ESA, HCPs and Recovery Plans

1
ESA, HCPs and Recovery Plans
2
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
  world-wide extinction
• The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was the
  definitive law
• Extended protection to all plants and animals and
  includes subspecies and distinct populations

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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'."

7
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.

8
The Listing Process
9
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
  didnt 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

10
Science and Recovery Plans
From Morris et al. 2002
11
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

12
Science and Recovery Plans
From Morris et al. 2002
13
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

14
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.

15
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

16
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
  (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)

17
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

18
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

19
Science and HCPs
From Harding et al. 2001
20
Science and HCPs
From Harding et al. 2001
21
Science and HCPs
From Harding et al. 2001
22
Science and HCPs
From Harding et al. 2001
23
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

24
Science and HCPs
From Rahn et al. 2006
25
Science and HCPs
From Rahn et al. 2006
26
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

27
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

28
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

29
Tidewater Goby
Eucyclogobius newberryi
30
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

31
Tide Water Goby Habitat
32
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)

33
Hawaiian Monk Seal
Monachus schauinslandi
34
Population Status
35
Hawaiian Monk Seal Habitat
36
Hawaiian Monk Seal
37
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

38
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)

39
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

40
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

41
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

42
Case Study Florida Manatee
Trichechus manatus
43
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

44
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.

45
Case Study Florida Manatee
46
Case Study Florida Manatee
47
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?