Shortnose cisco (Coregonus reighardi): COSEWIC status appraisal summary 2017

Endangered
2017

Table of contents

List of figures

  • Figure 1. Historical and predicted contemporary distribution of Shortnose Cisco in the Great Lakes (from Eshenroder et al. 2016).
  • Figure 2. Locations of cisco sampling in the Canadian portion of Lake Huron, 2002-2006, with sites identified where Shortjaw Cisco were caught. Note that multiple net sets may have taken place at a single site. From Mandrak et al. 2013.
  • Figure 3. Location of Deepwater Chub captures in Lake Huron by OMNRF, 2005-2015 (Provided by C. Davis, OMNRF).

Document information

COSEWIC
Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada

COSEWIC logo

COSEPAC
Comité sur la situation
des espèces en péril
au Cananda

COSEWIC status appraisal summaries are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk in Canada. This document may be cited as follows:

COSEWIC. 2017. COSEWIC status appraisal summary on the Shortnose Cisco Coregonus reighardi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xv pp. (Species at Risk Public Registry website).

Production note

COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Dr. Nick Mandrak for writing the status appraisal summary on the Shortnose Cisco (Coregonus reighardi) in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment and Climate Change Canada. This status appraisal summary was overseen and edited by Dr. John Post, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Specialist Subcommittee.

For additional copies contact

COSEWIC Secretariat
c/o Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0H3

Tel.: 819-938-4125
Fax: 819-938-3984
E-mail: COSEWIC E-mail
Website: COSEWIC

Également disponible en français sous le titre Sommaire du statut de l’espèce du COSEPAC sur le Cisco à museau court (Coregonus reighardi) au Canada.

COSEWIC assessment summary

Assessment summary - April 2017

Common name
Shortnose Cisco
Scientific name
Coregonus reighardi
Status
Endangered
Reason for designation
This species is endemic to three of the Great Lakes. Despite recent surveys at suitable sites and depths using appropriate sampling gear, it was last recorded in Lake Michigan in 1982, in Lake Huron in 1985, and in Lake Ontario in 1964. The species’ apparent demise is suspected to be the result of commercial overfishing and possibly competition with, or predation from, introduced species. If remnant populations still exist, they may be further threatened by hybridization with other ciscoes and predation by native species such as Lake Trout.
Occurrence
Ontario
Status history
Designated Threatened in April 1987. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in May 2005. Status re-examined and confirmed in April 2017.

COSEWIC status appraisal summary

Scientific name:
Coregonus reighardi
English name:
Shortnose Cisco
French name:
Cisco à museau court
Range of occurrence in Canada:
Ontario

Status history

COSEWIC:
Designated Threatened in April 1987. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in May 2005. Status re-examined and confirmed in April 2017.

Wildlife species:

Change in eligibility, taxonomy or designatable units:
No

Explanation:

No new data to support a change or suggest that a change should be considered.

Range

Change in extent of occurrence (EO):
No
Change in index of area of occupancy (IAO) :
No
Change in number of known or inferred current locations:
No
Significant new survey information
Yes

Explanation:

Substantial sampling of historical and suitable habitats in lakes Huron and Ontario since 2005 captured other cisco species but not Shortnose Cisco. Historical and predicted contemporary distribution of Shortnose Cisco in the Great Lakes is presented in Figure 1 (from Eshenroder et al. 2016).

Lake Huron

Of the 2586 ciscoes caught 2002-2012 by Nawash First Nations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF), Mandrak et al. (2013) identified 2079 Bloater (C. hoyi), 147 Cisco (C. artedi), and 39 Shortjaw Cisco (C. zenithicus). A total of 321 individuals could not be identified to species and no Shortnose Cisco were caught. The morphometric data for a subset of these specimens were included in a recent study of Great Lakes ciscoes (Eshenroder et al. 2016), which concluded that the Lake Huron ciscoes now represent a hybrid swarm (see below). Further details on this sampling is provided in the following paragraphs.

In 2002-2006, 1950 ciscoes were caught using 1100 m bottom-set monofilament gillnets, with 6.4-6.7 cm stretched mesh sizes, and 91.4–127.0 cm mesh panels (Mandrak et al. 2013). Gillnets were deployed for 24-72 h depending on weather conditions, but were most commonly deployed for a period of 48 h. Six net sets were made in April 2002, 12 sets December 2, 2003-January 21, 2004, 25 sets May 30-June 22, 2005 and September 28-October 1, 2005, and 26 sets January 6-12, 2006 and March 24-April 15, 2006 (Figure 2). Of the 1950 ciscoes caught, 72 were identified as Cisco, 20 as Shortjaw Cisco, and 320 had a combination of characters that prevented them from being identified to species (see hybrid swarm discussion below).

In 2007, 433 ciscoes were caught using 20 bottom-set gillnets set in the Canadian waters of Lake Huron, June 19-24, 2007, over depths ranging 28-108 m (Mandrak et al. 2013). Eleven nets were set in the North Channel, and nine in the northern main basin between Duck, Cockburn, and Manitoulin islands. Two types of nets were used in the sampling. A traditional net was composed of four 92 m nylon mesh panels, alternating 64 mm and 70 mm stretch mesh (for a total gang length of 366 m); mesh size and material were chosen to replicate the nets used in the historical surveys Koelz (1929). The experimental net consisted of eight randomly assigned 46 m monofilament panels, with stretched mesh sizes of 38, 45, 51, 57, 64, 70, 76, and 89 mm. Of the 403 ciscoes caught, 354 were identified as Bloater, 77 as Cisco, and two as Shortjaw Cisco.

In 2012, 203 ciscoes caught in deep waters (>90 m) near Tobermory were identified as Bloater (110), Cisco (75), Shortjaw Cisco (17), and unidentifiable (1) (Mandrak et al. 2013).

The 2012 samples were caught in the annual OMNRF gillnetting program, which caught 8969 individuals identified as “deepwater chub”, not identified to species except in 2012, in 480 of 1822 net gangs set at five locations, 2005-2016 (Figure 3). The standard nets used have the following stretch mesh (mm): 32, 38, 51, 64, 76, 89, 102, 114, 127, 140, 153.

Lake Ontario

Between 2005 and 2015, OMNRF captured 638 ciscoes in their annual bottom trawl survey; all were identified as Cisco (J. Hoyle, OMNRF, unpubl. data). Currently, three visits are made to each of three sites in the Kingston Basin of eastern Lake Ontario annually, and four replicate ½ mile trawls are made during each visit. A deepwater site, south of Rocky Point, is visited twice annually with a trawling distance of 1 mile at about 100 m water depth). In 2014, a second trawl site was added at Rocky Point (60 m) and two trawl sites at each of Cobourg and Port Credit (60 and 100 m depths). In 2015, the Lake Ontario trawling was expanded significantly to include several more sampling depths at each of Rocky Point, Cobourg, and Port Credit. In the Bay of Quinte, six fixed-sites, ranging in depth from about 4 to 21 m, are visited annually on two or three occasions during mid- to late-summer. Four replicate ¼ mile trawls are made during each visit to each site (OMNRF 2016).

Between 2005 and 2015, OMNRF captured 142 ciscoes in their annual gillnetting survey; all were identified as Cisco (J. Hoyle, OMNRF, unpubl. data). This survey samples 10 depth-stratified sites, with up to nine depth strata ranging 7.5-140 m deep and four fixed sites of single depths. Each site is sampled from 1-3 times within a specific time frame using 2, 3 or 8 replicate gill net gangs. Each gill net gang consists of a graded-series of 10 multifilament gill net panels of mesh sizes from 38 mm to 152 mm stretched mesh at 13 mm intervals, arranged in sequence (OMNRF 2016).

Of the over 2.4M fishes caught in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and New York Department of Environmental Conservation annual bottom trawling survey conducted 2005-2016, 4351 ciscoes were caught and all identified as Cisco (C. artedi) (B. Weidel, USGS, unpubl. data). These surveys included maximum depths to 225 m, suitable for deepwater ciscoes.

Population information:

Change in number of mature individuals:
No
Change in population trend:
No
Change in severity of population fragmentation:
No
Change in trend in area and/or quality of habitat:
No
Significant new survey information
Yes

Explanation:

Substantial sampling of historical and suitable habitats in lakes Huron and Ontario since 2005 captured other cisco species but no Shortnose Cisco.

Threats:

Change in nature and/or severity of threats:
yes

Explanation:

The decline of Shortnose Cisco in the Great Lakes was likely the result of historical commercial overfishing. It has been suggested that remnant Shortnose Cisco populations may have competed with, or have been preyed upon by, introduced fish species such as Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax) and Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). Commercial fishing of deepwater ciscoes, including Shortnose Cisco, no longer occurs in the American waters of the Great Lakes except for a small portion of northwestern Lake Huron, but still takes place to a limited degree in the Canadian waters of Lake Huron.

Alewife populations remained high in lakes Huron and Ontario until they collapsed in lakes Huron and Ontario in 2004 and 2006, respectively (Bunnell et al. 2006; Riley et al. 2008, Connerton et al. 2014), likely due to declining pelagic productivity as a result of the dreissenid mussel invasion of the Great Lakes (Pothoven and Madenjian 2008; Stewart et al. 2009). Rainbow Smelt abundance in Lake Ontario has been declining since the 1980s (OMNRF 2016).

Eshenroder et al. (2016) concluded that certain morphological elements of Shortnose Cisco may still exist in Lake Huron, but have introgressed with other cisco species into a “hybrid swarm” that no longer completely resembles any one of the constituent species. Therefore, hybridization with other ciscoes is a potential threat to the continued existence of Shortnose Cisco. The Bloater (Coregonus hoyi) is currently being reintroduced to Lake Ontario (OMNRF 2016) and could potentially hybridize with a remnant population of Shortnose Cisco should one exist. Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush), predators of ciscoes, were native to, and nearly extirpated from, lakes Huron and Ontario. There are current stocking efforts to re-establish self-sustaining populations of this species, which could increase predation pressure on a remnant population of Shortnose Cisco should one exist.

Protection:

Change in effective protection:
Yes

Explanation:

Since it was last assessed in 2005, the Shortnose Cisco has been listed as “Endangered” under Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act and, as a result, receives additional legal protection.

The Fisheries Act applies protection to commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries (i.e., CRA fisheries; DFO 2014). If it is still extant, Shortnose Cisco would be protected.

Rescue effect:

Change in evidence of rescue effect:
No

Explanation:

Substantial sampling of historical and suitable habitats in lakes Huron. Michigan, and Ontario since 2005 captured other cisco species, but no Shortnose Cisco.

Quantitative analysis:

Change in estimated probability of extirpation:
Unknown

Details:

No data available.

Summary and additional considerations [e.g., recovery efforts]

The Shortnose Cisco was last recorded in Canada in Lake Ontario in 1964 and in Lake Huron in 1985. It was assessed as Endangered by COSEWIC in 2005. Since then, substantial sampling of suitable deepwater habitats has occurred and many ciscoes have been caught, but none were identified as Shortnose Cisco. A recent study hypothesized that, in lakes Huron and Michigan, ciscoes have introgressed into a “hybrid swarm” that no longer completely resembles any one of the constituent species (Eshenroder et al. 2016). Therefore, the original morphotype used to describe Shortnose Cisco is likely lost in those lakes. Such introgression suggests that hybridization may be a threat in Lake Ontario, where Bloater is being reintroduced. Recovery of Lake Trout in lakes Huron and Ontario could also increase predation pressure on a remnant population of Shortnose Cisco should one exist. Conversely, the original threat to the species, overexploitation dating back to the 1800s, is no longer a threat, and the abundances of invasive species, Alewife and Rainbow Smelt, thought to negatively impact ciscoes have declined in lakes Huron and Ontario. Shortnose Cisco has not been observed in Lake Michigan since 1982 or the American waters of Lake Huron since 1985 (Eshenroder et al. 2016); therefore, rescue of Canadian populations from Lake Michigan is not possible.

Recovery efforts since 2005:

None specifically targeting Shortnose Cisco.

Acknowledgements and authorities contacted

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF):
Chris Davis – Upper Great Lakes Management Unit
Jim Hoyle – Lake Ontario Management Unit

Parks Canada:
Scott Parker – Fathom Five National Marine Park

United States Geological Survey (USGS):
Tim O’Brien – Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, MI
David Warner – Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Brian Weidel – Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Ontario Biological Station

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS):
Stephen Lenart

Information sources

Bunnell, D.B., C.P. Madenjian and R.M. Claramunt. 2006. Long-term changes of the Lake Michigan fish community following the reduction of exotic alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 2434-2446.

Connerton, M.J., J.R. Lantry, M.G. Walsh, M.E. Daniels, J.A. Hoyle, J.N. Bowlby, J.H. Johnson, D.L. Bishop, and T. Schaner, 2014. Offshore pelagic fish community. In Adkinson A.C., Morrison, B.J. (eds.). The state of Lake Ontario in 2008. Great Lakes Fish Commission Special Publication 14-01, pp. 9-22.

COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the shortnose cisco Coregonus reighardi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 14 pp.

Eshenroder, R.L., P. Vecsei, N.E. Mandrak, D.L. Yule, O.T. Gorman, T.C. Pratt, D.B. Bunnell, and A.M. Muir. 2016. Monograph on the Ciscoes (Coregonus, subgenus Leucichthys) of the Laurentian Great Lakes and Lake Nipigon. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Miscellaneous Publication 2016-01 [PDF; 31.7 Mb]. Ann Arbor, MI. h

Koelz, W. 1929. Coregonid fishes of the Great Lakes. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 43: 297-643.

Mandrak, N.E., T.C. Pratt, and S.M. Reid. 2013. Evaluating the current status of deepwater ciscoes (Coregonus spp.) in Canadian waters of Lake Huron, 2002-2012, with emphasis on Shortjaw Cisco (C. zenithicus). DFO Canadian Science Advisory Section Research Documents 2013/108. v + 12 p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF). 2016. Lake Ontario Fish Communities and Fisheries: 2015 Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Picton, Ontario, Canada.

Pothoven, S.A., and C.P. Madjenian. 2008.Changes in consumption by alewives and lake whitefish after dreissenid mussel invasion of Lakes Michigan and Huron. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 308-320.

Riley, S.C., E.F. Roseman, S.J. Nichols, T.P. O'Brien, C.S. Kiley, and J.S. Schaeffer. 2008. Deepwater demersal fish community collapse in Lake Huron. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1879 1890.

Stewart, T.J., W.G. Sprules, and R. O’Gorman. 2009. Shifts in the diet of Lake Ontario alewife in response to ecosystem change. Journal of Great Lakes Research 35: 241-249.

Technical summary

Scientific name:
Coregonus reighardi
English name:
Shortnose Cisco
French name:
Cisco à museau court
Range of occurrence in Canada:
Ontario

Demographic information

Demographic information of the species
Summary items Information
Generation time (usually average age of parents in the population; indicate if another method of estimating generation time indicated in the IUCN guidelines (2011) is being used) ~5 years
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of mature individuals? Unknown
Estimated percent of continuing decline in total number of mature individuals within [5 years or 2 generations] Unknown
[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the last [10 years, or 3 generations]. Unknown
[Projected or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the next [10 years, or 3 generations]. Unknown
[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over any [10 years, or 3 generations] period, over a time period including both the past and the future. Unknown
Are the causes of the decline a. clearly reversible and b. understood and c. ceased?
  1. No
  2. No
  3. No
Are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals? Unknown

Extent and occupancy information

Extent and occupancy information of the species
Summary items Information
Estimated extent of occurrence Historical: >20,000 km2
Current: Unknown, likely 0
Index of area of occupancy (IAO)
(Always report 2x2 grid value).
Historical: >2,000 km2
Current: Unknown, likely 0
Is the population “severely fragmented” i.e., >50% of its total area of occupancy is in habitat patches that are (a) smaller than would be required to support a viable population, and (b) separated from other habitat patches by a large distance? Unknown
Number of locationsi (use plausible range to reflect uncertainty) Historical: 2
Current: Unknown, likely 0
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in extent of occurrence? Unknown
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in index of area of occupancy? Unknown
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of subpopulations? Unknown
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of locationsi? Unknown
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in [area, extent and/or quality] of habitat? No
Are there extreme fluctuations in number of subpopulations? Unknown
Are there extreme fluctuations in number of locationsi? No
Are there extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence? Unknown
Are there extreme fluctuations in index of area of occupancy? Unknown

i Note: See Definitions and abbreviations on COSEWIC website and IUCN (Feb 2014) for more information on this term.

Number of mature individuals (in each subpopulation)

Number of mature individuals of the species
Subpopulations (give plausible ranges) N Mature Individuals
Lake Huron Unknown
Lake Ontario Unknown
Total Unknown

Quantitative analysis

Quantitative analysis of the species
Summary items Information
Probability of extinction in the wild is at least [20% within 20 years or 5 generations, or 10% within 100 years]. Unknown

Threats (actual or imminent, to populations or habitats)

  • Historical overfishing
  • Introduced species (Alewife, Rainbow Smelt)
  • Problematic native species
  • Hybridization

Rescue effect (immigration from outside Canada)

Rescue effect of the species
Summary items Information

Status of outside population(s) most likely to provide immigrants to Canada?

Shortnose Cisco has not been caught in Lake Michigan or the American waters of Lake Huron since 1982 and 1985, respectively.

Likely extirpated

Is immigration known or possible?

Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are joined and at the same water level.

Possible; unknown.
Would immigrants be adapted to survive in Canada? Yes
Is there sufficient habitat for immigrants in Canada? Yes

Is rescue from outside populations likely?

Shortnose Cisco has not been caught in Lake Michigan or the American waters of Lake Huron since 1982 and 1985, respectively.

No

Data-sensitive species

Data-sensitive information of the species
Summary items Information
Is this a data sensitive species? No

Status history

COSEWIC: Designated Threatened in April 1987. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in May 2005. Status re-examined and confirmed in April 2017.

Status and reasons for designation:

Status:
Endangered
Alpha-numeric code:
D1
Reasons for designation:
This species is endemic to three of the Great Lakes. Despite recent surveys at suitable sites and depths using appropriate sampling gear, it was last recorded in Lake Michigan in 1982, in Lake Huron in 1985, and in Lake Ontario in 1964. The species’ apparent demise is suspected to be the result of commercial overfishing and possibly competition with, or predation from, introduced species. If remnant populations still exist, they may be further threatened by hybridization with other ciscoes and predation by native species such as Lake Trout.

Applicability of criteria

Criterion A (Declining total populations):
Not applicable. No individuals caught since 1985, a decline in abundance in the last three generations has not been observed and cannot be inferred or projected.
Criterion B (Small distribution, and decline or fluctuation):
Not applicable. Although EOO and IAO are below the threshold for Endangered and likely occurs in less than 3 locations in Canada, no other sub-criteria are met because no individuals have been caught since 1985 and therefore current trends, including fluctuations cannot be determined.
Criterion C (Small total population size and decline):
Not applicable because no individuals have been caught since 1985, current size and decline in abundance in the last three generations has not been observed and cannot be inferred or projected.
Criterion D (Very small population or restricted distribution):
Meets Endangered, D1, because the current population size is estimated to be 0.
Criterion E (Quantitative analysis):
Not applicable as none have been conducted.
Figure 1. Historical and predicted contemporary distribution of Shortnose Cisco in the Great Lakes (from Eshenroder et al. 2016).
Map (see long description below)
Long description for Figure 1

Maps illustrating the historical (left image) and predicted contemporary (right image) distribution of the Shortnose Cisco in the Great Lakes.

Figure 2. Locations of cisco sampling in the Canadian portion of Lake Huron, 2002-2006, with sites identified where Shortjaw Cisco were caught. Note that multiple net sets may have taken place at a single site. From Mandrak et al. 2013.
Maps (see long description below)
Long description for Figure 2

Five maps illustrating the locations of cisco sampling carried out in the Canadian portion of Lake Huron, from 2002 to 2006 (one map for each year). Sites where the Shortjaw Cisco was caught are indicated.

Figure 3. Location of Deepwater Chub captures in Lake Huron by OMNRF, 2005-2015 (Provided by C. Davis, OMNRF).
Map (see long description below)
Long description for Figure 3

Map illustrating the locations of Deepwater Chub captures in Lake Huron by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, between 2005 and 2015.

COSEWIC history

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was created in 1977 as a result of a recommendation at the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference held in 1976. It arose from the need for a single, official, scientifically sound, national listing of wildlife species at risk. In 1978, COSEWIC designated its first species and produced its first list of Canadian species at risk. Species designated at meetings of the full committee are added to the list. On June 5, 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. SARA establishes COSEWIC as an advisory body ensuring that species will continue to be assessed under a rigorous and independent scientific process.

COSEWIC mandate

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Designations are made on native species for the following taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.

COSEWIC membership

COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal entities (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three non-government science members and the co-chairs of the species specialist subcommittees and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge subcommittee. The Committee meets to consider status reports on candidate species.

Definitions (2017)

Wildlife species
A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.
Extinct (X)
A wildlife species that no longer exists.
Extirpated (XT)
A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere.
Endangered (E)
A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
Threatened (T)
A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.
Special concern (SC)
(Note: Formerly described as “Vulnerable” from 1990 to 1999, or “Rare” prior to 1990.)
A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.
Not at risk (NAR)
(Note: Formerly described as “Not in any category”, or “No designation required.”)
A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.
Data deficient (DD)
(Note: Formerly described as “Indeterminate” from 1994 to 1999 or “ISIBD” [insufficient scientific information on which to base a designation] prior to 1994. Definition of the [DD] category revised in 2006.)
A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the species’ risk of extinction.

The Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, provides full administrative and financial support to the COSEWIC Secretariat.

Page details

Date modified: