Biodiversity conservation: conservation of migratory and transboundary species

              BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY AND
TRANSBOUNDARY SPECIES
WORKING DRAFT
SPECIES OF
COMMON CONSERVATION CONCERN
IN NORTH AMERICA
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Montreal, Canada
18 October 2000
SPECIES OF
COMMON CONSERVATION CONCERN
IN NORTH AMERICA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3
I. INTRODUCTION 4
II. SPECIES PROFILES 8
Ferruginous Hawk, Buteo regalis 8
Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus 11
Loggerhead Shrike, Lanius ludovicianus 14
Piping Plover, Charadrius melodus 18
Mountain Plover, Charadrius montanus 21
Burrowing Owl, Athene cunicularia 24
Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina 27
Mexican Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis lucida 29
Golden-cheeked Warbler, Dendroica chrysoparia 31
Whooping Crane, Grus americana 34
California Condor, Gymnogyps californianus 37
Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Cynomys ludovicianus 40
Sonoran Pronghorn, Antilocapra americana sonoriensis 43
Lesser longnosed bat, Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae
(Greater) Mexican longnosed bat, Leptonycteris nivalis
47
Black Bear, Ursus americanus 51
Gray Wolf, Canis lupus 54
III. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 57
ANNEX – TRANSBOUNDARY AND MIGRATORY BIRDS AND MAMMALS—LISTINGS BY
COUNTRY
63
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
1
Preface
Canada, Mexico, and the United States not only share many ecosystems and migratory
species, but are also increasingly linked through economic, social and cultural exchange.
Existing strategies for biodiversity conservation on the continent are not coping with the impacts
caused by ever-increasing levels of development. Nor are they likely to address adequately the
relatively new problems of climate change and increased numbers of invasive species. Quality of
life, access to ecological services, and sustainable use of natural resources are at stake. It is time
to seek new ways and means to protect the richness of life on our continent. New strategies must
find acceptance and be implemented at national and local levels.
Importantly, it is becoming clearer that regional and continental action is not only a
potentially effective approach but also an essential one. There are some remarkable precedents
for such shared action, especially for migratory birds. The question is what more can be done to
identify and act upon biodiversity matters of continental significance, and effectively catalyze
the concerted efforts of the continent’s three countries?
There is an untapped potential that arises from the three country's different
socioeconomic and cultural realities, management and conservation perspectives, and
institutional arrangements to conserve the continent's natural wealth. For the most part, this
potential has been interpreted as an obstacle for conservation. However, obstacles can be
removed, lessons can be shared, and potential can be realized—such is the primary aim of this
project.
Work begun with the identification of migratory and/or transboundary species of
"common conservation concern" which a trinational experts working group (hereafter referred to
as the Parties) agreed on. For this set of species, the status of the species has been defined, and
gaps and opportunities for collaboration have been identified.
The Parties proposed species that demonstrated both the need and opportunity of working
on a continental scale. The resulting list is very diverse: ferruginous hawk, whooping crane,
peregrine falcon, piping plover, mountain plover, California condor, spotted owl, loggerhead
shrike, burrowing owl, golden-cheeked warbler, black bear, gray wolf, black-tailed prairie dog,
Sonoran pronghorn and Leptonycteris bats. These species are not fifteen new problems to solve
but one opportunity to collaborate. Not fifteen flagships, but the flags of the continental vessel of
conservation.
What are the emergent properties as well as past and future collaboration efforts both
within and between strategies for species at risk?
Perhaps an incipient sign of collaboration is the report itself. Each profile represents a
synthesis of key work done over the years in collaborative arrangements or within a single
country. For the most part, the work we, as conservationists, have done too often looked at the
challenges ahead of us with our blinders on, stopping our vision at our borders. This report
represents an opportunity to share our visions and look for the common thread. How will the
basically academic and biologically intense analyses found in this report be turned into
conservation action that involves all necessary stakeholders in a broader socioeconomic
framework? That is the challenge for the North American conservation community.
Conservation efforts for the species of common conservation concern represent work in
progress of different levels of intensity. The intent is not to change the classification within each
country or seek to homogenize them, but to have a new, shared, continental vision. A new sense
of purpose that may advance conservation more rapidly. Success can and will be measured using
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
2
these individual species as indicators, but the result should be an overall positive impact on
biodiversity of North America as a whole.
Biodiversity and Trilateral Cooperation—Two examples
In recognition of the shared environment and the consequent shared responsibility,
environmental provisions were included in the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). These provisions in NAFTA were supplemented by a side agreement, the North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was created by the NAAEC to facilitate this cooperation with
the goal of conserving, protecting and enhancing the North American environment.
The work of the CEC is organized around four core program areas: Conservation of
Biodiversity; Environment, Economy and Trade; Pollutants and Health; and Law and Policy. The
participation of a broad spectrum of stakeholders—including all levels of government,
nongovernmental organizations, indigenous groups, the private sector, scientific and professional
organizations and individuals—is vital to each program. Many of the CEC programs build upon
or complement efforts at the local, regional and national levels.
CEC has also supported biodiversity conservation efforts through the North American
Fund for Environmental Cooperation (NAFEC). Since 1996, NAFEC has made 127 grants
totaling USD 4.8 million to community-based environmental projects. Many communities have
used these grants to implement innovative approaches to conserving biodiversity while
strengthening their economic base. Others have collaborated to protect transboundary species
and habitat.
Along with the CEC, the Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral Committee for Wildlife
and Ecosystem Conservation and Management (“The Trilateral”) also has seen the need to assist
efficient and effective conservation of biodiversity in North America. Created in 1996, and
comprised of members of the three national wildlife agencies, the mandate of the Trilateral is to
“facilitate and enhance coordination, cooperation and the development of partnerships among the
wildlife agencies of the three countries, and with other associated and interested entities,
regarding projects and programs for the conservation and management of wildlife, plants,
biological diversity and ecosystems of mutual interest…such projects and programs will include
scientific research, law enforcement, sustainable use and any other aspect related to this
purpose.”
Together, the CEC, with its connection to public and private organizations involved in
the economy, trade, pollution, law, and all sectors of biodiversity, and the Trilateral, with its area
of concentration primarily being wildlife conservation of the three national governmental
agencies, can work to help conserve the rich biodiversity found in North America.
And although the fifteen flags offered from this report are all individually worthy, read,
analyze and commit to all of them because now it is up to us to raise our flags and man this
vessel.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
3
Acknowledgements
This project benefited from the involvement of many individuals. We thank David
Brackett, Director General of the Canadian Wildlife Service and Chairman of IUCN’s Species
Survival Commission, for helping to establish the scope of this project and for chairing the
Montreal workshop held September 22-25, 1999 to a successful conclusion. Hans Herrmann and
Tara Wilkinson provided essential guidance and logistic support throughout this project. Other
people in the Commission for Environmental Cooperation also provided invaluable assistance
especially Jocelynne Morin and Darlene Pearson, whom we thank for their efforts. We also thank
Ernesto Enkerlin for his efforts in reviewing the document and providing essential information in
terms of commonalties and differences between the three North American countries.
We would especially like to thank all of the participants to the Montreal Workshop:
Chuck Dauphine, Lynda Maltby, and Steve Wendt from Canada; Hesiquio Benitez, Humberto
Berlanga, and Rodrigo Medellín from Mexico; and Nancy Gloman and Susan Jewell from the
United States.
Finally, we would like to extend our appreciation to all those individuals that contributed
to the preparation of the species profiles. They are: Diane Amirault, Hector Arita, Ursula
Banasch, Ed Bangs, Carl Benz, Mike Coffeen, Krishna Costello, Craig Czarnecki, Mike
DeCapita, Pat Fargey, Paul Goossen, Anne Hecht, Brian Johns, Bob Leachman, Mike Lockhart,
Nell McPhillips, Robert Mesta, Barry Mulder, Adolfo Navarro, Lisa O’Donnell, Lori Pruitt,
Terry Rabot, Luis Antonio Sánchez, Karyn Scalise, Josef Schmutz, Jorge Servin, Steve
Sheffield, Vinicio Sosa, Steve Spangle, Don Tiller, and Troy Wellicome.
A special thanks to Wendy L. Hodges for her help in preparing the profiles for the
whooping crane, California condor, black bear, golden-cheeked warbler, and the bats.
Richard Laing Elizabeth McCance Oscar Flores Villela
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
4
I. Introduction
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation:
Canada, Mexico, and the United States not only share many ecosystems and migratory
species, but are also increasingly linked through economic, social and cultural exchange. In
recognition of this shared environment and the consequent shared responsibility, environmental
provisions were included in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These
provisions in NAFTA were supplemented by a side agreement, the North American Agreement
on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). NAFTA is the first trade agreement to include
environmental commitments and as a result it has opened the door to unique opportunities for
environmental cooperation. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was created
by the NAAEC to facilitate this cooperation with the goal of conserving, protecting and
enhancing the North American environment. CEC’s mandate specifically addresses issues of
biodiversity conservation. For example, the Council of the CEC is to consider developing
recommendations on transboundary and border environmental issues, such as the protection of
endangered and threatened species; exotic species; the conservation of wild flora and fauna and
their habitat (specially protected areas).
The CEC occupies a unique role in the realm of biodiversity conservation. In this role,
the CEC: focuses on the North American region; uses solid scientific information to support
decision making; supports capacity building; creates bridges of understanding; acts as an honest
broker and facilitator; builds on and promotes public participation; and facilitates networking of
experts (themes and regions).
The objective of the Conservation of Biodiversity program within the CEC is to promote
cooperation between Canada, Mexico, and the United States in fostering conservation, sound
management, and sustainable use of North American biodiversity. Work towards these goals is
achieved through a process that recognizes, respects, and accommodates the sovereignty of the
three countries while ensuring sufficient comparability and compatibility of data to facilitate
informed discussion and cooperation among them.
To date, the CEC has implemented a number of trinational biodiversity initiatives
including the North American Biodiversity Information Network (NABIN), the Ecological
Regions of North America, the Marine Global Plan of Action in the Gulf of Maine and the Bight
of California, and the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). In each of these
initiatives, CEC has collaborated with a wide range of partners in order to make available
essential information, coordinate efforts and develop regional strategies. The CEC has also
played an important role in exploring the links between biodiversity conservation and economic
benefits within the context of its Green Goods and Services Program, and through detailed
examination of specific initiatives such as shade coffee and ecotourism.
So as to best use the CEC’s capacities and take full advantage of its unique features, the
biodiversity conservation program has presently set out to provide the organization with a clear
sense of direction and priorities to effectively influence biodiversity conservation in North
America. Its overarching objective is to develop a long-term agenda and final report entitled
Conservation of Biodiversity in North America—A Strategic Plan for the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation. This long-term agenda will commit to meeting challenges and
delivering results not only concerning conservation initiatives which span borders or deal with
shared species, but also those dealing with other issues such as fostering cross-country learning
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
5
and common responses to shared problems. Results from this project will be used to help set
priorities in terms of issues and regions for the conservation of North America’s biodiversity.
Purpose of this project:
This document is a response by the CEC to the Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral
Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management to assist in enhancing
collaboration among Canada, Mexico, and United States, to conserve the biodiversity of North
America. The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation calls for action to
encourage conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and specifically, the protection of species
in danger of extinction. This project is part of the CEC’s overall response to enhance
collaborative efforts toward the conservation of North American biodiversity.
The three member countries of the CEC share species that are migratory and
transboundary and the successful conservation of these species will often depend on
collaborative action. The specific goal of this project is to identify binational and/or trinational
collaborative actions to support or implement recovery plans or actions for migratory and
transboundary species that are at risk, and species that are of conservation concern to one or
more member countries. The results of this project will also be used to assist in the setting of
priorities for the “Strategic Directions for Conservation of Biodiversity” project, which is
identifying key conservation issues and areas within North America for the CEC to work on in
the short, medium, and long-term.
The process:
Three consultants were contracted by the CEC, one from each country, to assist with this
project. The consultants began by compiling tables of species of birds and mammals taken from
national endangered species lists in all three countries (Annex). The tables were then used to
assist in selecting species that would benefit most from collaborative action among two or all
three countries. Given the respective mandates of the participating wildlife agencies in the three
countries, this phase was restricted to birds and mammals.
In September 1999, a workshop with experts from the three countries was convened with
the aim to reach agreement on a set of criteria to guide selection of species for consideration for
cooperation and to begin to identify opportunities for collaboration. The species selection criteria
agreed upon by workshop participants includes both mandatory and recommended criteria. These
criteria are as follows:
Mandatory criteria:
Ø Species must be transboundary or migratory, and thus exist in at least two of the participating
countries. Transboundary species for consideration included both shared populations, as well as
populations of species that extend their range across international boundaries, but are not a
shared population.
Ø Selected species for this pilot project must be either a bird or mammal. Birds listed under
existing bilateral treaties are of particular interest.
Recommended criteria:
Ø Priority will be given to bird and mammal species that are endangered or threatened in one or
more countries, extirpated from at least one country; or are species of special conservation
concern. The latter category includes species that are designated as Rare or require Special
Protection in Mexico, candidate species for listing in the United States, and species designated as
being Vulnerable by COSEWIC in Canada. Species of conservation concern for this project also
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
6
includes those species that are of ecological or other significance including keystone, umbrella,
flagship, indicator, and endemic species, species of taxonomic rarity, and instances where the
percentage of the global population occurring in North America is high.
Ø Priority will also be given to selecting species that are likely to demonstrate successfully the
importance of trilateral or bilateral cooperation, and increase awareness of biodiversity issues
across North America.
Workshop participants agreed that the initial phase would identify a maximum of thirty
potential species for cooperation. Each country would submit to the CEC ten species they
believed would benefit from collaboration. Countries were requested to contribute as much
information as possible along with providing the rationale for each species that they proposed. A
set of questions was developed to assist countries develop the rationales or proposals.
In October 1999, CEC professionals, the three consultants, and the project Chair
identified fifteen species from the lists submitted by the three countries. Priority was given to
species recommended by more than one country and to species occurring in all three countries.
In addition, taxonomic, ecological, and geographic balance was sought in selecting the fifteen
species. The species selected were: ferruginous hawk, whooping crane, peregrine falcon, piping
plover, mountain plover, California condor, spotted owl, loggerhead shrike, burrowing owl,
golden-cheeked warbler, black bear, gray wolf, black-tailed prairie dog, Sonoran pronghorn and
Leptonycteris bats. These species were subsequently agreed upon by the Experts Working Group
to be those of common conservation concern for this project. Species profiles were then
developed for each of these species by the consultants and are presented in Section II below. In
preparing the species profiles, the consultants interviewed wildlife experts in all three countries,
asking them to complete a questionnaire. In addition to the interviews and questionnaires,
available status reports and recovery plans provided much of the information that was used to
compile the species profiles.
In conducting the interviews and developing the species profiles, the following five areas
for collaboration were prime considerations: 1) are there or should there be shared conservation
objectives among the countries; 2) are there economic incentives, legislation, or conservation
policies in effect in one country that could potentially be applied in one or both of the other
countries to assist conservation efforts; 3) are bilateral or trilateral population assessments and
monitoring priority activities; 4) are there education-outreach activities in effect in one country
that could potentially be applied in one or both of the other countries to assist conservation
efforts; and 5) what are the priority conservation actions for each species?
In terms of format, each species profile has sections containing the following
information: scientific and common names, legal status, range, rationale for collaboration,
background, factors affecting conservation efforts, potential areas for collaboration, and contacts.
Unless otherwise noted, the status given is the official national level status for the species. In
Canada, the species status is determined by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada (COSEWIC). In Mexico, the federal government passed in 1994 the Norma Oficial
Mexicana (NOM-ECOL-059), which is a regulation that indicates a list of the endangered and
threatened species in Mexico. The date for all species listed in Mexico is 1994. In the United
States, the status under the Endangered Species Act is provided.
The species profiles will hopefully be used as a basis to identify opportunities to enhance
collaboration among agencies in Canada, Mexico, and the United States that are responsible for
wildlife management, and also be used by nongovernmental interests. The CEC will present the
profiles to the Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management,
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
7
seeking an agreement as to the possible next steps to be taken. This report is also contributing
piece in the development of the Conservation of Biodiversity in North America – a Strategic
Plan for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, CEC’s long term agenda for
biodiversity conservation.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
8
II. Species profiles
Scientific Name: Buteo regalis
Common Name: Ferruginous Hawk
Legal Status:
Canada: Listed as Vulnerable in 1995.
Mexico: Not listed, but considered a species of conservation concern.
United States: Not listed but considered a species of management concern. This species is
considered a sensitive species by the Bureau of Land Management and is listed as Endangered or
Threatened by virtually all states throughout its entire range.
Range:
The ferruginous hawk is endemic to North America. Breeding populations are found
from the southern portions of the prairie provinces of Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba)
throughout the northern Rockies and western Great Plains (17 states). Year-round range is in the
southern Rockies and southwestern Great Plains. Wintering range includes the southern Great
Plains west to California and south into central Mexico (Central plateau to north Guanajuato) and
Baja California (13 Mexican states) from October through April.
Rationale for collaboration:
The ferruginous hawk is a species that is rapidly declining in many locations throughout
its range. Even though it is not formally listed in all three countries, it has been noted by all three
countries as a species, about which we should be concerned. However, the data is inadequate on
the basic biology and population trends to establish sound conservation and management
programs for this species. Thus far, cooperation on conservation of this species among the three
countries has been minimal. Because this species ranges across North America has declined in
all parts of its range, and there is little basic information about it, it would benefit greatly from
cooperative action among the countries. The ferruginous hawk presents a great opportunity for
the United States, Canada, and Mexico to work together to prevent a species from reaching the
point where drastic recovery efforts are needed to prevent the species from further decline
resulting in listing in the United States and Mexico.
In addition, ferruginous hawks are prairie grassland species that have closely coevolved
in the grassland ecosystems of North America. They are important sentinel species for the
overall health and normal functioning of viable grasslands in North America, and, as such,
require special conservation considerations. Major efforts should be placed in conserving the
grassland ecosystem, and in the process, ferruginous and Swainson’s hawks, mountain plovers,
burrowing owls, prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, and other species that have coevolved in this
unique and special ecosystem, will be conserved as well.
Background:
The ferruginous hawk was once widespread throughout North America. Its numbers have
been declining since the early 1900s, so that now the population is roughly one-quarter its
original size. Overall, it is thought to still be declining. However, population estimates in 1995 in
Canada indicate that the population is stabilizing or even increasing. The 1995 estimate in
Canada was at least 2,500 pairs of birds. Because of this population estimate, the ferruginous
hawk was down listed in Canada in 1995, from threatened to vulnerable.
The ferruginous hawk is highly associated with grassland habitats and the cause of its
decline can be ascribed to the loss of this habitat. Over the last century there has been extensive
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
9
conversion of grasslands for agriculture purposes, development or other uses. This loss of
grasslands caused an extensive reduction in the ferruginous hawk’s range. In Canada, its range
has shrunk by an estimated fifty percent.
Lack of suitable nesting sites also appears to be a cause of decline for this species. As
part of the recovery program in Canada, artificial nesting sites were erected. This strategy had
the desired effect, increasing the density in a number of places. This increase is a good sign that
the ferruginous hawk will respond well to recovery efforts.
Even though the ferruginous hawk is not listed in either the United States or Mexico, it
still deserves conservation attention. Little is known about the ferruginous hawk and its habitat
needs, on both its breeding and wintering grounds.
Factors affecting the status of this species:
The dramatic decrease in native grasslands has been a primary cause of the decline of the
ferruginous hawk. Current concerns include a lack of suitable breeding and wintering habitat and
a lack of prey. Ferruginous hawks prey on small mammals, primarily ground squirrels,
jackrabbits, and prairie dogs. The widespread control of prairie dogs and other colonial sciurids
has probably contributed to its decline. Several of the ground squirrels on which it feeds are also
declining in overall population size. Additionally, as other species feed on small mammals, there
is concern that the ferruginous hawk is threatened by competition from other species over food.
The loss of prairies to invasive species also contributes to habitat loss, in that some invasive
species tend to grow over the prairie, creating dense brush, which makes it more difficult for the
ferruginous hawk to find its prey.
Another threat is the loss of nest sites. Trees suitable for nesting are being lost through
old age, clearing, droughts, and damage from cattle. However, it has been shown that ferruginous
hawks will use artificial poles or other man-made structures as nesting sites.
Loss of habitat in both wintering and breeding areas is a concern. Shrinking grassland
habitat would negatively affect the status of this species. Human disturbance is another factor
affecting this species’ status and efforts should be taken to limit this disturbance.
Potential areas for collaboration:
1. Form an international group to focus on the conservation of the ferruginous hawk. The
Canadian Recovery Team was dismantled in 1995 when the species was down listed, and
because it is not listed in the United States, there is no recovery team. An international group
focusing on the status of the ferruginous hawk to take necessary conservation measures to
prevent this species from declining further is recommended. Simple efforts, such as artificial
nesting sites, taken early, could prevent the need from more drastic conservation measures later.
2. Conduct a range-wide assessment of the remaining habitat. In particular, the number of
available nesting trees needs to be determined. To assess the prospects of the ferruginous hawk
and what conservation measures might be needed, an assessment of its habitat is urgently
needed. As this is a migratory species, both its wintering and breeding grounds need to be able to
support viable populations. Habitats should be assessed for suitability, prey availability, and
nesting sites.
3. Create a collaborative research program to help provide basic information on the biology,
status, and management of this species. Little is known about this species and a cooperative
research program would efficiently help fill the information gaps. Information is needed for
conservation efforts in all three countries, and a collaborative approach would help ensure the
sharing and constructive use of this information. Priorities for research include wintering ecology
(particularly in Mexico), dispersal and the extent of nomadism, migration, prey (particularly
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
10
jackrabbits) fluctuation effects, response to management efforts, and population trends (rate of
decline, reasons for decline).
4. Regularly monitor this species across the range, so that early warning of any further
species decline can be detected.
Contacts:
Canada
Ursula Banasch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Room 200, 4999-98 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta
T6B 2X3; Phone: 780-951-8700. E-mail: Ursula.banasch@ec.gc.ca
G.L. Holroyd, Canadian Wildlife Service, Room 200, 4999-98 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6B
2X3; Phone: 780-951-8700; E-mail: geoffrey.holroyd@ec.gc.ca
Mexico
Mauricio Cotera, Pronatura Noreste, A.C., Ave. Alfonso Reyes 201-A, Col. Contry, Monterrey,
Nuevo León, 64860 MEXICO Phone (Off.) 52 (8) 3 581106 ext. 17 FAX 83581109 Email
mcotera@pronaturane.org
Ernesto Enkerlin, Director, Pronatura Noreste; Professor, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Centro de
Calidad Ambiental, Garza Sada #2501 Sur, Monterrey, N.L., Mexico 64849; Phone: (528) 328-
4032 / 387-5814; Fax: (528) 387-5815 / 359-6280; E-mail: eenkerlin@pronatura.org.mx
Dr. Ricardo Rodriguez Estrella, CIB-Noroeste, S.C., Apartado Postal 128, La Paz, Baja
California Sur, 23000; Phone: 52 (112) 53633 ext. 37; Fax: 52 (112) 555343; E-mail:
estrella@cibnor.conacyt.mx
United States
Steve Sheffield, Ph.D., US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203; Phone: (703) 358-1821; E-mail:
steven_r_sheffield@fws.gov
Dr. Clayton White, Brigham Young University (BYU). E-mail: clayton_white@byu.edu ; Phone:
801-378-4860
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
11
Scientific Name: Falco peregrinus
Common Name: Peregrine Falcon
Legal status:
Canada: Listed as Threatened in 1995.
Mexico: Listed as Threatened.
United States: Taken off the Endangered Species List in August 1999. Listed as Endangered by
34 states. Several additional states list the peregrine falcon as Threatened, Of Concern, or some
other designation. Only Arizona and Colorado have state listed the species as recovered.
Range:
The peregrine falcon once ranged throughout North America from the subarctic forests
south throughout Mexico and into South America. Today the peregrine falcon, a cosmopolitan
species, remains wide spread, occupying areas in southern Canada through the United States to
Mexico (during winter occurring practically throughout the country, and breeding from Puebla
through Baja California) and Central and South America. The peregrine falcon is a highly
migratory species.
Rationale for collaboration:
Recently threatened in all three countries, the peregrine falcon has been recovered in the
United States and removed from the Endangered Species List. This de-listing, however, has
potential negative effects on the recovery programs in Canada and Mexico, because the peregrine
falcon may become available for harvesting along the Gulf Coast for falconry purposes.
Although consultation on this specific issue is underway, there may be advantage to
creating a joint “post recovery” group of experts to monitor the continental population and
ensure the compatibility of management programs. For species that migrate across all three
countries, such as the peregrine falcon, trilateral communication would greatly aid the various in-country
conservation programs, because factors affecting the status of the species in one country
will affect its status in other countries.
Background:
The population of the peregrine falcon is increasing. In 1999, the species was both
removed from the Endangered Species List in the United States and down listed from
Endangered to Threatened in Canada. The results of Canada’s last survey (1995) revealed the
largest population since the surveys were initiated. In the United States, the Fish and Wildlife
Service will monitor the peregrine falcon every three years for the next thirteen years. Currently,
there are an estimated 1650 breeding pairs in Canada and the United States. The species remains
listed as threatened in Mexico, but little is known about its status in Mexico.
Both the United States and Canada have recovery teams and recovery plans, however, no
international recovery team has been assembled. This species is a success story in that it is
progressing towards recovery or is, in the case of the United States, considered recovered. The
current challenge is ensuring that this recovery is long-term. Recovery was achieved in part
through captive breeding and reintroduction programs. Releasing of captive-bred falcons began
in 1974 in the United States, and more than 6,000 peregrine falcons have been reintroduced since
this time. Some populations, particularly those in southern Canada, are comprised primarily of
captive bred peregrine falcons. Therefore, it is important to monitor the status of these
populations to make sure that they become self-sustaining. Population monitoring, as well as
contaminant monitoring, are primary current conservation activities.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
12
The peregrine falcon has also benefited from a number of habitat protection programs,
including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network, and the Wetlands for the Americas. In addition to broad habitat initiatives, this
species has also benefited tremendously from anti-pollution measures, particularly the ban on
DDT. In 1997, the CEC established a North American Regional Action Plan on DDT, which will
help reduce the use of DDT in Mexico and thus help the recovery of the peregrine falcon.
Factors affecting the status of this species:
The peregrine falcon is very susceptible to DDT, as well as other contaminants. The use
of organochlorine pesticides is thought to be the primary cause of decline of this species in the
United States. Therefore, any removal of the ban on DDT would be detrimental to this species.
Other environmental contaminants should be monitored and restricted, as well. Pesticide use in
Central and South American countries, where the species winters, continues to threaten the
species. Currently, there is a declining trend in the use of organochlorine in Latin American
countries as well as a ban in Canada and the United States. As long as use continues to decline
and the ban in North America continues, the species will likely increase in population size.
This species can also be threatened by the loss of habitat and the loss of prey. However,
as long as wetlands continue to be protected, this should not be a major threat. Habitat needs to
be protected in all parts of its range, including breeding grounds, wintering grounds, and all
along its migratory routes.
This species could potentially be threatened by the capture of migrant peregrines in the
United States for falconry. When this species was de-listed, capture of peregrine falcons in the
United States became legal. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service prohibited take of the
peregrine falcon until management plans are developed. Development of these guidelines is
taking place in cooperation with the individual states, Canada, and Mexico. Coordination in plan
development will be very important to assure that capture for falconry purposes in the United
States will not affect recovery of the population in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Potential areas of collaboration:
1. Monitor the population status of the species throughout its entire range with emphasis on
Canadian breeding population. As this species is on its way to recovery, it is important that this
trend continues. Because the peregrine falcon is migratory, monitoring should occur throughout
its range so that the location and any causes of any potential decline can be detected early.
2. Facilitate work of informal working group established to create a continental
management plan for the peregrine falcon that would address subjects of mutual concern such as
population monitoring, harvest, reintroduction, long-term conservation strategies and other
matters.
3. Continue long-term conservation strategies to protect wetlands throughout the species
range. Current continent-wide efforts appear to be working well, and therefore should be
continued. Trilateral collaboration in these efforts should be continued to ensure that these efforts
are operating in both the breeding and wintering grounds.
4. Develop public education program for landowners that can be used throughout the
species’ range. Some educational materials exist but these should be translated into appropriate
languages. It is important to educate landowners in breeding grounds, wintering grounds, and
along migratory routes about the importance of wetlands to this and other species. Despite the
success of habitat protection measures, habitat on private lands also needs conserving. The use of
conservation easements for this purpose should be explored.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
13
5. Throughout the species range, monitor for contaminant levels, even though their use is
decreasing due to various laws and other policies. Indications of contaminant levels can be
determined by analyzing unhatched eggs from representative populations. Because peregrine
falcons are easily susceptible to environmental contaminants, this type of monitoring system
should be implemented as part of an early warning system.
6. Assess the status of this species in Mexico. The status is well known in Canada and the
United States. However, the status of this species in Mexico will affect its status in the other two
countries, and therefore more information about its status in Mexico will be useful in informing
conservation efforts in Canada and the United States.
Contacts:
Canada
G.L. Holroyd, Canadian Wildlife Service, Room 200, 4999-98 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6B
2X3; Phone: 780-951-8700; E-mail: geoffrey.holroyd@ec.gc.ca
Mexico
Dr. Eduardo Iñigo Elías, Director de Conservación, Fundación ARA; Email:
EInigoFUNARA@compuserve.com
Dr. Ricardo Rodriguez Estrella, CIB-Noroeste, S.C., Apartado Postal 128, La Paz, Baja
California Sur, 23000; Phone: 52 (112) 53633 ext.37; Fax: 52 (112) 555343; E-mail:
Estrella@cibnor.conacyt.mx
United States
George Allen, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr. Arlington, VA 22203; Phone:
(703) 358 1714; E-mail: george_t_allen@fws.gov
Robert Mesta, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 12661 E. Broadway Blvd., Tucson, Arizona 85748;
Phone: 520-722-4289; E-mail: Robert_Mesta@fws.gov
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
14
Scientific Name: Lanius ludovicianus
Common Name: Loggerhead Shrike
Legal Status:
Canada: The eastern population was listed as endangered in 1991, and the prairie population
was listed as threatened in 1986. The species is protected under the Provincial Wildlife Act of
Ontario and Manitoba.
Mexico: This species is not listed.
United States: Listed as endangered, threatened, or a species of special concern, in at least 25
states. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is currently conducting a range-wide assessment to
evaluate the status of the species and compile information for potential listing under the
Endangered Species Act. One subspecies, the San Clemente loggerhead shrike (L. l. mearnsi), is
already listed as Federally endangered in the United States. Although only one subspecies is
listed, the US Fish and Wildlife Service officially recognizes the loggerhead shrike as a species
of management concern.
Range:
In Canada, the eastern population of the species breeds from eastern Manitoba to
southern Ontario, with occasional breeders in southern Quebec. The prairie population in Canada
is more extensive and ranges through western Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. In the
United States, the loggerhead shrike is extirpated from many northeastern states or has declined
in abundance to just a handful of breeding pairs. The species winters in the southern United
States and Mexico.
At the maximum extent of the species distribution, the breeding range of the loggerhead
shrike extended from Alberta to New Brunswick in Canada, throughout the United States, and
throughout most of Mexico. The current breeding range, while still extensive, is shrinking. Most
notably, the species no longer breeds with regularity in the northeastern portions of its former
range (as far west as Ohio) or the northern tier states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. In
Canada, the breeding grounds for the eastern population are now restricted to southern Ontario,
which has a small breeding population (less than 50 pairs), with occasional breeders in southern
Quebec. However, the prairie population is much larger and breeds in Saskatchewan, and parts
of Alberta and Manitoba. Throughout the range, populations have declined and remaining
populations are fragmented. Suitable breeding habitats include a wide variety of plant
associations and physiographic strata, but must include open grassland areas with scattered trees
or shrubs. Occupied habitats include pasture, old-fields, prairie, savanna, pinyon-juniper
woodlands, and shrub-steppe.
The loggerhead shrike is a partial migrant with populations in the northern half of the
breeding range being largely migratory, while southern populations are resident. The winter
range lies mainly south of 40o N latitude.
Rationale for collaboration:
Once widespread and common, the loggerhead shrike has experienced continent-wide
declines, for which the causes are not really known. These declines as well as range retraction
were first noted in the early 1960s in both eastern Canada and the northeastern United States.
Currently, there is little optimism for a reversal of this declining trend, but any efforts in
recovery will depend on trilateral cooperation. Before a conservation strategy can be developed,
research to determine the causes of decline is needed. This will require investigation of both
breeding and wintering grounds. Migratory populations of loggerhead shrikes, which include
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
15
listed Ontario populations and the subspecies L. l. migrans in the northeastern United States, are
among the populations, which have suffered the most dramatic declines. Wintering locations of
these northern migrating populations are poorly documented, and therefore research on their
wintering ecology is a high priority.
In addition to a high priority need for cooperative research and communication for
effective and efficient design of recovery efforts, joint captive breeding and reintroduction
programs or other joint management strategies may be needed. Collaboration between the United
States and Canada may particularly be needed for the Ontario and northeastern United States
populations. The loggerhead shrike is a unique member of the avifauna of Canada, the United
States, and Mexico, and international cooperation is needed to conserve this imperiled grassland
bird.
Background:
The loggerhead shrike was once widespread throughout North America, but it has
experienced a continent-wide decline, especially in the eastern portion of its range. There was
wide-scale decline before the mid-1960s, and since 1966, the North American Breeding Bird
Survey has documented the loggerhead shrike’s decline at 3.6% per year. Christmas bird counts
also indicate sharp declines on wintering grounds. Declines are evident throughout North
America, thus it is hard to evaluate the exact causes.
The various working groups of Partners in Flight have been undertaking regional
assessments of the species status. In all regions, it is considered to be in need of conservation
action. The loggerhead shrike has been on the National Audubon Society’s “Blue List” every
since the creation of the list.
In Canada, the numbers vary considerably between the eastern and prairie populations.
The eastern population in 1998 was estimated at 31 breeding pairs in Ontario (up from 18 pairs
in 1997) and nine single birds in Quebec. On the other hand, the prairie population was estimated
in 1994 and 1996 to consist of 500 pairs in Manitoba, several thousand pairs in Saskatchewan,
and 2,500 pairs in Alberta.
In addition to the decline in population numbers, the range of the loggerhead shrike has
also shrunk, particularly for the eastern population. This is most evident in the northeastern part
of the United States, where very few loggerhead shrikes remain. The range of the eastern
population in southeastern Canada has also shrunk, although a small population still exists in
southern Ontario.
As a species, the loggerhead shrike is not listed in the United States, and therefore there is
no recovery team or recovery plan. The states of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which are in the
area where the range has shrunk, have state recovery plans. The San Clemente Loggerhead
Shrike, a subspecies, is listed federally, and there is a recovery plan for this subspecies. In
Canada, there are recovery teams for the two main populations, the eastern population and the
prairie population, as well as a national level recovery plan that was approved in 1993.
The International Shrike Working Group has a North American Section, which includes
Mexicans, Canadians, and Americans. This group meets annually or biennially to discuss issues
related to the global decline of the shrikes, including research, management, and public
education.
Several incentive and public education initiatives are underway in Canada. More than
270 landowners with loggerhead shrike habitat in Ontario have been sent information and are
encouraged to protect habitat. Likewise, landowners in Alberta and Saskatchewan have been
encouraged to protect habitat under several other public education campaigns.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
16
Factors affecting the status of this species:
As the decline of the loggerhead shrike has been so widespread, the causes are largely
unknown. Habitat loss and destruction probably have played a role, yet the loggerhead shrike has
been known to utilize agricultural and suburban areas. However, changing agricultural practices
have impacted their grassland habitats, which may be a cause of decline.
Several factors may be causing the decline of the loggerhead shrike, and therefore an
analysis of the various threats is a very high priority and a necessary step before constructive
conservation measures can been designed. Possible factors include loss of winter habitat, loss of
breeding habitat, habitat fragmentation, vehicle collision, pesticides, predation, increased human
disturbance, affects from climate change, and interspecific competition.
Potential areas for collaboration:
1. Conduct a range-wide evaluation into the causes of decline of the loggerhead shrike. As
the range extends throughout North America, this evaluation should be a trilateral effort.
Information from various populations should be pooled together to gain a better understanding of
the threats to this species.
2. Develop a joint research plan of the loggerhead shrike. First, existing knowledge about
factors affecting this species needs to be pooled together and gaps in this information need then
to be identified. Then an international plan of research should be developed to fill in the gaps.
Research areas should focus on 1) causes of decline, 2) winter ecology, and 3) taxonomic
evaluation. This plan should include specific research objectives, as well as a strategy to secure
funding for necessary research. Some joint research projects, particularly between the United
States and Canada, have been initiated, but would benefit from further collaboration with
Mexico. For instance, Canada initiated a project using isotope measurements to link loggerhead
shrike breeding with wintering grounds. Work so far has included Texas, Florida, Georgia, and
Manitoba, but needs to expand into Mexico.
3. Prepare a range-wide comprehensive management plan of the loggerhead shrike. In the
United States, such a plan cannot officially be called a recovery plan, as the species is not listed.
However, the species is on obvious need of coordinated conservation action across the continent.
A better understanding of the threats to the loggerhead shrike will be needed in order to develop
a comprehensive plan, however, work on what is known should not be delayed. Part of the plan
should be to evaluate across the range habitats that are supporting healthy populations of
loggerhead shrikes and implement protection measures for these habitats.
4. Conduct a modern taxonomic assessment for the entire species. The first comprehensive
taxonomic assessment of the loggerhead shrike, which identified 11 subspecies, was conducted
in the 1930’s. This work provided the basis for most subsequent treatments of the species. There
is widespread recognition of the need for a modern biosystematic survey. Identification of
subspecies is complicated by the tremendous variation in color and size within populations,
which is why modern taxonomic methods are needed. Lack of proper identification of subspecies
has complicated legal conservation activities in the United States and Canada. Clearer
understanding of taxonomic relationships would foster better protection in these two countries,
and a joint research project benefiting both countries would be a wise use of resources.
5. Develop a network to exchange information and to promote loggerhead shrike joint
research and management activities among the three countries. Despite the existence of
international working groups, information exchange to date has not been effective. For example,
the United States was unaware of whom to contact in Mexico to send a survey about the status of
the loggerhead shrike. Information from Mexico is desperately needed. As little is known about
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
17
this species and information is scattered, information exchange and joint identification of new
research projects is an urgent need. Such an exchange could be provided through modern
communication means.
6. Focus bilateral attention to the Ontario population of loggerhead shrikes. The Ontario
population is down to less than 40 breeding pairs. This population is important to both the United
States and Canada, because it is the last remaining population in the northeastern part of the
loggerhead shrike’s range. It could serve as a source population to re-establish the loggerhead
shrike in the northeastern United States.
Contacts:
Canada
B. Johns (Prairie Populations) Canadian Wildlife Service; E-mail: Brian.Johns@ec.gc.ca
R. Wenting (Eastern Population) Canadian Wildlife Service
United States
Lori Pruitt, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office, 620 South Walker Street,
Bloomington, IN 47403; Phone: 812-334-4261 x211; Email: lori_pruitt@fws.gov
John Trapp, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 44014401 N. Fairfax Dr. Arlington, VA 22203.
Phone: (703) 358 1965; E-mail: john_trapp@fws.gov
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
18
Scientific Name: Charadrius melodus
Common Name: Piping Plover
Legal Status:
Canada: Both the eastern and prairie populations listed as endangered in 1985.
Mexico: Listed as threatened.
United States: The Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations listed as threatened,
and the Great Lake population listed as endangered in 1985.
Range:
Piping plovers breed on the northern Great Plains and Canadian prairies, along the Great
Lakes, and along the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to North Carolina. They winter on the
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts from North Carolina into Mexico, and in the Bahamas, Cuba,
and the West Indies. They are occasionally found in Sonora and Nayarit states (western Mexico).
Rationale for collaboration:
International collaboration and cooperation is essential to conserve and enhance
populations of the piping plover. Past efforts have helped to stabilize and increase some
populations of this endangered species while other populations continue to decline. Continued
collaboration among Canada, United States and Mexico and increasingly cooperation with Cuba,
the Bahamas and the West Indies is essential to ensure successful conservation of this imperiled
species.
Cooperation in the conservation of the piping plover was firmly established between the
United States and Canada as early as 1986. Recovery Teams for the Atlantic Coast, Northern
Great Plains, and the Great Lakes Working Group coordinate exchange of information and
expertise on cross-population issues such as, protection of plovers on wintering grounds. In
addition, both countries exchange biologists to assist with specific projects. Canada and the
United States also coordinate assessments of population status and recovery goals, and pool
breeding population counts annually.
Mexico became an active partner in the 1991 International Piping Plover Census, which
included many individuals and conservation organizations. Enhanced involvement of Mexico is
essential to better assess the status of the piping plover and to protect wintering areas in Mexico.
Continued exchange of expertise among Canada, Mexico, and the United States is
critical. Future collaboration in addition to census activities could include efforts to increase the
fledging rate, joint habitat management projects, identification of protection priorities for nesting
and wintering areas, and better data-sharing and integrated monitoring programs.
A five-year project for managing alkali lake habitats on the Great Plains has recently
been proposed. To be successful, partnerships need to be established in both Canada and the
United States, which include federal, state and provincial agencies, as well as private sector
interests including many landowners, and conservation organizations.
Background:
In the United States, three breeding populations of the piping plover are recognized: the
Atlantic Coast, the Great Lakes, and the Northern Great Plains populations. Canada distinguishes
two populations, the Atlantic and Prairie breeding populations. Wintering areas for piping plover
extend along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from North Carolina to Mexico, and into northern
Cuba, the Bahamas and the West Indies.
Two cooperative international censuses of breeding and wintering plovers (1991 and
1996) have given Canada and the United States the first global population count of this
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
19
endangered bird. The 1996 International Piping Plover Census was a great success, with 1,100
biologists and volunteers from eight countries participating. The Census coordinated activities of
participants from 11 federal, 16 provincial, 37 state, and two tribal agencies, 70 conservation and
business organizations, and hundreds of unaffiliated volunteers.
Range-wide in 1996, there were approximately 5,800 breeding individual piping plovers
in populations scattered across beaches in 20 states, 9 Canadian provinces, and a small number
on the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, just off the coast of Newfoundland. Atlantic
Coast populations in the United States showed an increase between 1989 and 1995 and have
remained stable since. Atlantic populations in Canada decreased over this period. Great Lakes
birds are increasing slightly. Northern Great Plains populations generally display decreasing
trends, however some Prairie Canada populations are increasing.
Overall, census results suggest that the status of this beach-dwelling shorebird remains
precarious given its low population numbers, sparse distribution, and continued threats to habitat
and reproductive success throughout its range.
Factors affecting the status of this species:
Piping plovers are highly susceptible to a wide range of human activities. The primary
threats to piping plovers are habitat modification and destruction, and human disturbance to
nesting adults and flightless chicks. Recreational and commercial development and dune
stabilization have contributed greatly to the loss of piping plover breeding habitat along the
Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes. In the Great Plains region, damming and channeling of rivers
also have eliminated sandbar-nesting habitat. Wintering habitat has probably also been lost to
coastal development, and inlet and shoreline stabilization features.
Recreational activities, particularly pedestrian and vehicular traffic can seriously affect
breeding success. Over the past 40 years, the number of vehicles and people on beaches has
increased significantly. Human presence can indirectly lower productivity by disrupting
territorial establishment, courtship, egg laying, and incubation activities. Foot traffic, dune
buggies, and other vehicles (including raking of beaches for trash) can damage habitat and
directly crush eggs or chicks. The ruts left by off-road vehicles can trap flightless chicks.
Increased urbanization and recreational pressure along the Great Lakes and Atlantic
Coast has created an unnatural proliferation of predators, including foxes, skunks, raccoons, and
gulls that are attracted to large quantities of trash. The result has been higher than normal levels
of predation of plover chicks and eggs, and abandonment of nesting areas. A high level of
predation is also a factor in the decline of piping plovers in Prairie Canada.
Potential areas for collaboration:
1. Increase the participation of Mexican wildlife officials in piping plover conservation efforts
through the Piping Plover Coordination Group, and in the future, through the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan. A three-country Piping Plover Action Plan should be considered
to ensure complementary approaches.
2. Enhance international collaboration to increase understanding of the status of piping plovers,
conservation issues and habitat requirement in wintering areas, especially in Cuba, Texas,
Mexico and the Caribbean.
3. Enhance collaboration among government agencies and conservation organizations to better
share management approaches including inter alia: efforts to direct human traffic from around
the fragile piping plover nest scrapes found on beaches; success and failures in erecting wire
fencing around nests to keep out predators; and management of water levels on large bodies of
water.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
20
4. Continue and enhance collaborative research programs to increase understanding of piping
plover distribution and patterns of movement, fledging rates, population assessments including
genetic variability, habitat management requirements and carrying capacity, and to identify
conservation priorities.
5. Enhance sharing of information and experiences with piping plover public education and
volunteer beach guardian programs, stewardship and incentive programs.
6. Continue collaborative efforts to identify and conserve habitats for piping plover, including,
further development and implementation of the five-year project for managing alkali lake habitat
on the Great Plains where piping plovers concentrate.
7. Enhance efforts to ensure enforcement of wildlife laws and regulations.
Contacts:
Canada
Diane L. Amirault, Species at Risk, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 17
Waterfowl Lane, P.O. Box 6227, Sackville, New Brunswick E4L 1G6; Phone: (506) 364-5060;
E-mail: diane.amirault@ec.gc.ca
Dr. Stephen Flemming, Gros Morne National Park, P.O. Box 130, Rocky Harbour, NF
A0K 4N0; Phone (709) 458-3577; E-mail: stephen_flemming@pch.gc.ca
Paul Goossen, Canadian Wildlife Service, 4999 98th St., Room 200, Edmonton, Alberta T6B
2X3; Phone: (403) 951-8743; E-mail: paul.goossen@ec.gc.ca
Mexico
Miguel Angel Cruz, Pronatura Noreste, A.C., Ave. Alfonso Reyes 201-A, Col. Contry,
Monterrey, Nuevo León, 64860 MEXICO Phone (Off.) 52 (8) 3 581106 ext. 17 FAX (8)3581109
Roberto Phillips, Pronatura Noreste; CEDES-CCA 5° Piso, Garza Sada #2501 Sur, Col.
Tecnologico, Monterrey, N.L., 64849, Mexico; Phone: (528) 3284032 & 3875814; E-mail:
rphillips@pronatura.org.mx
United States
Anne Hecht, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Weir Hill
Road, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776; Phone: (508) 443-4325; E-mail: Anne_Hecht@fws.gov
Mike DeCapita, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road, East Lansing, Michigan
48823; Phone: (517) 351-6274; E-mail: Mike_Decapita@fws.gov
Susan Haig, Department of Biology University of North Dakota, Grand Falls, North Dakota
58202.
Nell McPhillips, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400 Pierre,
South Dakota 57501; Phone: (605) 224-8693 ext 32; E-mail: Nell_McPhillips@fws.gov
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
21
Scientific Name: Charadrius montanus
Common Name: Mountain Plover
Legal Status:
Canada: Listed as endangered in 1987.
Mexico: Listed as threatened.
United States: Proposed for listing as threatened on February 16, 1999.
Range:
Mountain plovers range from Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada, through the high plains
of the United States to Zacatecas and western San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Nesting occurs primarily
in the United States in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Nesting has not
been confirmed in Canada since 1989 despite the observation of birds in both Alberta and
Saskatchewan. Only one nest has been found in Mexico. It is estimated that 85 % of the total
North America population of mountain plovers winters in California, the remainder in northern
Mexico, Arizona, and Texas.
Rationale for cooperation:
Over the past century there has been a significant reduction in mountain plover habitat
throughout North America, and a corresponding decline in the number of plovers. Population
analysis for 1966 through 1996 showed a population decline of 2.7 % annually. International
collaboration is necessary to conserve mountain plovers across its current range. Collaborative
efforts to conserve remaining summer habitat are essential as is protection of wintering areas,
especially in California and Mexico. Agreement on standardized inventory approaches is
required to undertake a comprehensive survey to understand better the status of the mountain
plover across North America. The inventory is essential to provide a solid foundation from
which to establish formal international conservation objectives for this species.
Background:
The mountain plover is an endemic grassland species that has been in steady decline for
most of the twentieth century. Population estimates for mountain plovers for North America in
the 1970s were between 214,000 and 319,000. While this is a very rough population estimate,
the decline of mountain plovers is unquestionable, as the current population estimate is 8,000 to
10,000 birds, and continues to be on the decline.
Mountain plovers depend on grassland ecosystems and are associated with prairie dogs
and other ground squirrels species, and with large grazers, formerly bison and currently domestic
livestock. The decline of mountain plovers can be attributed primarily to the cultivation of
grasslands and ground squirrel eradication programs. Cultivation of grasslands has been
extensive. For example, the total range of prairie dogs has been reduced by 98 % since European
settlement in North America in large part due to habitat destruction. As a result of this
conversion of grasslands, mountain plovers are increasingly forced to utilize manmade habitats
such as fallow fields for breeding, complicating conservation planning for this species. The
mountain plover is a good indicator species of the health of the native grasslands and could be
used to evaluate conservation success in one of North America’s most threatened ecosystem.
Even though the primary range in is the United States, the mountain plover ranges as far
north as the southern portions of Canada, where it is considered to be a rare summer visitor and
breeder. The breeding population in Alberta has fluctuated since the mountain plover was
rediscovered in 1979, from a high of at least 11 adults and six nests to no observed nests in 1986.
Mountain plovers have also been observed in prairie dog colonies in Saskatchewan. Population
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
22
surveys are not regularly undertaken for the mountain plover in Canada and thus it is not known
whether the species is stable, increasing or decreasing. Due to the low population size and
available habitat, the mountain plover has been designated since 1987 by COSEWIC as
endangered in Canada, and a Recovery Team has been established.
The mountain plover has not been seen nesting in Canada since 1989. The nearest nesting
sites to the area in Canada where mountain plovers can be observed are in Montana, at the
Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge. This is approximately 210 km from the last observed
breeding areas in Alberta, and 140 km from the Saskatchewan border. It is not known what
relationship exist between the Montana breeding population and the Canadian population.
The mountain plover is designated as threatened in Mexico. The full extend of its
occupation has not been determined in Mexico. However, it is known that portions of Chihuahua
provide important wintering habitat.
Factors Affecting the Status of this Species:
The primary factors affecting the conservation of the mountain plover are believed to be
continued loss of habitat resulting from conversion of grassland areas to croplands, prairie dog
and other ground squirrel control and eradication programs, and nesting failure in rangelands and
fallow fields.
International collaboration could make a significant contribution to the survival of this
species by protecting wintering areas in Mexico and maintaining breeding habitat, including the
northernmost breeding habitat for the species in Canada.
Potential Areas for Collaboration:
1. Collaborate to standardize mountain plover inventory procedures and conduct population
inventories for five consecutive years in order to estimate with greater accuracy the total
population size. This would provide a clearer understanding of the status of the species
throughout its range and provide a basis to establish international conservation objectives.
2. Collaborate to establish regional agreements to conserve mountain plovers and their habitat
across North America. Conservation of grasslands ecosystems throughout North America must
be a priority to conserve species like the mountain plover, and will be the most cost-effective
conservation strategy for this, and many other species. This will likely require the use of
incentives and easements to assist conservation efforts on private and leased lands.
3. Collaborate to identify mountain plover wintering areas in Mexico and conservation needs in
these areas.
4. Undertake collaborative research to better understand mountain plover reproductive success,
and habitat selection and security. Research is required to better understand nesting failure and to
better understand how to manage and to utilize grasslands for grazing without significant impacts
to mountain plovers.
Contacts:
Canada
Paul Goossen, Canadian Wildlife Service; Email: paul.gooessen@ec.gc.ca
Mexico
Miguel Angel Cruz, Pronatura Noreste, A.C., Ave. Alfonso Reyes 201-A, Col. Contry,
Monterrey, Nuevo León, 64860 MEXICO Phone (Off.) 52 (8) 3 581106 ext. 17 FAX (8)3581109
Héctor Gómez de Silva, Instituto de Ecología, UNAM, Ciudad Universitaria, D.F., Apdo. Postal
70-275, México, D.F., 04510; Phone: (525) 622 9045; Fax: (525) 616 1976; E-mail:
hgomez@miranda.ecologia.unam.mx
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
23
Roberto Phillips, Pronatura Noreste; CEDES-CCA 5° Piso, Garza Sada #2501 Sur, Col.
Tecnologico, Monterrey, N.L., 64849, Mexico; Phone: (528) 3284032 & 3875814; E-mail:
rphillips@pronatura.org.mx
United States
John Cornely, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. Phone: (303)236-8145 ext 688. E-mail:
John_Cornely@fws.gov
Walter D. Graul, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 317 W. Prospect, Fort Collin, CO 80525;
Phone: 303 484-2836.
Fritz L. Knopf, USGS/BRD/MESC. Ft. Collins, CO; Phone 970 226-9462. E-mail:
fritz_knopf@usgs.gov
Craig Knowles, PO Box 113, Brown-Gulch Road, Boulder, Montana 59632;
Phone: 406 225-3221.
Bob Leachman, Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon Drive, South Annex A, Grand Junction,
CO 81506. E-mail: bob_leachman@fws.org
Sally L. Olson, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana; Phone: 406-243-5372.
John Cornely, USFWS, Denver, Co. Phone 303-236-8145 Ext. 688. E-mail:
john_cornely@fws.gov
Patty Stevens, FWS Region 6. E-mail: patty_stevens@fws.gov ; Phone: (303) 236-8155 ext 251.
Steve Dinsmore, USFWS, E-mail: sdinsmore@lamar.colostate.edu; Phone: 970-482-5264
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
24
Scientific Name: Athene cunicularia
Common Name: Burrowing Owl
Legal Status:
Canada: Listed as endangered in 1995. Also listed as endangered in British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
Mexico: Listed as threatened.
United States: Not designated federally but is under review. Listed as endangered in Minnesota
and Iowa, and is listed as a sensitive species or a species of special concern, in several states.
Range:
The burrowing owl is distributed discontinuously throughout the grasslands region of
North America. In Canada, it is a summer resident breeding in the southern regions of Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and in the southern interior of British Columbia. Historically, the
burrowing owl was found in Minnesota, throughout South and North Dakota, and west to eastern
Washington, Oregon and California. It also ranged as far south as Hidalgo and the state of
Mexico, as well as to Guadalupe and Clarion Islands. The northern populations regularly breed
throughout Mexico, except in the Yucatan Peninsula where there are occasional wintering
visitors. A non-migratory population of burrowing owls occurs in Florida, but it is not the focus
of this report.
Rationale for collaboration:
Burrowing owls have declined throughout the entire range of the species in Canada and
the United States. Information from Mexico is insufficient to determine population trends there.
International cooperation is required to gain more information on the status of the burrowing owl
and causes for its decline. Collaboration is also required to better identify wintering areas and
conservation requirements in these areas. Urgent attention is required to determine the rapid
decline of the breeding population in Canada, California, and the northern states. Breeding pairs
in Prairie Canada are now considerably fewer than 1000 pairs, a historic low and down from
about 2,500 pairs in 1990. The cause of the decline is unknown and may be related to factors
outside of the breeding areas, including migration routes in the United States and wintering areas
in the southern United States and Mexico.
The Canadian Recovery Team has established conservation objectives for the burrowing
owl. The Recovery Plan calls for the establishment and maintenance for ten years of a prairie
population of at least 3,000 pairs, and the establishment of a population in British Columbia of
50 pairs for at least ten years. International collaboration appears to be essential to achieve these
recovery objectives.
Background:
The population of burrowing owls is declining in Canada and United States. Decline in
the number of nesting pairs in Canada is well documented, and has been occurring at least since
the mid-1900s, when modern agricultural practices began. There are now less than 1,000 pairs
breeding in Prairie Canada. The decline in number of breeding pairs is well document over the
past ten years. This has prompted the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) to change the status of the burrowing owl from threatened to endangered in 1995.
Surveys in the United States indicate that the burrowing owl is declining throughout most
of its range. The species, while not listed under the United States Endangered Species Act, is
considered a species of conservation concern. The burrowing owl is listed as endangered by the
states of Minnesota and Iowa, and considered a species of concern by Washington State, Oregon,
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
25
California, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma and
Florida. However, because the Florida population is not migratory, it is not discussed in this
report.
Although Mexico is an important wintering area for migratory owls, the status of the
burrowing owl in Mexico is not well understood. Collaborative work, however, is being done
with National Audubon Mexico and Holroyd, among others.
International collaboration is essential to document better the status of the burrowing owl,
to determine factors causing the decline of this species, and to establish conservation priorities.
Immediate action is required to prevent the further decline of breeding populations of burrowing
owls in Canada. This will require collaborative international research to understand better
possible reasons for their decline, and surveys to locate wintering areas and the ecology of
wintering birds.
Factors affecting the status of this species:
The reasons for the population decline are not totally understood; however, intensified
land use is believed to be a major part of this problem, primarily the conversion of grasslands for
agricultural purposes, and prairie dog and lagomorph eradication programs. Intensification of
land use has resulted in widespread loss and fragmentation of nesting habitat. Fragmentation
makes it difficult to find mates and appears to interfere with juvenile dispersal. In Canada, rates
of loss of burrowing owl habitat has decreased significantly, however the decline of the owl
continues suggesting other factors are important. Owls nesting on remaining areas may
experience higher predation and lower productivity owing to reduced hunting success and may
be more vulnerable to mortality from collisions with vehicles and from pesticide use. Carbofuran
is a pesticide of particular concern, as its use significantly reduces the prey base possibly
affecting survival and reproduction. In addition, the migration route and wintering areas for the
burrowing owl populations are not known. It is probable that factors in these areas are also
contributing to higher mortality in the burrowing owl.
Potential Areas of Collaboration:
1. Collaborate to undertake a North American-wide burrowing owl population assessment
and breeding survey, including aircraft telemetry surveys, to provide a basis to establish North
American conservation objectives for the burrowing owl.
2. Collaborate to undertake important burrowing owl research projects. Research is required
in several areas including causes of mortality, winter ecology, affects of habitat loss and
fragmentation, factors affecting productivity, impacts of human activities, etc. International
collaboration is necessary to identify research priorities and to implement cost-effective research
efforts.
3. Enhance efforts to identify burrowing owl wintering areas in the United States and
Mexico and identify conservation needs in these areas. In addition, a monitoring program should
be established to better understand burrowing owl migration routes.
4. Investigate ways and means to conserve remaining burrowing owl habitat including
extensive tracts of grasslands and prairie dog colonies, by using incentives, conservation
easements for private lands, and by establishing protected areas. Consideration should be given
for establishing an international prairie/grasslands/drylands ecosystem team to examine
conservation and sustainable use strategies for this ecoregion.
5. Continue to share experiences, data, and information on the burrowing owl by continuing
to hold international Burrowing Owl Symposiums and providing access to data and information.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
26
6. Share information on successful landowner programs such as Operation Burrowing Owl
in Canada to enhance public support and participation in conservation efforts.
7. Establish agreements to eliminate the use of Carbofuran in burrowing owl areas.
Contacts:
Canada
Ursula Banasch, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Room 200, 4999-98 Avenue,
Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3; Phone: 780-951-8700. E-mail: ursula.banasch@ec.gc.ca
G. Holroyd, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Room 200, 4999-98 Avenue,
Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3; Phone: 780-951-8700; E-mail: geoffrey.holroyd@ec.gc.ca
Karyn Scalise, Fish & Wildlife Branch, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management,
Room 436, 3211 Albert Street, Regina, SK S4S 5W6; Phone (306) 787-2461; E-mail:
Karyn.Scalise.erm@govmail.gov.sk.ca
Troy Wellicome, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Room 200, 4999-98 Avenue,
Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3; Phone: 780-951-8700. E-mail: Troy.Wellicome@ec.gc.ca
Mexico
Mauricio Cotera, Pronatura Noreste
Ernesto Enkerlin, Director, Pronatura Noreste; Professor, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Centro de
Calidad Ambiental, Garza Sada #2501 Sur, Monterrey, N.L., Mexico 64849; Phone: (528) 328-
4032 / 387-5814; Fax: (528) 387-5815 / 359-6280; E-mail: eenkerlin@pronatura.org.mx
United States
Steve Sheffield, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, Suite 634, Arlington, VA 22203; Phone: 703-358-1821. E-mail:
Steve_Sheffield@fws.org
Ted Thomas, North Pacific Coast Ecoregion, Fish and Wildlife Service, 510 Desmond Drive SE,
Lacey, WA 98503; Phone: 360-753-4327; E-mail: ted_Thomas@fws.gov
Martha Desmond New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM E-mail: mdesmond@nmsu.edu
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
27
Scientific Name: Strix occidentalis caurina
Common Name: Northern Spotted Owl
Legal Status:
Canada: Listed as endangered in 1986.
Mexico: Not present.
United States: Listed as threatened in 1990.
Range:
The northern spotted owl is non-migratory and breeds in the coastal mountains and
eastern and western slopes of the Cascade Mountain Range from northern California through
Oregon and Washington into southwest British Columbia. In Canada, northern spotted owls only
occur in British Columbia and occupy old-growth coniferous forests.
Rationale for collaboration:
International collaboration would significantly enhance efforts to conserve the northern
spotted owl. Research and management approaches for this subspecies are most advanced in the
United States. Sharing of results of research on the ecology of the subspecies and management
needs could be extremely beneficial in assisting Canadian wildlife and forest managers to
develop management and conservation strategies for Canada’s population of northern spotted
owls.
The northern spotted owl is an old-growth or late successional species. As a result of
habitat loss and fragmentation, this subspecies is considered to be at risk across North America.
The current population estimate across North America is a minimum of 8,500 pairs, but with a
downward trend, has been listed since 1990 as threatened under the United States Endangered
Species Act, and since 1986, listed by COSEWIC as endangered in Canada.
The northern spotted owl extends only a short distance into Canada. The current
population estimate for Canada is about 100 resident pairs. This subspecies is listed as
endangered by COSEWIC because of its low population and relatively small area of occupation.
Population trends have not been established, as this subspecies is difficult to survey. However,
old-growth habitat upon which the subspecies is dependent has decreased significantly in British
Columbia since the 1900s, and it is therefore likely that historical populations of northern spotted
owls were larger and that the range of the subspecies was more extensive.
Background:
The northern spotted owl is a subspecies of conservation concern across its range in the
United States and Canada. Because the owl is dependent on old-growth forests and late
successional forests, forest harvesting has significantly reduced available spotted owl habitat.
Logging has resulted in habitat fragmentation, which may affect dispersal ability. Logging also
improves habitat for spotted owl predators and competitors, thus reducing owl production and
survival.
Population surveys are difficult for the northern spotted owl. The North American total is
estimated to be at least 8,500 pairs and declining, with approximately 100 pairs located in
Canada, in the northern most portion of its range.
Concern for the loss of the northern spotted owl in the United States and impacts to the
economy from potential conservation strategies, prompted significant research to understand
better the biology and ecology of this subspecies. Research initiatives are also underway in
Canada to improve understanding total population size, dispersal, habitat preferences and
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
28
requirements, causes of mortality, and limiting factors. Two draft management plans have also
been prepared.
Factors affecting the survival of northern spotted owls are likely to be similar in both
Canada and the United States. International collaboration could help improve understanding of
the biology and ecology of this subspecies and its management requirements. Coordinated
inventory and monitoring would help to assess better the overall status of the northern spotted
owl and population trends, and help identify any relationships between populations in both
countries.
Factors affecting the status of this subspecies:
The primary limiting factor for the northern spotted owl is habitat availability, including
food supply. Forest harvesting has reduced available habitat and affects habitat quality by
changing the configuration of the landscape. Habitat fragmentation affects dispersal capability
and may increase mortality as logging can improve habitat conditions for spotted owl predators
and competitors, such as great horned owls, northern goshawks and barred owls. Toxic pollution
may also be a factor in reducing nesting success as a result of thinning of eggshells.
Potential areas for collaboration:
1. Enhance international collaboration in undertaking northern spotted owl inventories to
determine population status and trends; habitat requirements, especially nest site preference; and
to continue the leg banding program as part of long-term monitoring.
2. Enhance international collaboration in the development of management plans, especially
to assist conservation planning in Canada. Experience from conservation planning in the United
States could assist Canada to plan the survival of the Canadian population while minimizing
impacts to economic activities.
3. Determine potential areas for collaborative northern spotted owl research including,
radio-telemetry to determine home range sizes, habitat selection, and evaluations of forest stand
attributes to assess and determine suitable owl habitat.
Contacts:
Canada
D. Dunbar, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; Phone: 604-582 5200;
E-mail: dave.dunbar@gems3.gov.bc.ca
David A. Kirk, Aquila Applied Ecologist CP 47 Wakefield, Quebec J0X 3G0; Email:
David.Kirk1@sympatico.ca
United States
Barry Mulder, US Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 911 Ne 11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97232-4181; Phone: 503-808-2572. E-mail: barry_mulder@fws.gov
Dr. Barry Noon, Colorado State University; E-mail: brnoon@cnr.colostate.edu; Phone
970-491-7905
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
29
Scientific Name: Strix occidentalis lucida
Common Name: Mexican Spotted Owl
Legal Status:
Canada: Not present.
Mexico: Listed as threatened.
United States: Listed as threatened in 1993.
Range:
The Mexican spotted owl is found in parts of southern Colorado and Utah south through
Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, and northwestern Mexico to the states of Michoacán and
Baja California. It commonly inhabits mountains and canyons, which often contain dense, multi-storied
forests with closed canopies.
Rationale for collaboration:
The Mexican spotted owl is threatened by destruction and modification of habitat caused
primarily by timber harvesting and fires. Understanding of this subspecies population trends and
distribution, in both the United States and Mexico, must be improved to effectively manage and
conserve this species. International research and monitoring to improve understanding of the
subspecies status and threats in Mexico is urgently needed to gain a fuller understanding of
conservation needs and priorities. In recognition of the need for international cooperation, the
United States Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Team includes a representative from Mexico.
Background:
The Mexican spotted owl is one of three spotted owl subspecies recognized by the
American Ornithologists' Union and has the largest geographic range of the three spotted owl
subspecies. There are no reliable estimates of the Mexican spotted owl's historic population size,
although its historic range and present distribution are thought to be similar. In 1990, the
estimated total Mexican spotted owl size in the southwestern United States was 806 pairs and
548 singles, or a total of 2,160 owls. Inventories since then indicate that the 1990 estimate was
likely low.
Data are insufficient to estimate the total Mexican spotted owl population in Mexico.
Nevertheless, specimen and sight records obtained over the past 120 years provide a fair
understanding of the owl's general distribution. A survey of major museum collections found
Mexican spotted owl specimens from Mexico collected from about 1870 through 1961, which
represented 14 locations in 7 states. A total of 23 owl locations in Mexico were known in 1991.
The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish is currently funding an owl study in the San
Juanito-Creel area of west-central Chihuahua. One pair and four single birds have been found so
far in that study.
The Mexican spotted owl was listed as threatened in the United States based on threats to
its forest habitat, without any population trend information. A Spotted Owl Population
Monitoring Program has been initiated in the United States, but will require 10-15 years to
provide reliable data on population trends.
Factors affecting the status of this species:
The two major threats that have been identified for the Mexican spotted owl are forest
harvesting and catastrophic wildfires. Conservation of habitat is being addressed in the United
States Recovery Plan and forest harvesting plans in the United States portion of the owl’s range.
Wildfire remains as a significant threat for this subspecies.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
30
Potential areas for collaboration:
1. Collaboration between Mexico and the United States is required to better understand the
status of the Mexican spotted owl in Mexico, population trends and conservation threats.
2. Collaborative research would assist in providing a better understanding of the biology
and ecology of the Mexican spotted owl, which would support conservation management and
planning.
3. Collaboration in the management of forested areas occupied by Mexican spotted owls,
including sharing information on timber harvesting approaches and fire fuel management, would
be highly desirable to better conserve Mexican spotted owl habitat, and would assist in
implementing restoration programs where they are feasible.
Contacts:
Mexico
M-enC. José Luis Rangel Salazar, ECOSUR, Carretera Panamericana y periférico sur S/N, barrio
de Guadalupe, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, 29290; Phone: (967) 81883 al 85; Fax: (967)
82322; E-mail jlrangel@sclc.ecosur.mx
Biol. Alfredo Garza Herrera, Instituto de Ecología Durango
United States
Steve Spangle, US Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM
87103; Phone: 505-248-6655. E-mail: steve_spangle@fws.gov
Dr. Richard Reynolds, USDA FS, 970-498-2320
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
31
Scientific Name: Dendroica chrysoparia
CommonName: Golden-cheeked Warbler
Legal Status :
Canada: Not present.
Mexico: Listed as endangered.
United States: Listed as endangered in 1990.
Range:
The golden-cheeked warbler has a very restricted breeding range. The species breeds
only in the oak-juniper forest of central Texas. Migration occurs in a variety of montane forest
habitats through eastern Mexico (reports from Coahuila, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, Hidalgo and
Veracruz). The species winters from the highlands of northern Chiapas south to Nicaragua and
has been scarcely reported during migration in the northeast. Breeding habitat has been severely
reduced due to destruction from urbanization and agricultural practices. When a species has such
limited and definable habitat requirements, habitat loss most likely results in a population decline
(USFWS 1994 ).
Rationale for collaboration:
Protection measures for the golden-cheeked warbler are urgent. Future projections by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service show expected population declines to continue. The alarming
decline of populations and the fast destruction of wintering and breeding habitat continues to
threaten populations of golden-cheeked warblers. The primary threat is habitat destruction due to
urbanization. Additionally, nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) has been
observed and may be a threat.
The biology of the golden-cheeked warbler in its wintering grounds is largely unknown,
although reports suggest that habitat requirements are wider during winter. In Chiapas, Mexico,
the species has been recorded in small patches in the cloud forest that are unfortunately
disappearing at alarming rates.
Both urgent protection of breeding and wintering habitats and also biological studies at
the wintering grounds are needed. Conservation agreements have not been established among the
United States, Mexico or any Central American country, where the golden-cheeked warbler
winters, which are essential for the survival of this species.
Background:
Ongoing and imminent habitat destruction from urbanization and agricultural practices
justified the emergency listing of the warbler in 1990 in the United States. A Recovery Team and
Recovery Plan were established in 1992. The Golden-cheeked Warbler Recovery Plan suggests
several measures in the United States. First is the protection of sufficient breeding habitat to
support both viable breeding population and sufficient non-breeding habitat for the members of
the viable population to migrate to. The plan also recommends that all existing golden-cheeked
warbler populations on public lands in the United States be protected and managed to ensure
their continued existence until at least the optimum spatial arrangement of populations needed
for long-term maintenance of the species is determined.
Work towards the objectives of the Recovery Plan is occurring through several initiatives.
For instance, the Fort Hood Military Reservation is protecting a large population of golden-cheeked
warblers and is conducting research to determine what measures are required to protect
and manage this species. In Texas, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is creating the Balcones
Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge in Travis, Burnet, and Williamson counties, and the City
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
32
of Austin and Travis County are creating the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. Together, the
Preserve and the Refuge will protect about 30% of the golden-cheeked warbler’s habitat in
Travis County. However, inadequate funding currently threatens both of these efforts.
In another attempt to protect golden-cheeked warbler habitat, the Environmental Defense
Fund has proposed to initiate Safe Harbor Agreements with private landowners to conserve the
golden-cheeked warbler on some private lands in central Texas. The Central Texas Cattlemen’s
Association is also beginning to form partnerships with agricultural groups and private
landowners to promote conservation of the golden-cheeked warbler on private lands.
The Central Texas Cattlemen’s Association, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Hood,
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and US Department of Agriculture have a Memorandum
of Understanding to control brown-headed cowbirds on private lands around the Fort Hood
Military Reservation in an effort to reduce the threat of cowbird parasitism on the golden-cheeked
warbler and other nesting songbirds.
In February 1999, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation sponsored a meeting in
Guatemala to initiate dialogue needed to promote conservation of the golden-cheeked warbler on
the wintering grounds. Attendees included representatives from the breeding grounds (The
Nature Conservancy, Ft. Hood, and FWS) and landowners, government officials, and
conservation representatives from the wintering grounds.
A few studies have been conducted on the wintering grounds, including studies by John
Rappole and Daniel Thompson, but much more extensive research is needed in this area. There
is extremely limited information about the migratory patterns of the golden-cheeked warbler
through Mexico. Information on the wintering habitats in Mexico is also very limited and
suggests that warblers overwinter in Cloud Forest habitat, which is disappearing at an alarming
rate.
Factors affecting the status of this species:
The majority of habitat in Central Texas is privately owned. Non-government
organizations have played a key role in conserving the golden-cheeked warbler and its habitat by
engaging private landowners in conservation efforts. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is also
working with landowners through incentive programs. Rapid urban and agricultural
development is decreasing breeding habitats along the Balcones Escarpment between Austin and
San Antonio. Habitat must be conserved through acquisition, public education and outreach
programs, conservation easements, regional planning, incentive such as the Endangered Species
Act Safe Harbor program and other strategies that are aimed at promoting the conservation of
golden-cheeked warbler habitat.
Priority must be given to improve understanding of the biology of the golden-cheeked
warbler in its wintering grounds and actions taken to prevent further large-scale destruction of
habitat. Incentive programs need to be established to protect the warbler’s wintering habitat
similar to programs established in the breeding grounds. Encouraging sustainable development
options for habitat in Mexico and Central America is necessary for the long-term survival of
golden-cheeked warbler. Determination of migratory patterns is also needed to protect migration
routes between wintering and breeding areas.
Potential areas for collaboration
An international meeting was held in Guatemala to encourage international cooperation
among the United States, Mexico, and Guatemala. At present there is not an agreed international
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
33
recovery plan for the golden-cheeked warbler. However, several potential areas for collaboration
have been identified and include:
1. Conducting an international assessment of the golden-cheeked warbler to better
understand migratory patterns, identify any potential breeding habitat in northern Mexico, and
provide a basis for establishing a long-term international monitoring program.
2. Establishing an international recovery plan and recovery team and potentially a bilateral
conservation agreement between the United States and Mexico.
3. Establishing agreements to protect breeding, wintering, and migration habitats to
maintain viable populations of the golden-cheeked warbler.
4. Establish collaborative research initiatives to share expertise and available data and
information on the golden-cheeked warbler. A project has been proposed to map the entire
wintering range of the golden-cheeked warbler using Geographical Information System (GIS)
technology to support conservation efforts. Inventory work is needed to identify habitats in
Central America and Mexico and then to use this information to set conservation priorities.
Contacts:
Mexico
Claudia Macias Caballero, ITESM-Campus Monterrey CEDES 5 piso, Sucursal de Correos “J”
Apdo. Postal 4889, Monterrey, Nuevo León, 64849; Phone: (8) 328 4032; Fax: (8) 359 6280; E-mail:
cmacias@campus.mty.itesm.mx
Roberto Phillips, Pronatura Noreste; CEDES-CCA 5° Piso, Garza Sada #2501 Sur, Col.
Tecnologico, Monterrey, N.L., 64849, Mexico; Phone: (528) 3284032 & 3875814; E-mail:
rphillips@pronatura.org.mx
Rosa María Vidal, Pronatura Chiapas, A.C., Av. Juárez No. 11-B, Centro, San Cristóbal de las
Casas, Chiapas, 29200; Phone: (967) 8 50 00; Fax: (967) 5 50 00; E-mail:
pronaturach@laneta.apc.org and rosavidal@pronatural.org.mx
United States
Charles Duncan, The Nature Conservancy
Ms. Krishna Costello, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Fish and Wildlife Service Office,
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; Phone: 512-490-0057. E-mail:
krishna_costello@fws.gov
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
34
Scientific Name: Grus americana
Common Name: Whooping Crane
Legal Status:
Canada: Listed as endangered in 1978. Also listed under the Saskatchewan Wildlife Act and the
Northwest Territorial Wildlife Act.
Mexico: Listed as endangered. Considered to be extirpated from Mexico.
United States: Listed as endangered in 1967. There is also a “nonessential” (experimental)
population in Florida.
Range:
The historic range of whooping cranes extends from the Arctic coast to central Mexico
(north to south) and from Utah east to New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. The
species existed in both non-migratory, resident populations and migratory populations with
distinct breeding and wintering grounds. The principal breeding range of the species as
documented in the mid-1800s, extended from central Illinois, northern Iowa, western Minnesota,
northeastern North Dakota, southern Manitoba, and Saskatchewan to the vicinity of Edmonton,
Alberta. Additional breeding occurred outside of this range in the West, but little information
was gathered before the species declined rapidly with European settlement.
Three historical migratory routes from breeding grounds to wintering grounds are known.
One migratory path existed between breeding grounds in Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota and
Manitoba to wintering grounds in Louisiana and Texas. Another migratory path went through
west Texas and connected nesting grounds in North Dakota, the Canadian provinces and
Northwest Territories to wintering grounds along the gulf coast of Texas and the central
highlands of Mexico. The third route crossed the Appalachians and connected nesting areas in
Hudson Bay, Canada to wintering grounds on the Atlantic coastal areas of New Jersey, South
Carolina and river deltas farther south (probably Florida, Alabama, and Georgia) in the United
States. The Louisiana coast contained both resident and migratory populations.
Today, only one primary migratory path exists. This path connects nesting grounds in
Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada, to wintering grounds in Arkansas National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) in Texas. The migration route passes through northeastern Alberta, south-central
Saskatchewan, northeastern Montana, western South Dakota, central Nebraska and
Kansas, west-central Oklahoma and east-central Texas.
Only three wild populations exist and five captive locations have been established. Wild
populations include the migratory population that winters in ANWR, an established wild
population in the Rocky Mountains of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (wintering in New
Mexico), and a resident population in Florida. The Florida and Rocky Mountain groups are
considered an experimental effort to establish a non-migratory population.
Six captive populations are held in the United States and one in Canada, totaling just over
100 individuals. Four of the captive populations in the United States are very small, consisting of
only a few individuals.
Rationale for collaboration:
International cooperation between the United States and Canada has been essential for the
conservation of the whooping crane. Cooperation began in 1916 with the adoption of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In 1985, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding
(MOU), which provided a formal structure to the cooperative efforts of both countries. The
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
35
MOU was renewed in 1990 and 1995 for five-year periods. A recovery plan and MOU is
currently under revision for 2000
As a migratory species, the whooping crane is affected by actions in Canada, the United
States and Mexico. The conservation of the whooping cranes has only been possible because of
collaboration between Canada and the United States. Canada protects the primary breeding area
and United States protects the wintering grounds for the only migratory population. Without this
collaboration the species would have likely gone extinct many years ago.
While no whooping cranes are currently known in Mexico, international cooperation will
be necessary to reestablish a migratory population in the Mexican highlands. A solid history of
cooperation exists between the United States and Canada for the protection of whooping cranes,
could serve as the basis for collaboration with Mexico.
Background:
The whooping crane is a highly endangered species with only one historical migratory
breeding population in existence. Two other wild populations are currently being established.
Three primary captive populations also have been established. While populations are slowly
increasing, they remain small and isolated. The species is highly susceptible to natural disasters,
such as drought, hurricanes, and human caused events such as chemical spills. Hunters, who
mistake them for legally hunted species, occasionally kill whooping cranes.
Whooping crane populations are very slowly increasing. In 1941 the migratory population
consisted of 16 birds and a remnant non-migratory flock of 6 birds existed in Louisiana. By the
year 2000, over 180 individuals were expected to be living in the wild in Canada.
Whooping cranes are being bred in ex-situ conditions in the United States and in Canada.
Since 1993, efforts have been underway to establish a non-migratory population in Florida from
captive-raised whooping cranes. 184 birds have been released since 1993. 64 whooping cranes
currently exist in this non-migratory population. A migratory population has been established in
the Rocky Mountains in Idaho and Wyoming, and it winters in New Mexico, and possibly in
northern Mexico. This population has failed to pair and breed and currently numbers only 3
individuals. No current plans are underway to continue this reintroduction. An eastern
reintroduction is currently being planned with nesting in Wisconsin and wintering in Florida.
Recovery plans for whooping cranes have been approved in the United States in 1985, and
in Canada in 1987. These plans have since been revised and approved. A formal international
recovery plan was established in 1985 through the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the
Conservation of the Whooping Crane between the United States and Canada. The MOU was
renewed in 1990 and 1995. A revised and more detailed international recovery plan is currently
being developed.
The long-term objective of the international plan is to increase populations to the point
that the whooping crane can be removed from classification as an endangered species. The 1995
United States-Canada MOU established that a population of 1000 individuals is the desired goal.
Short-term and intermediate objectives include establishing a stable or increasing population in
Wood Buffalo with a minimum of 40 breeding pairs by the year 2000 , and establishing two other
wild whooping crane populations, each with a minimum of 25 breeding pairs, by the year 2020.
Research regarding food resources available on the breeding grounds is ongoing. Inventory
and monitoring also continues in the nesting area and staging area in Saskatchewan. Other research
has been conducted to determine causes of chick mortality. Research was undertaken to assess
eastern Saskatchewan and the Interlake region of Manitoba as a potential reintroduction site.
Another study has been initiated in Wisconsin as a potential reintroduction site.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
36
Nongovernmental entities involved in whooping crane conservation have included the
National Audubon Society, Whooping Crane Conservation Association, Calgary Zoo, Operation
Migration, Texas A & M University, International Crane Foundation, National Wildlife
Federation, Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maintenance Trust, Socorro Chamber of
Commerce, and the Texas Waterways Operators Association.
Factors affecting the status of this species:
A single catastrophic event could significantly affect the small migratory and non-migratory
populations of the whooping crane. Potentially disastrous events include prolonged
drought, hurricanes, oil spills, or other petrochemical spills. Deteriorating winter habitat due to
boat traffic, wave erosion, dredging, commercial crabbing are also ongoing concerns. The
breeding habitat has been negatively impacted by droughts.
Whooping cranes have a general intolerance to human presence and are easily disturbed.
They are disturbed by most aircraft, but particularly helicopters. They seem tolerant of some
types of barge traffic, but intolerant of high traffic from commercial boats.
Whooping crane fatalities during migration have occurred, resulting from collisions with
power lines and from birds shot by hunters. Hunting incidences appear related to legal hunting
activities of other birds that whooping cranes associate with. Some illegal shooting of cranes
may be occurring as a result of misidentification and lack of public understanding of the status of
this bird.
Another factor affecting the conservation of whooping cranes is disease. Though not
considered a major cause of mortality in previous centuries, disease could potentially have a
devastating impact. Whooping cranes that are known to have diseases are immediately removed
and quarantined. The population bottleneck that occurred in 1941 (only 22 remaining
individuals) likely reduced the genetic diversity of the remaining population increasing its
vulnerability to be significantly impacted by disease. Known diseases of greatest concern are
tuberculosis, Eastern Equine Encephalitis and crane herpes, which are particularly contagious.
Potential areas for collaboration:
1. Renew and sign Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of the Whooping
Crane - 2000 and include Mexico in a future MOU.
2. Establish additional whooping cranes populations as set out in the Canada/United States
agreement, considering the establishment of a migratory whooping cranes population in the
Mexican highlands.
3. Continue the long-term international monitoring program for whooping cranes and efforts
to share expertise, data, and research, and begin to enhance the participation of Mexico in these
activities.
4. Continue efforts to protect whooping cranes in and along migration corridors and staging
areas using appropriate measures, including by maintaining public education programs for
hunters to ensure identification of whooping cranes.
Contacts:
Canada
Brian Johns, Canadian Wildlife Service Email: Brian.Johns@ec.gc.ca
United States
Tom Stehn, Aranas Wildlife Refuge, PO Box 100, Austwell, TX 77950; Phone: 361-286-3559.
E-mail: tom_stehn@fws.gov
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
37
Scientific Name: Gymnogyps californianus
Common Name: California Condor
Legal Status:
Canada: Not present
Mexico: Listed as endangered, although the species is now extirpated.
United States: Listed as endangered in 1967. Listed as endangered in the state of California. An
experimental population occurs in parts of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah.
Range:
The condor's historic range extended from British Columbia south through Baja
California. However, the condor's current range is limited primarily to the coastal ranges of
southern California, with nesting occurring primarily in the chaparral-covered mountains of the
Los Padres National Forest and foraging in the grasslands of the San Joaquin Valley. Captive
birds have been released in three locations in the United States: the Vermilion Cliffs in Arizona,
Ventana Wilderness Sanctuary/Big Sur, and Los Padres National Forest/Lion Canyon,
California.
Rationale for collaboration:
The existence and long-term survival of the California condor hinge on successful captive
breeding and rearing programs conducted in the United States. The California condor is extinct
in Mexico and Canada (not designated by COSEWIC) and faced certain extinction in the United
States prior to captive breeding programs. Wild populations of the condor ceased to exist in 1987
when the last free ranging condor was brought into captivity after significant population losses in
the wild.
The success of captive breeding and rearing programs increased the number of California
condors from 27 to 161. Successful captive breeding has led to the release of individuals to the
wild, which began in 1991 and appear to be successful. Wildlife preserves to protect California
condors have been designated in both the United States and Mexico.
Captive animals from the United States could potentially be used to repopulate previous
habitats in Baja California, Mexico, once proper collaboration has been established. Currently,
there is no cooperative programs or agreements between the two countries to support
international re-introduction efforts. Successful re-introduction of the California condor in
Mexico could assist the recovery and long-term survival of this imperiled species. Though the
range of the species historically included British Columbia, no recovery plan or preserve has
been established for the condor in Canada.
Background:
According to fossil records, California condors lived extensively along the Pacific and
Atlantic coastal regions. The post-Pleistocene range of the species is restricted to areas along the
Pacific Coast from British Columbia to Baja California. More recently, however, the species was
confined to a horseshoe-shaped area north of Los Angeles.
Since the 1870s, over hunting and poisoning were thought to have played a major role in
the decline of the species. Extensive habitat loss and degradation severely limited the area
available to condors and now limits the areas in which they can be successfully re-introduced.
Numerous organizations have joined forces to save the California condor, including: the
US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, California Department of Game and Fish, the
Peregrine Fund, Los Padres National Forest, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Utah
Department of Natural Resources, the Hualapai Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Phoenix, Los
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
38
Angeles and San Diego zoos, the Bureau of Land Management, Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area, Grand Canyon National Park, Kaibab National Forest, and many private
landowners and individuals.
In 1953, the species was protected by the state of California. California condors were in
immediate danger of extinction by 1967 when the species was listed as an Endangered species by
laws enacted in the United States prior to the Endangered Species Act. In 1975, a California
Condor Recovery Team was established and the first recovery plan was adopted. In 1979,
biologists initiated studies, which led to the first captive rearing of eggs in 1983. In 1985 and
1986, a dramatic loss of the last remaining wild condors forced the capture of all remaining wild
animals.
Captive breeding programs have intensified since the last wild condor was brought into
captivity in 1987 resulting in the number of individual condors increasing from 27 in 1987 to 161
in 1999. Reintroductions of California condors to protected habitats began in 1991 in designated
condor wildlife sanctuaries. Designated sanctuaries include the Vermilion Cliffs in Arizona and
in California the Los Padres National Forest's Sespe and Sisquoc Condor Sanctuaries and
Ventana Wilderness Sanctuary/Big Sur. Initial releases of condors met with difficulties as four
died in collisions with power lines and one died from ethylene glycol poisoning, a substance
commonly found in antifreeze. More recent reintroductions have been more successful, but
threats in the wild, including hunting, have not been removed entirely.
In the United States, the recovery plan for the California condor was developed and
revised last in April 1996. Conservation objectives are to establish two wild populations, with
150 birds in each population, and a captive population of 150 individuals. In Mexico a recovery
plan and team is currently being organized for the California condor and an international plan is
in the process of being established.
Mexico has one sanctuary established as a potential reintroduction site, San Pedro Mártir
National Park in Baja California.
Factors affecting the status of this species:
Currently, the primary threats to the species are poisoning from lead bullets eaten while
feeding on the remains of unrecovered and field-dressed deer, collisions with power lines, and
poison intended for ground squirrels and coyotes. Extensive habitat loss and degradation
severely limit the potential area condors can live and be successfully re-introduced into.
The species has yet to breed in the wild since its removal in 1987, and this is an obvious
threat to the long-term survival of the species and must be overcome. Reducing mortalities of re-introduced
birds is also essential. Mortality may be reduced by converting to underground
electrical lines in key areas, releasing birds in more remote locations where there is less contact
with power lines and toxins. Incentives for hunters to use non-lead bullets should also be a
priority. Hunters and the public in general must be educated to prevent accidental or intentional
deaths of condors. Specific education programs to local communities, one-on-one contact with
the public, and public meetings should be used throughout condor release areas.
Potential areas for collaboration
1. Because the species could potentially migrate into Mexico from southern California and
Arizona release sites, establish an international recovery plan and recovery team with
representation from both the Mexico and the United States to develop an international
conservation agreement for the California condor.
2. Evaluate potential sites for re-introduction of the California condor in Mexico and if
feasible, re-introduce captive breed condors to these locations.
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
39
3. Provide technical support to Mexico to support their efforts to re-introduce the California
condor, including assisting in the necessary educational programming for local communities in
Baja.
4. Consider the establishment of a California condor captive breeding facility in Mexico.
5. Establish a long-term international California condor monitoring program to evaluate the
progress of re-introductions.
6. Enhance sharing of expertise and information on the California condor and establish
means to develop joint research initiatives.
7. Establish international forums for discussing conservation and management needs for the
California condor, such as meetings and conferences.
Contacts:
Mexico
Ariel Rojo, Dirección General de Vida Silvestre INE; E-mail: arojo@ine.gob.mx
Horacio De la Cueva Salcedo, CICESE, Apartado Postal 2732, Ensenada, Baja California,
22800; Phone: (61) 74 5050; E-mail: cuevas@cicese.mx
United States
Mr. Carl Benz, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Ecological Services Field Office, 2493
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; Phone 805-644-1766. E-mail: carl_benz@fws.gov
Robert Mesta, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Field Office, Tucson, AZ;
robert_mesta@fws.gov
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
40
Scientific Name: Cynomys ludovicianus
Common Name: Black-tailed Prairie Dog
Legal Status:
Canada: Listed as vulnerable in 1999. Prairie dogs and their habitat are protected by provincial
legislation under the Saskatchewan Wildlife Act (1981) and the Critical Wildlife Habitat
Protection Act (1997).
Mexico: Listed as threatened.
United States: Warranted as threatened, but precluded by higher listing priorities.
Range:
Black-tailed prairie dogs range from Canada to Mexico, however their current range and
distribution represents a small percentage of their historic range. Some scientists estimate that
prairie dogs occupy only 2 % of their historic range.
Rationale for collaboration:
The black-tailed prairie dog is considered by many scientists to be a keystone species,
whose conservation will contribute to the conservation of the mid-grass and short-grass prairie
region of the Great Plains. Collaboration among Canada, Mexico, and the United States, in the
management of black-tailed prairie dogs would assist overall efforts to conserve this species and
the grassland ecosystems that it occupies. Moreover, conservation of prairie dog colonies provide
habitat for many other prairie species, many of which are declining or are of some conservation
concern, such as mountain plovers, ferruginous hawks, burrowing owls, and swift foxes.
Conservation of prairie dog colonies is also essential to the survival and re-introduction of the
black-footed ferret, North America’s most endangered mammal.
Background:
Five species of prairie dogs are recognized in North America. At the beginning of this
century, prairie dogs were estimated to have covered between 40 and 100 million ha of grassland
ecosystems in western North America. The total black-tailed prairie dog population size across
North America prior to European settlement has been estimated at 5 billion individuals. By 1961,
the area of occupation declined to about 165,000 ha, representing approximately a 99% decline
in total habitat. Today, prairie dogs exist largely in isolated colonies throughout their former
range, with notable concentrations on Tribal and Forest Service lands in the northern Great
Plains and in Mexico.
The black-tailed prairie dog has the greatest distribution of any of the prairie dog species.
The species historically existed in vast colonies reaching hundreds of square kilometers in size.
Today, while small black-tailed prairie dog colonies continue to persist throughout much of their
historic range, colonies have become fragmented and isolated, which may significantly affect the
long-term conservation of the species, and affect many other species that depend on, or are
associated with prairie dog colonies (burrowing owls, rattle snakes, mountain plovers, black-footed
ferrets, etc.).
Black-tailed prairie dogs are the only species of prairie dog occurring in Canada, and
only occupy an area in southern Saskatchewan. A 1996 prairie dog census found that there were
22 colonies totaling about 932 ha in Canada. The total number of colonies and area occupied
appears to be increasing. Approximately, 96 % of prairie dog colonies will exist on lands
proposed as Grasslands National Park with about 56 % of the colonies already included in land
purchased by the Government of Canada for establishment of the Park. In this area, prairie dogs
Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America
18 October 2000 Working Draft
41
and their habitat are already protected by provincial legislation under the Saskatchewan Wildlife
Act and the Critical Wildlife Habitat Protection Act.
The only healthy population of black-tailed prairie dogs known in Mexico is located in
Chihuahua, an area of approximately 40,000 ha. This is the largest contiguous black-tailed
prairie dog complex in North America, perhaps once extending into the southern United States.
This complex may provide an extremely valuable site to re-introduce the black-footed ferret as
only about a half-dozen prairie dog colonies have so far been identified throughout North
America, as being large enough to support ferret populations. Prairie dogs are rapidly decreasing
in Mexico as a result of habitat loss due to conversion of grasslands to croplands, and prairie dog
eradication efforts on rangelands.
In the United States, black-tailed prairie dogs continue persist as remnant populations
across approximately 70% of their historic range, although 37% of their range in the United
States has been converted to cropland. However, eradication programs have significantly
impacted them. For example, between 1980 and 1985, the largest remaining black-tailed prairie
dog complex in South Dakota was reduced by more than 90%. Even public lands in the United
States, including National Parks have been subject to prairie dog control programs.
Approximately 10-20% of black-tailed prairie dogs across their range is controlled annually,
although some recovery occurs in some areas. These programs exist primarily as result of the
perceived competition between prairie dogs and livestock. Recent cost benefit analysis of control
programs and other research have showed that there is no or little impact to livestock production
from competition with prairie dogs. Such research has resulted in the decline of government
supported control programs. Disease outbreaks are also known to occur in prairie dog colonies
across 66% of the range in the United States, significantly affecting the population size of
colonies and sometimes resulting in the loss of entire colonies.
Factors affecting the status of this species:
There are three major threats to the long-term survival of the black-tailed prairie dog:
disease, eradication programs, and habitat loss and fragmentation. Eradication programs continue
despite research showing that competition between prairie dogs and cattle is low, about 4-7 %.
This means that about 300 prairie dogs eat as much as one cow and calf. Other research has
shown that there is no significance difference in market weight between livestock raised on lands
with, or without prairie dogs. Coexistence of large grazers with prairie dogs is also well
documented historically. Bison, elk, and pronghorns coexisted in the millions with billions of
prairie dogs.
Given the enormous reduction in total area occupied by prairie dogs in North America,
urgent effort is required to avoid any further losses. While it is true that the black-tailed prairie
dog continues throughout much of its historic range and is not in imminent danger of
disappearing, further habitat loss will threaten not only this species but also many other
associated species. Further fragmentation and loss of habitat also reduces options in terms of the
re-introduction of the black-footed ferret.
Potential areas for collaboration:
1. Examine potential benefits of developing a North American conservation strategy or
regional strategies or plans for the black-tailed prairie dog as a prairie keystone species, as part
of broader efforts to conserve prairie grassland ecosystems. One goal would be to maintain or
enhance complexes of black-tailed prairie dogs throughout its historic range to support re-introductions
of black-footed ferrets (2,000-4,000 hectares and larger).
Species of Common Conser