Conserving Biodiversity on Private Lands

1
Conserving Biodiversity on Private Lands

• Kelly Cassidy and Christian Grue

Think Globally, Act Locally
2
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

3
Regional Land Managers manage relatively large
blocks of land
4
Local Land Managers manage relatively small land
parcels
5
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

6
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

7
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

8
Merging Local Land Planning with Conservation is
So Difficult

• Why do it?

9
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

Isnt that enough for biodiversity?
10
Neither land ownership nor species are randomly
distributed
American Bittern modeled distribution in
Washington
Public land ownership in Washington
11
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 bitterns
  range would be protected

12
Well-protected Habitats

• High-elevation
• Dry
• Rocky
• Rugged
• Cold

About 83 of alpine habitat in Washington is
protected. Less than 1 is privately owned.
13
Poorly-protected Habitats

• Low-elevation
• Fertile
• Gentle terrain

Less than 1 of the Palouse of eastern
Washington is protected. About 97 is privately
owned.
14
Conservation actions taken by local land managers
are as important as those of regional (state and
federal) land managers
15
How does a local land manager manage for
biodiversity?
?
Bone up on a little conservation literature
Apply to the home front
?
16
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

17
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
• Doesnt address most coastal/marine species or
  fish

18
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

19
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

20
Local Priority Amphibians Western Washington
Counties
21
Land managers dont usually manage species. They
manage land.
22
Local Priority Species ? Local Priority Habitats

• Macrohabitats
• Mesohabitats
• Microhabitats
• Actions

23
Priority Macrohabitats

• Open natural vegetation (prairies, etc.)
• Late seral (old) forests, esp. at low-elevations
• Large rivers and lakes
• Shore/coastal (partly addressed)

24
Priority Mesohabitats

• Ponds and small lakes, esp. without introduced
  fish or bullfrogs
• Shrub, hardwood dominated riparian areas
• Small streams, seeps
• Marshes, swamps

25
Priority Microhabitats

• Snags, downed logs, brush piles
• Untended vegetation patches
• Talus slopes
• Caves (for Townsends Big-eared Bat)

26
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

27
Example Local Priority Species Associated with
Late-seral Dry Forest
28
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

29
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

30
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