alaska is
stalled as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
considers the proposal;
• a wood bison recovery area in BC has been
proposed, which would compliment those in
Alberta, the NWT and Yukon.
Objectives (1999/2000):
• release a paper on the cultural and natural
paleohistory and recent history of wood
bison in Alaska based on traditional
knowledge, radiocarbon dates, and subfossil
• complete the national recovery plan;
• monitor the status of populations;
• conduct a risk assessment for brucellosis
and tuberculosis, and contribute to the
development of management guidelines to
protect healthy wild and captive herds of
bison in the risk zone.
RENEW Report No. 9
Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) and
Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina)
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
Acadian Flycatcher photo by S.J. Lang/VIREO
• commenced conservation activities in four of
the five Core Conservation Areas (habitat
management in Lambton County Woods;
community-based conservation actions in
Fonthill and Skunk’s Misery);
• saved one important property in Elgin
County from development, and achieved
modification of the logging plan of another.
Progress (1998/99):
Recovery team chair: M. Cadman,
Canadian Wildlife Service
Recovery plan status: in draft
Objectives (1999/2000):
Plan goal: to improve the status of the
hooded warbler and Acadian flycatcher
in Canada, such that their status will be
down-listed to Vulnerable and
Threatened, respectively
• continue developing community-based
conservation activities in Core areas;
• commence forest restoration work in Short
Hills Provincial Park;
• research the use of canopy gaps by hooded
• inform all landowners, Conservation
Authorities and municipalities of the
presence of the species on their properties,
and provide a brochure on habitat
conservation needs;
• commence an initiative to reduce diameter
cutting and encourage long-term sustainable
use of forests;
• continue research into the effects of logging
and silvicultural techniques on both species;
• identify additional Core Conservation Areas;
• continue habitat management in Lambton
County Forest;
• commence long-term, volunteer-based
monitoring of key sites;
• commence banding and expand productivity
COSEWIC: Acadian flycatcher,
Endangered, 1994; hooded warbler,
Threatened, 1994
Latest population estimates: Acadian
flycatcher: 35-50 pairs (1998);
hooded warbler: 144-207 pairs
Present causes for concern: drastic
reduction of habitat due to
agriculture and development
throughout the Canadian range
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• conducted an extensive survey of known
and potential nesting sites (1998);
• conducted research on habitat use,
productivity and effects of logging in South
• as a result of the 1998 survey, 14 Acadian
flycatcher nests were found, and it was
determined that wooded ravines are an
important nesting habitat for this species;
• work began on a “habitat needs” brochure
for distribution to landowners, planners, land
managers and foresters;
• a study was initiated on the use of canopy
gaps by hooded warblers, to provide input to
forest managers.
RENEW Report No. 9
Burrowing Owl
(Speotyto cunicularia)
Recovery team chair: G. L. Holroyd,
Canadian Wildlife Service
Recovery plan status: approved 1995
Plan goal: to increase populations of this
species in Canada to self-sustaining levels,
such that the species is no longer considered
Endangered or Threatened
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
photo by Lorne Scott
• conducted the second year of a postfledging survival study; found that 44% died
in the second half of the summer;
• conducted an inventory of owls in prairie
dog colonies in and near Grasslands
National Park, Saskatchewan;
• reviewed five years of trend block surveys;
• undertook the first year of a male foraging
• field tested a
roadside survey
technique for use
across the continent.
Recovery Actions
• finalized protocol for
use of artificial
burrows in research
• BC began Phase II of
its reintroduction
program, focusing on
habitat enhancement,
now that captive
breeding and release techniques have been
• experimental releases of captive bred owls
resulted in pairings with wild owls in
southern Saskatchewan and BC;
• Moose Jaw opened a burrowing owl
interpretive center near the Trans-Canada
• use of captive-raised owls for public
education was expanded during the year.
COSEWIC: Threatened, 1978 and 1991,
Endangered, 1995
Latest population estimate: 1000 breeding
pairs in Alberta and Saskatchewan (1995);
extirpated in BC and Manitoba.
Present causes for concern: continuing
decline in population (16% per year); low
productivity due to limited food supply;
high summer mortality; limited
information on migration and winter
Progress (1998/99):
• the populations being studied increased in
1998 for the first time since monitoring
began; the increase was the result of a
greater number of young being produced in
1997 because of high prey populations;
• review of five years of trend block surveys
showed an 85% decline in central Alberta,
but a stable population in the Eastern
Irrigation District in southern Alberta;
landowners across both provinces continue
to report declines;
RENEW Report No. 9
Burrowing Owl
(Speotyto cunicularia)
• the second International Burrowing Owl
Symposium concluded that burrowing owls
are declining across a significant portion of
the species’ range in western North
• population models showed that low
productivity may be the major factor driving
the decline of this species;
• the inventory of owls in prairie dog colonies
in and near Grasslands National Park found
low productivity in the park and moderate
productivity outside the park;
• two owls from Saskatchewan were found
wintering in south Texas and northern
• a major owl wintering area was located in
central Mexico;
• male foraging study showed highly variable
home range size;
• Operation Burrowing Owl membership
declined due to perceived threats from a
proposed federal endangered species law.
Harlequin Duck
Objectives (1999/2000):
• continue to support landowner stewardship
through Operation Burrowing Owl in
Saskatchewan and Operation Grasslands
Community in Alberta;
• continue experimental releases of captivebred owls in Saskatchewan and BC;
• investigate the foraging behaviour of males
to gain insight into the lack of productivity;
• determine the severity and causes of postfledging mortality of adults and young;
• study the winter ecology of burrowing owls
in central Mexico;
• use stable isotope ecology to determine the
origin of wintering owls.
[Eastern population] (Histrionicus histrionicus)
Recovery team chair: W.A. Montevecchi,
Memorial University
Recovery plan status: approved in 1994
Plan goal: to increase the eastern North
American population of harlequin ducks to a
level where its status can be down-listed to
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
Known Breeding
Possible Breeding
Probable Wintering
in North America
RENEW Report No. 9
• expanded satellite telemetry research of the
previous year in northern Quebec and in
northern Labrador;
• conducted survey of breeding grounds in
western Newfoundland;
• intensified winter surveys in Newfoundland;
• banded birds in Newfoundland, Labrador,
Quebec and Maine;
Harlequin Duck
• obtained blood and fecal
samples for research on
genetic relationships and
food habits, respectively;
samples are being
consolidated to develop
research papers for
eastern North America.
• continued to implement
public information
programs including
distribution of brochures
and videos;
• continued to develop
partnership agreements;
• contracted an updated status report which
was reviewed and is now being revised.
Progress (1998/99):
• confirmed that birds in the northern part of
the breeding range overwinter off the
western coast of Greenland;
• both satellite telemetry data and an initial
analysis of tissue samples collected for
genetic research support the possibility of
there being two populations of harlequins in
eastern North America: a northern
population that winters in Greenland, and a
southern population that winters in the U.S.;
• U.S. researchers are colour-banding
harlequins on their Maine wintering grounds
and Canadian banding efforts are
intensifying to contribute to our
understanding of the size, movement and
survival rate of the eastern North American
photo by Tom Vezo/VIREO
Recovery Actions
Objectives (1999/2000):
• focus on colour-banding and
COSEWIC: Endangered, 1990
in some instances nasalLatest population estimate: 1200-1500
tagging birds to explore
individuals in Eastern Canada (1998)
movement patterns in eastern
Present causes for concern: habitat loss
North America;
and degradation due to hydroelectric
• collect blood and fecal
development and other natural resource
extraction industries; oil pollution at
samples throughout the range
sea; low population in eastern North
of the eastern population(s),
America; increasing disturbance from
to augment the research on
adventure tourism; possible disturbance
genetic relationships, feeding
from military low-level flying; accidental
hunting mortalities, and possibility of
ecology, and food
requirements of harlequins in
eastern North America;
• attempt to assess the population size and
distribution of harlequin ducks in Greenland
(where anecdotal evidence suggests that the
population may be below the old and often
quoted number of 5000 birds).
RENEW Report No. 9
Henslow’s Sparrow
(Ammodramus henslowii henslowii)
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
Recovery team chair: R. Pratt,
Canadian Wildlife Service
Recovery plan status:
approved 1994
Plan goal: to maintain or
enhance the wild population of
Henslow’s sparrow nesting in
Canada, to the point where the
population is stabilized at a level
permitting the removal of its Endangered
status by COSEWIC
photo by George Peck
• no further directed surveys have
been undertaken; surveys have
been found to be unproductive for
this species.
• habitat management was initiated at
Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County:
approximately 1/3 of the area identified for
treatment in the 1997/98 management plan
was mowed and cleared of brush.
Progress (1998/99):
• while there is no evidence of current
breeding in Canada, there are breeding
populations in New York State, not far from
the Prince Edward County area of Ontario;
• these breeding colonies are thought to be
the most likely source of the unmated birds
still occasionally seen in Southern Ontario;
• if suitable habitat can be provided near
suspected migration routes, there is a
possibility for colonization;
• in the meantime, other grassland species will
benefit from the habitat management efforts.
Objectives (1999/2000):
• continue habitat management at Ostrander
Point in Prince Edward County by mowing
another 1/3 of the area;
• monitor managed areas to assess the effects
of management practices on grassland and
other bird groups.
COSEWIC: Endangered, 1993
IUCN: Lower risk: Near Threatened, 1996
Latest population estimate: between 1991
and 1996, surveys recorded no more than
1 to 3 breeding pairs per year in southern
Ontario; in the past two years (1997/98),
there have been no records of breeding
and only a few sporadic sightings of
singing males
Present causes for concern: conversion of
wintering habitat in the southeastern U.S.
to other uses; vulnerability of a small
population inhabiting an isolated area; loss
of suitable breeding habitat due to
conversion of grassland to cropland, and
natural succession of fallow fields to
brushland and forest
RENEW Report No. 9
King Rail
(Rallus elegans)
Recovery plan chair: L. Maynard,
Canadian Wildlife Service
Recovery plan status: draft submitted for review
photo by D. & M. Zimmerman/VIREO
Plan goal: to increase the population size of the
king rail in Canada, such that the species is no
longer considered Endangered
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• finalized a king rail survey protocol, and
used it to survey king rails in southern
Ontario in the spring;
• developed and field-tested a wetland/king
rail habitat assessment model;
• continued a Great Lakes Basin Wetland Atlas
project to develop a database of wetlands in
the Great Lakes Basin, to consist of a range of
attributes for individual wetlands including
records of species at risk such as the king rail;
• conducted research to assess wetland
function and the impacts of habitat
fragmentation, human induced stressors,
water level fluctuations and climate change
scenarios on core king rail breeding sites
(“Wetland Trends Through Time”).
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• contacted all public and private landowners
where king rails have been known to occur;
• initiated a project to restore wetlands
adjacent to core king rail breeding habitat in
the St. Clair area.
Progress (1998/99):
• prepared and reviewed a second draft of the
recovery plan.
Objectives (1999/2000):
• conduct an intensive spring survey of king
rails in 17 southern Ontario wetlands where
they have been previously found;
• synthesize king rail/wetland research for
publication and distribution to various
• develop a preliminary action plan for
wetland species of conservation concern,
part of a multi-species approach to king rail
recovery planning;
• continue the “Wetland Trends Through
Time” research project;
• continue the Great Lakes Basin Wetland
Atlas project;
• investigate wetland plant ecology and
management of invasive plants (such as
Phragmites spp.) found in many king rail
breeding sites and
Great Lakes coastal
marshes, starting with
Long Point, Lake Erie;
• develop species at risk stewardship
options for private landowners;
much of the existing habitat for
species at risk in southern Ontario
is privately owned by farmers or
is adjacent to agricultural lands;
• further develop the habitat
assessment model and
investigate the effect of current
and past wetland habitat management Status
practices on king rails (such as the
COSEWIC: Vulnerable, 1985;
effect of burning);
Endangered, 1994
• research and document the status and Latest population estimate:
distribution of king rail populations in
50 pairs (1998)
Present causes for concern:
the U.S., and establish contact with
habitat loss and
U.S. researchers studying the species;
degradation; human
• prepare and distribute a king rail fact
activities such as draining,
sheet to increase public awareness.
filling and dredging continue
to threaten remaining
wetlands in Ontario; very
low population size
RENEW Report No. 9
Loggerhead Shrike
[Eastern and Prairie populations]
(Lanius ludovicianus)
• studied effects of road signage and mailbox
fliers on traffic speed on rural roads;
• undertook toxicological studies of the road
dust suppressant “Dombind”, and studies of
avian use of treated and untreated roads.
photo by Chris Grooms
Prairie Team:
Recovery team chair: Eastern, R. Wenting,
Canadian Wildlife Service
Prairie, B. Johns, Canadian Wildlife Service
Recovery plan status: approved 1993; subject
to a five-year review in 1999
Plan goal: to maintain or enhance wild
populations nesting in Canada such that their
Threatened/Endangered status assigned by
COSEWIC may be removed
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
Eastern Team:
• continued field studies to determine
population status, reproductive success, and
fledgling survival in three core areas;
• maintained captive breeding programs, and
analyzed genetic variability in the two
captive populations;
• conducted a prairie-wide population survey;
• continued the more intensive monitoring of
the southwestern Manitoba population;
• conducted stable-hydrogen isotope analysis
of feathers to link breeding and wintering
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
Eastern Team:
• Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
produced a video on the species for use in
landowner contacts, sent information
packages to >270 owners of Ontario shrike
habitat, and conducted interviews with 20
• collected 32 more nestlings to augment the
two captive breeding populations;
• completed a protocol for the release of
captive-reared birds;
• mapped and characterized habitat for
Ontario’s Conservation Land Tax Incentive
Program at 60 nest sites used in the last 5
• undertook some habitat management in
eastern Ontario (cleared overgrown habitat
and planted conifers);
• posted signs to reduce vehicle speeding on
roads adjacent to breeding habitats, in an
effort to reduce road kills.
Prairie Team:
• initiated a nest site database for use in GIS
applications related to environmental
Progress (1998/99):
Eastern Team:
• the number of breeding pairs increased to
31 pairs in 1998 from 18 pairs in 1997
(probably mostly due to milder winter
weather), and new sighting locations were
RENEW Report No. 9
Loggerhead Shrike
• five birds were produced in captivity; the two
captive breeding facilities now have a total
of 44 founder birds, representing a broad
genetic range of the remaining wild
population, and having the potential to
produce many young for release to the wild;
• DNA analysis determined there is not much
genetic variability in the two captive
populations; a computer program has been
designed to identify specimens for pairing
that would increase the genetic variability;
• landowners in core breeding areas are now
better informed about the plight of the
loggerhead shrike, and support for
conservation efforts has increased;
• Ontario Ministry of Environment is moving
towards eliminating use of Dombind on
provincial roads;
• the overall adequacy of habitat remains
questionable for the species in eastern
Prairie Team:
• continued population monitoring;
• planted trees under “Operation Grassland
• initiated a status report on the Prairie
Objectives (1999/2000):
Eastern Team:
• continue monitoring of populations in core
areas, monitoring for shrikes in newlyidentified areas, banding of wild population
in core areas, and contacts with landowners;
• continue to develop captive propagation
skills and begin production of birds for
• select potential release sites on properties of
cooperating landowners, and identify captive
birds for a possible release in 2000 (pending
endorsement by both the CWS-Ontario
Region and the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, and determination by the Eastern
recovery team that the established protocol
for such a release could be met);
• research release cage design (one breeding
pair per cage; both adults and fledglings
would be released) and construct a
prototype on private property;
• develop communication
strategies with Canadian
COSEWIC: Eastern pop. Endangered, 1991;
Wildlife Service and Ontario
Prairie pop. Threatened, 1991
Ministry of Natural
Latest population estimates: Eastern
population, Ontario: 31 breeding pairs in
Resources relative to
1998 (29 in three core areas of Napanee,
potential release;
Smiths Falls and Carden; one pair on
• undertake the five-year
Manitoulin Island; one pair near Alvanley
review of recovery plan,
in Bruce County); and 9 single birds;
Quebec: 3 single shrikes; Prairie
and broaden recovery team
population: no current estimate available;
membership to include
in 1994 and 1996, estimates were: 500
representation from
pairs in Manitoba, several thousand pairs
in Saskatchewan, and 2500 pairs in a
third of the Alberta range
causes for concern: habitat loss
• develop habitat
and degradation; changing agricultural
practices that impact on short grass
management guidelines for
habitat; collisions with vehicles; pesticide
contamination; increased human
private landowners, and
disturbance, and climate change
prepare a habitat
conservation strategy;
• maintain maximum viability and genetic
variability of the captive population;
• increase the involvement of volunteers in
monitoring activities.
Prairie Team:
• finalize the Prairie population status report;
• complete the report on the 1998 prairie
population survey;
• continue population monitoring;
• determine the wintering grounds of the
Prairie population.
RENEW Report No. 9
(Brachyramphus marmoratus)
photo by John Deal
Marbled Murrelet
Recovery team chair:
A. Harfenist, Canadian Wildlife
Recovery plan status: the
existing plan, approved in 1993,
is out of date and requires
Plan goal: to improve the status
of the marbled murrelet from
Threatened to Vulnerable in
Wintering Range
Breeding Range
• developed a method to
compare and prioritize forest
habitat to be protected for
marbled murrelets on
Vancouver Island;
• continued work to determine
multi-scale habitat factors and
annual variations that affect
marbled murrelets nesting on
the west coast of Vancouver
• determined the behaviour and habitat use of
marbled murrelets at sea in Barclay Sound
and inland in the Carmanah-Walbran area;
• completed a nesting habitat assessment of
Tree Farm License 46;
• conducted reconnaissance-level surveys in
watersheds along the central coast, and
ranked suitability of watersheds for nesting
marbled murrelets;
• developed a first estimate of fecundity and
adult survival;
• correlated nesting success with forest habitat
characteristics on the Sunshine Coast;
• described nests found using radio telemetry
in Desolation Sound;
• correlated numbers of detected occupancies
with forest structural characteristics in
Clayoquot Sound and Sunshine Coast;
• determined nesting densities in Ursus Valley;
• conducted inventories in two watersheds in
the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• two strategies (Identified Wildlife
Management Strategy, Landscape Unit
Planning) were released in early spring
1999, both of which provide tools for
protecting some marbled murrelet habitat.
Progress (1998/99):
• interim habitat protection measures are in
effect for known nest sites, but the total
amount of land that can be set aside under
the interim measures is limited.
Objectives (1999/2000):
• rewrite the recovery plan to make it more
relevant and useful;
• produce a conservation needs assessment
for marbled murrelets, summarize research
and monitoring results to date, and describe
management options.
COSEWIC: Threatened, 1990
U.S.: Threatened, 1992
IUCN: Lower risk: Near Threatened, 1996
Latest population estimate: na
Present causes of concern: loss and
degradation of nest sites as old-growth
forests are harvested and fragmented,
and associated increases in nest
predation; oil spills; and possibly
drowning in fishing nets
RENEW Report No. 9
Peregrine Falcon
(anatum) (Falco peregrinus anatum)
Recovery team chair: G. L. Holroyd,
Canadian Wildlife Service
Recovery plan status: approved 1987
Plan goal: to enhance the wild population in
Canada to a level where it is no longer
considered Endangered
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
photo by Geoff Holroyd
• provincial wildlife agencies completed their
annual monitoring;
• completed annual monitoring in Wood
Buffalo National Park;
• satellite telemetry indicated that one
peregrine flew into Hurricane Mitch while
trying to cross the Caribbean Sea, and likely
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• a new release program began in Kelowna,
BC in 1998 to reintroduce falcons to the
Okanagan valley.
Progress (1998/99):
• monitoring in Wood Buffalo National Park
indicated the park population was stable;
provincial monitoring data from the past two
years were obtained;
• an update status report was submitted to
COSEWIC for review.
COSEWIC: Endangered, 1978
U.S.: Endangered, 1970, 1984
Latest population estimates: 400 pairs in NWT and YT (1995) and 85 pairs across
southern Canada (1995)
Present causes for concern: pesticide use, including organochlorine on wintering
range; small population in southern Canada; little protection at nest sites from
disturbance such as rock climbers; limited protection for prey habitats
Objectives (1999/2000):
• draft a new recovery plan;
• secure commitments to undertake the
five-year national inventory in 2000;
• continue the Kelowna release
• expand the satellite telemetry
tracking to determine the timing and
routes of migrating falcons and the
winter locations.
RENEW Report No. 9
Piping Plover
[Eastern and Prairie populations] (Charadrius melodus)
Recovery team chairs: Eastern, D. Amirault,
Canadian Wildlife Service
Prairie, J.P. Goossen, Canadian Wildlife Service
Revised plan goals: to maintain a selfsustaining piping plover population of at least
1626 adults in the Prairie and 670 adults in the
Atlantic portions of its range, and to maintain
at least the current range of the species
photo by Brian Johns
Recovery plan status: approved 1989; a
revised plan submitted in 1997 is currently
under review
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
Eastern Team:
• conducted graduate research using piping
plover vocalizations to recognize and
monitor individuals;
• completed 1998 mini-census;
• conducted research on Cuban wintering
grounds: banding, evaluation of wintering
ground populations in Cuba and their
• initiated banding research on breeding
grounds in New Brunswick, Newfoundland,
Prince Edward Island and Quebec;
• initiated production of CD version of New
Brunswick Piping Plover Atlas;
• updated Prince Edward Island Piping Plover
Prairie Team:
• carried out plover surveys at selected sites
in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and
• studied productivity and developed a
computer simulation model of piping plovers
at Lake Diefenbaker, Saskatchewan;
• continued the Prairie piping plover multimedia atlas, and expanded it to include
Great Lakes information;
• carried out a public attitude survey in the
Lake Diefenbaker area of Saskatchewan,
concerning attitudes on water management
and endangered species.
RENEW Report No. 9
Piping Plover
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
Objectives (1999/2000):
Eastern Team:
Both Teams:
• continued volunteer-based guardianship
programs in all Eastern Canadian provinces;
• enhanced vehicle enforcement on New
Brunswick and Prince Edward Island
• produced “The Piping Plover in Eastern
Canada” brochure to assist educational
programs within the region.
• complete the piping plover
recovery plan and a CWS
Occasional Paper on the 1996
COSEWIC: Endangered 1985
U.S.: Great Lakes population,
Endangered, 1985; northern Great
Plains and Atlantic and Gulf Coast
populations, Threatened, 1986
IUCN: Vulnerable, 1996
Latest population estimate: 428 and
420 adults in the Eastern population
in 1996 and 1998, respectively; and
1687 adults in the Prairie population
Present causes for concern: continued
threats to the species’ habitat and
reproductive success, including
human disturbance, artificial water
levels, natural beach succession, and
unnatural increases in predator
Prairie Team:
• used predator exclosures in Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Ontario;
• established a guardian program at Grand
Beach, Manitoba through Manitoba Parks;
• carried out egg and chick translocations at
Lake Diefenbaker, Saskatchewan.
Progress (1998/99):
Eastern Team:
• there was an increase between 1997 and
1998 in the number of adult piping plovers
counted on beaches in Prince Edward Island
(from 60 to 81), and New Brunswick (from
139 to 159), but there was a decline in the
number of adults counted in Quebec (from
90 to 72), Nova Scotia (from 98 to 76) and
Newfoundland (from 35 to 27);
• corporate sponsorship of piping plover
recovery efforts was established.
Prairie Team:
• a graduate project on nest exclosures in
Alberta was completed;
• a nest exclosure pilot study was successful
in Alberta and Saskatchewan; nest
exclosures were used successfully on two
western Ontario nests;
• a progress report on the 1997 Lake
Diefenbaker piping plover project was
• an Alberta information brochure on piping
plovers was revised and published;
• habitat protection efforts at an Alberta site
served as a demonstration site for ranchers.
Eastern Team:
• continue graduate research on
piping plover vocalizations;
• conduct surveys at selected
nesting beaches;
• continue research on Cuban
wintering grounds: banding,
evaluation of wintering ground
populations in Cuba and their
• continue banding research on
breeding grounds in New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and
• establish guardianship programs in New
Brunswick (2) and Quebec;
• initiate production of a CD version of the
Prince Edward Island piping plover atlas.
Prairie Team:
• continue use of predator exclosures at
various sites;
• continue guardianship program at Grand
Beach, Manitoba by Manitoba Parks;
• produce the Prairie and Great Lakes piping
plover multi-media atlas;
• monitor piping plovers at various sites.
RENEW Report No. 9
Prothonotary Warbler
(Protonotaria citrea)
photo by Arthur Morris/VIREO
Recovery team
chair: J. McCracken,
Bird Studies
Recovery plan
status: in draft
Plan goal: to increase
populations of the
prothonotary warbler in
Canada to self-sustaining
levels, such that the
species does not become
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• completed preliminary research on reducing
competition for nest sites with tree swallows;
• completed preliminary assessment of the
status of wintering habitat;
• completed census of the breeding population;
• continued monitoring of breeding success
(including parasitism and predation rates).
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• continued the nest box program initiated in
1997 (170 boxes added), to enhance the
breeding habitat and create more nesting
opportunities, and to reduce levels of
parasitism, predation and inter-specific
• developed an educational brochure aimed at
the general public, landowners, land
managers, policy makers and naturalists.
Progress (1998/99):
• over 80% of the Canadian population is now
nesting in nest boxes;
• the population is showing some signs of
recovery in Canada, from about 20 adults in
1996, to 38 in 1997, and 44 in 1998;
• the nest box program has been
demonstrated to eliminate cowbird
parasitism and greatly reduce mammalian
Objectives (1999/2000):
COSEWIC: Vulnerable, 1984; Endangered, 1996
Recent population estimate: 17 pairs plus 10 unmated
males (1998)
Present causes for concern: nesting failures due to
competition with house wrens; parasitism from brownheaded cowbirds; shortage of cavity nest sites;
destruction of breeding habitat; destruction of wintering
habitat (coastal mangrove forest)
RENEW Report No. 9
• continue the nest box program;
• initiate a colour banding study, to determine
the extent of emigration from the U.S., site
faithfulness, and population turnover;
• assess the level of habitat damage that
resulted from an intense wind storm at one
of the core breeding sites;
• distribute the educational pamphlet to
landowners and the interested public;
• foster the protection of critical wintering
habitat (mangrove forest) in the Latin
American core wintering area.
(Sterna dougallii)
Recovery team chair: S. Boates, Nova Scotia
Dept. of Natural Resources
Recovery plan status: approved 1992; revision
of plan underway
Plan goal: to maintain the integrity of the
current breeding population in Canada and to
increase its size to a level at which the status
can be down-listed to Vulnerable
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• surveyed known roseate tern colonies on
Country Island, Grassy Island, and Wedge
Island in Nova Scotia;
• surveyed other parts of Nova Scotia for
terns generally, and did ground checks to
locate roseate tern nesting sites;
• graduate research on roseate terns on
Country Island completed.
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• undertook a tern restoration project on
Country Island, which included using noise
to scare predatory gulls away from the
island so the tern population could reestablish, and organizing mainland school
children to construct artificial tern nests for
distribution on this and other nearby islands;
• ensured nest shelters were intact and used
by the terns on Brothers Island;
• conducted a CBC radio interview on roseate
terns to broaden public knowledge;
• drafted a Hinterland Who’s Who folder on
the roseate tern.
• the Nova Scotia
Endangered Species Act
was passed, which will
provide legal protection
for roseate terns.
photo by Mark Elderkin
Roseate Tern
• publish the roseate tern
Hinterland Who’s Who and
complete Who’s Who video;
• continue population
restoration efforts on
Country and Brothers
• manage vegetation on
Wedge Island (e.g., cut down raspberry
bushes to allow grasses to grow and
create good nesting habitat);
• cull crows and ravens from
Brothers Island, where they were
a significant problem in
re-assess status of
the roseate tern.
Progress (1998/99):
• roseate terns were discovered for the first
time on Dort’s Island, near Country Island,
and re-discovered on Wedge Island; the
pattern of tern movements suggests that
roseate terns and other terns occupy
clusters of islands and shift from one place
to another;
• roseate tern numbers on Country Island
increased from one to three pairs;
• roseate terns suffered a particularly poor
year on Brothers Island due to predation and
rough weather; the island had the highest
number of breeding pairs anywhere in
Canada (50), but fledged only two chicks;
COSEWIC: Threatened, 1986
U.S.: Endangered, 1987 (Atlantic coast south to N. Carolina
Recent population estimate: about 120 pairs in
Canada (1998)
Present causes for concern: low population size over its
entire Canadian (predominantly Nova Scotian) range;
low survival of young; high predation by gulls during
breeding and by humans on wintering grounds; negative
effects of toxic chemicals on reproductive success;
dependence of the roseate tern on protection from
predators enhanced by association with other tern
populations, which are also threatened by disturbance
and predation
RENEW Report No. 9
Spotted Owl
(Strix occidentalis caurina)
Recovery team chair: D. Dunbar,
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks
photo courtesy Canadian Wildlife Service
Recovery plan status: Two
documents have been produced
in place of a recovery plan, but
the recovery team does not
currently view these as an
adequate substitute:
• Spotted Owl Management
Plan Options Report (Spotted
Owl Recovery Team, 1994)
• Spotted Owl Management
Plan: Strategic Component
(Spotted Owl Management
Inter-agency Team, 1997)
In recent years, a few spotted
owl pairs have been found
outside the area covered by these documents.
Management plan goal: to achieve a
reasonable level of probability that owl
populations will stabilize, and possibly improve,
in the long-term without significant short-term
impacts on timber supply and forestry
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• continued spotted owl inventory and
monitoring project;
• banded 33% of known owls for
long-term monitoring of known
sites, reproductive success and
juvenile dispersal success;
• assessed younger forest stands
for spotted owl habitat suitability;
• radio-tracked 10 spotted owls to
assess their home range and habitat
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• draft resource management plans
were completed for 13 Special
Resource Management Zones
required under the Spotted Owl
Management Plan; the plans will
provide a critical link and direction
between spotted owl management
and operational activities.
RENEW Report No. 9
Progress (1998/99):
• spotted owl inventories located nests and/or
critical roost sites; this information was
incorporated into resource management
planning to reduce the risk of incidental loss
of habitats by timber harvesting;
• inventory, monitoring and radio telemetry of
spotted owls are ongoing but more
information is required before population
estimates can be revised or refined;
• spotted owl habitat continues to be eroded,
increasing the birds’ risk of extinction.
Management Plan Objectives
• complete spotted owl inventories to identify
nests and/or critical roost sites;
• complete habitat inventories in forest stands
aged 80-100 years;
• continue to apply leg bands to all individuals
for long-term monitoring; revisit banded
birds to determine status, site tenacity;
• continue to maintain and update spotted owl
• complete the minimum number of radiotelemetry relocations for each spotted owl to
determine home range size and habitat
• complete the evaluation of forest stand
attributes in the study area; assess and
determine suitable owl habitat;
• implement resource management plans to
ensure operational activities comply with the
Spotted Owl Management Plan;
• adapt the plans as required to reflect new
information that is made available in
COSEWIC: Endangered, 1986
U.S.: Threatened, 1990
IUCN: Lower risk: Near Threatened (1996)
Latest population estimates: about 100 pairs (1998)
Present causes for concern: loss of old growth forest
habitat to timber harvesting; predation by great horned
owls; competition with barred owls; toxic pollution
resulting in thinned egg shells
Whooping Crane
(Grus americana)
Recovery team chair: B. Johns,
Canadian Wildlife Service
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
Objectives (1999/2000):
• captive breeding centres of Florida, the
Calgary Zoo (2), the International Crane
Foundation (7), and Patuxent Wildlife Center
(20) raised cranes for release;
• in Canada and the U.S., continued to
develop release techniques using trucking
and ultralight aircraft to teach migration
• continue monitoring the Wood Buffalo
• continue raising cranes for release in Florida;
• continue research on food resources and
causes of chick mortality on the breeding
• complete the study investigating suitable
reintroduction habitat in Wisconsin.
Recovery plan status: a second plan was
approved in 1993
Plan goal: to increase populations of the
whooping crane to the point where its status
classification can be improved; a 1995
memorandum of understanding with the U.S.
indicated that a population of 1000 individuals
is the desired goal
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
photo by Brian Keating
• conducted breeding ground surveys to
monitor nesting effort in Wood Buffalo
National Park;
• monitored the use of staging habitat in
• conducted research regarding the food
resources available on the breeding grounds;
• conducted research regarding the causes of
chick mortality on the breeding grounds;
• completed an assessment of Interlake,
Manitoba, as a potential reintroduction site;
• initiated a study of Wisconsin as a potential
reintroduction site;
• completed a winter sites selection study for
a reintroduced population.
• the Wood Buffalo
population increased
from 182 cranes in
winter 1997/98, to
183 cranes after the
1998 breeding season
(adult and subadult
survival was near
normal, but chick
production was lower
than expected, and
18 cranes were lost in
a fall storm en route to Texas);
• for the fourth consecutive
year, more than 40
pairs of whooping
cranes bred in the
wild in Wood Buffalo
National Park;
• since 1993, 175
captive-bred whooping
cranes have been
released into the
wild in Florida; there
are currently 73
cranes in this nonmigratory population.
COSEWIC: Endangered, 1978
U.S.: Threatened, 1967; Endangered, 1970 and 1993
IUCN: Endangered, 1996
Latest population estimate: 183 birds (including 49 pairs) in
the Wood Buffalo-Aransas population (1998)
Present causes for concern: small, localized breeding
population in Canada; deteriorating winter habitat due to
boat traffic, wave erosion and dredging; deteriorating
breeding habitat due to drought
RENEW Report No. 9
Black Rat Snake
(Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta)
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• interpretive displays and public outreach
programs are underway at all provincial
parks and St. Lawrence Islands National
Park in eastern Ontario.
Progress (1998/99):
photo by Kent Prior
• movement patterns, habitat use, and
population ecology of the snake are better
understood (e.g., documented preference for
edge habitat, high gene flow among
Objectives (1999/2000, and beyond):
Recovery team chair: S. Thompson, Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources
Recovery plan status: framework for a plan
has been drafted
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• research to identify habitat requirements,
determine amount of land required to
protect populations, and effects of habitat
fragmentation on individual movement and
gene flow among populations;
• analyzed genetic population structure at
multiple spatial scales (hibernacula, local
populations, regional populations);
• monitored hibernacula populations across
the Frontenac Axis, at St. Lawrence Islands
National Park, Queen’s University Biological
Station; and on an ad hoc basis at Murphy’s
Point and Charleston Lake provincial parks.
RENEW Report No. 9
• map all snake occurrences and locations of
hibernacula throughout Ontario and conduct
landscape ecology study of Frontenac Axis
• identify, characterize, and map new
hibernacula locations;
• monitor all populations, especially those in
protected areas, and document road
• circulate St. Lawrence Islands National Park
monitoring protocols to Ontario provincial
parks for implementation;
• continue research on the dispersal and
recruitment of young snakes;
• increase awareness and sensitivity of the
• coordinate efforts with the Algonquin to
Adirondack conservation initiative to identify
areas of high priority;
• work with land trusts and landowners to
secure protection of snake habitat; develop
habitat protection guidelines for landowners,
resource agencies, and municipalities;
• encourage protection of key snake habitat
elements (hibernacula, nest sites);
• discourage road construction and upgrading
within 200–500 m of hibernacula.
COSEWIC: Threatened, 1998
Latest population estimates: not available
Present causes for concern: habitat loss/alteration
(particularly in southwestern Ontario); road mortality;
and persecution (including collecting)
Blanding’s Turtle
[Nova Scotia population] (Emydoidea blandingii)
Recovery team chair:
T. Herman, Acadia University
Recovery plan status: approved in 1998
Plan goal: to realize a self-sustaining
population of Blanding’s turtle within the
historical range in Nova Scotia
photo by Tom Herman
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• continued to monitor the Blanding’s
turtle population in Kejimkujik National
• continued to mark and monitor
Blanding’s turtles (mostly adults) at a
site found outside the park;
• continued a survey of genetic variation in
populations throughout the North American
range of the species;
• continued study of turtle nest predation by
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• placed screens over nests to protect them
from raccoons and other predators.
Progress (1998/99):
• genetic evidence to date suggests that Nova
Scotia turtles contain a disproportionate
amount of the total genetic diversity of the
species, and that there may be geneticallyrecognizable sub-groups within the
Nova Scotia population;
• a significant population of adults was found
outside the park, and additional juveniles
were located at a second site outside the
Objectives (1999/2000):
• continue intensive monitoring of the
population recently discovered outside the
park (especially at the new juvenile site),
including research on seasonal movement
patterns, nesting behaviour, and estimates of
• continue to develop a predictive habitat
model, based on data from within the park,
to locate any additional populations outside
the park, integrating new GIS technology
and provincial databases where appropriate;
COSEWIC: Threatened, 1993
IUCN: Lower risk: Near Threatened, 1996
Latest population estimate: 132 adults in
Kejimkujik Park, >50 adults outside park
Present Causes for Concern: clutch success
may be hampered by the short incubation
season in NS, and by nest flooding; raccoon
predation on eggs and young, aggravated in
Kejimkujik National Park by development of
park facilities near turtle nest site
• continue and expand the assessment of
population genetic structure, including
paternity assessment within clutches,
relatedness among sub-populations within
Nova Scotia, and the relationship between
NS populations and those elsewhere in
North America.
RENEW Report No. 9
Blue Racer
(Coluber constrictor foxii)
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• conducted annual population monitoring;
• acquired a 60-acre property on the eastern
part of Pelee Island, containing an important
breeding area for blue racers and possibly
some hibernacula.
Progress (1998/99):
• the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is
limiting expansion of the local aggregate
company’s north end quarry, which will save
a few key hibernacula.
photo by Ben Porchuk
Objectives (1999/2000):
• continue population monitoring through
mark-recapture and spring funnel-trapping
at usual sites and a few new ones;
• continue monitoring of road kills;
• create more artificial nesting sites,
and monitor the temperature
regimes within them.
Recovery team chair (interim):
B. Porchuk, Bird Studies Canada
Recovery plan status: in preparation
Plan goal: to achieve a minimum of
two demonstrably secure
populations in Ontario and
thereby permit the downlisting of designated status
from Endangered to
• continued annual population
Pelee Island
monitoring at hibernacula (overwintering sites) and by chance encounters
(mark-recapture using pit tags);
• continued collection of morphological data;
• conducted regular road kill surveys on the
eastern half of Pelee Island (the snake’s
known range);
• monitored artificial nest sites provided in
1996 for eggs and nesting conditions (e.g.,
moisture levels, temperature, decomposition
• initiated a two-year radio-telemetry study of
female eastern fox snakes, which often share
hibernacula and nest sites with blue racers,
on the eastern side of Pelee Island, in hopes
of discovering additional racer microhabitats.
RENEW Report No. 9
COSEWIC: Endangered, 1991
Latest population estimate: 205 adults
(1995); indirect evidence of
population decline in recent years
Present causes for concern: habitat
loss due to increased commercial,
residential and cottage development;
continued road kill and loss of
breeding sites; population numbers
may be below minimum viability
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake
(Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)
Recovery team chair:
K. Prior, Canadian Wildlife Service
Recovery plan status: in draft
photo by Frances Barry
Plan goal: to achieve viable populations of
massasaugas in tall-grass prairie and peatland
ecosystems; and to retain the current
distribution, structure, and connectivity among
local (sub)populations throughout the Bruce
Peninsula and Georgian Bay population regions
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• continued population monitoring at Bruce
Peninsula National Park, Georgian Bay
Islands National Park, Killbear Provincial
• began population surveys at Ojibway and
• continued demographic research at Killbear
Provincial Park;
• conducted a detailed analysis of population
genetic structure;
• launched a province-wide study of the
species’ landscape ecology.
Recovery Actions (1998/99)
• launched a Sistrurus Information Network
• consulted with Ecoplans on a Bruce West
Lands development proposal;
• continued proactive public outreach in all
population regions;
• launched the Toronto Zoo “Living with
Wildlife” video;
• held a “Rattlesnake Anti-venom and
Snakebite Therapy Workshop” at Resort
Tapatoo; a “Managing Human-Rattlesnake
Interactions Conference” at Killbear
Provincial Park; and the second International
Symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Massasaugas at Toronto Zoo;
• consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on species listing candidacy in
the U.S.;
• in September, the recovery team formally
commented on the new Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act being proposed by the
Ontario Government.
Progress (1998/99):
• recovery efforts were acknowledged
through receipt of the Conservation
Achievement Award from the Niagara
Peninsula Conservation Authority.
• conduct a cooperative
ecological research and
population monitoring project for the
Ojibway & Wainfleet populations;
• design, produce, and distribute a
global distribution map poster, reprint the “Wanted Alive” poster,
and develop a snake
identification guide;
• work to mitigate negative
consequences of improving
Normandy Road through
COSEWIC: Threatened, 1991
Lasalle Woods ESA (Ojibway
Latest population estimates: 250 in
Killbear Provincial Park; probably
• plan for an experimental re<100 in each of Ojibway and Wainfleet
location study at Bruce
populations (1998)
Peninsula National Park;
Present causes for concern: primarily
loss of critical habitat to development
• complete the landscape
(Ojibway population) and natural
ecology study;
succession (Wainfleet population),
• conduct population viability
population isolation/reduction through
habitat fragmentation, and direct
analyses for the Ojibway and
mortality on roads; persecution by
Wainfleet populations;
humans remains a major cause for
• explore options for
concern for all populations
massasauga reintroduction in
cooperation with tallgrass
prairie restoration efforts.
• efforts in implementing recovery objectives
have become better coordinated;
RENEW Report No. 9
Spiny Softshell Turtle
(Apalone spinifera spinifera)
Recovery team chair:
Ontario, M. Oldham and
M. Obbard, Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources,
Quebec, M. Léveillé, Société
de la faune et des parcs,
Plan goal: down-listing of the
eastern spiny softshell turtle
from Threatened to
Vulnerable in Canada
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• surveyed potential habitat on the Sydenham
River to locate additional nest sites;
• collected infertile eggs for contaminant
analysis by the Canadian Wildlife Service;
• collected hatchling success data;
• radio-tracked 2 individuals on the Thames
River to learn about their movements and
locate hibernation sites.
photo by Mike Oldham
Recovery plan status:
national plan in draft; Quebec
plan completed; Ontario plan
in draft
• the Nature Conservancy of Canada is
pursuing discussions to acquire the one
known nesting site in Quebec;
• distributed educational pamphlets on spiny
softshell turtles to each house in the Quebec
part of Lake Champlain; presented a slide
show in three camp-grounds, and set up an
information booth at a boat ramp for one
• contacted the wildlife agencies of New York
and Vermont about collaborating on research
and protection of this species.
• captured 6 female and 4 male spiny softshell
turtles in the Missisquoi River delta in July
1998 and tracked them until February 1999;
• characterized the habitat at each of the
243 localization points, and located a new
(second) hibernating site on the river.
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• rehabilitated nest sites
along the Thames River
in Ontario;
• protected over 100 nests from
predators on the Thames, and
at Long Point and Rondeau.
RENEW Report No. 9
Spiny Softshell Turtle
Progress (1998/1999):
Objectives (1999/2000):
• the rehabilitation work is proving to be
effective: at one rehabilitated site, more than
20 nests were laid, whereas only 9 were laid
in 1997;
• extended habitat surveys in 1998 led to new
discoveries: a hibernation site on the
Thames River, and additional nest sites on
the Sydenham River;
• contaminant analysis of infertile eggs is
• as a result of ongoing education work, the
public is reporting turtle sightings and
becoming involved with habitat rehabilitation
• continue 1998/99 research and recovery
efforts, including nest site survey work on
the Thames and Sydenham rivers, and nest
success monitoring;
• focus on additional telemetry work on the
Thames, within the City of London, and on
Lake Erie.
• after two years of radio-tracking turtles,
three hibernating sites have been identified
in the northern Lake Champlain area, and
some observations have been made
concerning their movement: spiny softshells
were able to move large distances; males
moved shorter distances than females;
females showed fidelity for nesting and
hibernation areas; and some individuals
used a summer range in 1998 that was
different from the summer range used in
• the 1998 data revealed that some areas in
the northern part of Missisquoi Bay were
used during the nesting season and during
the summer, in addition to two known areas,
Pike River and Chapman Bay.
• radio-track six females in June 1999, to
locate their nesting sites;
• collect infertile eggs for contaminants
• continue research on movement and habitat
use by spiny softshell turtles in northern
Lake Champlain, using radio-telemetry;
• initiate a capture-marking/recapture study
along the Pike and Missisquoi rivers, to
make morphological measurements; take
tissue samples for future DNA analysis; and
estimate population size;
• establish an observers network along the
Ottawa, Richelieu, and St. Lawrence rivers;
• release a new poster to differentiate the
spiny softshell turtle from the other Quebec
turtle species.
COSEWIC: Threatened, 1991
Latest population estimate: reliable Canadian population estimates are still lacking; general estimates are 1000-2000
softshells in southern Ontario, probably <100 in Quebec. In Ontario in 1998, there were at least 133 nesting females at
Long Point, 61 at Rondeau, and 68 along the 20 km stretch of the Thames River directly downstream of Springbank Dam
in London
Present causes for concern: poaching of nests, particularly on the Thames River; nest destruction by predators, particularly at
Rondeau; continued loss of suitable nesting, basking and hibernation sites; isolation by unsuitable habitat of populations
which may have been formerly contiguous; vulnerability of populations to habitat fragmentation; possible effects of
contaminants; and introduction of exotics (e.g., Florida softshell turtle)
RENEW Report No. 9
Fernald’s Braya (Braya fernaldii) and
Long’s Braya (Braya longii)
Long’s Braya
Long’s Braya photo by Joe Brazil
Recovery team chairs: L. Hermanutz and
H. Mann, Memorial University
Recovery plan status: in preparation, to
be submitted by July 1999
peninsula of
Plan goal: to ensure the long-term
viability of both Long’s and Fernald’s
brayas in their native habitat, the
limestone barrens of the Northern
Peninsula, and if necessary to
establish ex-situ populations in
protected areas within the barrens
• intensive reconnaissance led to
discovery of braya populations on the
limestone barrens of the Northern Peninsula
of Newfoundland;
Fernald’s Braya
• determined the number and density of
individuals in each population;
• determined the disturbance regime of
each site (anthropogenic — meaning
caused by humans — or natural), and
established long-term monitoring sites at
each location by permanently tagging
• measured growth and reproductive
characteristics of tagged plants;
peninsula of
• compared life history
characteristics of plants in different
disturbance regimes to learn about
factors affecting long-term viability
and persistence.
COSEWIC: Long’s braya, Endangered, 1997 / Fernald’s
braya, Threatened 1997
Latest population estimate: Long’s braya: 6000 plants in
three populations; Fernald’s braya: 1500 plants in four
Present causes for concern: loss of limestone barrens
habitat by gravel quarrying, road building and human
RENEW Report No. 9
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• worked towards establishing interim habitat
protection for “at-risk” habitats, as well as
stewardship initiatives with landowners of
Long’s and Fernald’s braya sites;
• an ex-situ seed bank was established at
Memorial University Botanical Gardens.
Progress (1998/99):
• confirmed there were only three extant
populations of Long’s braya, and fewer
plants in the four populations of Fernald’s
braya than previously thought; the actual
distributions of plants within known
populations were more extensive than
Objectives (1999/2000):
• locate additional populations;
• compare growth rate, survival rate,
reproductive fitness and seedling recruitment
of populations from different disturbance
• measure environmental characteristics
at each site;
• sample the genetic diversity of all
populations, and determine the rate of
natural outcrossing;
• define the components of the natural
disturbance regime (type, severity, intensity
and size) within the limestone barrens, and
use this information to gauge the impact of
humans on the long-term stability and
viability of the braya species;
• initiate education programs in communities
associated with the limestone barrens of the
Northern Peninsula;
• visit Mayors of communities close to
“at risk” habitats to garner support for
conservation efforts.
(Morus rubra)
Recovery team chair: J.D. Ambrose,
Toronto Zoo
Recovery plan status: in draft
Plan goal: to conserve and, if necessary,
restore functioning of red mulberry populations
to long-term stability in two regions of its
occurrence in southern Ontario, and thereby
facilitate its down-listing
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• census done on six major populations;
initiated a demographic monitoring program
to evaluate the viability of red mulberry in
• estimated the magnitude of hybridization in
the six core populations using RAPD genetic
• compared the leaf morphology of red, white
and hybrid mulberries and developed a
hybrid index for field identification;
• compared northern and southern
populations of red mulberry with respect to
habitat characteristics and growth in a
greenhouse environment.
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• white mulberries have been culled from Point
Pelee periodically since 1993;
• in 1998, white mulberry trees were tagged
and culled from selected regions of Fish
Point Provincial Nature Reserve and Point
Pelee National Park.
Progress (1998/99):
• existence of hybrids was
confirmed for Point Pelee through
genetic analyses; analysis of all
intermediate-type trees is
• southern and northern
habitats have been found to
have significant differences,
but no differences in
growth between
populations when
grown in a common
environment have been
detected; the growth
experiment will continue for another year;
• large differences in leaf morphology have
been found between red and white
mulberries; hybrids appear more like whites
than reds.
Objectives (1999/2000):
• initiate an experimental removal of white
mulberry, with appropriate controls, to
assess the effects of removing neighbouring
white mulberry on hybridization and fertility
of red mulberry; this will also
assist in identifying a
reasonable exclusion
COSEWIC: Threatened, 1987
distance for culling white
Latest population estimate: 117 trees (107
in the six largest populations +
• extend demographic
10 additional individuals in another four
sites); numerous white mulberry/red
monitoring for population
mulberry hybrids also occur in many of
viability analysis.
these populations
Present causes for concern: hybridization
with white mulberry, small populations
for retaining population viability, twig
blight in some
populations causing
photo by John Ambrose
Red Mulberry
RENEW Report No. 9
South Okanagan Ecosystem
Yellow-breasted chat photo by Ruth Sullivan
Recovery Team Chair:
D. Cannings, Cannings Holm
Recovery plan status:
ecosystem plan in preparation
Plan goals: to maintain a
sufficient amount and diversity
of habitats to sustain
ecosystem function in the
South Okanagan; to maintain
viable populations of all native
species; to manage the South
Okanagan ecosystem so as to
balance the ecological, economic
and social needs of local
Research/Monitoring (1998/99):
• completed a scientific assessment of the
state of the South Okanagan ecosystem;
• initiated a landscape modeling project;
• continued graduate research analyzing
habitats in the south Okanagan with the
purpose of outlining an efficient reserve
system that would preserve all habitat
elements in the area.
Recovery Actions (1998/99):
• produced a habitat atlas for 32 provincially
Red- or Blue-listed species in the south
Okanagan, to aid land-use decision-making
in the area;
• a Prospectus for Ecosystem Recovery in the
South Okanagan was produced to garner
higher-level support from all levels of
Progress (1998/99):
• discovered a new species for Canada: the
Merriam’s shrew (Sorex merriami).
Objectives (1999/2000):
RENEW Report No. 9
• complement the prospectus with a strategic
• continue modeling project to produce a
broad-based model of the socio-economic
and environmental impacts of various
development options in the South
COSEWIC: pygmy short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma
douglassii douglassii), Extirpated, 1992; sage thrasher
(Oreoscoptes montanus), Endangered, 1992; whiteheaded woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), Threatened,
1992: yellow-breasted chat [B.C. population] (Icteria
virens auricollis), Threatened, 1994
Latest population estimates: not available; this is a broad
plan which covers many species sharing a common
Present causes for concern: continued loss and
degradation of habitat
Update Wrap-Up
Category Definitions
Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)
Category definitions:
COSEWIC status: Extirpated, 1978
The goal of the recovery efforts is to down-list the status of
the black-footed ferret from Extirpated to Endangered,
through reintroduction of captive-bred animals within the
historical range of the species. Implementation of recovery
efforts is on hold, however, since the prey base (black-tailed
prairie dogs) is too limited to sustain a viable population of
wild ferrets in Canada. The captive breeding program at the
Toronto Zoo, which is in support of the North American
recovery program, continued in 1998/99.
Recovery team chair: E. Wiltse, Saskatchewan Environment
and Resource Management
Wolverine [Eastern population] (Gulo gulo)
COSEWIC status: Endangered, 1989
In 1998/99, the recovery team contacted native communities
in northern Quebec and Labrador, to solicit their support for
proposed recovery actions that would impact on the northern
wolverine population. Wolverine sightings and other
information was collected from native people, suppliers,
hunters, other residents, and visitors to the area. The draft
recovery plan is being revised as a result of discussions with
representatives of native band councils. It is anticipated that
the recovery plan will be submitted for approval by RENEW
during the 1999/2000 fiscal year.
Recovery team chair: M. Huot, Ministère de l’env. et de la
faune, Québec
Kirtland’s Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii)
COSEWIC status: Endangered, 1979
The last confirmed breeding record for this species in Canada
was in 1945, but singing males are still occasionally seen in
early successional pine habitat in Ontario. Recovery actions
planned for 1999/2000 include a survey of potential habitat
in Ontario, especially sites that are close to the Michigan
population, to determine whether there is a breeding
population of Kirtland’s warblers in Canada. If breeding birds
are located, activities will be undertaken to maintain or
increase the population.
Recovery team chair: R. Pratt, Canadian Wildlife Service
Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus)
COSEWIC status: Prairie pop.: Endangered, 1998;
B.C. pop.: Extirpated, 1997
A sage grouse recovery team for the Prairie population has
been formed outside the auspices of RENEW, with representation from a very broad cross-section of stakeholders in
Alberta and Saskatchewan. The team is following the
general structure and format of previous RENEW recovery
plans in the development of the sage grouse plan. In
February 1999, a working group provided an initial draft of
the recovery plan to the full recovery team for review.
Prairie recovery team co-chairs: K. Lungle (AB)
and W. Harris (SK)
Northern Leopard Frog [Southern Mountain populations,
BC] (Rana pipiens)
COSEWIC status: Endangered, 1998
The exact causes of the population’s decline are not known,
but contributing factors likely include loss and degradation of
wetland habitat, introduction of game fish, pesticide use, disease,
and increased ultraviolet radiation. A recovery team has not
yet been established, but monitoring of the population and
limited research on movements and habitat use are underway.
Species contact: L. Friis, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC):
Extinct: A species that no longer exists.
Extirpated: A species no longer existing in the wild in
Canada, but occurring elsewhere.
Endangered: A species facing imminent extirpation or
Threatened: A species likely to become endangered if
limiting factors are not reversed.
Vulnerable: A species of special concern because of
characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human
activities or natural events.
Not at Risk: A species that has been evaluated and found
to be not at risk.
Indeterminate: A species for which there is insufficient
scientific information to support status designation.
Species: Any indigenous species, subspecies, variety or
geographically defined population of wild fauna and flora.
U.S. Endangered Species Act:
Endangered: any species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened: any species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
IUCN Red List Categories:
Extinct: A taxon is extinct when there is no reasonable doubt
that the last individual has died.
Extinct in the wild: a taxon is Extinct in the wild when it is
known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a
naturalized population (or populations) well outside the past
range. A taxon is presumed extinct in the wild when
exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at
appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout
its historic range have failed to record an individual.
Surveys should be over a time frame appropriate to the
taxon’s life cycle and life form.
Critically endangered: a taxon is Critically Endangered when
it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in
the immediate future, as defined by any of five criteria.
Endangered: a taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically
Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in
the wild in the near future, as defined by any of five criteria.
Vulnerable: a taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically
Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk of
extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as defined
by any of five criteria.
Lower risk: a taxon is Lower Risk when it has been
evaluated, but does not satisfy the criteria for any of the
categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or
Vulnerable. Taxa included in the Lower Risk category can
be separated into three subcategories:
1. Conservation Dependent: taxa which are the focus of a
continuing taxon-specific or habitat-specific
conservation programme targeted towards the taxon in
question, the cessation of which would result in the
taxon qualifying for one of the threatened categories
above within a period of five years.
2. Near Threatened: taxa which do not qualify for
Conservation Dependent, but which are close to
qualifying for Vulnerable.
3. Least Concern: taxa which do not qualify
for Conservation Dependent or Near
RENEW Report No. 9
RENEW Recovery Teams
M. Cadman*
P. Carson
K. Elliot
L. Friesen
M. Gartshore
D. Martin
J. McCracken
J. Oliver
B. Stutchbury
D. Sutherland
A. Woodliffe
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Canadian Wildlife Service
Bird Studies Canada
Long Point Region Conservation Authority
York University
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(Newfoundland population)
J. Brazil*
L. Bateman
J.A. Bissonette
D. Brain
M. Cahill
P. Deering
O. Forsey
D. Harrison
B. Hearn
G. Jennings
J. Lemon
L. Mayo
M. McGrath
G. Mitchell
L. Moores
L. O’Driscoll
M. Pitcher
G. Van Dusen
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Sir Wilfrid Grenfell College, Observer
Utah State University
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Terra Nova National Park
University of Maine
Canadian Forest Service
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Newfoundland Forest Service
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Salmonier Nature Park
Corner Brook Pulp & Paper Ltd.
E. Wiltse*
S. Brechtel
J. Carnio
L. Dickson
P. Fargey
C. Schroeder
R. Stardom
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
Alberta Dept. of Environment
Toronto Zoo
Canadian Wildlife Service
Grasslands National Park
Saskatchewan Natural History Society
Canadian Wildlife Service
S. Thompson*
M. Gartshore
J. Leggo
M. Ogilvie
K. Prior
A. Yagi
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
St. Lawrence Islands National Park
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
BLANDING’S TURTLE (Nova Scotia population)
T. Herman*
S. Bleakney
J.S. Boates
C. Drysdale
M. Elderkin
J. Gilhen
P. MacDonald
I. Morrison
T. Power
Acadia University
Acadia University
Nova Scotia Dept. of Natural Resources
Kejimkujik National Park
Nova Scotia Dept. of Natural Resources
Nova Scotia Museum
Nova Scotia Dept. of Natural Resources
Kejimkujik National Park
Nova Scotia Dept. of Natural Resources
B. Porchuk
R. Brooks
C. Campbell
T. Crabe
J. Kamstra
T. Mason
B. McCloskey
B. Murphy
K. Prior
R. Willson
A. Woodliffe
R. Zappalorti
Bird Studies Canada
University of Guelph
Pinery Provincial Park
Gartner Lee Ltd.
Toronto Zoo
University of Windsor
Royal Ontario Museum
Canadian Wildlife Service
University of Guelph
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Herpetological Associates
G. Holroyd*
U. Banasch
S. Brechtel
B. Bristol
D. Brodie
M. Chutter
G. Court
K. De Smet
G. Duck
P. Fargey
R. Fyfe
W. Harris
B. Haug
E. Leupin
D. Low
R. Martin
R. Poulin
K. Scalise
J. Schmutz
D. Scobie
R. Sissons
M. Skeel
J. Spicer
P. Strankman
D. Todd
H. Trefry
L. Veitch
G. Wagner
T. Wellicome
RENEW Report No. 9
Canadian Wildlife Service
Canadian Wildlife Service
Alberta Dept. of Environment
PFRA-Agriculture and Agrifood Canada
Kamloops Wildlife Park
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
Alberta Dept. of Environment
Manitoba Dept. of Natural Resources
Moose Jaw Exhibition Grounds
Parks Canada
Canadian Preservation Trust
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
Technical expert
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
Eastern Irrigation District
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
University of Saskatchewan
Avocet Environmental Inc.
University of Alberta
Nature Saskatchewan
Operation Grassland Community
Canadian Cattlemen’s Association
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
Canadian Wildlife Service
Sask. Dept. of Agriculture
Conor Pacific Environmental
University of Alberta
RENEW Recovery Teams
K. Prior*
R. Black
K. Cedar
K. Frohlich
R. Gray
B. Johnson
J. Middleton
C. Parent
S. Parker
P. Pratt
M. Villeneuve
A. Yagi
P. Zorn
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ojibway Nature Centre
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Toronto Zoo
Brock University
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Heritage Canada
Ojibway Nature Centre
Heritage Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Heritage Canada
C. Gratto-Trevor* Canadian Wildlife Service
J. Brazil
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
S. Brechtel
Alberta Dept. of Environment
S. Carriere
N.W.T. Dept. of Resources, Wildlife
and Economic Development
P. Laporte
Canadian Wildlife Service
E. Wiltse
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
L. Hermanutz*
H. Mann*
D. Ballam
T. Bell
J. Brazil
G. Gibbons
J. Maunder
S. Meades
W. Nicholls
G. Ringius
N. Smith
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Newfoundland Dept. of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Ringius and Associates Consulting Firm
HARLEQUIN DUCK (Eastern population)
W. Montevecchi*
D. Amirault
M. Bateman
J. Brazil
S. Gilliland
R.I. Goudie
R. Milton
G. Mittelhauser
J.-P. Savard
K. Tripp
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Canadian Wildlife Service
Nova Scotia Dept. of Natural Resources
Coastal Maine Biological
Research Station, Observer
Canadian Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Observer
D. Cuddy
R. Knapton
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Bird Studies Canada
L. Maynard*
P. Ashley
L. Friesen
J. Haggeman
D. Lebedyk
D. McLachlin
D. Sutherland
R. Weeber
A. Woodliffe
Canadian Wildlife Service
Canadian Wildlife Service
Canadian Wildlife Service
Essex Region Cons. Authority
Ducks Unlimited Canada
Natural Heritage Information Centre
Bird Studies Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
R. Pratt*
P. Aird
M. Austen
I. Bowman
H. Dewar
Canadian Wildlife Service
University of Toronto
Ontario Rare Breeding Bird Program
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Canadian Wildlife Service
D. Hector*
D. Coulson
P. Hunter
R. King
D. Winn
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Northern Illinois University
Ohio University
R. Wenting*
Canadian Wildlife Service
Eastern Team
R. Wenting*
D. Bird
T. Birt
M. Bradstreet
M. Cadman
A. Chabot-Vogel
D. Cuddy
P. Laporte
T. Mason
L. Shutt
Canadian Wildlife Service
McGill University
Toronto Zoo
Bird Studies Canada
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Canadian Wildlife Service
Toronto Zoo
National Wildlife Research Centre, CWS
Prairie Team
B. Johns*
R. Bjorge
K. De Smet
W. Harris
E. Wiltse
Canadian Wildlife Service
Alberta Dept. of Environment
Manitoba Dept. of Natural Resources
Technical Expert
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
A. Harfenist*
A. Burger
M. Chutter
D. Lindsay
Canadian Wildlife Service
University of Victoria
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
TimberWest Forest Ltd.
R. Pratt*
M. Austen
M. Cadman
Canadian Wildlife Service
Technical expert
Canadian Wildlife Service
RENEW Report No. 9
RENEW Recovery Teams
M. MacDuffee
T. Manley
B. Redhead
Western Canada Wilderness Committee
Friends of Ecological Reserves
Parks Canada
PEARY CARIBOU (Banks Island, High Arctic
and Low Arctic populations)
M. Elderkin
S. Flemming
M. Huot
P. Laporte
C. Stewart
L. Swanson
Nova Scotia Dept. of Natural Resources
Parks Canada
Ministère de l’env. et de la faune, Quebec
Canadian Wildlife Service
Halifax Field Naturalists
New Brunswick Dept. of Natural
Resources and Energy
Prairie Team
P. Goossen*
R. Bjorge
S. Haig
W. Harris
L. Heyens
R. Jones
B. Koonz
N. McPhillips
G. Morrison
J. Sidle
E. Wiltse
Canadian Wildlife Service
Alberta Dept. of Environment
U.S. Geological Survey
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Manitoba Dept. of Natural Resources
Manitoba Dept. of Natural Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Observer
Canadian Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service, Observer
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
A. Gunn*
N.W.T. Dept. of Resources, Wildlife and
Economic Development
J. Adamczewski Sahtu Renewable Resources Board
S. Akeeagok
N.W.T. Dept. of Resources, Wildlife
and Economic Development
S. Atkinson
N.W.T. Dept. of Resources, Wildlife
and Economic Development
E.L. Miller
Canadian Wildlife Service
J. Nagy
N.W.T. Dept. of Resources, Wildlife
and Economic Development
D. Shackleton
University of British Columbia
C. Shank
Alberta Dept. of Environment
C. Strobeck
University of Alberta
G. Holroyd*
D. Amirault
T. Armstrong
U. Banasch
D. Bird
J. Brazil
S. Brechtel
M. Chutter
E. Daigle
C. Dauphiné
M. Elderkin
M. Hoefs
G. Holroyd
P. Laporte
R. Larche
D. Lemon
M. Lepage
R. Longmuir
B. Reside
C. Shank
L. Shutt
P. Thompson
Canadian Wildlife Service
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Canadian Wildlife Service
McGill University
Nlfd. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources and Agrifoods
Alberta Dept. of Environment
B.C. Ministry of Environment
Lands & Parks
Fundy National Park
Canadian Wildlife Service
Nova Scotia Dept. of Natural Resources
Yukon Dept. of Renewable Resources
Canadian Wildlife Service
Canadian Wildlife Service
Manitoba Dept. of Natural Resources
World Wildlife Fund
Ministère de l’env. et de la faune, Quebec
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
Heritage Canada
Alberta Dept. of Environment
Canadian Wildlife Service
University of Saskatchewan
Atlantic Team
D. Amirault*
J. Brazil
R. Chiasson
G. Corbett
R. Curley
Canadian Wildlife Service
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of
Forest Resources & Agrifoods
Piper Project
Parks Canada
P.E.I. Dept. of Fisheries & Environment
J. McCracken*
P. Burns
M. Cadman
J. Robinson
D. Sutherland
E. Wake
A. Woodliffe
J. Ambrose*
K. Burgess
L. DeVerno
B. Husband
D. Joyce
G. Mouland
P. Prevett
L. Twolan
G. Waldron
A. Woodliffe
Toronto Zoo
University of Guelph
Canadian Forestry Service
University of Guelph
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Heritage Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
J.S. Boates*
D. Amirault
A. Boyne
T. D’Eon
P. Laporte
M. Leonard
Nova Scotia Dept. of Natural Resources
Canadian Wildlife Service, Observer
Canadian Wildlife Service
Canadian Wildlife Service
Dalhousie University
(team covers pygmy short-horned lizard, sage thrasher,
white-headed woodpecker, and yellow-breasted chat)
D. Cannings*
T. Chapman
T. Ethier
D. Fraser
Bird Studies Canada
Rondeau Provincial Park
Canadian Wildlife Service
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Rondeau Provincial Park
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
RENEW Report No. 9
Cannings Holm Consulting
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
RENEW Recovery Teams
L. Hartley
W. Klenner
P. Krannitz
A. McLean
T. Northcote
G. Scudder
J. Surgenor
Community Planner
B.C. Ministry of Forests
Canadian Wildlife Service
B.C. Ministry of Forests
University of British Columbia
University of British Columbia
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
D.W. Janz*
Ontario Team
M. Oldham*
M. Obbard*
J.R. Bider
C. Bishop
J. Bonin
R. Brooks
P. Carson
M. Fletcher
P. Galois
M. Gartshore
B. Johnson
D. Martin
J. Robinson
H. Schraeder
Quebec Team
M. Léveillé*
J.R. Bider
J. Bonin
C. Daigle
M. Huot
J. Jutras
C. Lanthier
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
McGill University
Canadian Wildlife Service
University of Guelph
Upper Thames River Cons. Authority
Toronto Zoo
Upper Thames River Cons. Authority
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Société de la faune et des parcs, Québec
Société d’histoire naturelle de la vallée
du Saint-Laurent
Société de la faune et des parcs, Québec
Société de la faune et des parcs, Québec
Société de la faune et des parcs, Québec
Société zoologique de Granby
D. Dunbar*
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
F. Bunnell
University of British Columbia
B. Harper
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
R. Jeffery
British Columbia Truck Loggers
R. Millikin
Canadian Wildlife Service
B. Rosenburg
B.C. Council of the Forest Industry
R. Thompson
B.C. Ministry of Forests
A. van Woudenberg Northwestern Wildlife
Preservation Society
S. Brechtel*
L. Carbyn
D. Esllinger
P. Fargey
K. Scalise
C. Smeeton
G. Stuetz
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
J. Carnio
Toronto Zoo
N.K. Dawe
Canadian Wildlife Service
D. Fraser
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
B. Harper
B.C. Wildlife Federation
S. Leigh-Spencer Federation of B.C. Naturalists
D. Lindsay
TimberWest Forest Ltd.
R. McLaughlin MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.
D. Nagorsen
Royal British Columbia Museum
R. Simmons
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands & Parks
WHOOPING CRANE (Canada/United States
International joint team)
B. Johns*
T. Stehn*
G. Archibald
D. Bergeson
S. Carrière
G. Gee
D. Hjertaas
B. Huey
S. Nesbitt
G. Tarry
Canadian Wildife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
International Crane Foundation
Wood Buffalo National Park
N.W.T. Dept. of Resources, Wildlife and
Economic Devevelopment
Patuxent Wildlife Research Centre
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
Whooping Crane Conservation Association
Wildlife Research Laboratory
Calgary Zoo
WOLVERINE (Eastern population)
M. Huot*
V. Banci
J. Brazil
M. Crête
J. Huot
R. Lafond
J. Lapointe
R. Otto
P. Paré
Ministère de l’env. et de la faune, Quebec
RESCAN, British Columbia
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Ministère de l’env. et de la faune, Quebec
Centre d’études nordiques, Quebec
Ministère de l’env. et de la faune, Quebec
Ministère de l’env. et de la faune, Quebec
Nfld. & Labrador Dept. of Forest
Resources & Agrifoods
Fondation pour la sauvegarde des
espèces menacées, Quebec
N. Cool
M. Hoefs
R. Larche
D. Moyles
J. Nishi
Alberta Dept. of Environment
Canadian Wildlife Service
Alberta Dept. of Environment
Grasslands National Park
Sask. Dept. of Env. & Res. Management
Cochrane Wildlife Reserve
Swift Fox Conservation Society
H. Reynolds
H. Schwantje
R. Stephenson
University of Calgary
Elk Island National Park
Yukon Dept. of Renewable Resources
Manitoba Dept. of Natural Resources
Alberta Dept. of Environment
N.W.T. Dept. of Resources, Wildlife and
Economic Development
Canadian Wildlife Service
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks
Alaska Dept. of Fish
and Game, Observer
RENEW Report No. 9
Status of RENEW Plans
Species Common Name
Plan Status
American Marten
[Newfoundland population]
approved in 1995
NF, Parks Canada, CFS
Black-footed Ferret
on hold
Parks Canada
Cougar [Eastern population]
on hold,pending confirmation
an indigenous pop. exists
Grizzly Bear [Prairie population]
on hold, pending confirmation
an indigenous pop. exists
Pacific Water Shrew
no team yet formed
Peary Caribou [High Arctic,
Low Arctic and Banks Island
a draft National Recovery
Strategy is being reviewed
Swift Fox
approved in 1995
Parks Canada
Townsend’s Mole
no team yet formed
Vancouver Island Marmot
first plan approved in 1994;
second plan being revised
Wolverine [Eastern population]
in preparation
Wood Bison
in draft
CWS, Parks Canada
Woodland Caribou [Gaspésie population]
approved 1993; team
disbanded after objectives
accomplished in 1995
Acadian Flycatcher/
Hooded Warbler
in draft
Burrowing Owl
approved in 1995
SK, Parks Canada
Eskimo Curlew
recovery actions are on hold
until the existence of the
species is verified, preferably by
the discovery of breeding birds
Greater Prairie Chicken
approved in 1993;
team disbanded after it was
decided that recovery was
not feasible
Harlequin Duck [Eastern population]
approved in 1994
Henslow’s Sparrow
approved in 1994
King Rail
in draft
Kirtland’s Warbler
in draft
Loggerhead Shrike
[Eastern/Prairie populations]
approved in 1993
RENEW Report No. 9
Status of RENEW Plans
Species Common Name
Plan Status
Marbled Murrelet
approved in 1993
Parks Canada
Mountain Plover
on hold; few occur in Canada—
numbers seen are generally <12
Northern Bobwhite
no team yet formed
Peregrine Falcon (anatum)
approved in 1987
CWS, all provinces
(except PEI) and
territories, Parks Canada
Piping Plover
[Prairie/Eastern populations]
revised plan submitted
in 1997, needs revision
Parks Canada
Prothonotary Warbler
in draft
Roseate Tern
approved in 1992
Sage Grouse [Prairie population]
no team under RENEW
Spotted Owl
Management Options Report and
Management Plan documents
produced instead of recovery plan
Whooping Crane
approved in 1993
Parks Canada
Black Rat Snake
framework for a plan has
been drafted
ON, CWS, Parks Canada
Blanding’s Turtle [N.S. population]
approved in 1998
NS, Parks Canada
Blue Racer
in preparation
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake
in draft
ON, CWS, Parks Canada
Lake Erie Water Snake
in preparation
Spiny Softshell Turtle
in draft
Northern Cricket Frog
approved in 1997;
team resigned;
implementation team
yet to be formed
Northern Leopard Frog
[B.C. population]
team yet to be formed
Fernald’s Braya/Long’s Braya
in preparation
Red Mulberry
in draft
Parks Canada
in preparation
South Okanagan Ecosystem
(Pygmy Short-horned Lizard,
Sage Thrasher, White-headed
Woodpecker, Yellow-breasted Chat)
RENEW Report No. 9
1998 List of Canadian Species at Risk
Great Auk, Labrador Duck,
Passenger Pigeon
Banff Longnose Dace, Blue
Walleye, Deepwater Cisco,
Longjaw Cisco
Greater Prairie-Chicken,
Sage Grouse (British
Columbia pop.)
Pygmy Short- Gravel Chub, Paddlefish
horned Lizard
(B.C. pop.)
Acadian Flycatcher,
Burrowing Owl, Eskimo
Curlew, Harlequin Duck
(Eastern pop.), Henslow’s
Sparrow, King Rail, Kirtland’s
Warbler, Loggerhead Shrike
(Eastern pop.), Mountain
Plover, Northern Bobwhite,
Peregrine Falcon (anatum),
Piping Plover, Prothonotary
Warbler, Sage Grouse (Prairie
pop.), Sage Thrasher, Spotted
Owl, Whooping Crane
Cricket Frog,
Blue Racer,
Lake Erie
Water Snake,
Atlantic Whitefish, Aurora
Trout, Nooksack Dace,
Salish Sucker
Hooded Warbler,
Loggerhead Shrike
(Prairie pop.), Marbled
Murrelet, Roseate Tern,
White-headed Woodpecker,
Yellow-breasted Chat
(B.C. pop.)
Black Rat
Turtle (Nova
Scotia pop.),
Benthic Texada Island
Stickleback, Black Redhorse,
Blackfin Cisco, Channel Darter,
Copper Redhorse, Deepwater
Sculpin (Great Lakes pop.),
Eastern Sand Darter, Enos
Lake Stickleback, Lake Simcoe
Whitefish, Lake Utopia Dward
Smelt, Limnetic Texada Island
Stickleback, Margined Madtom,
Shorthead Sculpin, Shortjaw
Cisco, Shortnose Cisco
Ancient Murrelet, Barn Owl,
Caspian Tern, Cerulean
Warbler, Ferruginous Hawk,
Flammulated Owl,
Ipswich Sparrow, Ivory Gull,
Least Bittern, Long-billed
Curlew, Louisiana
Waterthrush, Pacific Great
Blue Heron, Peregrine
Falcon (pealei) Peregrine
Falcon (tundrius), Prairie
Warbler, Queen Charlotte
Goshawk, Red-headed
Woodpecker, Red-shouldered
Hawk, Ross’ Gull,
Short-eared Owl,
Yellow-breasted Chat
(Eastern pop.)
Toad, Pacific
Great Basin
Leopard Frog
Racer, Fivelined Skink,
Prairie Skink,
Turtle, Wood
Atlantic Cod, Banded Killifish
(Nfld. pop.), Bering Wolffish,
Bigmouth Buffalo, Bigmouth
Shiner, Black Buffalo, Blackline
Prickleback, Blackstripe
Topminnow, Brindled Madtom,
Central Stoneroller, Charlotte
Unarmoured Stickleback,
Chestnut Lamprey, Cultus
Pygmy Sculpin, Fourhorn
Sculpin (Arctic Islands, freshwater form), Giant Stickleback,
Green Sturgeon, Greenside
Darter, Kiyi, Lake Chubsucker,
Lake Lamprey, Northern Brook
Lamprey, Northern Madtom,
Orangespotted Sunfish, Pacific
Sardine, Pugnose Minnow,
Pugnose Shiner, Redbreast
Sunfish, Redside Dace, River
Redhorse, Rosyface Shiner (Man.
pop.), Shortnose Sturgeon,
Silver Chub, Silver Shiner,
Speckled Dace, Spotted Gar,
Spotted Sucker, Spring Cisco,
Squanga Whitefish, Umatilla
Dace, Warmouth, Western
Silvery Minnow, White Sturgeon
Sea Mink, Woodland Caribou
(Queen Charlotte Islands pop.)
Atlantic Walrus (NW Atlantic pop.),
Black-footed Ferret, Gray Whale
(Atlantic pop.), Grizzly Bear
(Prairie pop.)
Beluga Whale (St.Lawrence River pop.),
Beluga Whale (Ungava Bay pop.),
Beluga Whale (SE Baffin
Island/Cumberland Sound pop.),
Bowhead Whale (Eastern Arctic pop.),
Bowhead Whale (Western Arctic pop.),
Cougar (Eastern pop.), Marten
(Newfoundland pop.), Peary Caribou
(Banks Island pop.), Peary Caribou
(High Arctic pop.), Right Whale, Swift
Fox, Vancouver Island Marmot,
Wolverine (Eastern pop.)
Beluga Whale (Eastern Hudson Bay
pop.), Harbour Porpoise (Northwest
Atlantic pop.), Humpback Whale
(North Pacific pop.), Pacific Water
Shrew, Peary Caribou (Low Arctic
pop.), Sea Otter (Pacific coast),
Townsend’s Mole, Wood Bison,
Woodland Caribou (Gaspésie pop.)
Beluga Whale (Eastern High
Arctic/Baffin Bay pop.), Black-tailed
Prairie Dog, Blue Whale, Eastern Mole,
Ermine (Queen Charlotte Islands pop.),
Fin Whale, Fringed Myotis Bat,
Gaspé Shrew, Grey Fox, Grizzly Bear,
Harbour Seal (Lacs des Loups
Marins pop.), Humpback Whale
(Western North Atlantic pop.), Keen’s
Long-eared Bat, Northern Bottlenose
Whale (Atlantic Ocean [Gully pop.]),
Nuttall’s Cottontail (B.C. pop.),
Ord’s Kangaroo Rat, Pallid Bat,
Plains Pocket Gopher, Polar Bear,
Southern Flying Squirrel, Sowerby’s
Beaked Whale, Spotted Bat, Western
Harvest Mouse (B.C. pop.), Wolverine
(Western pop.), Woodland Caribou
(Western pop.), Woodland Vole
RENEW Report No. 9
1998 List of Canadian Species at Risk
Karner Blue
Blue-eyed Mary, Illinois Tick Trefoil
Bearded Owl Clover, Bluehearts, Cucumber Tree, Deltoid Balsamroot,
Drooping Trillium, Eastern Mountain Avens, Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus,
Engelmann’s Quillwort, Furbish’s Lousewort, Gattinger’s Agalinis, Heartleaved Plantain, Hoary Mountain Mint, Large Whorled Pogonia, Long’s
Braya, Pink Coreopsis, Pink Milkwort, Prairie Lupine, Seaside Birds-foot
Lotus, Skinner’s Agalinis, Slender Bush Clover, Slender Mouse-ear-cress,
Small White Lady’s-slipper, Small Whorled Pogonia, Southern Maidenhair
Fern, Spotted Wintergreen, Thread-leaved Sundew, Tiny Cryptanthe, Waterpennywort, Water-plantain Buttercup, Western Prairie White Fringed Orchid,
White Prairie Gentian, Wood Poppy
Springs Snail
American Chestnut, American Ginseng, American Water-willow, Athabasca
Thrift, Anticosti Aster, Bird’s-foot Violet, Blue Ash, Blunt-lobed Woodsia,
Colicroot, Deerberry, False Hop Sedge, Fernald’s Braya, Goat’s-rue, Golden
Crest, Golden Paintbrush, Golden Seal, Hairy Prairie-clover, Kentucky
Coffee Tree, Mosquito Fern, Nodding Pogonia, Pitcher’s Thistle, Plymouth
Gentian, Purple Twayblade, Red Mulberry, Redroot, Round-leaved
Greenbrier (ON pop.), Sand Verbena, Small-flowered Lipocarpha, Sweet
Pepperbush, Tyrrell’s Willow, van Brunt’s Jacob’s Ladder, Western Blue
Flag, Western Spiderwort, White-top Aster, White Wood Aster, Yellow
Montane Violet
American Columbo, Bathurst Aster, Bolander’s Quillwort, Branched
Bartonia, Broad Beech Fern, Buffalograss, Climbing Prairie Rose, Coastal
Wood Fern, Dense Blazing Star, Dwarf Hackberry, Eastern Prairie White
Fringed Orchid, False Rue-anemone, Fernald’s Milk-vetch, Few-flowered
Club-rush, Giant Helleborine, Green Dragon, Gulf of St. Lawrence Aster,
Hare-footed Locoweed, Hill’s Pondweed, Hop Tree, Indian Plantain,
Lilaeopsis, Long’s Bulrush, Macoun’s Meadowfoam, New Jersey Rush,
Phantom Orchid, Provancher’s Fleabane, Shumard Oak, Smooth Goosefoot,
Soapweed, Swamp Rose Mallow, Victorin’s Gentian, Victorin’s Water
Hemlock, Western Silver-leaf Aster, Wild Hyacinth
Cryptic Paw, none
RENEW Report No. 9
Funding by Donors
Abitibi Consolidated
Acadia University
Essex Region Conservation Authority
Forest Renewal BC
Friends of Elk Island
Alaska Government
Alberta Conservation Association
Alberta Government
Friends of the Environment
Atlantic Veterinary College
B.C. Government
Biodiversity - SLV 2000
Halifax Field Naturalists
Human Resources
Development Canada
Hylcan Foundation
International Forest Products
Bird Studies Canada
Bouctouche Guardians
Calgary Zoo
Canada Trust
Canadian Forest Service
Habitat Conservation Trust Fund
Alberta Sports, Recreation, Parks
and Wildlife Foundation
Inuvialuit Implementation Fund
Irving Eco-centre – Bouctouche Dune
Island Nature Trust
Canadian Wildlife Federation
James L. Baillie Memorial Fund
Kamloops Wildlife Park
Lennox & Addington Conservation
Stewardship Council
Corner Brook Pulp and Paper
Corporate donations
Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands
Research Station
Ducks Unlimited
Long Point Region
Conservation Authority
MacMillan Bloedel
Manitoba Government
Manitoba Hydro
Manitoba Plover Guardians
Elsa Wild Animal Appeal of Canada
Martineau Walker Law Firm
Enbridge Inc.
McGill University
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Environment Canada
Endangered Species Recovery Fund
(Environment Canada/
World Wildlife Fund Canada)
Municipal governments
Natural Science and Engineering
Research Council
Nature Saskatchewan
RENEW Report No. 9
Funding by Donors
Nestucca Trust Fund
New Brunswick Government
Newfoundland/Labrador Government
Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority
Northwest Territories Government
Nova Scotia Employment Program
Nova Scotia Government
Nova Scotia Liquor Commission
Ojibway Nature Centre
Ontario Government
Operation Grassland Community
St. Lawrence Action Plan
Société zoologique de Saint-Félicien
Parks Canada
PEI Government
Piper Project
Polar Continental Shelf Project
University of Alberta
University of Maine
University of Victoria
Protected Areas Association
Quebec Government
Saskatchewan Government
Saskatchewan Wetland
Conservation Corporation
St-Lawrence Valley
Natural History Society
Toronto Zoo
Private donations
Quebec Wildlife Foundation
University of Guelph
Quebec Society for the Protection
of Birds
University of Calgary
University of British Columbia
Operation Migration
Science Horizons
Simon Fraser University
Stanley Park Facility
North American Waterfowl
Management Plan
Piping Plover Guardian Program
for Nova Scotia
Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department
Western Forest Products
Western Nfld. Model Forest Inc.
Wildlife Preservation Trust Fund
World Wildlife Fund Canada
York University
Yukon Government
PYs = person years
a difference of $4,000 occurs in funding by donors
compared to funding per species (p. 48) due to rounding;
a difference of 0.8 occurs in person years.
RENEW Report No. 9
Funding per Species
Kirtland’s Warbler 0.0 (0.02)
1998/99 Breakdown by %
Wolverine 1.0 (0.08)
Blue Racer 1.0 (0.42)
King Rail 2.0 (1.63)
Henslow’s Sparrow 4.0 (0.04)
Red Mulberry 7.8 (0.9)
Fernald’s Braya/Long’s Braya 8.2 (0.3)
Blanding’s Turtle [Nova Scotia pop.] 8.2 (2.5)
Universities Corporations
Swift Fox 16.2 (0.51)
Massasauga Rattlesnake 27.5 (4.0)
Harlequin Duck 35.0 (0.2)
Prothonotary Warbler 39.1 (0.75)
South Okanagan Ecosystem 45.0 (0.35)
Roseate Tern 45.0 (0.4)
Black-footed Ferret 50.0 (2.0)
Spiny Softshell Turtle 78.36 (4.4)
Acadian Flycatcher/Hooded Warbler 91.3 (1.0)
Peregrine Falcon (anatum) 188.3 (6.58)
Whoooping Crane 198.0 (6.7)
Loggerhead Shrike [Eastern and Prairie pops.] 242.94 (4.7)
Burrowing Owl 370.9 (9.85)
American Marten [Newfoundland pop.] 423.5 (12.5)
Vancouver Island Marmot 438.45 (1.8)
Piping Plover 522.22 (14.95)
Peary Caribou [Banks Island, High Arctic and Low Arctic pops.] 579.0 (3.7)
Wood Bison 698.6 (7.7)
Marbled Murrelet 895.5 (22.3)
Spotted Owl 1.25 million (15.25)
(PY) 25
1100 1200 1300 1400
1500 (x $1000)
Funding of personnel in 1998/99 (in person years — PYs): 125.53
Funding of expenses in 1998/99 (excluding salaries) = 6.267 million
Note: values are in $1000s, unless otherwise indicated
RENEW Report No. 9
For More Information
David Brackett
Director General
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0H3
Barry Sabean
Director, Wildlife Management
Department of Natural Resources
Government of Nova Scotia
136 Exhibition Street
Kentville, NS B4N 4E5
Kenneth Ambrock
Natural Resources Service
Fisheries & Wildlife Division
Department of Environment
Government of Alberta
Petroleum Plaza, North Tower
9945 - 108 Street
Edmonton, AB T5K 2G6
Doug Dryden
Director, Wildlife Branch
Environment, Lands & Parks
Government of British Columbia
Box 9374 Stn. Prov. Govt.
Victoria, BC V8Y 9M4
Bob Beecher
Director, Fish and Wildlife
Ministry of Natural Resources
Government of Ontario
P.O. Box 7000
Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5
Arthur Smith
Director, Fish and Wildlife Division
Department of Fisheries and Environment
Government of Prince Edward Island
P.O. Box 2000
(11 Kent Street)
Charlottetown, PEI C1A 7N8
Brian Gillespie
Director, Wildlife Branch
Department of Natural Resources
Government of Manitoba
Box 24, 200 Saulteaux Crescent
Winnipeg, MB R3J 3W3
Luc Berthiaume
Directeur, Direction de la faune et des habitats
Ministère de l’environnement et de la faune
Gouvernement du Québec
5ième étage
150 boulevard Réne Lévesque est
Québec, QC G1R 4Y1
Arnold Boer
Director, Fish and Wildlife Branch
Department of Natural Resources
Government of New Brunswick
P.O. Box 6000
High Fleming Forestry Complex
Fredericton, NB E3G 2G6
Dennis Sherratt
Director, Fish and Wildlife Branch
Department of Environment and Resource
Government of Saskatchewan
3211 Albert Street, Room 338
Regina, SK S4S 5W6
David Fong
Director, Ecosystem Health Division
Dept. of Forest Resources and Agrifoods
Government of Nfld. and Labrador
P.O. Box 8700
St. John’s NF A1B 4J6
Doug Stewart
Director, Wildlife and Fisheries Division
Department of Resources, Wildlife and
Economic Development
Government of the Northwest Territories
600, 5102 - 50th Avenue
Yellowknife, NT X1A 2K1
Arthur Hoole
Director, Fish and Wildlife Branch
Department of Renewable Resources
Government of the Yukon Territory
P.O. Box 2703
10 Burns Road
Whitehorse, YT Y1A 2C6
RENEW Members 1998/99
Canadian Nature Federation
Canadian Wildlife Federation
Environment and Resource Management, Saskatchewan
Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia
Environment, Alberta
Fisheries and Environment, Prince Edward Island
Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Newfoundland
Ministère de l’environnement et de la faune, Québec
Natural Resources, Manitoba
Natural Resources, Nova Scotia
Natural Resources, Ontario
Natural Resources and Energy, New Brunswick
Renewable Resources, Yukon
Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Northwest Territories
World Wildlife Fund Canada
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF