Recovery Strategy for the Contorted-pod Evening-primrose in Canada [Final] 2011: Measuring Progress

The performance indicators presented below provide a way to define and measure progress toward achieving the population and distribution objectives. Specific progress towards implementing the recovery strategy will be measured against indicators outlined in subsequent action plans.A successful recovery program will achieve the overall aim of attaining nine viable, self-sustaining and protected populations of Contorted-pod Evening-primrose distributed throughout its historical extent of occurrence in Canada. Listed here are performance indicators for the four population and distribution objectives.

1. Maintain the known extent of occurrence for the species in Canada (by 2015).
   • By 2015, there has been no reduction in the known extent of occurrence for the species.
2. Maintain population sizes for all extant locations at current or higher levels (by 2015).
   • By 2015, population sizes have been maintained at current or higher levels (note, the population sizes listed in Table 1 are considered current).
3. Recover all eight extant populations to no less than their minimum viable population size (by 2020).
   • By 2015, propagation and translocation methods have been established to facilitate population augmentation.
   • By 2020, all eight extant populations are recovered to at least a minimum viable populations size (note, minimum viable population size will be defined during action planning).
4. Establish one additional population (to replace the single known extirpated population) at a site with suitable habitat within the historical range of the species in Canada, and maintain it at no less than its minimum viable population size (by 2020).
   • By 2020, one further site has been established either at the extirpated Cedar Hill location or elsewhere in the historical range of the species.
   • By 2020, the new site has a population size that is no less than the minimum viable population size for the species (note, minimum viable population size will be defined during action planning).

One or more action plans for Contorted-pod Evening-primrose will be posted on the SARA Public Registry by March 2015.

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2011. B.C. Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (Accessed: January 21, 2011).

B.C. Conservation Framework. 2010. Conservation Framework Summary: Camissonia contorta. BC Ministry of Environment. Available from: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed September 10, 2010).

B.C. Ministry of the Environment. n.d. Ecoregions of British Columbia. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ecology/ecoregions/ (Accessed April 2011).

B.C. Ministry of Forests. 2003. Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Subzone/Variant Map for South Island Forest District, Vancouver Forest Region. Victoria, British Columbia. 1:300,000.

COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the contorted-pod evening-primrose (Camissonia contorta) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 21 pp. (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/assessment/status_e.cfm). (Accessed September 2006).

Fairbarns, M.D. 2004. Potential Recovery Actions for Contorted-pod Evening-primrose In CRD Parks. 16 pp.

Government of Canada 2009. Species at Risk Act Policies, Overarching Policy Framework [Draft]. Species at Risk Act Policy and Guidelines Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 38 pp.

Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey and J.W. Thompson. 1961. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest volume 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. University of Washington Press. Seattle. 614 pp.

NatureServe. 1988. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.6. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: November 1, 2010).

Pavlik, B.M. 1996. Defining and measuring success. In: Restoring Diversity: Strategies for Reintroduction of Endangered Plants. D.A.Falk, C.I.Millar and M.Olwell (eds), pp. 127-156. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Traill, L.W., C.J.A. Bradshaw and B.W. Brook. 2007. Minimum viable population size: a meta-analysis of 30 years of published estimates. Biological Conservation 139:159-166.

Turner, Don. 2006. Telephone conversation, October 4, 2006. Regional Planner, Powell River Regional District. Don.turner@powellriverrd.bc.ca 604-483-2229.

Webster, Liz. 2006. E-mail communication, October 4, 2006. Executive Director, Savary island Land Trust Society. webstere@mala.bc.ca.

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery planning documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making.

Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts upon non-target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself, but are also summarized below in this statement.

This recovery strategy will clearly benefit the environment by promoting the recovery of the Contorted-pod Evening-primrose. Activities to meet recovery objectives are unlikely to result in any important negative environmental effects, as they are limited to habitat protection, research activities, fostering stewardship, increasing public awareness, improving knowledge on habitat requirements and population threats, and conducting habitat/species mapping, inventory and restoration.

The recovery strategy identifies current threats (Section 4) to the Contorted-pod Evening-primrose and its habitat as well as current knowledge gaps (Section 6.2). Recovery objectives clearly focus on resolving these threats and filling information gaps. The greatest potential for environmental effects comes from fieldwork activities aimed at population restoration (e.g. invasive species removal and restoration of natural sand dynamics), however these effects can be mitigated at the project level phase with known technology and proper field procedures. Activities may also benefit non-target species and the environment (Table 9).

Some recovery strategy activities (e.g. translocations and habitat restoration) may require project-level environmental assessment as required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Any activities found to require project-level environmental assessments will be assessed at that time pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The SEA process has concluded that this recovery strategy will have several positive effects on the environment. No important negative effects are expected.

A number of other species at risk have been reported from the vicinity of one or more extant populations of Contorted-pod Evening-primrose. These species are listed in Table 9 to ensure land managers are able to consider all relevant species when designing management actions.

Although overall the strategy for the recovery of Contorted-pod Evening-primrose is positive for the environment in general, there is some potential for negative effects on non-target species, natural communities and natural processes. For example, invasive species removal may have negative impacts on species at risk, plant communities and natural processes. These can be avoided or minimized by:

• surveying and marking the occurrence of species at risk in the treatment areas prior to commencing control treatments, to avoid trampling damage.
• conducting treatments during the dormant season for other species at risk.
• avoiding non-target herbicide impacts by directly applying herbicides to the target plants.
• avoiding soil disturbance by using low-impact techniques to remove invasive species (e.g., removing Scotch broom using loppers and secateurs rather than weed wrenches).