Transcript Is the Current ESA Working?

Is the Current ESA Working?
 Recovery Plans have been required since
1978
 Plan’s goals are to restore the listed species
to a point where they are viable, selfsustaining components of their ecosystems
 Tear et al. (1993) reviewed 54 plans on T &
E species filed up to that time
Are Recovery Plans Adequate?
(Tear et al. 1993)
 28% had recovery goals calling for
populations of smaller size than current
 37% called for fewer populations than
present
 60% had goals below that Mace and Lande
(IUCN; see lecture 2) used to define
endangered
 So, we
seem to be managing species to
extinction, not recovery
Alternative Ways to Score ESA
Effectiveness (Noecker 1998, USFWS web page)
 Are species recovered to level where
protection is no longer required?
– NO, as of 2005 only 15 have been delisted due
to recovery
• Brown Pelican, Palau fantail flycatcher, Palau ground-dove,
Palau owl, Tinian Monarch, American alligator, Gray whale,
Arctic and American peregrines, Aleutian Canada Goose,
Robbins’ Cinquefoil, Douglas Co population of Columbia
White-tailed Deer, 3 species of kangaroos
– reasons for endangerment (DDT, WWII, overharvest)
• 9 went extinct and 15 were delisted due to new or
improved data
Alternative Ways to Score ESA
Effectiveness (Noecker 1998)
 Have populations of listed species become
more stable since listing?
– Maybe (estimate 41% of 1676 species have
improved or stabilized)
– 22 species originally listed as endangered have
been downlisted to threatened (2 eventually
were delisted; Arctic Peregrine and American
alligator)
Alternative Ways to Score ESA
Effectiveness (Noecker 1998, USFWS 2005)
 Has listing prevented extinction?
– YES, only 9 of the >1676 listed species have
gone extinct
• Guam Broadbill, Longjaw Cisco, Amistad
Gambusia, Mariana Mallard, Sampson’s
Pearlymussel, Blue Pike, Pecopa Pupfish, Santa
Barbara Song Sparrow, Dusky Seaside Sparrow
– some of these were actually extinct at time of listing!
• Condor, Red Wolf, Whooping Crane would likely be
extinct without the Act
What Makes the ESA Work?
 Taylor et al. 2005
– Listing
– Critical Habitat
– Single Species
Recovery Plans
 Miller et al. 2002
– Money
Recent Evaluations of Recovery
Plans (Boersma et al. 2001)
 Effective recovery plans (those associated with increasing
population trends) are those with:
– Non-federal participation, especially on the Recovery Team
– Recovery goals clearly linked to species biology
– Focus on single, rather than multiple, species
 Planning can be improved by:
– Increasing speed of prep
– Monitoring management actions
– Using adaptive management
 But the measurement of success (species status trend) is
influenced by myriad factors of which the recovery plan is
but one. Therefore, while suggestive, the results are far
from definitive.
Does the ESA protect
Ecosystems? (NRC 1995)
 Difficult to tell--most emphasis is on single
species
 Of 411 recovery plans, 25% include
multiple species
– some cover full communities (Ash Meadows,
Maui-Molokai birds, Channel Islands)
 Even single species plans can protect
ecosystems
– spotted owl, marbled murrelet
Could the ESA be Strengthened?
(Carroll et al. 1996)
 Yes, by basing many of the decisions and
priorities on sound conservation science
– listing
• do it faster
• extend population level protection to plants
(including fungi)
• protect hybrids
• use ESU concept to define “species”
• adjust priority scheme to include
– Inclusive benefits (umbrella species like Florida Scrub
Jay)
– Ecological role (keystone species)
Use More Science in the
Recovery Planning Arena Also
 Use PVA and Sink-Source models to define
critical habitat size and spatial arrangement
 Take a multi-species approach
– still focus on species (not ecosystems), but more likely
to protect HABITAT not just species
 Provide tangible standards of jeopardy for
particular federal actions
 Set recovery and de-listing goals that will result in
viable populations
– need to be flexible as populations are rarely naturally
stable
Science and Recovery Planning
(Carroll et al. 1996)
 Setting Goals for Recovery
– Establish multiple populations with possibility
for migration among them
• removes effect of single catastrophe
– Move to stop known threats
• stop decline and possible extinction of species
– Plan to achieve annual population growth rates
above 0
• requires habitat analysis and knowledge of spatial
distribution of species (metapopulation structure)
Setting Recovery Targets
 Should they be detailed?
– Need well parameterized PVA
– They will be used for down-listing targets
– Make sure you have DATA to support need to reach
target
 Should they be rigid?
– Populations don’t remain stable through time (Carroll et
al. 1996)
– Give range of acceptable fluctuation
 Should they be revised?
– As data become available
Dealing With Uncertainty
 At time of recovery planning we rarely
know what is needed to effectively recover
a species
– Interim Recovery Goals (Carroll et al. 1996)
provide a bridge between initiating recovery
and finalizing a recovery strategy
• determine and state data needs for full PVA
• give a biologically attainable target for first few years
– reduce or stabilize decline
– start active management/husbandry
– get population to size x
• assess possible limiting factors
Admit Uncertainty (Marbled Murrelet
Recovery Plan)
– Objectives
• gather necessary information to develop scientific
delisting criteria
– reasonable, attainable, and adequate to maintain the
species over period of reduced habitat availability over
next 50 years (then expect habitat to have regrown)
– Interim Delisting Criteria
• trend in population size, density, and productivity
are stable or increasing in 4/6 zones over 10 years
(including an El Nino)
• Management commitments and monitoring are in
place in all zones
– ID critical habitat, have habitat protection plans in place
Address Habitat Concerns (Carroll et
al. 1996)
 Determine extent of currently suitable
habitat
 Assess quality of formerly occupied, but
currently unoccupied habitat
 Establish priority habitat areas for
restoration
– how should restoration be done?
View Recovery as a Continuum
Scott et al. 2005
Conservation
reliant species
may require
special
agreements to
guarantee
future
management
after
“recovery”
Has the Service Adjusted? (USFWS
& NMFS 1997)
 1994 Babbitt and Baker announced a series
of policy changes (10-point plan)
– Peer Review by Scientists
• review listing decisions and recovery plans (Salmon
proposed rules were reviewed)
– Do not accept listing petitions that are not based
on scientifically valid information
• warranted findings must possess sufficient
evidence of status and threats to support formal
proposal
More of Babbitt and Baker’s 10
Points
 Hybrids involving 1 endangered parent are not listed
– they may be very important and occasionally protected
• Florida panther--import genes from Texas (formerly
contiguous population) to diversify the depressed
gene pool--hybrid kittens protected
 Be more proactive in listing
– Candidate species identified through partnerships with
TNC
– Candidate Conservation Agreements
• voluntary agreements by public and private sectors
to manage for candidates
– But at same time USFWS has dropped C-2 status?
More 10-pointers
 Engage the private landowner
– HCPs (14 from 1983-1992, but 211 by 1997)
 Assure “No Surprises”
– Service will not require additional land or money for
mitigation of species listed in HCP
 Allow adaptive management in HCP
– change course if results are not going as expected
 Develop “No Take” MOUs
– state up front what management actions in integrated
plan would not constitute “take”
– gives managers regulatory certainty
More Policy Adjustments for
Private Landowners
 Foster “Safe Harbor”
agreements
– if private landowners manage
to enhance their property for
endangered species they will
not be subject to further
regulation if the target
species is attracted. At end of
agreement landowner can
RETURN habitat back to
baseline condition
• Red-cockaded Woodpecker
tree cluster management—
insights from Dave Wilcove
Private lands are important.
 General Accounting Office (1995)
– 37% of our endangered species do not occur on
any federal lands.
 Precious Heritage (2001)
– 40% of our endangered species do not occur on
any federal lands.
Endangered Birds and Land
Ownership
35
Number of Species
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
% Habitat on Non-Federal Lands
Source: GAO 1995
Safe Harbor Agreements
 Voluntary.
 Enable landowners to restore habitats of
endangered species without the risk of new
regulations.
 Do not diminish protection for any
endangered species already on the property
(“baseline”).
 Must provide a net benefit to the species.
Sandhills Safe Harbor Program
 April, 1995 and




continuing
99 landowners in 2006
51,715 acres enrolled
woodlots, golf courses,
horse farms, residential
property
56 woodpecker social
groups are protected in
the program
International Paper’s Woodpecker Bank:
Background
 IP owns > 4 million acres of forest in the
south.
 1999: only 16 groups of woodpeckers on
commercial timberland.
 Some “groups” consist of single birds.
 2 more groups on IP’s research forest in
Bainbridge, GA.
IP’s Plan
 Turn research forest into a woodpecker
bank.
 1999: 1,500 acres of suitable habitat.
 IP will increase habitat to > 5,000 acres.
 Goal of 25-30 woodpecker groups.
What IP Can Do:
 For each new group it creates at the bank, IP
can cut timber around an existing group on
its commercial timberland.
 1:1 mitigation.
 No new birds in the bank, no cutting.
How Can IP Make Money?
 IP has a baseline of 18 groups (2 at research
forest/bank, 16 on commercial timberlands).
 If it creates more than 18 groups at the
bank, it can “sell” those additional groups to
other parties in search of mitigation.
Who Benefits?
International Paper
•Consolidation of responsibilities.
•Potential economic gain from selling credits.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
•Larger population in better habitat.
•Long-term management of that habitat.
The woodpecker population
in the bank has already
grown from 2 groups (3
non-breeders) to 15
breeding groups (50 birds
and 13 potential breeding
pairs) in the first 5 years of
the program (2005).
Enhancing Participation in
Recovery
 Involve state agencies as more equal
partners and stakeholders in endangered
species management
 Diversify recovery team membership
– involve more of the relevant stakeholders
References
 Tear, TH et al. 1993. Status and prospects for success of the




endangered species act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262:976-977.
Noecker, RJ (1998) Endangered species list revisions: a summary of
delisting and downlisting. Congressional Research Service. Library of
Congress. Washington DC.
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1988. Endanagered Species:
Management improvements could enhance recovery program.
GAO/RCED-89-5. Washington DC.
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994. Endangered Species Act:
Information on species protection on nonfederal lands. GAO RCED95-16. Washington DC.
Stein, BA. Kutner, LS, and JS Adams. 2000. Precious Heritage. Oxford
University Press.
More References
 Carroll, R. et al. 1996. Strengthening the use of science in
achieving the goals of the endangered species act: an
assessment by the ecological society of america.
Ecological Applications 6:1-11.
 USFWS and NMFS. 1997. Making the esa work better.
Washington DC.
 Boersma, PD, P. Kareiva, WF Fagan, JA Clark, and JM
Hoekstra. 2001. How good are endangered species
recovery plans? BioScience 51:643-649. (see also
BioScience 52:212-214 for further discussion)
More References
 Miller, J.K. et al. 2002. The endangered species
act: dollars and sense? BioScience 52:163-168.
 Taylor, M. F. et al. 2005. The effectiveness of the
Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis.
BioScience 55:360-367.
 Scott, J. M. et al. 2005. Recovery of imperiled
species under the Endangered Species Act: the
need for a new approach. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 3:383-389.