Habitat Considerations for Endangered Species

1
Habitat Considerations for Endangered Species

• Why conserve habitat?
• Sinks, sources, and metapopulations
• Critical Habitat
• Habitat Conservation Plans

2
Why Conserve Habitat?

• Critical to species survival
• Protection applies to more than just the species
  of interest
• Know more about habitat hot spots and
  distribution than about species distributions
• Know habitat loss and degradation are major
  reasons for endangerment

3
Modern Views of Populations and Habitats

• Review Sinks, Sources, and Metapopulation
  Concepts
• ESC 450
• Chapter 5 in NRCs Science and the ESA
• Pulliam 1988 (if you have not read it--DO SO
  TODAY!)
• dispersal from source can result in large and
  growing sink even given ?

4
Metapopulation Review

• Subpopulations connected by dispersal (Levins
  1969)
• Good way to describe structure and dynamics of
  populations scattered across a landscape in
  spatially isolated patches
• common in managed landscapes
• Some sub-populations may be sinks and some may be
  sources, but this is only a special case of
  general metapopulation model
• core-satellite or simultaneous sink-source may be
  more common (Doak and Mills 1994 Doncaster et
  al. 1997)

5
Key Messages for Endangered Species Management

• Extinction of subpopulations in metapopulation is
  to be expected
• Subpopulation dynamics may be controlled by
  dynamics of other subpopulations
• rescue by dispersal
• need to ID sources or cores
• Functioning metapopulation may be necessary for
  species to remain extant
• Acorn Woodpeckers in New Mexico
• (Stacey and Taper 1992)

6
Another Key Habitat is Not Constant in Space or
Time

• It is a shifting mosaic (Bormann and Likens
  1979, Botkin and Sobel 1975)
• habitat composition in landscape changes
  naturally
• usually slowly
• BWCA (continual change at replacement rate every
  2-4 centuries from glaciation and succession)
• fire has return rate of 20-200 years
• GPP may Respiration at ecosystem scale (steady
  state), but individual stands change frequently

7
Management Implications of Shifting Mosaics
Clear-cutting
Total Biomass
Fire
Wind
Time (White Mountains, NH Bormann and Likens
1979)

• Land management usually decreases time between
  disturbances
• may also affect spatial arrangement by increasing
  edge
• Endangered species may need change or may need
  specific disturbance state
• Kirtlands Warbler and Red-cockaded Woodpecker

8
Do We Really Know Habitat Needs?
Important
Spring

• Van Horne (1983)
• abundance ? quality
• Yong et al. (1998)
• Wilsons Warblers in New Mexico
• Habitat needs differ from spring to fall
  (breeeding to migration)
• cottonwood not used in spring
• Habitat needs differ from adults to subadults
• ag for juveniles, willow for adults

80
Males Females
10
10
20
of Each Age/Sex In Group
AG CN CR CS SS WI
80
Fall
Adults
Hatch Year
20
AG CN CR CS SS WI
9
Critical Habitat Designation

• At listing (after 1978, not retroactive)
• Takes into account ECONOMIC impacts
• Can be opted out if non prudent or not
  determinable
• non-prudent can be for any reason
• To date designated (NRC)

10
Is Critical Habitat Needed?

• USFWS argues no
• Sect 7 consultations already require fed agencies
  to avoid jeopardizing the species by modifying
  habitat
• Sect 9 prohibits take by the public, which has
  been equated with habitat destruction (Sweet
  Home)
• But regulation of habitat by disallowing take is
  less absolute than designating Critical Habitat
• requires no likelihood of jeopardy but critical
  habitat cannot by adversely modified

11
Possible Improvements to Critical Habitat

• Survival Habitat (NRC)
• temporary designation at time of listing
• habitat needed to support current population or
  ensure short-term (25-50 year) survival,
  whichever is larger
• No economic evaluation goes into it
• Allows management options to be preserved until
  recovery plan and formal critical habitat is
  proposed

12
Habitat Conservation Plans

• More likely to be the way habitat is protected on
  non-federal lands (rather than designation of
  critical habitat)
• Allows non-federal landowners to get incidental
  take permit (Sect 10(a))
• implementation of HCP will, to the maximum
  extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the
  impacts of such taking and not appreciably
  reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of
  the species in the wild

13
HCPs as a Solution to a Problem

• Services view HCPs as a way to balance a
  citizens right to use their property with the
  nations interest in conserving rare and
  endangered species
• Goal is to create creative partnerships between
  landowners wanting to develop their land and our
  natural heritage

14
Increase in HCPs

• San Bruno Mtn. Cal (1983)
• Over 200 in 1997, 200 more in preparation
• Range in size
• 1/2 acre lot (Fl. Scrub Jay)
• 170,000 acres
• Plum Creek Timber
• 100 years, 285listed and unlisted species
• 1.6 million acres
• WA DNR
• 70-100 years, 200 species

15
The HCP Process (USFWS 1998)

• Plan Development
• permit application (25)
• the plan
• document of compliance with NEPA
• implementation agreement
• Review
• service
• public (published in Federal Register)
• Monitoring
• service monitors compliance with HCP

16
Contents of HCP (USFWS 1998)

• Species covered (listed and non-listed)
• Assessment of impacts of take
• How take will be monitored, minimized, and
  mitigated
• Plan for funding the proposed monitoring and
  mitigation
• Alternatives to take and why they are not being
  adopted
• Argument that taking will not reduce the species
  survival and recovery

17
Criticisms of HCPs (Minett Cullinan 1997
Kaiser 1997)

• Not based on science
• We need to know a lot about management of species
  to decide on long-term management strategies
• PVAs of all species in plan
• Not Flexible (esp. if no surprises)
• Adaptive management framework that allows
  adjustment as more information comes in
• need a carefully designed and well funded
  scientific management program for the ecosystem
• that can be expensive, but costs are predictable
• Provide public funds for SURPRISES

18
More Criticisms (Minett Cullinan 1997 Kaiser
1997)

• Separate plans for single landowners results in
  fragmented approach to conservation
• not a problem if landowners hold large areas
• can result in high grading
• first HCP gets by with as much as possible
• subsequent HCPs have to conserve species given
  what is already provided
• they may have to provide more expensive habitat
  or curtain operations to a greater extent than
  first planer
• plans rely on particular use of adjoining land
• what if it fails?
• Multi-owner (regional) HCPs would be better

19
More Recent HCP Evaluation

• The National Center for Ecological Analysis and
  Synthesis reviewed many HCPs and their results
  echo those previously mentioned
• View their report here to better understand HCPs
  and evaluate their scientific validity

20
HCPs are not Recovery Plans

• Another criticism is that HCPs often do little
  for the listed species
• Requirement is that plan MINIMIZES and MITIGATES
  take
• they do not have to contribute to RECOVERY
• alternatives easily dismissed
• Rotas proposed HCP would take 1/2 of Mariana
  Crows habitat!
• Balcones Canyonlands HCP (Texas) provided 12,000
  ha, but science report called for 53,000 ha
• black-capped vireo is likely to go locally
  extinct

21
Limited Public Participation

• A serious criticism from environmental
  organizations
• Years of negotiation between service and
  landowner prior to review
• Service does not have to use public comments
  obtained during review when making their final
  decision
• Too much invested in negotiations to change after
  public comments
• Environmental organizations are out of loop and
  dont like it

22
Making HCPs Better (Kaiser 1997)

• Require plan to boost, not reduce, populations of
  listed species
• Initial plan developed by scientists with no
  vested interests in planning area
• Wait for recovery plan before HCP is approved
• allows range-wide coordination of efforts
• Allow for adjustment even with no surprise
• public funding for surprises
• good monitoring and adaptive response

23
An Example of a Good Plan (NRC and Kaiser 1997)

• Californias Natural Community Conservation Plan
• southern coastal sage
• Regional
• provides protection for more than just listed
  (gnatcatcher) species so future plans are less
  likley
• Blueprint drafted by panel of independent
  scientists
• functioned as interim plan
• pointed out needs for research on dispersal,
  demography, genetics, autecology before final plan

24
Interim NCCP Directions

• Slow development (
• No net loss of habitat VALUE
• Stick to tenets of conservation biology
• increase species distribution
• large, aggregated, non-fragmented,
  interconnected, roadless blocks of habitat are
  best
• Rank habitat according to tenets
• best habitat is managed as reserves
• secondary priority is conferred on moderate
  habitat adjoining reserves

25
References

• Minett, M. and T. Cullinan.1997. A citizens
  guide to HCPs. National Audubon Society.
  Washington DC.
• USFWS. 1998. Www.fws.gov/r9endspp/hcpplan.html
• Kaiser, J. 1997. When a habitat is not a home.
  Science 2761636-1638.
• Bormann, FH. And GE Likens. 1979. Catastrophic
  disturbance and the steady state in northern
  hardwood forests. Am. Scientist 67660-669.
• Doncaster, CP, Clobert, J, Doligez, B,
  Gustafsson, L, and E. Danchin. 1997. Balanced
  dispersal between spatially varying local
  populations an alternative to the source-sink
  model. Am. Nat. 150425-445.

26
More References

• Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic
  consequences of environmental heterogeneity for
  environmental control. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am.
  15237-240.
• Stacey, PB. And M. Taper. 1992. Environmental
  variation and the persistence of small
  populations. Ecol. Appl. 218-29.
• Pulliam, HR. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population
  regulation. Am. Natural. 132652-661.
• Doak, DF and LS Mills. 1994. A useful role for
  theory in conservation. Ecology 75615-626.
• Botkin, DB. And MJ. Sobel. 1975. Stability in
  time-varying ecosystems. Am. Nat. 109625-646.

27
More References

• Yong, W., Finch, DM, Moore, FR, and JF Kelly.
  1998. Stopover ecology and habitat use of
  migratory Wilsons Warblers. Auk 115829-842.
• Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading
  indicator of habitat quality. JWM 47893-901.