Transcript Conserving Biodiversity on Private Lands

Conserving Biodiversity on
Private Lands
Kelly Cassidy and Christian Grue
“Think Globally, Act Locally”
Regional and Local Land Managers
Regional Land
Managers
• Federal land
managers (National
Parks, National
Forest, NWRs, etc.
• State land managers
(DNR, State Wildlife
Areas, etc.)
Local Land Managers
• County planners
• City planners
• Private land managers
and owners
Regional Land Managers manage
relatively large blocks of land
Local Land Managers manage
relatively small land parcels
Regional land managers have
many advantages
• Manage parcels often large enough to
maintain viable populations of many
species
• Can make long-term plans (within political
swings)
• Have biologists to interpret a constant
flood of conservation studies and
recommendations
Local land managers face many
difficulties
• If city/county planners, they manage a few
small parks and have limited control over
zillions of small private parcels
• Private land owner reactions to city/county
plans range from enthusiastic to hostile
• If a private land owner, they have only
their own parcel and little control over
neighbors
Local land managers face many
difficulties (continued)
• Can rarely afford to hire biologists to help
sift through a mountain of information
• When they can hire biologists, biologists
may pinpoint priority locations
incompatible with existing plans, zoning, or
land ownership
Merging Local Land Planning with
Conservation is So Difficult
Why do it?
Why not let regional land managers
have all the conservation
responsibility?
• 45% of lands in WA are in public
ownership
• 26% a combination of National Park,
National Forest, Wilderness, NWRs, BLM
Isn’t that enough for
biodiversity?
Neither land ownership nor species
are randomly distributed
American Bittern – modeled
distribution in Washington
Public land ownership in
Washington
American Bittern example
• A secretive bird of
marshes
• 88% of its breeding range
and 89% of non-breeding
range on private land
• No state or federal listing,
but seems to be declining
throughout its range and
in the Pacific NW
• Even if all state and
federal land were
completely protected,
little of the bittern’s range
would be protected
Well-protected Habitats
•
•
•
•
•
High-elevation
Dry
Rocky
Rugged
Cold
About 83% of alpine habitat in Washington is protected.
Less than 1% is privately owned.
Poorly-protected Habitats
• Low-elevation
• Fertile
• Gentle terrain
Less than 1% of the Palouse of eastern
Washington is protected. About 97% is
privately owned.
Conservation actions taken by
local land managers are as
important as those of regional
(state and federal) land managers
How does a local land manager
manage for biodiversity?
Bone up on a little
conservation literature:
→
→
Apply to the home front:
Our Goals
• Determine the species and habitats likely
to be most affected by local land planning
• Put each county in a regional perspective
• Suggest conservation goals for each
county
Non-goals
• Identify specific locations (with rare
exceptions) as conservation priorities
• Not meant as a substitute for state and
federal regulations
• Each county has unique ecological
communities that pass through our coarse
filter
• Doesn’t address most coastal/marine
species or fish
Local Priority Species
• Species most likely to be affected by the actions
of local land planners
• Terrestrial vertebrates only (no fish, no marine
reptiles, mammals, or birds)
• Generally also excluded vertebrates that rarely
ventured inland more than a few feet from shore,
but included many species that used both
shore/marine habitats and inland habitats (e.g.,
Peregrine Falcons
Local Priority Rank
• Local Priority Scores assigned to 4
categories
• A – Highest Local Priority
• B – High Local Priority
• C – Moderate Local Priority
• D – Not a current Local Priority
Local Priority Amphibians –
Western Washington Counties
Species
Northwestern Salamander
Long-toed Salamander
macrodactylum
Cope's Giant Salamander
Pacific Giant Salamander
Olympic Torrent Salamander
Columbia Torrent Salamander
Cascades Torrent
Salamander
Dunn's Salamander
Larch Mountain Salamander
Van Dyke's Salamander
Tailed Frog
Western Toad
Columbia Spotted Frog
Oregon Spotted Frog
Local Priority A
Local Priority B
Local Priority C
Total Local Priority A, B, C
Cla Jef Ma Gra Pac Wa Co Cla Ska Lew Thu Pie Kit
s
h
w
Kin Sno Ska Wh Isl
a
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
B
C
B
C
A
C
A
C
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
Z
2
2
3
7
2
2
3
7
2 4
2 2
3 4
7 10
3
3
3
9
3 5
3 3
3 3
9 11
B
3
2
3
8
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
SM
C
C
C
C
C
SM
SC FCo
SC
C
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
Z
2
3
3
8
Stat Fede
e
ral
A
D
A
2 5
4 3
3 3
9 11
C
A
San
B
A
Z
2
2
4
8
2
1
3
B
A
Z
2
1
2
5
B
A
C
A
SC
SS
SC
SM
SC
SC
SE
A
Z
2
1
2
5
2
1
2
5
2
1
3
6
2
0
2
4
2
0
0
2
FCo
FCo
FCo
Fco
FCo
FC
Land managers don’t usually
manage species. They manage
land.
Local Priority Species → Local
Priority Habitats
•
•
•
•
Macrohabitats
Mesohabitats
Microhabitats
Actions
Priority Macrohabitats
• Open natural vegetation (prairies, etc.)
• Late seral (old) forests, esp. at lowelevations
• Large rivers and lakes
• Shore/coastal (partly addressed)
Priority Mesohabitats
• Ponds and small lakes, esp. without introduced fish
or bullfrogs
• Shrub, hardwood dominated riparian areas
• Small streams, seeps
• Marshes, swamps
Priority Microhabitats
• Snags, downed logs, brush
piles
• “Untended” vegetation
patches
• Talus slopes
• Caves (for Townsend’s Bigeared Bat)
Needs other than habitat
• Varies widely with species
• Some examples
– Education on coexisting with large carnivores (mainly
by avoiding human-carnivore interaction)
– Discourage use of lead shot (Trumpeter Swans)
– Discourage/regulate pesticide use, esp. insecticide
– Discourage feeding of nest predators (corvids,
coyotes, raccoons, squirrels, etc.) and exotic species
via pet food left outside, garbage, intentional feeding
– Nest box installation
– Encourage tolerance of raptors
Example: Local Priority Species Associated
with Late-seral Dry Forest
Species (Highest westside local priority
rank)
Amphibians
Northwestern Salamander (C)
Western Long-toed Salamander (A)
Cascades Torrent Salamander (A)
Tailed Frog (A)
Reptiles
Painted Turtle (B)
Western Pond Turtle (A)
Ringneck Snake (B)
California Mountain Kingsnake (A)
Mammals
Keen's Myotis (B)
Fringed Myotis (B)
Notes
Low, mid, and high elevations
Ponds within forest. Low elevations.
Hilly terrain. Low, mid elevations;
Rugged terrain. Mid and high elevations.
Appropriate water bodies within
Appropriate water bodies within
Low-elevation forests with a major
hardwood component.
Low elevation oak and pine woodlands in
Skamania Co.
Long-legged Myotis (C)
Silver-haired Bat (C)
Western Gray Squirrel (A)
Marten (C)
Fisher (B)
Low elevations.
Low elevations. Clark, Skamania, Cowlitz
Cos. only.
Low, mid, and high elevations.
Low, mid, and high elevations
Nut-bearing trees must be present.
Mid and high elevations
Large tracts of low, mid elevation forests.
Birds
…….
…….
Put Counties in a Regional
Perspective
• Western Washington counties fairly
uniform in priority habitats and species →
Priority habitat suggestions generally
apply to all counties
• But, each county has its unique
characteristics
Comments
• Emphasis on habitat, not species
• Species should be used as barometers of
success or failure
• Give regional perspective to county
planners and offer suggestions, but do not
identify specific locations as priorities
“Ask Me Again in Ten Years”
• Effective conservation
requires regional
perspective
• Effective conservation
requires both regional
and local
implementation
• Local land managers
need information they
can translate into the
action of numerous
individuals with small
plots of land