General Status - Background and Process
Background Summary
This report reflects a commitment made under the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (PDF); an agreement signed by provincial, territorial and federal ministers in 1996. The broad goal of the Accord is to prevent species from becoming extinct or extirpated because of human activities. The Accord commits government partners to "monitor, assess and report regularly on the status of all wild species." This commitment will help identify those species most in need of immediate conservation and recovery action. The approach also helps to identify gaps in our knowledge and serves as a "first alert," early warning system that better aligns our priorities for species conservation recognizing the need for a heightened focus on prevention in our decision making. The Accord commits provinces, territories and federal agencies to gathering information about species on a regular and ongoing basis.
Since 1995, Nova Scotia has been an active member of a National General Status Working Group comprised of provincial, territorial and federal representatives. Contents of this report reflect our province's involvement in that process and our commitment to address the objectives, goal and spirit of the National Accord. Results of our provincial initiative in assessing the status of wild species and that of the other partners from across the country are summarized in a national report entitled Wild Species 2000: The General Status of Species In Canada.
What is the General Status Assessment Process?
The General Status Assessment process is a "first alert" system that provides us with an overall indication of how well species are doing in Nova Scotia. It is a tool that helps us identify which species populations are secure, which species are sensitive and which ones are at risk. Equally important, it provides an impression of how well species with similar life histories are doing when compared against all other members within a taxonomic group. Using this approach, we can now better understand patterns of threats that may exist within and among taxonomic groups when all species have been assessed. We can now ask questions like how are bats doing in Nova Scotia when compared with all other mammals? We can also use the results to make comparisons between various taxonomic groups and can get an impression of how mammals are doing relative to birds, butterflies, fresh water fishes or freshwater mussels?
General Status Assessments, are by design - coarse grained. They do not undertake intensive review and compilation of information in the form of detailed, in-depth status reports like those commissioned by the Committee on the Status Of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), or the Nova Scotia Species at Risk Working Group (SARWG). Results of the General Status Assessment process do however, compliment these more in-depth scientific assessment approaches and provide a "first-step tool" to help identify priorities for more detailed status evaluations, inventory, research and management. They also establish a list of priority species for consideration in land use decision making like Integrated Resource Management on Crown Lands (IRM) and environmental impact assessments in Nova Scotia.
General Status Teams
Teams of experts assessed the status of individual taxonomic groups of wild species in Nova Scotia. To date, eight teams have been formed and have assessed the general status of (1) birds, (2) mammals, (3) fresh water fishes, (4) amphibians/reptiles, (5) butterflies, (6) dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata), (7) fresh water mussels and (8) vascular plants. All team members were selected on the basis of their expertise and familiarity with the science, life history and distribution of species within a taxonomic group. The General Status Assessment team listed below show the composition of the various teams formed since the process began in 1995 and their membership. Information used in assessments was drawn from published scientific literature, wildlife atlasing projects, unpublished data and expert opinion. In some cases, teams deferred a status assessment for a particular species when consultation with other experts not on a team was required.
Perhaps the greatest benefit from the process of building general status assessment teams has been the creation of networks of experts; that in some cases, gathered together to share their knowledge for the first time. Results from their first round of assessments are presented here on this website. The goal of the process is to assess the status of wild species and to continue doing so at regular intervals of five years. Regular reassessments of status are necessary to ensure that our perspective on the condition of populations is not based on only one "snapshot" taken at a single point in time. Reassessments will create a legacy of information for future generations and will provide numerous snapshots that will more accurately indicate the mechanisms and magnitude of change that characterize populations of wild species through time.
An added and indirect benefit of the process has been that the knowledge transferred and gaps in information that were identified had the effect of sparking a renewed energy, scientific curiosity and inspired positive conservation actions among individual team members on behalf of wild species. It is a measure of their dedication that most team members did not look upon the process as an end in itself; but rather, took with them a solidarity of purpose and renewed commitment to address gaps in our knowledge that were identified during the general status assessments. This commitment has been manifested through a flurry of new research projects, wildlife inventory, conservation and recovery initiatives undertaken over the past five years.
Assessment Team Members
Members of the general status assessment teams for each taxonomic group.| Birds | |
| Mr. Dan Busby | Canadian Wildlife Service |
| Dr. Richard Elliot | Canadian Wildlife Service |
| Dr. John Chardine | Canadian Wildlife Service |
| Ms. Myrtle Bateman | Canadian Wildlife Service |
| Dr. Anthony Erskine | Canadian Wildlife Service |
| Ms. Diane Amirault | Canadian Wildlife Service |
| Mr. Peter Hicklin | Canadian Wildlife Service |
| Dr. J. S. Boates | NS Dept. of Natural Resources |
| Mr. Randy Milton | NS Dept. of Natural Resources |
| Mr. Nevelle Garrity | Canadian Wildlife Service |
| Mammals | |
| Dr. Tom Herman | Acadia University |
| Dr. Soren Bondrup-Neilsen | Acadia University |
| Dr. Karen Beazley | Dalhousie University |
| Mr. Fred Scott | Acadia University |
| Mr. Andrew Hebda | NS Museum |
| Fresh Water Fish | |
| Mr. Bob Barnes | Fisheries & Oceans |
| Dr. John Loch | Fisheries & Oceans |
| Mr. Greg Stephens | Fisheries & Oceans |
| Mr. Allen MacNeil | NS Dept. of Fisheries |
| Mr. John Gilhen | NS Museum |
| Mr. Andrew Hebda | NS Museum |
| Mr. Barry Sabean | NS Dept. of Natural Resources |
| Dr. Mike Dadswell | Acadia University |
| Dr. Rod Bradford | Fisheries & Oceans |
Amphibians and Reptiles |
|
| Mr. John Gilhen | NS Museum |
| Mr. Fred Scott | Acadia University |
| Dr. Tom Herman | Acadia University |
| Dr. Sherman Bleakney | Acadia University |
|
|
| Dr. Barry Wright | NS Museum |
| Mr. Fred Scott | Acadia University |
| Mr. Peter Payzant | NS Power |
| Mrs. Linda Payzant | |
Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonates) |
|
| Mr. Paul Brunelle | NS Museum |
| Dr. Tom Herman | Acadia University |
|
|
| Dr. Derek Davis | NS Museum |
| Mr. Andrew Hebda | NS Museum |
Vascular Plants |
|
| Dr. Liette Vasseur - | St. Mary's University |
| Dr. Sam VanderKloet | Acadia University |
| Dr. Nick Hill | Mt. St. Vincent University |
| Mrs. Ruth Newell | Acadia University |
| Ms. Marion Munroe | NS Museum |
| Mr. Sean Blaney | Atlantic Conservation Data Centre |
| Mr. Alex Wilson | NS Museum |
| Dr. Sherman Boates | NS Dept. of Natural Resources |
| Rick Hoeg | NS Dept. of Agriculture & Fisheries |
General Status Assessment Process
Teams assessed the status of wild species using seven criteria, please see the General Assessment Criteria below. Each criteria provides an indicator, or "yardstick" through which the quality of available biological information can be measured, understood and then grouped into broad quantitative units which are scored with a letter code. When biological information is known about a criterion, a general status score is assigned with a letter ranging from "A" (Worst) to "D" (Best). At the conclusion of the assessment the completeness of the scores and the number of unscored criteria provide a good indication of a species status in the province. Careful evaluation of all the scores assigned to the criteria allows each species to be grouped into one of the General Status Rank categories described below. Provincial general status rank are later carried forward to a National General Status Working Group who gather together similar data from all other provinces and territories to develop "Canada Ranks" that indicate the distribution and condition of the species across the country.
The reader is cautioned to note that the General Status Ranks on this web site only indicate the status of the species in the province of Nova Scotia. In cases where the species occurs outside of Nova Scotia, the status of those populations might be quite different. For example, many species that occur in our province are at the northern, southern, or eastern extralimital extent of their range and often occur in low numbers, but are common and widespread elsewhere. Thus, a species ranked as RED (At Risk, Maybe at Risk) reflects our concern for the long-term welfare of the species in this province, not necessarily across its range.
General Assessment Criteria
Criteria used in these assessments are based on definitions used in the Red List Categories of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the Criteria for Amendment of Appendices I and II (Res. Conf. 9.24) of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), and the Natural Heritage Program and Conservation Data Centres of the Association for Biodiversity Information - Canada.
Population Size is defined as the current estimate of the total number of mature individuals capable of reproduction. Where populations are characterized by natural fluctuations, the minimum number should be used. Likewise, if the population is characterized by biased breeding sex ratios, it is appropriate to use lower estimates for the number of mature individuals that will take this into account. For many species, a figure of less than 1,000 individuals has been found to be an appropriate guideline for what constitutes a small population.
Trend in Population(s) is defined as an estimate of the change (if any) in the number of mature individuals over time. Where declines are indicated, rapidly declining is defined as a decrease of 50% in the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is longer. Declining is defined as a decrease of 20% in the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is longer. Natural fluctuations will not normally count as part of a decline, but an observed decline should not be considered part of a natural fluctuation unless there is evidence for this interpretation.
Trend in Distribution is defined as the change (if any) in the geographic distribution of the species over time. Where declines are indicated, rapidly declining is defined as a decrease of 50% in the last 20 years or six generations, whichever is longer. Declining is defined as a decrease of 20% in the last 20 years or six generations, whichever is longer.
Geographic Distribution is defined as the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary that can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or projected sites of occurrence, excluding cases of vagrancy. The area within the imaginary boundary should, however, exclude significant areas where the species does not occur. For migratory species, the geographic distribution is the smallest area essential at any stage for the survival of the species.
Number of Occurrences is defined as the estimated number of sites where the species currently persists. A site occurrence is described ecologically as a location representing a habitat that sustains or otherwise contributes to the survival of a population. A site occurrence will be defined differently for different species, depending on their natural life history. When a species= distribution is extremely limited and there are very few site occurrences, the species is very susceptible to any number of disturbances, both predicable and unpredictable. This criterion is therefore the single most important factor influencing overall rank when the number of occurrences is few.
Threats to Population(s) is defined as observed, inferred, or projected direct exploitation, harassment, or ecological interactions with predators, competitors, pathogens, or parasites that may result in population declines. Extreme threats are significant, could affect more than half the population, and are unmitigated. Moderate threats are also serious, but affect less than half the population or are mitigated by some level of human protection. Limited threats are less significant to population viability or are being mitigated through protection measures.
Threats to Habitat(s) is defined as observed, inferred, or projected habitat alterations (loss, conversion, degradation, or fragmentation) that may result in population declines. Extreme threats are significant, affect more than half the population, and are unmitigated. Moderate threats are also serious, but affect less than half the population or are mitigated by some level of human protection. Limited threats are less significant to population viability or are being mitigated through protective measures.