Download Sensitive Species Management

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