Transcript Slide 1

ESA, HCPs and Recovery Plans
Endangered Species Conservation
• Federal protection began with the limited
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966
– Limited authority for land aquisition
• This was supplemented by the The Endangered
Species Conservation Act of 1969
– This broadened the scope to include invertebrates
and require listing of species threatened with worldwide extinction
• The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was the
definitive law
– Extended protection to all plants and animals and
includes subspecies and distinct populations
ESA Listing
• Criteria for listing and endangered species
• An “endangered” species is one that is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range
• A “threatened” species is one that is likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable future
• These determinations are done cooperatively
with FWS and experts on the species
• Species include subspecies and distinct
populations
ESA Listing
• A species is added to the list when it is
determined to be endangered or threatened
because of any of the following factors:
– Present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species’ habitat or range
– Over utilization for commercial,recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes
– Disease or predation
– Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
– Other natural or manmade factors affecting the
species’ survival
ESA Protections
• Once a species is listed, it receives ESA
protections
• Protection from adverse affects of federal
activities
• Restrictions on “taking”, transporting or selling
the species
• Authority to develop and implement recovery
plans
• Authority to purchase important habitat
• Federal aid available to state governments
Defining “Take”
• Section 9 of the ESA states that no person may
take an endangered species.
• Take is defined as "to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect,
or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defines harm as
“…an act or omission which actually injures or
kills wildlife, including acts which annoy it to
such an extent as to significantly disrupt
essential behavior patterns…”
• It also includes significant environmental
modification or degradation of the habitat within
the meaning of 'harm'."
Defining Critical Habitat
• Critical habitat, as defined by section 3 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C.1531 et sec.), as amended, and at 50 CFR
Part 424, includes:
– 1) the specific areas, within the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time of its listing in
accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act on which are found those
physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection
– 2) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, which
are determined to be essential for the conservation of
the species.
The Listing
Process
Science and Recovery Plans
• Morris et al. (2002) surveyed recovery plans and
determined how frequently scientific analyses
such as PVAs were used
• They found that only 14% of recovery plans
presented info on PVAs with 6% saying the info
didn’t exist
• 24.3% said more info on PVAs would be helpful
and a higher proportion 31.3% of plans allocated
recovery effort to collecting more info on PVAs
Science and Recovery Plans
From Morris et al. 2002
Science and Recovery Plans
• However there is an increasing trend over
time to include PVAs in recovery plans
• A very high percentage of future plans
have assigned tasks to collect some or
even all data needed for PVA
• Unfortunately, only about 4% stated that
these monitoring data would be explicitly
used in PVA models
Science and Recovery Plans
From Morris et al. 2002
Habitat Conservation Plans
• Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) were developed as a
solution to conflicts between private development and
endangered species protection
• The HCP process has authority under ESA section
10(a)(1)(B)
• Section 10 allows issuance of a permit for "incidental
take" that is "incidental to, and not the purpose of, the
carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity."
• “Taking” or other activities that might affect endangered
species on private, state or corporate lands requires a
HCP
• Once an HCP is approved, the applicant is issued a take
permit
NCCPs
• California introduced a program that can meet
the requirements of the Federal HCP program
through the Natural Community Conservation
Planning Act (NCCPA) of 1991
• It allows the Department of Fish and
• Game to enter into agreements that would allow
incidental take of species, and allows both listed
and unlisted species to be considered for
“coverage”.
NCCPs
• The NCCP concept is vague and elective, failing
to set even minimal standards for an appropriate
reserve design, or, of more immediate concern,
to give landowners sufficient incentive to
participate
• Recently hybrid HCP/NCCPs have been
developed (e.g. Yolo County) which have tried to
be more comprehensive, but maintain the
rigorous requirements for data on populations
“of concern”
Science and HCPs
• HCPs increased rapidly from 14 in 1992 to
450 by 2005 covering 40 million acres
• Most address a single species in small
areas (<100 ha) but large multispecies
plans are increasing (many CA counties
have them)
• AIBS and NCEAS analyzed many HCPs to
find out how science is used in them
(Harding et al. 2001)
Science and HCPs
• Harding et al. (2001) examined 43 HCPs for the
use of scientific information
• The focused on five tasks
–
–
–
–
–
assessing status of a species
determining take
predicting the project effects
mitigating for those effects,
monitoring of take and mitigation.
• They found that preparers of HCPs utilized
existing scientific information fairly well, with
60% of plans not missing any available
information
Science and HCPs
• However, quantitative population
estimates were available for only 10% of
the species
• For 42% of the species examined, there
were insufficient data and analysis to
determine the effects of predicted take
Science and HCPs
From Harding et al. 2001
Science and HCPs
From Harding et al. 2001
Science and HCPs
From Harding et al. 2001
Science and HCPs
From Harding et al. 2001
Multispecies HCPs
• Another study by Rahn et al. 2006 examined 22
multispecies HCPs just in Region 1 (our area)
• The found that only 17.5 percent of the species
included in the plans were federally listed
• On average, 41 percent of the species covered
in the plans had not been confirmed in the
planning area
• Only one plan was the presence of all covered
species confirmed
Science and HCPs
From Rahn et al. 2006
Science and HCPs
From Rahn et al. 2006
Multispecies HCPs
• They draw three main conclusions
• Many plans are overbroad, covering species for
which they provide no localized scientific
information
• Most unconfirmed species also did not have
specific conservation actions
• High levels of variability across plans in the
species they covered, justification for that
coverage, and the extent of species-specific
conservation actions
Coastal Marine Species
• Several high profile recovery plans have been
developed for marine species
• The level of information is also highly variable
• As in all cased, the potential for recovery and
delisting is a function of three main issues
• Mitigating the threats
• Maintaining or restoring habitat
• Monitoring the recovery (hopefully) of the
species
Tidewater Goby
• The tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi is
a small brackish-water fish that occupies a very
narrow salinity regime
• Lives in salinites of less than 12 ppt and in water
less than 1 m deep
• Modification of habitat, water diversion,
degraded water quality and introduced species
are among the biggest threats
• Opening bar-built estuaries may contribute to
their decline
Tidewater Goby
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Tidewater Goby
• Was distributed across California
historically in 124 sites
• 28 of these are gone and 55-70 are so
degraded as to be unsustainable
• Habitat is divided into six recovery units
and 26 subunits
• A 95% chance that all subunits will recover
for a maximum of 100 years
Tide Water Goby Habitat
Hawaiian Monk Seal
• Critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal
has been updated since its initial listing
and plan in 1983
• Initially the habitat was the depth
distribution to 10 fathoms
• More recently it was delineated at 20
fathoms (120 feet)
Hawaiian Monk Seal
Monachus schauinslandi
Population Status
Hawaiian Monk Seal Habitat
Hawaiian Monk Seal
Hawaiian Monk Seal
• Several critical threats are limiting
recovery
• Food limitation
• Oceanographic change
• Entanglement and capture in traps/nets
• Shark predation
• Other serious threats include disease and
human disturbance
Marine Mammal Protection Act
• Marine Mammals are also protected under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
• Example: southern sea otters would be delisted
for ESA if the population reaches of 3,090
animals
• However, they would continue to be managed by
MMPA until they reached 8,400
• MMPA requires that they need to reach 50-80%
of original population of 16,000 (8,400)
Other Agreements
• Other options are available for private
landowners
• Safe Harbor Agreements are agreements
between USFWS or NMFS and private
landowners
– Promote voluntary management of
endangered species on private land
– In return for improving conditions for the
species, landowner is protected from future
actions
Other Agreements
• Candidate Conservation Agreements
– Agreements between USFWS and
landowners regarding candidate species
(under consideration) and potential candidate
species
– Undertake actions to improve species status
to hopefully obviate need for ESA listing
State Endangered Species Laws
• Many states including California have
endangered species laws
• Usually modeled after federal law
• Include species that may be rare for the
state
• Federal laws generally preempt state laws,
so this is usually supplementary
Case Study: Florida Manatee
Trichechus manatus
Case Study: Florida Manatee
• Recently the State of Florida together with
the US Fish and Wildlife Service decided
to downlist the Florida Manatee
• On Sept. 15, 2007, the decision was to
“delist” the Manatee (Florida only) and
move it from “endangered” to “threatened”
• Much debate on both sides about the
reasons for this
Case Study: Florida Manatee
• Population is increasing in three of fours regions
• All of these analyses indicate that, with the
exception of the Southwest Region, manatees
are increasing or stable throughout Florida.
–
–
–
–
Northwest Region 4.0%,
Upper St. Johns River Region 6.2%
Atlantic Coast Region 3.7%
Southwest Region -1.1%.
Case Study: Florida Manatee
Case Study: Florida Manatee
Case Study: Florida Manatee
• You are a state (or fed) fish and wildlife
biologist
• You have to make a decision about the
manatee
• What information would you want to have?
• What opinions and from which
stakeholders would you need?