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 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

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 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 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

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

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?