Manatees headed to safer waters

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced this week that it is reviewing a petition to downlist the manatee from 'endangered' to 'threatened.'  Scientists from the agency (and the State of Florida) first indicated their support for this in a review of the species back in 2007, but it took a lawsuit for them to actually move forward with it.  Yet, just last year, the Huffington Post reported the 'sad record' that 16% of manatees - 830 - died in 2013.  Which is it?  A sad or happy story?

On balance, the story of the manatee is one of success.  Regulations put in place back in the 1990s have held down deaths of manatees from powerboats traveling at high speeds.  Many key areas of manatee habitat have been protected.  And if you look at the numbers, counted nearly every year since the late 1980s, its hard not to see that things are going in the right direction (blue line below). 

So what about 800 deaths?  Any deaths of endangered species caused by people are something we could continuously work to eliminate, but if you look at the numbers, 800 deaths are not a record as a percent of the population.  Back in 1997, there were 19% of manatees found dead.  Around 2002, it was 18%.  More manatees are dying in part because there are more manatees.  If you look at the agencies averages in 5 year blocks, from 1985-1990, about 11% of manatees died per year.  Each 5 years thereafter, its ranged from 11-13% per year in a 5 year average.   The last 5 years are hard to figure out because the manatee population wasn't counted in 2012-2013, but in those years, mortality (which was counted) was between 390-450 manatees per year so its not likely the average annual mortality would have been any higher. 

So what we see is a general pattern of increasing manatee population counts, increasing counts of dead manatees, and a relatively stable percent of manatees dying. 

Clearly the manatee still faces threats, including the issue of red tide-related deaths, but surely its now a threatened, not an endangered species.  We should celebrate this progress and keep working to ensure the species has a bright future in Florida and the Caribbean.

Endangered species spending and status

Every year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) publishes reports on how much all federal and state agencies spent on each species.  Every other year, the publish an assessment - subjective though it may be - they have published a report describing the status of each species.  Each of these reports are sent to Congress, as directed under the Endangered Species Act.

In the table below - a simple live visualization produced using the software program Tableau Public - you can see each species and total spending by agencies.  The color of the number shows the status reported in that year.  Blue is stable.  Red is declining, only in captivity and extinct.  Green is improving.  All the grays show years when no status is reported for any species, or in years with a biennial report, species for which status was unknown.

Learn About Tableau

Making Significant the Significant Portion of Range

The Endangered Species Act provides numerous ways to protect species.  First they can be listed as full species or as subspecies.  Second, two protected classes exist: endangered or threatened.   Third, a species can be listed if it is at risk in either all or a “significant portion of its range.”    On top of this framework, in 1988 Congress added the ability to protect a “distinct population segment” of animals and fish, but not invertebrates or plants.  Since 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) have had a policy in place that created a framework for the use of distinct population segments in listing. (Congress gave direction for that authority to be ‘used sparingly’ and yet the majority of NMFS species are now listed as DPS populations but that is a story for another day.)  The authority to protect distinct populations means that we can list populations that are at risk even if the whole species isn’t.  

Given the DPS authority created in 1988, it becomes very difficult to determine how to use the other authority in the law – that of protecting a species that is only at risk in a ‘significant portion of its range.’  Distinct population authority already allows the agencies to protect a species at risk on just one side of an international border.  In many other cases where a population is at risk, those risks can already be said to jeopardize the species throughout its range so no additional analysis is needed to use this significant portion of range authority.  Indeed, it was rarely if ever used in the process of listing species over 40 years.    

In December 2011, the Services proposed a new policy that would add meaning to the term and allow it to apply in a limited set of circumstances.  First, they appropriately proposed listing the whole species if a significant portion were at risk.  Second, the draft policy allowed for such listings only in a very limited set of circumstances.  

It did this in a couple of ways.  The significance of a population was defined in terms of its contribution to the viability of a species – the ability of the species to persist.  In addition, the test asks whether if the population were to disappear tomorrow, would the species be in danger of extinction?  This is a very specific way to set up an analysis and as a biologist, it’s possible to imagine how to carry out the analysis.  For example, using a technique called Population Viability Analysis (PVA) one could simple run a model to look at extinction risk with and without that population included.  The result is a very narrow set of circumstances in which a species would be listed throughout its whole range because it is at risk in just a portion of the range.  The problem is, it is too narrow.

 

Why?

Surely any species that is in danger of extinction after the presumed disappearance of a significant population would already meet the test of being a threatened species.  It is almost impossible to think of a single realistic scenario where that is not the case.  

Another problem exists with the Services’ proposal for dealing with Distinct Population Segments and Significant Portion of Range.  The Services proposed that whenever a population simultaneously met both the Distinct and the Significant Portion criteria, they would list it as a Distinct Population and not list the whole species (or subspecies).  In any formulation, it should probably be a narrow set of circumstances that result in listing a full species when only a portion is endangered, but this approach is probably short-sighted.  If the full species is imperiled by the hypothetical loss of a population and that population is itself at risk, the Services should provide the entire range of the species. 

Getting Exclusions Right – How Critical Habitat Could be an Even More Effective Incentive for Wildlife Conservation

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service just published an important set of draft policies to better clarify the operation of ‘critical habitat’ under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and that are covered by a quick review here.   One of those policies focuses on how the agency will go about using the discretion provided to it by the ESA in choosing to exclude areas from a formal designation. 

Why are exclusions important?
Between 1978 and 1982, Congress gave the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce broad authority to exclude areas from critical habitat, so it makes sense to use this authority if there are ways to get a positive outcome for wildlife through exclusions.  Wait...how could the outcome not be positive?

 Both private landowners and federal ones fear critical habitat and the perceived risk they believe it may create on future uses of their land.  Almost more than any other part of the ESA, critical habitat designations provoke this fear which in turn sometimes creates responses by landowners that are harmful to species.  For example, many species depend on active habitat management to survive and the ESA lacks any tools to compel or require active management.  If landowners fearful of having their land designated as critical habitat refuse to allow habitat management, endangered species may disappear from their land.  Other landowners may 'shoot, shovel and shut up' to prevent similar potential conflicts on their land.  Still others simply refuse any access by scientists. Wildlife loses in all these very real scenarios.

In general, the Services' proposed policy goes in the right direction ... policy will create some incentive for private and federal landowners to assist in the conservation and recovery of endangered species.  However, the policy misses key opportunities to do more, typically because the agencies appear to be trying to maintain their discretion to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.  Such discretion must appear to be a favorable thing from within the walls of an agency building, but I believe typically does more long-term harm than good for wildlife.  Wide agency latitude in wildlife decisions make them more prone to political interference.  Perhaps worse, businesses and communities cannot predict what agencies will do and thus trust them less.   

The following are a few initial areas where additional changes in policy could create clearer standards for excluded areas from critical habitat.

Non-federal Lands

The policy proposes that, except in a few circumstances described, the Services will focus exclusions on non-federal lands.  This is a positive statement of intent.  However, it could have gone further.  A standing Secretarial Order relating to Tribal lands and critical habitat says, "the Services shall ....document the extent to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other lands."  This is a statement that could be extended to all private lands.  It would be a positive step if the Services established a definitive preference for designating public lands over private ones when conservation and recovery needs of the species could be met entirely or largely on public ones.  In other words, where there are choices in how habitat is designated, the agencies should choose to designate federal ownership lands over those in private, state or local ownership.

Section 10 Agreements and CCAAs
With regard to HCPs, SHAs, and CCAAs, the proposed policy indicates that they will "generally exclude such areas from a designation."  This statement gives participants in these agreements some evidence of agency intent.  However, the draft policy commits the agencies to consider potential exclusion only if an agreement or plan 1) is being implemented well, 2) covers the species subject to the critical habitat review, and 3) “specifically addresses that species' habitat and meets the conservation needs of the species in the planning area." 

These conditions, particularly the last one, would seem to give no predictability to an agreement participant.  Is the Service saying that it sometimes negotiates agreements that don't meet habitat and conservation needs of the species?  How is the landowner supposed to know whether that is the case when they develop their agreement? Why would the standard for approval of a CCAA or SHA (respectively, sufficient to preclude the need to list’ and ‘provide a net conservation benefit’) not be sufficient?

A preferable approach would be to change the opening statement to "will exclude such areas from a designation unless" and then incorporate the first two criteria and some modified version of the third to provide more predictability to agreement participants.  For example, the third condition would be clearer if it simply provided that the agreement or plan must provide a ‘net conservation benefit’ to the species.  That is a simpler test already in place for Safe Harbor Agreements.  Similarly, integrated natural resource plans used by DoD allow military bases to be excluded from critical habitat if the Secretary of Interior concludes that the plan provides a benefit to the species.

An alternative that the Services could adopt is to make a determination or finding upon issuing an HCP, SHA or CCAA of whether, based on the best available information at that time, the agreement or plan "addresses the species' habitat and meets the conservation needs of the species."  A statement like that is not an iron-clad assurance but it would at least offer some predictability of how agencies would subsequently interpret this standard a subsequent critical habitat designation process. 

Specifically on Habitat Conservation Plans…
I found language associated with HCP exclusions to be particularly problematic.  The narrative states that:

"HCPs often are written with the understanding that some of the covered area will be developed, and the associated permit provides authorization of incidental take caused by that development (although a properly designed HCP will tend to steer development toward the least biologically important habitat). Thus, designation of the areas specified for development that meet the definition of “critical habitat” may still conceivably provide a conservation benefit to the species." 

Given that participants in HCPs are generally seeking ‘no surprise’ assurances that they can develop these very areas, this statement suggests the Services are considering adding additional requirements to those already in place through the HCP, if Critical Habitat is designated.  This raises a host of uncertainty about HCPs and the incentives for participants to join or initiate them.   Imagine this approach in practice with a map showing critical habitat only applying to the areas planned for development in a county-wide HCP.  How would a county react to such an approach to critical habitat designation?  HCPs have already been weakened by the Services' approach to Section 7 consultation which too often is a quicker way, with lower standards, to get approval for essentially private actions.  HCPs are a package, just as DoD resource management plans are.  The Services should not take such a piecemeal approach as doing so will further undermine HCPs. 

Conservation Banks
The policy is silent on whether and when conservation banks would be excluded from designated critical habitat.

Adding Exclusions after Designation
As a practical matter, the policy leaves a big gap.  Since the agency is now generally issuing critical habitat within a year of species' listing, relatively few SHAs and HCPs are going to be in place before critical habitat is designated.  Thus, the policy would benefit from additional discussion about how the Services will change their approach to negotiate HCPs and SHAs that meet exclusion criteria.  The policy could also describe the Services approach to revision of already published critical habitat.  For example, could a potential exclusion to critical habitat be announced, receive public comment and then that area removed from designated critical habitat during the Federal Register notice and comment period on an HCP or SHA during its issuance?

Federal Lands
They indicate a preference for designating over not designating federal lands, with specific language addressing the more specific question of national and homeland security exclusions (considerations of which the Services give "great weight").  Why not consider a similar standard for federal land exclusions as exists for DoD installations.  Under an amendment made to the ESA in the last decade, if a resource management plan would “profit a benefit” to affected species, the military base will not be designated as critical habitat.  Applying this same standard to all federal lands, would create a stronger incentive for all agencies to live up to the requirements of section 7(a)(1) of the ESA to use their programs to conserve threatened and endangered species.

These are a few ideas that might help the Services take a more consistent and predictable approach to policy with regard to critical habitat exclusions.   

A toad hopping forward

I care about all wildlife.  Maybe about endangered tigers and jaguars a little more than obscure Hawaiian plants that are so rare they have never had their own common name, but I care about them all.  So I think its great news that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced that an endangered toad is less threatened than it was just 20 years ago: the Arroyo toad of California and Mexico.

Arroyo toad, courtesy of LA Times.

Amphibians are among the most endangered of all life on our Earth.  Conservation successes for them are few and far between.  Yet, the toad is moving in the right direction.  As a result of land protection efforts, more of its river-side habitat in California is protected from urban development.  And in 10 of 18 river systems where the toad is found, private landowners have been adopted conservation protections that help the toad survive, including conservation easements.  Grazing is less of a risk to sensitive river habitats in National Forests because the U.S. Forest Service has put protections in place.  Also, the toad is not threatened by the invasive 'chytrid' fungus that has endangered so many other amphibians around the globe.  

It is hard to stop sometimes and appreciate the good news in life and work, but this is good news.  It's a sign that the State of California's enormous effort to conserve unique places is paying off.  Efforts to save wildlife can succeed.

Bet on a prairie chicken listing

The federal government is due to make a decision this month on whether to list the lesser prairie chicken as threatened, endangered, or secure.  Its a bird whose population has gone from 2 million to 20,000 in recorded history.  To predict a threatened listing, you really don't need to know more than these four facts.  1) Its population dropped by 50% just in the last year.  2)  It lives in a dry grassland habitat in Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Colorado.  3) Its habitat, like most on the planet, suffers during drought.  4) This map of projected drought.

Measuring triage

New Zealand and the Australian states of New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania are all taking a potentially revolutionary approach to how they manage endangered species.  Using a system unique to the values and legal requirements of each, these four governments have built new tools to prioritize endangered species spending so they use money more cost-effectively.  The result of this explicit use of decision theory or 'decision science' is a different allocation of money among endangered species.  Those that are more unique, cheaper to save, more likely to respond to intervention, or whose conservation benefits more other species might all benefit from these systems.  However, the flip side that has opened these systems to criticism is that this represents explicit triage - letting species go extinct.  Professors Hugh Possingham and Stuart Pimm debate the issue here. 

I am firmly on the side of using decision science to make better decisions, particularly in the U.S.  The reality is that we already have an unconscious system of triage.  For example, there are more than 110 species that - for most of the last 20 years - have received average funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of less than 10 percent of recovered species in their same taxonomic group and each of these species have also been consistently reported as declining by the same agency.  That is probably an extremely low estimate of our current, somewhat accidental system of triage.  Approximately 10 percent of species I looked at are getting a pittance of funding and are consistently declining.

The advantage of the New Zealand and Australian systems is that these decisions are made explicitly those agencies may be doing less triage and when they are making choices to focus on other species, the reasons for doing so are clear.