Transcript lect11
Emergency Room Conservation “We provide economic and emotional support for protection of biological diversity into those few species least likely to benefit from it.” Scott et al. (1987) “Wildlife is best managed before becoming endangered.” Squires et al. (1998) ESA Is Reactive Early intervention is critical, but species get listed when pops are very low Analysis by Wilcove et al. (1993) – Vertebrates (median number surviving: endangered - 408, threatened 4161) – Plants (median number surviving: endangered 99) Listing so late may explain why so few species recovered Managing Species Before They Become Too Rare Identify and then list the species to watch Lists, lists, and lists…Everyone has a list. – USFS, BLM, FWS, NHP, Audubon, each State, etc. • “Species of concern” • “Species at risk” • “Sensitive species” • “Candidate species” The Most Important List (USFWS) Candidate Species – Category 1: sufficient info to support a proposed listing – Category 2: some info indicating species in trouble but not enough to determine if proposed listing is appropriate In 1996 terminology and procedures changed – USFWS got rid of Category 2 – Only Category 1 species - now called candidate species – Combined animal and plant lists Why Did The USFWS Get Rid Of C2 Species? Many different organizations now tracking rare species - not so in early days – Duplication of effort and cost • NOW NATURESERVE allows more centralized tracking of these species Quality of information varied considerably – From over 4000 species to 200 species on the various lists Public confusion, C-2 candidates not a component of ESA Better to only list species with likelihood of listing in future Using old C-2 as “species of concern” was inappropriate as it is not a complete list How did the USFWS go about the change? Proposed change (federal register; Dec. 5, 1996) – 163 comments (159 expressed concerns, 3 neutral or supported) Acknowledge that act is reactive not proactive Federal Status Definitions Endangered, Threatened (as before) Proposed Endangered--proposed for listing Proposed Threatened--proposed for listing Candidate – Taxa for which the Service currently has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats on hand to support the issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded – warranted but precluded 12 month rulings Unofficial Status Species at Risk – entire realm of species of concern to service, but no official status • former C2 species • special funding for research each year How Are Candidate Species Managed? Petitioned species for which 12-month finding reported “warranted” or “warranted but precluded” become candidate species In limbo of listing process without protection, but often times research is done to find out more about the species and determine if it should in fact be listed Annual “notice of review” for candidate species is published in Federal Register and on USFWS candidate conservation page Purpose of Candidates No statutory protection under ESA – but candidate conservation plans can be developed Provide advance notice of potential listings for planners and developers Solicit input from interested parties to identify candidates that do and do not need listing Solicit information on how prioritize the order of species for listing Candidate Stats 1999 – 258 candidates (154 plants, 104 animals) – 56 proposed as T or E • These should be considered in land use planning – 18 candidates from 1997 that are here removed – 93 candidates from 1997 that are now listed – 15 proposed from 1997 that are now withdrawn Pretty similar in subsequent years – 279 candidates in 2006 Candidate Conservation Agreements (with Assurances) Although there is no formal protection for candidates until they are listed, CCAs can promote their conservation – similar to safe harbor agreements except not for listed species – purpose is to be proactive and benefit species so they are not listed – must show benefit to species that if undertaken by other property owners would cumulatively be significant enough to remove need to list Details of CCAs Formal agreements between service and non-federal land owners to address the conservation needs of proposed or candidate species before listing – describe pop levels and habitat characteristics of covered species – describe management action of owner to conserve species – estimate conservation benefit as a result of management – list assurance that service won’t require more from the landowner if the species is listed – describe monitoring to see if management works – clause to allow service to rescue individuals that will be taken Rationale for CCAs Better than managing to discourage use of land by species likely to be listed Management will contribute significantly to elimination of need to list species by proactive management Existing important habitats are maintained or enhanced What Benefits Accrue to Species Acceptable benefits include – (1) reduce fragmentation, – (2) restore/enhance habitat, – (3) increase habitat connectivity, – (4) maintain or increase number of individuals, – (5) reduce catastrophic events, – (6) establish buffers for protected areas, – (7) experiment with new management ideas Must be “long-term”, but need not be permanent What Does Landowner Get? Enhancement of survival permit (Sect. 10(a)(1)(A) of ESA) – authorizes incidental take and habitat modification to return property to conditions agreed on in the CCA if species are listed No surprises – no future regulatory obligations in excell of those agreed to at time of CCA Other Sensitive Species Lists USFS has listed 2339 species as sensitive Species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern - significant population decline or habitat reduction 74% plants, 20% vertebrates, 6% invertebrates USFS Region 1 Criteria For Animals Need total score > 18 to be considered sensitive (15 for plants) Abundance (in Region 1) – Extremely rare (9 - < 500 indiv), Rare (6 - 500-1000), Uncommon (3 - 1000-5000), Common (0 - > 5000) Distribution – Endemic to region (6), Disjunct (4), Peripheral (2), Widespread (0) Degree of threat of habitat loss – High (9), Moderate (6), None (0) Population Impacts by Extrinsic Events (predation, harvest, etc) – Significant (3), Moderate (2), None (0) Remaining USFS Criteria Specialized Habitat/ Ecological Amplitude – Narrow (3), Intermediate (1), None (0) Downward Population Trends – Yes (6), Possible (3), No (0) Does it Work? Squires et al. (1998) – Queried USFS biologists 35% of management actions modified for sensitive species – rarely if ever deny project for sensitive species – timing and design of project are changed Forces multi-species management – Mean 12 sensitive species (vertebrates) per district – Only 1 species per district had a management plan! Is there enough money to go around? Challenges to Sensitive Species Management (Squires et al. 1998, Groves 1994) MULTI-agency, -disciplinary, -species, -troublesome – need to work on coordination all the time – need to operate effectively in a bureaucracy Funding, funding, funding – lower priority Examples Partners in Flight Wolverines, Coeur d’Alene Salamander, Harlequin Duck, Goshawk (Groves 1994) – – – – – – define the problem consult experts measure success work the bureaucracy build support achieve conservation References Squires, J. R., G. D. Hayward, and J. F. Gore. 1998. The role of sensitive species in avian conservation. Pp. 155-176. In. J. M. Marzluff and R. Sallabanks (eds.) Avian Conservation. Island Press. Scott, J. M. et al. 1987. Species richness: A geographical appraoch to protection of biological divesity. BioScience 39:782-788. Wilcove, McMillan, M. and K.C. Winston. 1993. What exactly is an endangered species? An analysis of the U. S. endangered species list: 1985-1991. Conservation Biology 7:87-93. Groves, C. R. 1994. Candidate and sensitive species programs. Pp227250. In T. W. Clark, R. P. Reading, and A. L. Clarke (eds.) Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press