You are on page 1of 32

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230709850

Endangered species and peripheral populations: Cause for reflection

Article · January 2000

CITATIONS READS
15 173

1 author:

Andrew Townsend Peterson


University of Kansas
839 PUBLICATIONS   47,459 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Atlas der Verbreitung Paläarktischer Vögel View project

ecoClimate View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Townsend Peterson on 16 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Opinion
Endangered Species and Peripheral Populations:
Cause for Reflection
A. Townsend Peterson
Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA

Introduction cupido attwateri), and Florida Scrub-Jay populations of Northern Aplomado


Endangered species lists constitute criti- (Aphelocoma coerulescens). These taxa Falcon would be regrettable, they al-
cal foci of conservation attention. Spe- are clearly appropriate for inclusion in the ways have been marginal, and as such
cies on such lists are given special atten- list, given that conservation efforts will likely have a tenuous hold on long-term
tion in prioritizations for conservation either prove successful in the United survival. Worse still, for species such
(Peterson et al. 2000), with the Endan- States, or the taxon will be lost to extinc- as the Crested Caracara and the Fer-
gered Species Act affording immediate tion. Another 19 of the endangered bird ruginous Pygmy-Owl, although U.S.
protection to areas known to hold popu- species, while not endemic to the populations are limited in distribution,
lations of endangered species. Hence, de- United States, have substantial popu- the species is abundant, and far from
cisions regarding "endangered" status of lations in the country that can be an ap- threatened with extinction, just a few
species have profound effects on conser- propriate focus of conservation efforts. hundred kilometers south in Mexico.
vation action (Tear et al. 1995). Six avian taxa on the list, however, State endangered species lists are
Oddly, though, endangered species are represented in the United States only similarly of curious composition.
lists seem to be assembled with little at- by peripheral populations when the en- Some states have very clear and
tention to the biology of species involved. tire range of the species is considered: straightforward lists: Michigan, for
The purpose of this commentary is to point Masked Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus example, includes Peregrine Falcon ,
out that many "endangered" species in the ridgwayi), Audubon's Crested Caracara Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
United States are actually peripheral popu- (Polyborus plancus audubonii), Northern leucocephalus), and Piping Plover
lations when the entire range of the spe- Aplomado Falcon (Falco femoralis (Charadrius melodus), all of which are
cies is considered (Godown and Peterson septentrionalis), Thick-billed parrot represented by breeding populations in
2000). Such populations are often not (Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha), Cactus the state, as well as Kirtland's Warbler
viable populations to begin with (Holt and Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl (Glaucidium (Dendroica kirtlandii), for all intents
Gaines 1992), constituting population brasilianum cactorum), and Wood Stork and purposes endemic to the state as a
"sinks," and indeed are often species of (Mycteria americana). Some of these breeding species; 18 other states have
little conservation concern in the main species are indeed in global peril of ex- similarly straightforward endangered
portion of their geographic distributions. tinction (Masked Bobwhite), and per- species lists. Other states, however, in-
Inclusion of these species in status lists haps the attention that they might receive clude species from the federal list that
dilutes the effectiveness of endangered in the United States is worth the effort. are marginal or even accidental in that
species legislation and conservation ac- However, others are species that are particular state. For example, the Ohio
tion, and changes geographic foci of en- quite common south of the U.S.- list includes Bald Eagle, which is in-
dangered species richness (Godown and Mexico border. For example, the Fer- deed a breeding species in the state; Per-
Peterson 2000). ruginous Pygmy-Owl is a common egrine Falcon, which is marginal in oc-
resident of tropical forests, the Crested currence; and Piping Plover, which is
Endangered species lists Caracara is a common resident of open extinct as a breeding species in the state.
The U.S. endangered species list includes and disturbed habitats, and the Wood
44 avian taxa (excluding Hawaii). Of Stork is a frequent species of open wet- Discussion
these taxa, 19 are endemic or nearly en- lands; all three are found broadly Considering aspects of the theory of
demic to the United States, such as the throughout the tropical Americas. population ecology, investing time and
California Condor (Gymnogyps These peripheral populations lie at resources in the conservation of periph-
californianus), Mississippi Sandhill Crane the limits of species' ranges, where they eral populations is a questionable strat-
(Grus canadensis pulla), Attwater's are often not viable in the long term. egy. Peripheral populations are well
Greater Prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus Hence, whereas extinction of the U.S. known to be marginal, and in many

30 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


cases unstable in population dynamics, and the species rapidly disappears from
as can be seen in the following hypo- the peripheral area in spite of conserva-
thetical example. A population grows tion efforts.
or declines as the combination of four The point of this commentary is not A forum for information exchange on
endangered species issues
factors (Figure 1), birth (B), death (D), to detract from the important advances March/April 2001 Vol. 18 No. 2
immigration (I), and emigration (E). If made in endangered species conserva-
individuals did not move among areas, tion in recent decades. Rather, my fo- M. Elsbeth McPhee...................Managing Editor
Chase M. Huntley..................Publication Editor
I and E would be zero, and whether an cus is on how future efforts should con- Jennifer Jacobus MacKay.........Associate Editor
area is inhabited or not would depend centrate on taxa in areas in which prob- Stephanie Hitztaler.........Editorial Assistant
simply upon the balance of B and D. abilities of success are high. Under this Ryan Tefertiller..............Editorial Assistant
Kathy Cone..........Subscription Coordinator
Hence, in Figure 1, the darkest areas view, peripheral populations appear fre- Leah Thompson............Research Coordinator
would have B > D, and would be stable quently to represent a losing proposi- Saul Alarcon............Web Page Coordinator
Terry L. Root .............................Faculty Advisor
or increasing; other areas (light gray tion: populations in these regions will
and white) would not be inhabited in fluctuate widely, and are likely to de- Advisory Board
the absence of immigration. If indi- cline as source populations are compro- Richard Block
Santa Barbara Zoological Gardens
viduals do move among populations mised. The effectiveness of the Endan- Susan Haig
sufficiently frequently, areas adjacent gered Species Act would hence be maxi- Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem
to increasing populations may receive mized by focus on species that have sub- Science Center, USGS
Oregon State University
more immigrants than they send out as stantial portions of their geographic dis- Chris Howes
emigrants (I > E), and a population can tributions within the area of jurisdiction. Chicago Zoological Society
Norman Myers
be maintained as a sink even over long International Consultant in
periods of time. Hence, peripheral Literature cited Environment and Development
populations of species can often prove Godown M.E., Peterson A.T. 2000. Preliminary Patrick O'Brien
distributional analysis of U.S. endangered bird Chevron Ecological Services
not to be viable if adjacent source popu- Hal Salwasser
species. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:1313-
lations are removed. 1322.
U.S. Forest Service,
The logical flaw of counting periph- Boone and Crockett Club
Holt R.D., Gaines M.S. 1992. Analysis of adapta-
eral populations on endangered species tion in heterogeneous landscapes: Implications Instructions for Authors: The Endangered Species
lists can thus be appreciated: their conser- for the evolution of fundamental niches. Evo- UPDATE welcomes articles, editorial comments,
lutionary Ecology 6:433-447. and announcements related to species protection.
vation has little probability of success. For further information contact the editor.
Peterson A.T., Egbert S.L., Sanchez-Cordero V.,
Peripheral populations are vulnerable to Price K.P. 2000. Geographic analysis of con-
wide fluctuations and instability (Holt and servation priorities using distributional model- Subscription Information: The Endangered
Species UPDATE is published six times per year by
Gains 1992), making their population per- ling and complementarity: Endemic birds and
the School of Natural Resources and Environment
sistence uncertain. What is more, if adja- mammals in Veracruz, Mexico. Biological at The University of Michigan. Annual rates are
Conservation 93:85-94. $28 for regular subscriptions, and $23 for students
cent source populations are removed or Tear T.H., Scott J.M., Hayward P.H., Griffith B. and senior citizens (add $5 for postage outside the
reduced—often the case in endangered 1995. Recovery plans and the Endangered Spe- US). Send check or money order (payable to The
species—birth rates are insufficient to cies Act: Are criticisms supported by the data? University of Michigan) to:
Conservation Biology 9:182-195. Endangered Species UPDATE
maintain the population, numbers decline, School of Natural Resources and Environment
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115
(734) 763-3243; fax (734) 936-2195
http://www.umich.edu/~esupdate

Cover: The endangered American burying beetle


(Nicrophorus americanus). Photo courtesy of
Susan Middleton and David Liittschwager.

The views expressed in the Endangered Species


UPDATE may not necessarily reflect those of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or The
University of Michigan.

The Endangered Species UPDATE was made


possible in part by the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, Turner Foundation, Boone and
Crockett Club, Chevron Corporation, and the U.S.
Figure 1. Diagram of hypothetical range limits in a species, showing uninhab- FWS Division of Endangered Species Region 3.
ited areas (B + I < D + E), population sinks (B + I > D + E, but B < D), and source
populations (B > D).

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 31


Special Series: Habitat Conservation Planning
Where Property Rights and Biodiversity Converge
Part III: Incorporating Adaptive Management and the Pre-
cautionary Principle into HCP Design
Gregory A. Thomas
Natural Heritage Institute, 2140 Shattuck Ave., 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704; gat@n-h-i.org

Abstract
Concluding a three-part series synthesizing reviewers' recommendations for improving Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs), this article focuses on the inherent scientific uncertainty in conservation
planning and the two primary strategies that performance reviewers have recommended to deal with
incomplete data: adaptive management and the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle
holds that, in the face of poor information or great uncertainty, managers should adopt risk-adverse
practices. Where critical information is scarce or uncertain, application of the precautionary
principle counsels that HCPs should adhere to the following recommendations: be shorter in dura-
tion, cover a smaller area, avoid irreversible impacts, require that mitigation measures be accom-
plished before take is allowed, include contingencies, and have adequate monitoring. Under adaptive
management, HCPs are acknowledged to be mere working hypotheses of how species will respond to
changes in habitat size, location, configuration, and quality. To truly integrate adaptive management
into an HCP, a plan must include a monitoring program to evaluate the performance of mitigation
measures and a system that automatically triggers alternative conservation actions in the event that
performance fails to meet conservation goals. Reviewers, however, have found that few HCPs have
well developed and statistically valid monitoring programs. Incorporating adaptive management into
HCPs will require a fundamental change in the way that regulatory assurances (for instance, 'no
surprises') are structured so that plans remain flexible and contingent rather than immutable, as they
are now. Two possible solutions include converting the assurance package from regulatory immunity
to regulatory indemnity and calibrating the duration or rigor of the assurance to the quality or
expected performance of the HCP's conservation strategy.

Introduction prove HCPs have been distilled their habitat is always imperfect or
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) from these studies by the Natural ambiguous to some degree. The
have become the primary vehicle Heritage Institute (NHI). Focusing performance reviews recommend
for implementing the Endangered on the use of the precautionary prin- two interrelated tools for dealing
Species Act (ESA) on non-Federal ciple and adaptive management to with critical uncertainties: adaptive
land (see Part I of this series for a guide HCP development and imple- management and the precautionary
summary of HCPs). Because of mentation in the face of scientific principle. Adaptive management is
their key role, HCPs have come uncertainty, this article is the final a technique that tests the response
under the intense scrutiny of both in a three-part series that synthe- of biological systems to conserva-
developers and conservationists. sizes these recommendations. It tion measures and adjusts conser-
Practicing and academic conserva- concludes by summarizing the ma- vation strategies as warranted on an
tion biologists as well as environ- jor points outlined in this series. ongoing basis. The precautionary
mental organizations have con- Because our understanding of principle resolves critical uncertain-
ducted numerous independent re- the biological world is incomplete, ties in favor of greater protection for
views of HCP policy and plans that uncertainties are endemic to conser- the species until and unless better in-
identify shortcomings in current vation planning. The biological in- formation counsels otherwise.
practices. Recommendations to im- formation available on species and

32 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


Applying adaptive manage- mance fails to meet conservation acted to achieve these goals, in-
ment principles to HCP design goals. Under such a program, it cluding an explicit
Adaptive management is a strategy might be necessary for the permit acknowledgement of the critical
for coping with the uncertainties in- applicant to implement develop- uncertainties regarding the stres-
herent in predicting how ecosys- ment activity in phases so that per- sor-response relationships;
tems will respond to human inter- mission to begin a later phase is 3) Specify high-probability mea-
ventions, such as timber harvesting contingent upon verification from sures to minimize, mitigate, or
or habitat fragmentation. Adaptive the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offset these stressors or other-
management is an essential feature and the National Marine Fisheries wise achieve the biological
of habitat conservation planning be- Service ("the Services") that the goals;
cause it responds realistically to ig- performance standards in the prior 4) Monitor biological indices by
norance about the ecosystem by phase have been met. This kind of developing a statistically valid
monitoring the results of manage- phased development is more easily sampling protocol, and develop
ment efforts in order to make ad- accomplished in larger landscape- mechanisms to translate data into
justments as needed (Noss et al. scale plans that are implemented needed plan adjustments.
1997). Under adaptive manage- over time (see to the Part I of this
ment, HCPs are acknowledged to series for a discussion of land- The choice of conservation mea-
be mere working hypotheses, predi- scape-level planning for HCPs). sures in Step 3 is crucial to an HCP's
cated upon assumptions about how From the Services' perspective, success. These mitigation measures,
species and their ecological pro- property rights holders are already such as habitat restoration or the cre-
cesses and functions respond to successfully incorporating adaptive ation of a reserve system, must rep-
changes in habitat size, location, management into HCPs. In both the resent the "best guess" based on the
configuration, and quality. These existing HCP Handbook and the pro- best available data. Once in place,
assumptions, uncertainties, and posed addendum, however, the prac- such measures constitute the initial
knowledge gaps are made explicit tice of adaptive management is lim- working hypotheses that the adaptive
in adaptive management. More- ited to circumstances where "signifi- management regimen tests, monitors,
over, under adaptive management, cant uncertainty exists," and then and adjusts to as necessary to reach
conservation strategies include con- only to circumstances where the ap- the biological goals.
crete plans and funding to test hy- plicant accedes to its utilization
potheses against specified, measur- (USFWS and NMFS 1996). Cur- Measures to reduce the risks
able performance goals. rently, the range of conservation mea- of unsuccessful mitigation
Adaptive management treats sures that might be required as a re- The most frequently used mitiga-
every HCP as a "learning labora- sult of evolving information is nego- tion strategies consist of measures
tory" where conservation strategies tiated as a term of the initial HCP. to minimize or avoid development
continue to evolve as scientific un- Yet, many conservation biologists impacts on the listed species
derstanding increases. Because agree that "significant uncertainty" (Kareiva et al. 1999). These are
HCPs will always be experiments may not become apparent until after usually the easiest and least costly
with uncertain outcomes, adaptive the HCP has been approved. They procedures to implement, yet their
management requires resource advocate the inclusion of adaptive sufficiency can only be tested over
managers to acknowledge inherent management practices in virtually time and in relation to the response
risks in the experiment and modify every plan, making it the rule rather of target species in the real world.
conservation measures according to than the exception. To maximize prospects for success-
experience and new information. After consulting with conserva- ful mitigation, measures should be
Thus, another word for adaptive tion biologists, NHI has distilled based on the best science available,
management is "contingency plan- the following four steps for devel- and the mitigation strategy must be
ning." At its core, an effective oping an HCP that utilizes adaptive allowed to change over time as
adaptive management program management practices: monitoring progresses. To date,
must include a method for evaluat- 1) Identify explicit and quantifiable researchers have found that the ef-
ing HCP performance, and must biological goals; ficacy of the conservation measures
specify the alternative conservation 2) Characterize the human-induced initially selected in HCPs varies
measures that will be triggered au- stressors of the ecosystem that greatly. In most cases, the mitiga-
tomatically in the event that perfor- must be overcome or counter- tion procedures do address the pri-

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 33


mary threat to a species' survival, sential for already endangered or The importance of monitoring
but only about half of the mitiga- threatened species. The choice of mitigation measures
tion plans adequately ameliorate The success of mitigation mea- is crucial for an effective program
this threat (Kareiva et al. 1999). sures depends on their timely imple- of adaptive management, yet bio-
There are several techniques that mentation. To increase the probabil- logical monitoring comprises the
can reduce species' risks associated ity that unsuccessful mitigation pro- heart of adaptive management prac-
with unsuccessful mitigation strate- cedures can be detected and cor- tices. HCPs that do not include a
gies. In general, the Services recom- rected, implementation should occur monitoring program cannot be sci-
mend that habitat used for mitigation before the listed species are impacted entifically evaluated. As previously
should be as geographically close and by the permitted development activi- stated, adaptive management treats
ecologically similar to the impacted ties (Kareiva et al. 1999). If most of all HCPs as "learning laboratories"
habitat as possible. The Handbook the take occurs before mitigation in which the underlying conserva-
recommends that habitats be measures are implemented, the tion hypotheses are tested against
"banked" through the use of conser- chance of adapting the conservation actual responses in the species
vation easements or other means be- strategy to correct unsuccessful con- population. Monitoring of these
fore development occurs (USFWS servation measures is substantially responses in order to adjust conser-
and NMFS 1996). The "mitigation reduced. This statement also applies vation strategies is indispensable
credit" system is an example of this to plans covering multiple species, (Barrows 1996). In addition, a pre-
scheme. Under this system, credit is both listed and unlisted (Monroe cise trigger for mitigation adjust-
given to newly created habitat (usu- 1997). Also, if take is permitted be- ments, and procedures for accom-
ally on a per acre basis) that can then fore the permit applicant implements plishing the indicated adjustment,
be used or sold to other parties re- mitigation measures, the incentive for need to be spelled out in the HCP
quiring mitigation lands. This prac- effective mitigation is reduced. The agreement. The mere existence of
tice allows landowners to pay miti- Services recommend that mitigation monitoring is not a solution to data
gation fees into habitat acquisition habitat should be available before the shortage unless it includes a quan-
funds in lieu of conserving habitat on applicant's activities commence. In titative decision-making process
their own lands. Other landowners some cases, however, the Services that links monitoring data to adjust-
may create habitat for purchase as will allow the HCP applicant to con- ments in management.
mitigation. For instance, Interna- duct activities prior to the provision An adequate monitoring pro-
tional Paper Company is restoring of replacement habitat. The Services gram requires the use of quantifi-
and selling red-cockaded wood- find this practice acceptable as long able indicators placed in a hypoth-
pecker (Picoides borealis) habitat as the HCP offers legal or financial esis-testing framework with a valid
in the southeastern U.S. The assurances that the permit applicant experimental design. Noss et al.
Bakersfield Metropolitan HCP is will fulfill their obligations under the (1997) recommend employing the
conserving habitat for multiple spe- HCP. Such an assurance can be pro- following checklist when assessing
cies in California's Central Valley vided through letters of credit con- the sufficiency of an HCP monitor-
based entirely on marketable devel- trolled by the government until the ing program:
opment rights. permit applicant establishes the 1) Is the monitoring program sci-
Mitigation banking can achieve mitigation lands (USFWS and entifically and statistically
habitat goals in an economically ef- NMFS 1996). valid? Monitoring need not be
ficient manner and can reconfigure Because mitigation can be one complex and expensive, just
habitat in ways that traditional HCPs of the most expensive steps in the comprehensive.
cannot. Because spatial consider- development and execution of an 2) Does the program effectively
ations are critical in conservation, HCP, the Services and applicants test the success of the conserva-
mitigation banking has the potential must determine the cost of the pro- tion measures? The purpose of
to result in "no net loss" of habitat posed measures, the source of fund- monitoring is to test hypotheses
and to enhance population stability ing, and the time period over which and inform management. Does
by exchanging fragmented habitats these funds will be available early the HCP allow for testing of hy-
for non-fragmented habitats. Assur- in the HCP development stage. potheses regarding effects of
ing that mitigation banks do not re- HCPs generally satisfy these crite- management practices on popu-
sult in a net reduction in the extent ria (Kareiva et al. 1999). lations and other conservation
or quality of habitat is absolutely es- elements of concern? Does it

34 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


allow for testing of alternative have well developed and statistically Applying the precautionary
management treatments? valid monitoring programs (Noss et principle to HCP design
3) Will the program provide al. 1997; Kareiva et al. 1999). Typi- Inadequate information regarding a
timely analysis? Does the plan cally, the Services offer little help to species' status, its habitat, and the
include a mechanism for regu- an applicant in constructing a scien- type and magnitude of take that will
lar and timely analysis and re- tifically defensible monitoring pro- occur during development activities
view of monitoring data? HCPs gram. When monitoring is deficient, appears to be endemic in HCP
should include specific time- the essential goal of learning from ex- preparation. In their study of over
tables for analyzing and inter- perience is much harder to accom- 40 HCPs, Kareiva et al. (1999) re-
preting monitoring data in or- plish. Fortunately, the addendum in ported that, for 25 percent of the
der to inform management de- the Services' HCP draft handbook species in the plans they reviewed,
cisions. Such a requirement does propose to improve current they could not determine whether
assures that monitoring will not compliance monitoring by requiring there was currently enough habitat
stop with the collection of in- permit applicants to document to maintain viable populations.
formation, but will include ef- completion of mitigation measures (Kareiva et al. 1999). For only one-
forts to analyze and interpret it. and their effectiveness in achieving third of the species analyzed in this
Monitoring must also be time- conservation goals. study were there enough data to
sensitive to the life cycle of the The Services require the appli- evaluate what proportion of the
monitored species. cant to demonstrate sufficient funds population would be impacted by
4) Is the HCP designed to be re- to conduct the activities listed in an the proposed development. Clearly,
sponsive to information derived HCP, including conservation mea- data limitations make it difficult to
from monitoring? Can the plan sures, plan administration, and bio- determine the impacts of future
be modified to take into ac- logical monitoring (USFWS and habitat losses or alterations on the
count new information? An NMFS 1996). However, reviewers listed species.When baseline data
HCP that is "set in stone" and have found that sufficient funds for are sparse, as is often the case for
designed to avoid future sur- monitoring programs have not been species covered in HCPs, it is dif-
prises is inflexible and poten- designated for many HCPs. Without ficult to design an effective and ef-
tially places species and eco- funding for the thorough biological ficient conservation strategy with
systems at great risk. Since monitoring essential to adaptive man- confidence. Thus, conservation bi-
nature is dynamic and unpre- agement, HCPs cannot be imple- ologists recommend that HCP con-
dictable, surprises will occur; it mented in a scientifically credible servation strategies should be
is a matter of whether we no- manner. The conservation organiza- guided by the traditional scientific
tice them. The sooner we notice tion Defenders of Wildlife recom- method of experimentally proving
them and take corrective action, mends that applicants be required to or disproving testable hypotheses
the lower the risk to post a performance bond or other fi- (Williams 1997).
biodiversity. Therefore, plans nancial security before they are The precautionary principle is
should be evaluated as to how granted an incidental take permit, another method for coping with in-
flexible they are to modifica- ensuring that funds will be available complete or inadequate information
tion based on new information. if a permit is revoked or if additional pertinent to habitat conservation
The principal criteria for deter- mitigation measures become neces- planning and is used in many envi-
mining the adequacy of a monitor- sary. Such measures would also pro- ronmental management fields. This
ing program should be its ability to tect the public if landowners become principle is also employed in fields
evaluate the success of mitigation insolvent or otherwise terminate the as diverse as engineering and eco-
measures, and the consequent effect agreement before mitigation steps are nomics, where decisions must be
on protected species. Monitoring completed (Defenders of Wildlife made despite uncertainty. The prin-
data should be incorporated into 1998). Other commentators recom- ciple holds that, in the face of poor
centralized databases to facilitate mend establishing a federal trust to information or great uncertainty,
access to information on overall provide supplemental support in the managers should adopt risk-adverse
species status, and to facilitate as- event that landowners comply with practices (Williams 1997).
sessment of cumulative impacts for the plan, but additional measures are In the HCP arena, applying the
specific plans (Kareiva et al. 1999). needed to meet biological goals. precautionary principle means deal-
Reviewers found that few HCPs ing with data deficiencies in a way

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 35


that guards target species from irre- the success of mitigation is conservation measures obligated
versible habitat loss, yet does not pre- unproven. therein (Thornton 1991). The in-
clude development. The first step of • Adaptive management needs crease in HCP activity in response
the precautionary principle is to as- to be a part of every HCP predi- to such assurances seems to con-
sess the sufficiency of available data. cated on substantial data short- firm this assumption. Implicit in
An inventory of this data and ages; it is not just to deal with this belief is the fear that develop-
acknowledgement of gaps should be "unforeseen circumstances." ment will surreptitiously destroy or
a routine requirement in the devel- degrade endangered species habi-
opment of every HCP. Where nec- In sum, where critical informa- tats on non-federal lands and wa-
essary data are not available and can- tion is scarce or uncertain, applica- ters unless owners of these proper-
not be practicably obtained, the plan- tion of the precautionary principle ties are induced to make conserva-
ning process should proceed with counsels that resulting plans should tion commitments. Although the
caution commensurate with the an- adhere to the following recommen- ESA prohibits such development,
ticipated risks and uncertainties. In dations: be shorter in duration, its occurrence can readily over-
extreme cases, an HCP should not be cover a smaller area, avoid irrevers- whelm the Services' detection and
initiated or approved, for it would be ible impacts, require that mitigation enforcement capabilities. Essen-
wrong to call the HCP process scien- measures be accomplished before tially, regulatory assurances pro-
tific, or even rational, if it were not take is allowed, include contingen- vide the necessary inducement for
an option to halt the process in the cies, and have adequate monitoring. habitat conservation planning by
absence of crucial information. Re- All of these aforementioned prin- exempting development activities
garding the precautionary principle, ciples should be enshrined in the from new or additional mitigation
Kareiva et al. (1999) counsel that: HCP approval criteria in Section 10 requirements beyond those com-
• The greater the impact of a of a reauthorized ESA. HCP Re- mitted in the HCP (Dept. of the In-
plan, the fewer gaps in critical view and analysis to date has found terior and Dept. of Commerce
data should be tolerated. For that these corollaries of the precau- 1998). The major concern of the
example, the data adequacy tionary principle have not been ad- HCP performance reviewers is that
standard should be higher for equately applied in habitat conser- such regulatory assurances can in-
irreversible activities such as, vation planning. In particular, troduce rigidity in the conservation
urban development. A lower HCPs based on a weak information strategy that inhibits or precludes
data adequacy standard might base have tended to be of similar adaptive management. Through
be tolerated for activities with duration and extent as those based regulatory assurances, the property
reversible impacts, for ex- on more adequate information. rights holder typically seeks release
ample, water diversions that are Further, researchers have found that from further responsibility for spe-
made conditional upon protec- HCPs based on poor information cies conservation, irrespective of
tion of aquatic habitat. tend to be more likely to include the future population trends for the
A data scarcity on impacts activities with irreversible impacts covered species.
of take should be handled by (Kareiva et al. 1999). These results Assurances are also controver-
assuming a worst-case sce- suggest that HCPs are not generally sial because they tend to shift to the
nario when determining structured to be more cautious in species the risks associated with our
whether or not approval cri- cases where applicants are working imperfect knowledge about how
teria have been satisfied. with large data gaps. complex biological systems re-
• Take should be quantitatively spond to human interventions. The
assessed for large HCPs cover- Alignment of regulatory assurance practice of conferring assurances
ing vast expanses of land. with adaptive management, and without regard to the quality or du-
• Mitigation measures should be HCP conservation performance ration of the conservation plan ex-
implemented and assessed be- acerbates these risks (Defenders of
fore take occurs where informa- Regulatory Assurances: Controver- Wildlife 1998).
tion is lacking to validate the sial but Necessary Currently, the Services provide
effectiveness of mitigation. The Services are convinced that le- the "no surprises" guarantee, a form
• Monitoring needs to be very gal assurances are necessary to in- of regulatory assurance. This policy
well designed in cases where duce private rights holders to de- can be traced back to a House of Rep-
velop HCPs and to implement the resentatives Committee Report on the

36 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


1982 Amendments to the ESA (H.R. 1996). Thus the rule requires rule (DOI Doc), the Services
Rep. No. 97-835). In the event an contingency planning only for "have the burden of demonstrat-
unlisted species is listed after permit stochastic events instead of the ing that unforeseen circumstances
issuance, the report stated: "no fur- more likely failure of mitigation exist, using the best scientific and
ther mitigation requirements should measures to work as "foreseen" commercial data available. The
be imposed if the [HCP] addressed or anticipated, such as the com- findings must be clearly docu-
the conservation of the species and mon circumstance in which the mented and based upon reliable
its habitat as if the species were listed HCP is implemented as agreed, technical information regarding
pursuant to the Act." The report also but species decline nonetheless. the status and habitat require-
stated that "circumstances and infor- The risk of such unforeseen ments of the affected species."
mation may change over time," and events dramatically increases for This rule includes many specific
that the original plan might need to HCPs that last several decades, factors that the agency must con-
be revised. To address this situation, cover large areas, and cover many sider in determining whether it
the Committee "expect[ed] that any species. Examples of such has demonstrated that unforeseen
plan approved for a long-term per- HCPs include housing develop- circumstances exist.
mit [would] contain a procedure by ments or timber harvesting. ♦ Adaptive management. Conser-
which the parties will deal with un- Yet, the plans for long-term con- vation biologists worry that the
foreseen circumstances." struction or operation activities "no surprises" policy falsely as-
Today, the "unforeseen circum- contain the same assurances as sumes that we can predict all the
stances" clause is interpreted such short-term, single species plans. In consequences of implementing a
that landowners are not responsible the event the Services make a find- particular HCP. Under current
for listed species’ decline if it is at- ing of unforeseen circumstances, policy the Services cope with
tributable to events that the land- they can take additional actions at gaps in biological data by either
owner could not have foreseen when their own expense to protect the denying the application for a take
the plan was approved (USFWS and species, provided that they have the permit or by requiring the appli-
NMFS 1996). The Services formally financial means appropriated by cant to build an adaptive manage-
adopted the policy as an agency rule Congress to do so, and provided ment program into the HCP (DOI
on February 23, 1998. that the affected landowners agree DOC). The policy does not, how-
The "no surprises" policy has to cooperate. Curiously, in an era ever, address a situation in which
had a dramatic affect on the public's where the Services are only able to newly obtained data indicate that
perception of ESA. It has muted meet a fraction of their statutory re- a change in the conservation strat-
political concern that the ESA is un- sponsibilities (EDF 1996), they egy is required to achieve conser-
workable and too stringent (Baur maintain that they have "significant vation goals. If the "no surprises"
1997). Yet, the policy has no short- resources" to provide additional policy precludes plan modification
age of critics, the harshest of whom protection for listed species subject in response to new information,
are conservation biologists. Some to an HCP (DOI Doc). The Ser- failures to attain conservation goals
of the outstanding issues that biolo- vices also have expressed con- are inevitable (Noss et al. 1997).
gists find problematic include the fidence that many landowners ♦ Regulatory assurances for con-
following: would willingly consider addi- servation measures covering non-
♦ Unforeseen circumstances. The tional conservation on a volun- listed species. While the ESA
rule distinguishes between "un- tary basis. Given the wealth of does not require landowners to
foreseen circumstances," or evidence to the contrary, how- protect unlisted, but declining
events that could not reasonably ever, further explanation of this species on their lands, the Ser-
have been anticipated, and "rea- assumption is warranted. vices encourage landowners to
sonably foreseeable changes in In addition, the threshold for "address" any unlisted species in
circumstances," including natural declaring that circumstances are an HCP by conferring additional
catastrophes that normally occur unforeseen, (for example, that the regulatory guarantees that further
in the area. HCPs need address Services can undertake additional mitigation will not be required if
only the latter; unforeseen cir- conservation measures at their such species is later listed.
cumstances do not impose any own expense and with the permis- A good example of the risks
conservation burdens on the ap- sion of the landowner), is unreal- posed to unlisted species that are in-
plicant (USFWS and NMFS istically high. Under the current cluded in an HCP can be found in

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 37


the Plum Creek timber plan in the of whether one or many of these for unlisted species is difficult since
Cascade Mountains of Washington species need further protection. little is known about species’ require-
State. The Plum Creek plan allows San Diego County's large-scale ments. As a result, an applicant must
the take of four species currently Natural Communities Conservation be willing to invest in further biologi-
protected by the ESA: northern Program (NCCP) management plan cal studies to ensure that the HCP
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis is another example of how local gov- adequately covers unlisted species.
caurina), marbled murrelet ernment and developers in compli- In this case, a critical issue in HCP
(Brachyramphus marmoratus), ance with this program are shielded development is the early identifica-
grizzly bear (Ursos arctos from providing additional commit- tion of those species or biological
horribilis) and gray wolf (Canis ments of land or money for conser- communities that the plan is to cover,
lupus). The HCP also addresses vation purposes. Such regulatory as- and the Services' determination that
another 281 unlisted vertebrate fish surances apply to some 85 listed and enough is known about the species
and wildlife species. The planning unlisted species and may be applied to enable HCP proponents to con-
area of 419,000 acres provides to additional species in the future if struct an effective conservation plan
habitat for 77 mammal, 178 bird, signatories to the NCCP agree that (Thornton 1991).
13 reptile, 13 amphibian, and 4 fish the species are "adequately con-
species (Plum Creek 1996). Even served" by the plan (Mueller 1997). Reforming Assurances
though Plum Creek's measures to If adequately addressed in an Given the importance of regulatory
protect these species include wider HCP, unlisted species could be pro- assurances to create an environment
riparian buffers and greater wetland tected from further decline and could in which non-federal property rights
preservation than would be required avoid listing, thereby guaranteeing holders will make commitments to
under state forest practice rules or that the landowner will not be sub- conserve habitat, we must explore
water protection laws, these same ject to further mitigation (Defenders options that do not shift risks to the
conservation commitments will of Wildlife 1998). Unfortunately, es- vulnerable species. Adaptive man-
hold far into the future regardless tablishing conservation requirements agement allows a flexible response

Habitat Conservation Planning...


Performance reviews of habitat conservation planning during its first 15 years reveal substantial opportunities to
restructure the process, thereby improving it for both imperiled species and nonfederal property rights holders.
These benefits can be accomplished without amending the statutory framework, although a modest “tune-up” of
the ESA would help enable these reforms. A marked change in the federal administration of this program and a
substantial increase in federal investments in habitat conservation planning are essential. Following are the
major points that have been addressed in this three-part series.
1) Shaping individual HCPs to contribute to a landscape-scale, bio-regional conservation strategy. Responsibility
for developing bioregional conservation strategies would fall to either the federal Services or units of government
at the state or local level. Increased involvement of government would shift much of the burden of gathering
adequate scientific data onto the public sector as well as allow for more involvement by independent scientists
and the interested public. The creation of landscape-scale HCPs would define conservation objectives and strategies to
which smaller, parcel-specific HCPs would be expected to conform. In addition, eco-regional planning would facilitate
a more equitable distribution of responsibility for conservation between federal and nonfederal rights holders.
2) Aiming bio-regional conservation strategies at species recovery. The only biologically defensible goal for
habitat conservation planning is the recovery of the endangered species. The federal government can ad-
vance recovery by managing public lands and waters to a higher conservation standard than the legal minima.
Recovery would also be advanced incrementally by habitat acquisitions or restoration actions that more than
offset the habitat losses (for example, mitigation measures that create a net biological benefit). Where spe-
cies recovery requires a greater conservation effort by the individual rights holders than is imposed by the
current legal standard of avoiding jeopardy, federal resources may be necessary to close the gap. For in-
stance, the highest-value habitats may be purchased from willing owners. (continued...)

38 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


that improves as results are moni- biological uncertainties of HCPs to stance, parties do not argue about the
tored. Adaptive management, how- the problem of how to allocate the need to provide certainty since they
ever, requires a fundamental change costs of funding the indemnity pool know from experience that surprises
in the way the regulatory assurances and how to determine eligibility for are to be expected; rather, they fig-
are structured so that HCPs remain compensation. The compensation ure out how to minimize the risks and
flexible and contingent rather than pool could be funded from "premi- provide sufficient security to afford
immutable, as they are now. One so- ums" contributed by the "beneficia- the lender comfort to finance the
lution lies in converting the assurance ries," a category that includes both project. Accordingly, reducing the fi-
package from regulatory immunity to HCP applicants and the public at nancial risks associated with land de-
regulatory indemnity. Under regula- large. Indeed, most commentators velopment under the ESA should lead
tory indemnity, further conservation recognize that the general public to more favorable interest rates for
strategies or restrictions could be will have to bear some, if not most, development loans. Thus, there is po-
implemented by the Services if the of the costs involved in adaptive man- tential to fund a portion of the com-
monitoring program indicated that agement. This trend is already be- pensation pool through reducing the
the species would continue to decline coming evident in the California Cen- costs of debt service for insured de-
without intervention. The costs for tral Valley water system, the Ever- velopment projects. Such a notion is
such intervention would not be borne glades, and other aquatic ecosystems. based on the premise that an indem-
by either the Services or the property Thornton (1991) notes that bio- nity arrangement will reduce the risks
rights holder but, instead would be logical risks to economic develop- of development under the ESA.
paid from a compensation fund. ment are not different in kind from As discussed in the second article
The use of regulatory indem- the myriad of other risk factors for of this series, another suggested re-
nity in the HCP process is analo- which an industry is covered through form in regulatory assurances would
gous to risk insurance in that it con- insurance to provide the necessary calibrate the duration or rigor of the
verts the problem of how to allo- certainty required by capital markets. assurance to the quality or expected
cate the risks associated with the In the construction industry, for in- performance of the HCP's conserva-

Special Series Summary


3) Reserving the decision on participation in the HCP negotiations for the Services rather than the permit
applicants. If the Services act as “gatekeeper” to the HCP negotiations, highly qualified independent scien-
tists and other representatives of the public interest can be included in what is now often a closed process.
Scientific experts should be allowed to “intervene” in HCP negotiations on behalf of local communities and
conservation interests to help shape a conservation program from its formative stages. Habitat conservation
plans developed with the input of independent scientists are more likely to succeed in their conservation
goals, thus diminishing the chances that the Services will need to revise development permits. Through
innovative tools such as the HCP Resource Center, which NHI is initiating, all stakeholders can enjoy the
benefits of expert scientific input in the HCP negotiation process without the proponent absorbing the cost.
4) Incorporating adaptive management routinely in HCPs. This form of management entails including in the
chosen conservation strategy a process for structured learning and adjustment that will improve the conser-
vation venture’s prospects for success. If coupled with an insurance arrangement, necessary adjustments
can be accomplished without financial risk to the permit holder, thereby reducing regulatory risk more
effectively than the current “no surprises” assurance, which, in any event, may be legally infirm in the event
of imminent extinction of a target species.

Through their continued support for the ESA and other environmental protection laws, the American people
have affirmed their unwillingness to tolerate preventable extinctions. Habitat conservation planning must be
made to work better in the interest of all stakeholders. Experience to date illuminates some of the pathways for
better performance. It is time to harness these lessons and chart a more certain course.

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 39


tion strategy. Under this approach, Conclusion policy: stepping away from sound bites
the scope or duration of the regula- Conservation decisions inevitably and getting down to business. Endangered
Species Update 14: 63-64.
tory assurance would depend on the must be made with incomplete or Dept. of the Interior and Dept. of Commerce.
magnitude of the HCPs contribution imperfect scientific information. Re- 1998. Final Rule, Habitat Conservation
to the target species' recovery. Plans viewers of HCPs have recommended Plan Assurances ("No Surprises"), 63 Fed.
that confer a net survival benefit that, to reduce risks to species stem- Reg. 8859-8860 (Feb. 23, 1998).
Environmental Defense Fund. 1996. Re-
would receive longer and more com- ming from this uncertainty, plans
building the ark: toward a more effective
prehensive guarantees than those that should incorporate adaptive manage- Endangered Species Act for private land.
simply maintain the current popula- ment and the precautionary principle. Washington, D. C.
tion level, or allow for some decrease. Adaptive management is not neces- H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong., 2d Sess.
Similarly, plans for which the under- sarily incompatible with regulatory 30, reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. &
Admin. News 2860, 2871-2872.
lying data and analyses are judged to assurances; however, the current no Kareiva, P. and 16 co-authors. 1999. Us-
be superior would be entitled to su- surprises policy should be modified ing Science in Habitat Conservation
perior guarantees. Stronger, more to give plans greater flexibility and Plans. Santa Barbara (CA): National
comprehensive, or longer-term assur- resources to respond effectively to the Center for Ecological Analysis and Syn-
thesis; Washington, (DC): American In-
ances would be reserved for HCPs information provided by monitoring
stitute of Biological Sciences. <http://
that have the following features: re- programs. www.nceas.ucsb.edu/projects/hcp>
covery goals, an effective monitor- Printed version available from AIBS,
ing and adaptive management pro- Literature cited 1441 I St., NW, Suite 200, Washington,
gram, and an effective enforcement Barrows, C.W. 1996. An ecological model D. C. 20005.
for the protection of a dune ecosystem. Monroe, Jud, Habitat Conservation Plans
mechanism in the event that the com- Assurances and Assurance Mechanisms:
Conservation Biology 10: 888-891.
mitments in the HCP are not honored. Baur, Donald C. 1997. The no surprises A Preliminary Review of Approaches to
Mutual Assurances in Several Milestone
Habitat Conservation Plans 3. Prepared
for the Metropolitan Water District of
FOCUS ON NATURE TM by Rochelle Mason Southern California (1997).
Mueller, Tara. 1997. Natural community
conservation planning: preserving species
or developer interests? Endangered Spe-
The MASKED BOBWHITE cies Update 14: 26-28.
(Colinus virginianus Noss, R. F., M. A. O'Connell, and D. D.
ridgwayi ) is an 9 to 11-inch Murphy. 1997. The Science of Conserva-
medium-sized quail. The tion Planning: Habitat Conservation Un-
cock chooses a nesting site der the Endangered Species Act. Island
for the hen's approval, helps Press, Washington, D. C.
her build the nest, and also Plum Creek Multi-Species Habitat Conser-
presents her and the preco- vation Plan on Forestlands owned by Plum
cial chicks with food. Cov- Creek Timber Company in the I-90 Corri-
eys of up to 20 individuals dor of the Central Cascades Mountain
form after the summer Range (June 1996).
breeding season. They Thornton, R. D.1991. Searching for consen-
sleep in tight circles on the sus and predictability: habitat conservation
ground with each bird facing planning under the Endangered Species
outward. If charged, they fly Act of 1973. Environmental Law 21: 605.
in all directions confusing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Na-
t h e p r e d a t o r. I n h a b i t i n g tional Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. En-
grasslands with scattered dangered Species: Habitat Conservation
small trees and shrubs, this Planning Handbook.
endangered subspecies Williams, J. G.1997. Notes on adaptive man-
feeds primarily on seeds but agement, prepared for the Ag-Urban Eco-
also eats insects when avail- system Restoration Team 3, reprinted in
able. Adoption of captive-reared chicks by wild Texas bobwhites has Comments of the Natural Heritage Insti-
helped establish populations in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Ref- tute Regarding the CALFED Bay-Delta
uge in southwestern Arizona. Your donation of time or money to nature Program Draft Ecosystem Restoration
conservation organizations will help adoption programs and save habitat. Plan. Berkeley, California.
64 Fed. Reg. pg. 11488-89.
© 2000 Rochelle Mason. www.rmasonfinearts.com. (877) 726-1544

40 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


Endangered Invertebrates: The Case for Greater Attention
to Invertebrate Conservation
Scott Hoffman Black
The Xerces Society, 4828 Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR 97215-3252; sblack@xerces.org
Matthew Shepard
The Xerces Society, 4828 Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR 97215-3252; mdshepherd@xerces.org
Melody Mackey Allen
The Xerces Society, 4828 Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR 97215-3252; mma@xerces.org

Abstract
Invertebrates eclipse all other forms of life on Earth, not only in sheer numbers, diversity, and biomass, but
also in their importance to functioning ecosystems. Invertebrates perform vital services such as pollination,
seed dispersal, and nutrient recycling. Although invertebrates are vitally important, they are often over-
looked in management decisions, especially in management for endangered species. One indicator of the
low emphasis on invertebrates is the lack of invertebrates included in both worldwide and U.S. endangered
species programs. A review of current U.S. Endangered Species Act listings and policies show that this
endangered species program is biased toward vertebrates. We believe there is compelling evidence that
agencies, scientists, conservationists, and land managers should do more to promote the conservation of
imperiled invertebrates. We briefly outline the steps that need to be taken to protect invertebrates and detail
butterfly farming and a pollinator protection campaign as two possible ways to protect and restore inverte-
brate diversity and habitat.

Introduction an estimated 1,085,000 identified (Figure 3). In the oceans, zoop-


Although invertebrates are often species, or 82 percent (Table 1, Fig- lankton and shrimp-like krill de-
overlooked and ignored, they ure 1) of the total identified animal velop vast surface blooms of in-
eclipse all other forms of life on species, and with all other inverte- credible mass. In the U.S. the bio-
earth, not only in sheer numbers, brates (excluding viruses and bac- mass of earthworms and arthropods
diversity (number of species), and teria) the number reaches 1,238,000 is estimated at 1,000 kg/ha, while
biomass (dry weight), but also in or 94 percent (UNEP 1995). The the comparative biomass of human
their importance to functioning eco- phylum Chordata, which includes beings and all other terrestrial ver-
systems. The group includes an all fish, birds, and mammals, con- tebrates is just 36 kg/ha (Pimentel
amazing array of organisms, includ- tains around 45,000 (3%) species of 1980). If the weight of all land ani-
ing dragonflies, snails, bees, which only 4,000 (0.03%) are mam- mals is summed, arthropods com-
worms, sea urchins, mayflies, spi- mals (UNEP 1995). It is estimated prise over 85 percent of the total
ders, centipedes, scorpions, worms, that 5 to 8 million insect species (Wilson 1992).
starfish, clams, and lobsters. A re- have not been identified or discov-
view of the Endangered Species Act ered (Figure 2), while only 5,000 Invertebrates' importance to
(ESA) and international endan- to 10,000 species of Chordates may functioning ecosystems
gered species lists shows govern- await discovery and description The sheer number and mass of in-
ment agencies need to do more to (UNEP 1995). Certain marine taxa, vertebrates reflect their enormous
promote invertebrate conservation. particularly small benthic organ- ecological impact. Admittedly,
isms, are nearly as poorly known some have a negative impact on
Invertebrate diversity and biomass as terrestrial arthropods, suggesting humans, either by harming us di-
The animal kingdom has just over that we have also greatly underes- rectly (as disease agents) or attack-
a million scientifically described timated oceanic species diversity ing food crops, tree plantations, and
species categorized into 32 phyla. of invertebrates (Murphy and livestock. Even so, all adverse ef-
The phylum Arthropoda (insects, Duffus 1996). fects combined are insignificant
spiders, crustaceans, millipedes, Invertebrates are also the un- compared to invertebrates' benefi-
and centipedes, among others) has disputed heavyweights of the planet cial actions. Invertebrates are a part

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 41


of nearly every food chain, either
directly as food for other insects,
fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds,
mammals, and other arthropods
(Gilbert 1980), or indirectly as
agents in the endless recycling of
soil nutrients. Insects, worms, and
mites are extremely important in
helping microbes break down dung
and dead plant and animal matter.
Invertebrates are thought to decom-
pose 99 percent of human and ani-
mal waste (Pimentel 1980). The
perpetuation of food webs is often
dependent on critical species per-
forming essential services such as
Figure 1. Total number of animal species (© E. O. Wilson 1988, re-
pollination or seed dispersal
produced with permission).
(Dodson 1975). Invertebrates, par-
ticularly native bees, pollinate most
human food crops, and most other humans as natural biological con- unappreciated aspect of this mass
plant species. In the U.S., approxi- trol, food (such as lobster and extinction is its concentration
mately 90 agricultural crops are shrimp and the many insects con- among invertebrates.
cross-pollinated by insects sumed by different cultures), and as In 1987, West Germany classi-
(Pimentel 1980). potential cures for human disease. fied 34 percent of its 10,290 insect
Some invertebrates are key- Without insects most of the terres- and other invertebrate species as
stone species, playing particularly trial life forms on this planet would threatened or endangered; in Aus-
important roles in maintaining bi- quickly disappear (Wilson 1992). tria this figure was 22 percent of
otic communities (Kellert 1993). 9,694 invertebrate species (Wilson
Coral reefs, providing a wide range Invertebrate endangerment 1992). More recent figures for
of niches for a diversity of plants Wilson (1992) believes that we are Great Britain (DETR 2001) show
and possibly one-third of all fish in the sixth great extinction spasm that 10.8 percent (1,578 species) of
species (Goreau 1979), serve as in the history of the world, with a its 14,634 insects species are rare,
perhaps the most dramatic example 20 percent extinction of total glo- vulnerable, or endangered. Many
of a keystone species. There are bal diversity a strong possibility by unpublicized scientific observa-
dozens more examples of how in- 2022 if the present rate of environ- tions indicate that marine
vertebrates benefit ecosystems and mental destruction continues. One biodiversity is also severely
threatened (Murphy and Duffins
Table 1. Partial classification of select animal Phylum (modified 1996). Many, if not most, of the
from UNEP 1995). threatened marine species are un-
doubtedly invertebrates.
ANIMALIA 1,320,000
Freshwater bivalves, for in-
MESOZOA stance, are among the most endan-
METAZOA 1,320,000 gered groups of organisms in North
Porifera (sponges) 10,000 America (Mulvey 1997). The US
Cnidaria (hydras, jellyfish, corals, etc) 10,000 freshwater mollusk fauna, espe-
Platyhelminthes (flatworms) 20,000 cially rich in mussels and gill-
Nematoda (roundworms) 25,000 breathing snails, is the largest in the
Echinodermata (sea uchins, etc.) 6,000 world. Also, it is better studied and
Choradata (fish, birds, mammals, etc.) 45,000 recorded than most invertebrate
Arthrododa (crabs, spiders, insects, etc) 1,085,000 taxa. The species of this fauna
Mollusca (snails, squids, etc) 12,000 have been steeply declining in num-
Annelida (segmented worms) 12,000 bers from the damming of rivers,

42 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


dangered species are inverte-
brates (USFWS 2001).

Invertebrates and the ESA


The ESA has always treated verte-
brates more generously than it does
invertebrates. Insects are singled
out as the only group that cannot
be protected if a particular species
is determined by the Secretary of
Agriculture to be an agricultural
pest. This provision has never been
used, as any serious pest would not
likely be an endangered species.
Whereas the ESA authorizes the
protection of species, subspecies,
and "distinct population segments"
of vertebrates, only species and
Figure 2. Numbers of described species and conservatively estimated existing subspecies of invertebrates may be
species for major groups of organisms expected to contain in excess of 100,000 protected. This provision was a
species. Vertebrates are included for the comparison. Note that the shaded compromise between the House of
proportion for Chordates does not show up on this graph because the esti- Representatives and the Senate in
mated non-discovered species are only 5,000. Note also that the shaded por-
tion of the bar for insects is truncated so as not to imbalance the diagram, and
1978 after the House voted to elimi-
the length of the undescribed species portion is particularly speculative for the nate protection for invertebrates al-
various groups of micro-organisms. together (Bean 1993).
Out of 31 species removed from
pollution, and introduction of alien ral Resources) Red List of Threat- endangered status only two are in-
mollusks and other aquatic animals. ened Species, 375 invertebrates are vertebrates. The first insect offi-
At least 21 mussel taxa (7% of the listed as extinct, and 757 are listed cially listed, the Bahama swallow-
fauna) are presumed extinct as critically endangered or endan- tail butterfly (Heraclides
throughout their ranges (Williams gered. In comparison, 318 verte- andraemon bonhotei), was taken
and Neves 1995). Imperiled species brate species are listed as extinct off the list because of an ESA
account for 48.5 percent of fresh- and another 1,521 are listed as criti- amendment (it was determined to
water mussels, 22.8 percent of cally endangered or endangered be only an occasional stray in the
freshwater gastropods, and 32.7 (IUCN 2000). The IUCN list of US and the authority to protect dis-
percent of crayfishes in North critically endangered or endangered crete invertebrate populations was
America (Ricciardi and Rasmussen species contains only one Arachnid, ended by the 1978 amendments to
1999). The combined effects of even though there are 75,000 the ESA). Sampson's pearlymussel
impoundment and pollution alone known species. Only 33 percent of (Epioblasma sampsoni) was also
extinguished two genera and 30 the endangered species on the red taken off the list because it went
species of gill-breathing snails in list are invertebrates, yet they make extinct. Unlike the American alli-
the Tennessee and Cossa Rivers up more than 94 percent of global gator and the brown pelican success
(Wilson 1992). animal diversity. stories, no insect has been taken off
We may never know how many The disparity is also apparent the list because its populations have
invertebrate species are at risk. The in a statistics summary of the US recovered. Only one species, the
true impact of extinction on inver- F i s h a n d Wi l d l i f e S e r v i c e s Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera
tebrates is hard to quantify, partly (USFWS) Threatened and Endan- hembeli), has been downlisted from
because endangered species docu- gered Species System (TESS). endangered to threatened in the last
mentation is biased in favor of ver- Currently, only 37 percent of U.S. ten years.
tebrates. According to the 2000 animal species listed as endan- Currently, TESS contains 103
IUCN (International Union for the gered are invertebrates and only animal species that are considered
Conservation of Nature and Natu- one percent of listed foreign en- candidates for endangered or threat-

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 43


ened species status, 92 (89%) of listed vertebrates because their vertebrate species than we do about
which are invertebrates. According smaller body size and shorter indi- most vertebrate species. Apart
to the USFWS, candidate taxa are vidual lifetimes may make them more from the relatively few inverte-
those for which the Service has on vulnerable to environmental fluctua- brates that do significant economic
file sufficient information to sup- tions (Murphy et al. 1990). Thomas damage or that have significant
port issuance of a proposed rule to (1990) suggests that to ensure com- economic value, there has been
list under the Act. Designating a parable viability, populations of rare relatively little research completed
species as a candidate taxon does insects should be at least one order on insect ecology.
not give it any legal protection un- of magnitude greater than popula- Regardless of the reason, envi-
der the ESA; protection begins only tions of vertebrates. ronmental policy often overlooks
when a species is formally desig- Some scientists believe that re- invertebrates despite their stagger-
nated as threatened or endangered. covery plans are biased toward ver- ing importance, and despite the
Often these species remain in limbo tebrates (Murphy 1991), and other catastrophic loss of so much inver-
for years (Suckling pers. comm. analyses of recovery plans have tebrate life. The general public also
2000) and sometimes go extinct showed that, with few exceptions, seems largely unaware of inverte-
while waiting for formal designa- a taxonomic bias has favored ver- brates' potential impact on human
tion. In 1995 three pomace flies tebrates. It was detected in the re- well-being. Many in the general
(Drosophila sp.) from Hawaii went covery process that a higher per- public view invertebrates with aver-
extinct while on the candidate list centage of vertebrates than inver- sion, fear, avoidance, and ignorance
(USFWS 1997). The Marianas tebrates had approved recovery (Kellert 1993). Scientists, and to a
euploea butterfly (Euploea plans (Tear et al. 1995). There is lesser extent conservationists, have
eleutho), an endemic to the Mariana also a striking contrast between ex- more favorable attitudes toward in-
Islands, met the same fate (USFWS penditures for invertebrates when vertebrates (Kellert 1993), but still
1997). No comprehensive survey compared to vertebrates. In fiscal favor vertebrate over invertebrate
has been completed to determine year 1991, state and federal agen- species in research, education, and
how many species have gone ex- cies combined spent an average of conservation action.
tinct while on the candidate list, and $1.1 million for each bird species
it is likely that many more have dis- listed, $684,000 for each listed Causes of endangerment
appeared unnoticed. mammal species, and only $44,000 The causes of invertebrate endan-
In the 1990s, many inverte- for each listed invertebrate species germent is similar to many other
brates (as well as plants and other (Bean 1993). animals. According to the IUCN,
animals) that might have warranted Some of the apparent neglect of the leading causes of both verte-
listing were dropped from consid- invertebrates may be because we brate and invertebrate endanger-
eration. In the 1980s and early know a lot less about individual in- ment include habitat destruction,
1990s, TESS contained over 1,200
invertebrates and 570 vertebrates
on the candidate list. The candi-
date list consisted of three catego-
ries: C1 = sufficient information on
hand to list, C2 = appears to need
listing, additional information re-
quired, and C3 = taxonomic uncer-
tainty. In 1994, the Clinton Admin-
istration dropped all C2 and C3 spe-
cies from the list, including over
1,100 invertebrates.
Although there is no significant
difference of the median population
size at the time of listing between ver-
tebrates and invertebrates (Wilcove
et al. 1993), invertebrate species may Figure 3. Total animal biomass, as measured in a plot near Manaus,
be more vulnerable to extinction than Brazil (© E. O. Wilson 1988, reproduced with permission).

44 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


displacement by introduced species, lands showed that areas not grazed efit invertebrates. Some inverte-
alternation of habitat by chemical or reforested harbored significantly brates only need small areas to thrive,
pollutants (such as pesticides), hy- higher butterfly species richness and indeed backyard gardens can
bridization with other species, and and heterogeneity, and hosted more help some pollinators. Working in
over-harvesting (Wilson 1992). Red List species, than grasslands in other countries to protect nature re-
Many insect species are vulner- the early successional stages serves or to protect butterfly and
able because their populations have (Balmer and Erhardt 2000). Old- other insect habitat is also a valid ap-
a severely restricted distribution, growth forests in temperate zones proach. In addition, habitat needs to
often just a single locality. The gi- also have higher invertebrate diver- be protected for marine species. We
ant flightless darkling beetle sity than younger stands need marine reserves managed for
(Polposipus herculeanus), for in- (Schowalter 1989). Tropical rain these species, not marine reserves
stance, lives only on dead trees on forests, however, may hold the ma- where commercial fishing and other
the tiny Frigate Island in the jority of terrestrial invertebrate di- destructive activities are allowed, as
Seychelles. The Socorro sowbug versity (Wilson 1992). With is often the case now.
(Thermosphaeroma thermophilum), rainforests and temperate old
an aquatic crustacean that has lost growth forests around the world be- Status reviews and listing petitions
its natural habitat, survives in an ing lost at a rapid rate, invertebrates The formal listing of species as
abandoned bathhouse in New are bound to go with them. threatened or endangered under
Mexico (Wilson 1992). Although federal or state endangered spe-
freshwater and land mollusks are What should be done to pro- cies legislation, as sensitive or in-
sometimes widespread species, tect invertebrates? dicator species under U.S. Forest
they are generally vulnerable to ex- Detailing a precise conservation Service National Forest Manage-
tinction because so many are spe- plan for invertebrates would take ment Act regulations, or even un-
cialized for life in specific habitat volumes. The widespread destruc- der lists from nongovernmental
conditions and are unable to move tion of the earth's biodiversity oc- organizations such as IUCN, has
quickly from one place to another curring today must be matched by been an extremely effective habi-
(Wilson 1992). As a result, isolated a conservation response on an or- tat protection tool. Groups and
populations are highly susceptible der of magnitude greater than that individuals should work to pro-
to change. For instance, invasive which currently exists. Ultimately, tect invertebrates as well as more
introduced species are a significant the key to protection of any species charismatic megafauna and en-
problem for many Hawaiian species, is protecting its habitat. Many sci- sure that agencies and land man-
including tree snails. In contrast, entists advocate community–level agers realize the importance of
other species, such as the monarch conservation for non-charismatic conserving invertebrates. In
butterfly, migrate great distances but taxa. Moreover, community-wide some cases, legal action may be
still face an uncertain future. studies appear to offer a practical needed to ensure that federal agen-
Rare insect species often have way to gather information about the cies follow laws, such as the ESA.
subtle habitat requirements and diversity and distribution of little
have even been lost from reserves known taxa (Hughes 2000). We Research
as a result of apparently minor habi- should move forward with the gath- Before we can work to protect some
tat changes (Thomas 1995). The ering of information wherever pos- invertebrates we need to at least know
large blue butterfly (Maculina sible. Although protecting whole if populations are stable or declining,
arion) larvae is an obligate parasite communities is a valid scientific ap- and we need to understand their habi-
of red ant (Myrimica sabuleti) colo- proach, one of the best methods for tat needs. Many invertebrates have
nies. Accordingly, in 1979 this but- protecting species—the ESA—is not even been identified. In the long
terfly went extinct in England be- based on species rather than eco- run, more emphasis needs to be
cause plant communities were not system conservation. placed on invertebrate systematics
managed for the ants. (The large and taxonomy so that these species
blue has subsequently been suc- Habitat protection can be identified and cataloged. Re-
cessfully reintroduced to appropri- Large swaths of land designated as search needs to go hand in hand with
ately managed sites in England us- wilderness, protected for wide rang- conservation, for there is little use for
ing a subspecies from Sweden.) ing species, or set-aside in conserva- a catalog of extinct species.
Studies of some European grass- tion easements will ultimately ben-

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 45


Education ment that is based on the wise use they propagate live "fuel" for pu-
Successful conservation of inverte- of forest resources and on the long- pae production. The nearby forest
brates requires a greater understand- term prosperity for the ranchers. provides the raw materials for their
ing by the general public, scientists, We differentiate between but- business, and its regenerative pow-
land managers, and conservationists terfly farming and ranching in this ers become highly important.
of the extraordinary value that these article. According to CITES (Con- Butterfly ranching is a sustain-
organisms provide. It is unlikely that vention on International Trade in able, ecologically responsible cottage
very many people will develop affec- Endangered Species of Wild Flora industry. The market for live butter-
tion or an affinity for these animals, and Fauna) farming operations are fly pupae is a robust one. Exhibits
but it is plausible that a more com- essentially closed systems that are displaying exotic, live, tropical but-
pelling depiction of invertebrates' ex- no longer dependent upon regular terflies and plant communities within
traordinary contributions to human infusions of wild stock to produce huge glass exhibit houses are tremen-
welfare and survival will do much to successive generations in captivity. dously popular. There are at least 140
improve the public attitude toward Ranching operations, however, are butterfly houses located throughout
these organisms (Kellert 1993). An open-ended operations, depending the world in Asia, Australia, New
ambitious public education program upon a regular and recurrent infu- Zealand, Canada, and Europe, and
is needed to enhance the recognition sion of wild stock (such as by har- more than 60 in North America.
of invertebrates' positive values, and vesting early instar larvae in the These are lucrative enterprises, with
indeed, of all biological diversity. wild, and then growing them in admissions in the U.S. ranging from
controlled environments). Using $6.50 to $18.95. Two million people
Case studies in invertebrate CITES terminology, butterfly a year tour the butterfly house at the
conservation ranching is preferable to farming San Diego Wild Animal Park. The
There are many innovative and suc- because the viability of ranching large US exhibits budget as much as
cessful conservation programs imple- efforts depends upon the continued $100,000 or more annually for but-
mented by conservation organiza- availability of wild habitat from terfly livestock.
tions around the world that focus on which to take the needed stock. The well-being of people who
invertebrates. Below we outline two This assumes, of course, that any live on the edges of tropical forests
major programs with which the harvest from the wild is sufficiently is a prime factor in determining
Xerces Society has been involved. controlled so as not to be excessive. whether those areas are maintained
Butterfly ranching utilizes any and conserved, according to con-
Butterfly farming buffer zone adjacent to secondary clusions reached during the United
People who live in the cradle of a or primary forests, and the forests Nations Rio de Janeiro Conference
country's natural resources, given themselves. It combines village on Sustainable Development in
sufficient incentives to conserve, economic development with educa- 1992 (UNEP 1995). Butterfly
can be (and often already are) al- tion about basic biology, ecosystem ranching can be a sustainable eco-
lies—not adversaries—in sustain- dynamics, and sustainable manage- nomic development tool if there is
able natural resource management ment practices. The ranchers sufficient in-country support. With
(UNEP 1995). Conservation-based quickly understand the importance skilled scientific direction, it can
butterfly farming—more accu- of their local biological diversity, also directly conserve and regen-
rately, ranching—can be a success- especially plants and insects, and erate butterfly species on the
ful means to protect and conserve become protective stewards. brink of extinction.
critical habitat for threatened spe- Thanks to an intact forest, their The Xerces Society and Zoo-
cies wherever tropical forest butter- butterfly breeding stock is close at logical Society of San Diego have
fly habitats remain intact, and hand, derived from wild, geneti- been partners for five years in a
where live butterfly export is legal. cally vigorous populations. The butterfly ranching pilot project.
The tropical forests of Central and larval food plants that attract the The goal was to establish an in-
Latin America, the Philippines, egg-laying females and feed the come-producing cottage industry
Madagascar, Kenya, Malaysian caterpillars are also easily acces- that would be sustainable, ecologi-
Borneo, Jamaica, and Indonesian sible, as are the blooming nectar cally responsible, enhance protec-
Iryan Jaya meet these criteria. But- plants that lure the mating adults to tion of surrounding habitat, provide
terfly ranches can offer a sustain- the ranches. As ranchers obtain education in the natural sciences,
able means of economic develop- root cuttings from plants locally, and, if possible, involve school-age

46 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


et al. 1998). Also, concern about
the potential impact of this decline
on both wild lands and food pro-
duction is on the rise (Buchmann
and Nabhan 1996; Kremen and
Ricketts 2000).
Bees, the dominant group of pol-
linators, face a similar series of
threats as most other wildlife, espe-
cially loss of habitat to development
and agriculture. In addition, bees are
susceptible to fragmentation of habi-
tat (Westrich 1996), resource compe-
tition from non-native species
(Buchmann 1996; Thorp 1996;
Roubik 2000), and use of pesticides
(Sipes and Tepedino 1995). Despite
their critical importance, few polli-
nator insects—including just one bee,
Franklin's bumble bee (Bombus
franklini)—get any official protec-
tion in the U.S., and then often only
as Species of Concern at the state or
federal level.
In 1998, a group of pollinator
Figure 5. Listed as endangered in June 1976, there are nine known populations scientists developed recommenda-
of fat pocketbook pearly mussels (Potamilus capax), confined to two river sys- tions for conserving pollinators
tems in Arkansas and Indiana. Dam building, dredging, and agricultural (Allen-Wardell et al 1998). These
chemical runoff threaten these populations in their habitat of slow-moving recommendations were endorsed
rivers. Photo reproduced with permission of Susan Middleton and David
Liittschwager (1994).
by numerous conservation orga-
nizations and professional societ-
children. Barra del Colorado, a vil- the personal relationships between ies. The recommendations in-
lage in northeastern Costa Rica near the producers. clude the following:
the Nicaraguan border, was chosen The Xerces Society has pro- • Increasing attention to inverte-
because of its spiraling economic duced a publication to provide brate systematics, monitoring,
problems. This operation, employ- guidance: A Handbook for Butter- and reintroduction as part of
ing women farmers whose children fly Farmers. (Please contact one of habitat management and resto-
also participated, was highly suc- the authors of this article for more ration plans;
cessful as long as the U.S. organi- information on this book.) • Assessing effects of pesticides,
zations were providing on-site man- herbicides, and habitat fragmen-
agement six months of the year. Pollinators tation on wild pollinator popu-
The women lacked the requisite Pollinators are often considered lations;
training and skill to deal with the keystone species as their presence • Including seed monitoring, and
complexities of management; thus, in an ecosystem ensures the contin- fruit set and floral visitation
without the presence of on site man- ued reproduction and survival of rates in endangered plant man-
agers, they lost motivation for the plants, and in turn the other wild- agement and recovery plans;
project. The lesson learned is that life relying on these plants. Data • Including habitat needs for vital
trained, in-country advisors must be on at-risk invertebrate pollinator pollinators in the critical habitat
secured at the outset, and be regu- species is lacking; however, there designations for endangered
larly available over time to help is mounting evidence of the decline plants;
with management, exporting, and in pollinator insects (Allen-Wardell • Identifying and protecting floral

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 47


reserves near roost sites along has been featured in both print and ♦ North American Pollinator Pro-
migration corridors of threat- video magazines as well as on Na- tection Campaign, run by the
ened migratory pollinators. tional Public Radio, generating in- Co-evolution Institute (San
The work group also recommended terest and new projects across the Francisco, CA); this campaign
increased education and training to country (Shepherd and Tepedino is a collaborative initiative to
ensure that both the general public 2000; Shepherd et al 2001; Golf increase public awareness, cre-
and resource managers understand And Environment 2000; Living on ate projects to protect pollina-
the importance of pollinators. Earth 2001). tors and habitat, and initiate
The Xerces Society was one of In the Pacific Northwest, the policy change.
the first organizations to recognize Society is working to promote pol-
the significance of threats to polli- linator conservation and encourage Conclusion
nator insects, and was a founding wider involvement in projects at a The first step to invertebrate pro-
member of the Forgotten Pollina- grass-roots level. We have been tection is to put invertebrates on the
tors Campaign, administered from working with educators and stu- same footing as other species in
the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum dents, land managers, and agencies management decisions. Conserva-
(Tucson, AZ). We continue to be to promote awareness of pollina- tion, research, and education are all
an active advocate for insect polli- tors, and to engage people in activi- needed to ensure sustainable popu-
nator conservation in the U.S. Our ties to conserve them. We are pre- lations of invertebrates. The con-
work focuses on native pollinator senting workshops, establishing servation of invertebrates should be
insects and includes community- demonstration sites, producing a of paramount importance to all
based education activities, habitat handbook on pollinator manage- people as the ecological services
enhancement, and petitioning for ment, working with land managers they provide are vital to life as we
listing under the ESA. on specific projects to restore pol- know it on the planet. As Harvard
To promote conservation of na- linator habitat, and petitioning the biologist E. O. Wilson stated, "So
tive pollinator insects we are work- USFWS to list endangered and important are insects and other
ing to accomplish the following: threatened pollinator species. land dwelling arthropods, that if
• Increase the awareness of polli- We are also developing a all were to disappear, humanity
nators' important role in ecosys- website and database as a pollina- probably could not last more than
tems and of the threats they face tor conservation resource for the a few months."
among the public; Northwest region. It will become
• Engage people of all back- an integral part of the Society pol- Acknowledgments
grounds in pollinator conserva- linator conservation program in this Thanks to Tom Eisner, Michael
tion, providing them with the region, providing a place where Bean, Kieran Suckling, and David
knowledge and confidence to people can access information on Johnson for their thoughtful review
take action to protect pollinator pollinators and habitat, participate of drafts of this article.
diversity and habitat; in educational activities, and share
• Protect threatened and endan- experiences and knowledge. Literature cited
gered pollinator species and The Society is not the only or- Allen-Wardell, G., et al. 1998. The poten-
ganization working to protect pol- tial consequences of pollinator declines
their habitat; on the conservation of biodiversity and
• Influence decision-makers and linator insects. In addition to the
stability of food crop yields. Conserva-
policy through an advocacy and work of bee scientists at universi- tion Biology 12:8-17.
education campaign. ties and research centers, major pro- Balmer, O., and A. Erhardt. 2000. Conse-
grams launched by other organiza- quences of succession on extensively
The Society, in collaboration grazed grasslands for central European
with the USDA Bee Biology and tions include:
butterfly communities: rethinking con-
Systematics Laboratory (Logan, ♦ Migratory Pollinators Project, admin- servation practices. Conservation Biol-
UT), has worked with land manag- istered by the Arizona-Sonora Desert ogy 14:746-757.
Museum; this project focuses on pro- Bean, J. M. 1993. Invertebrates and the En-
ers to develop techniques to en-
tecting "nectar corridors" between dangered Species Act. Wings, Summer.
hance pollinator habitat. Based on The Xerces Society.
these techniques, pollinator man- Mexico and the United States for four Buchmann, S. L. 1996. Competition be-
agement guidelines have been pro- pollinators, including the monarch tween honeybees and native bees in the
duced and pollinator conservation butterfly (Danaus plexippus). Sonoran Desert and global bee conser-
vation issues. Pages 125-142 in A.

48 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


Matheson, S. L. Buchmann, C. O'Toole, sels Amblema and Megalonaias. Conser- 46-63 in Ecology and conservation of
P. Westrich, and I. H. Williams, editors. vation Biology 11: 868-878. butterflies. P. S. Andrew editor,
The Conservation of Bees. Academic Murphy, D. D. and A. Duffus. 1996. Chapman and Hall, London England.
Press, London. Conservation biology and marine Thomas, C. D. 1990. What do real popula-
Buchmann, S. L., and G. P. Nabhan.1996. biodiversity. Conservation Biology tion dynamics tell us about minimum vi-
The Forgotten Pollinators. Island Press, 10: 311-312. able population sizes? Conservation Bi-
Washington, D.C. Murphy D. D. 1991. Invertebrate conser- ology 4:324-327.
Caughley, G., and A. Gunn . 1995. Conser- vation. Pages 181-198 in K. A. Kohm, Thorp, R. W. 1996. Resource overlap
vation Biology in Theory and Practice. editor. Balancing on the brink of extinc- among native and introduced bees in
Blackwell Science, Oxford England. tion: The Endangered Species Act and California. Pages 143-152 in A.
Department of the Environment, Trans- lessons for the future. Island Press, Matheson, S. L. Buchmann, C. O'Toole,
port and the Regions. 2001. Digest of Washington, DC. P. Westrich, and I. H. Williams, editors.
Environmental Statistics. HMSO, Murphy D. D., K. E. Freas, and S. B. Weiss. The Conservation of Bees. Academic
London, UK. 1990. An environment-metapopulation Press, London.
Dodson, C. H. 1975. Co-evolution of or- approach to population viability analy- United Nations Environment Program.
chids and bees. Pages 91-99 in L. Gil- sis for a threatened invertebrate. Con- 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment.
bert and P. M. Raven, editors. Co-evo- servation Biology 4:41-51. V. H. Heywood, Executive Editor. Cam-
lution of plants and animals. University Pimentel D. 1980 Environmental quality and bridge University Press, Great Britain.
of Texas Press, Austin Texas. natural biota. Bioscience 30: 750-775. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Gilbert, L.E. 1980. Food web organiza- Roubik, D. W. 2000. Pollination system 2001. Summary of listed species, listing
tion and conservation of tropical di- stability in tropical America. Conserva- and recovery plans as of January 31,
versity. Pages 11-33 in M. F. Soule and tion Biology, 14:1235-1236. 2001. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess/html/
B.A. Wilcox, editors. Conservation Ricciardi, A. and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. boxscore.html.
b i o l o g y. Sirans Association, Extinction rates of North American United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sunderland, Massachusetts. freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wild-
Golf and Environment Videomagazine, 13: 1220-1222. life and Plants; Notice of Reclassifica-
Fall 2000. West Bend, Wisconsin: EPIC Schowalter, T. D. 1989. Canopy arthropod tion of Ten Candidate Taxa. Federal Reg-
of Wisconsin, Inc. 2000. community structure and herbivory in ister. 62 – 182: 49191-49193.
Goreau, T. F. 1979. Corals and coral reefs. old growth and regenerating forests in Wilcove, D. S., M Mcmillian and K. C.
Scientific American 24:124-137. western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Winston. 1993. What exactly is an en-
Hughes, J. B., G. C. Daily, and P. Ehrlich. Forest Restoration 19: 318-322. dangered species? An analysis of the US
2000. Conservation of insect diversity: Shepherd, M. D., and V. J. Tepedino. 2000. Endangered Species List. Conservation
a habitat approach. Conservation Biol- The Birdies and the Bees. Green Section Biology 7: 1985-1991.
ogy 14: 1788-1797. Record 38:17-21. Westrich, P. 1996. Habitat requirements of
International Union for the Conservation Shepherd, M., D. Heagerty, and B. Baker. central European bees and the problem
of Nature and Natural Resources. 2000. 2001. Environmental opportunity: pol- of partial habitats. Pages 1-16 in A.
The 2000 IUCN red list of threatened linating bugs need homes. Golf Course Matheson, S. L. Buchmann, C. O'Toole,
species. http://www.redlist.org/tables/ Management, February 2001:55-60. P. Westrich, and I. H. Williams, editors.
table2a.html. Sipes, S. D., and V. J. Tepedino. 1995. The Conservation of Bees. Academic
Kellert, S. R. 1993. Values and perceptions Reproductive biology of the rare or- Press, London.
of invertebrates. Conservation Biology chid, Spiranthes diluvialis: breeding Williams, J. D. and R. J. Neves. 1995.
7:845-855. system, pollination, and implications Freshwater mussels: a neglected and
Kremen, K., and T. Ricketts. 2000. Global for conservation. Conservation Biol- declining resource. Pages19-21 in Our
perspectives on pollination disruptions. ogy 9:929-938. living resources 1994. U. S. Department
Conservation Biology 14:1226-1228. Tear, T. H, M. Scott, P. H. Hayward and B. of interior, Washington DC.
Living on Earth, August 1999. Cambridge, Griffith.1995. Recovery plans and the Wilson E. O. 1992. The diversity of life.
Massachusetts: Living on Earth (Na- Endangered Species Act: are criticisms W. W. Norton Company, Inc. New
tional Public Radio). 2001. supported by data? Conservation Biol- York, NY.
Mulvey, M., C. Lydeard, D. L. Pyer, K. M. ogy 9:182-195.
Hicks, J. Brim-box, J. D. Williams and Thomas C. D. 1995. Ecology and conser-
R.S. Butler. 1997. Conservation genet- vation of butterfly metapopulations in
ics of North American freshwater mus- the fragmented British landscape. Pages

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 49


The Impact of Communication Towers On Neotropical
Songbird Populations
Joanne M. Lopez
Florida International University, University Park Campus, Environmental Studies Department, 11200 Southwest 8th Street,
Miami, FL 33199; JALopez31@atc-enviro.com

Abstract
Neotropical migrants are birds of the Western Hemisphere that migrate to the New World Tropics
(or "Neotropics") for the winter to take advantage of seasonally abundant food and longer
daylight hours. Migration is hazardous and every year, millions of birds collide with human-built
structures in North America. Presently, thousands of communication towers are located in
migratory flyways. Ornithologists estimate that in the 1970s, 1.2 million migratory birds were
killed annually by collisions with communication towers. Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) estimates the numbers to be four to five million, a violation of the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act. Forty-seven comprehensive published studies document the deaths of 230 bird
species, encompassing over 25 percent of all avian species found in the U.S. Of the 230 species
identified, 52 species are listed either as endangered or threatened. The Telecommunications Act
of 1996 brought about the deregulation of communication systems, causing an explosion in the
number of communication providers. As a result, the number of communication towers is in-
creasing and its growth rate will be exacerbated by a federal mandate requiring digital television
to be available nationwide by 2002. Without the implementation of government regulations,
communication companies are not likely to construct bird-friendly towers. Thus, researches are
tasked with finding alternative methods to protect birds from collisions with towers.

Introduction tions are generally more favorable, to inclement weather and collisions.
Neotropical migrants are birds of the with cooler temperatures and calmer Records of bird mortality at man-
Western Hemisphere that migrate to winds. Most migratory birds fly at made structures have been docu-
the New World Tropics (or higher elevations when crossing large mented at lighthouses for over a cen-
"Neotropics") for the winter. The bodies of water than when flying over tury. Every year, millions of birds
Neotropics are generally defined as land. Seventy-five percent of the collide with structures in North
the tropical regions of Mexico, Cen- Neotropical songbirds migrate at an America, including tall buildings, re-
tral and South America and the West altitude between 500 to 6,000 feet, flective glass, and communication
Indies that lie south of the Tropic of with the Blackpoll warblers towers—an increasing threat.
Cancer. There are approximately 360 (Dendroica striata), Red knots
species of Neotropical migrant birds, (Calidris canutus) and American Development of communica-
many of which are songbirds. Neo- golden-plovers (Pluvialis dominicus) tion towers
tropical migrant species include war- traveling as high as 12,000 feet. Ninety Ornithologists estimate that in the
blers, swallows, swifts, flycatchers, percent of migrating songbirds fly at 1970s, 1.2 million migratory birds
raptors, and herons. airspeeds between 15 and 50 miles per were killed annually by collisions
Neotropical migratory birds fly hour (Smithsonian 2000). with communication towers. (ABC
great distances to take advantage of Migration is physically demand- 2000) The actual number of com-
seasonally abundant food and longer ing, as birds travel across hundreds munication towers in the United
daylight hours, which increases their to thousands of miles, spanning from States today is unknown, but indus-
potential for breeding success. Most several weeks to four months. Mi- try experts estimate there are
long distance migratory songbirds gratory birds require quality habitats 100,000, which is nearly four times
travel at night when they are less along the migration routes to replen- the number that existed in the 1970s
likely to encounter predators. Addi- ish food reserves and to escape preda- (Seeman 2000). Thousands of com-
tionally, nighttime weather condi- tors. Migration is also hazardous due munication towers are already lo-

50 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


Figure 1. Thousands of communication towers are located in migratory flyways. Over one million birds are killed
annually due to tower collisions. Photo courtesy of USFWS Gene Nieminen.
cated in migratory flyways and the Act brought about the deregulation son. Some reports included only lim-
Federal Communication Commis- of communication systems and de- ited information on the tower with-
sion (FCC) reports that approxi- creases in costs, causing an influx of out including the height above mean
mately 5,000 new communication digital communication providers. sea level. More comprehensive stud-
towers are being built each year. The overall result was the construc- ies included the total number of birds
This rate is expected to increase with tion of a massive telecommunications killed, number of birds by species,
the advancements in digital telephone infrastructure. According to the tower construction and support struc-
and television technology. FCC, the number of customers using ture (i.e. guy wires), total height
The FCC regulates communica- mobile phone services increased above ground level (AGL), total
tion in the U.S., and as such, is re- from 24 million subscribers at the end height above mean sea level (MSL),
sponsible for the regulation of com- of 1994 to over 78 million in 1999 lighting systems and other relevant
munication towers. The FCC data- (Weisensel 2000). details such as weather conditions.
base contains 77,519 registered com- As the number of mobile phone The American Bird Conservancy
munication towers, which are used to customers continues to rise, the con- (ABC) obtained 149 studies com-
provide nationwide coverage for cel- struction of telecommunication towers pleted in 21 eastern states from 1958
lular telephone, television, radio, is increasing at an alarming rate to 1997. ABC revealed that 545,250
paging, messaging, wireless data, and (Weisensel 2000). In addition to de- avian fatalities occurred as a result
other communication industries. In regulation, a federal mandate requires of tower collisions during the study
accordance with FCC regulations, that all television stations provide period. The number of fatalities var-
58,339 of these towers are required broadcasts for digital TV (DTV) by the ied greatly from one location to an-
to be lit because they are over 199 year 2002. As a result, the construc- other. Of the 149 studies reviewed,
feet tall, are within a 3.8-mile radius tion of 1,000 DTV "megatowers" is an- 121 provided some detail on the num-
of an airport, or are situated along a ticipated, some approaching a height ber of birds killed and 88 provided
major highway. Additionally, it is es- of 2,000 feet (Green 2000). some detail on the number of species
timated that there are tens of thou- killed. None of the studies were con-
sands of towers that do not fall within Bird kill studies and statistics ducted west of the Rocky Mountains
these criteria, and therefore, do not The earliest published study of bird and only 14 studies were conducted
require registration with the FCC. kills at communication towers was west of the Mississippi River. Only
The Telecommunication Act of completed in 1949. Early studies 47 provided sufficient information to
1996 was established to promote were conducted unsystematically and be evaluated further. These 47 stud-
competition and reduce regulations did not provide sufficient information ies documented a total of 184,250
in the communication industry; to se- about the extent of species being af- birds killed, encompassing 230 spe-
cure lower prices and higher quality fected. For example, some studies cies, which represented over one
services for American telecommuni- included only the total number of quarter of all avian species found in
cation consumers; and to encourage birds found on a given day; others the U.S. Of the 230 species identi-
the rapid development of new tele- were conducted over several days, fied, one endangered Red-cockaded
communication technologies. The weeks, or over a single migration sea- woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 51


along with 51 other species were birds and cataloged carcasses daily (ABC 2000). During the study pe-
listed either on the U.S. Fish and from August to November. During riod, over 99 percent of the species
Wildlife Service (USFWS) Migra- this time period, 42,386 birds repre- collected were Neotropical migrants,
tory, Nongame Birds of Management senting 190 species were collected, primarily warblers (Evans 2000).
Concern List or the Partners in Flight as well as several species of bats. Jim More than 120,000 songbird
List. Reportedly, the distribution of Cox, a biologist with the Florida deaths were documented by Dr.
birds killed averaged less than 85 in- Fresh Water Fish and Game Commis- Charles Kemper, a retired physician
dividuals of any one species at a sion, observed that occasionally as in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. In 1957,
single tower, even when the number many as 2,000 birds were found scat- Dr. Kemper learned of the problem
of fatalities numbered in the thou- tered beneath the tower. It was esti- of birds colliding with communica-
sands, with the exception of the Ten- mated that an additional 2,000 birds had tion towers and began checking a
nessee warbler (Vermivora been killed but were carted off by scav- nearby 500-foot tower. For several
peregrina), Blackpoll warbler engers before they could be counted months he turned up nothing, until a
(Dendroica striata) and Prairie war- (Crawford 1981; Brown 2000). second 1,000-foot tower was con-
bler (Dendroica discolor). Overall, Numerous studies have docu- structed adjacent to the existing
the warblers, a species in decline, mented bird deaths into the tens and tower. On September 20, 1957, more
seemed to be the most effected by hundreds of thousands. A 1,368-foot than 20,000 warblers, thrushes and
collisions with communication tow- TV tower positioned on a hill (680 tanagers carcasses were found within
ers; however, with 230 species docu- foot elevation) located in Nashville, 500 feet of the tower, the largest
mented, bird collisions are not lim- Tennessee was studied for 38 years. single night kill ever recorded. Dr.
ited to a specific species, or to select Twenty-six guy wires supported the Kemper stated that the tremendous
communication towers, but distrib- triangular tower. From 1960 to 1997, casualties continued into the 1960s
uted widely for all towers over 200 data was collected daily from Sep- and 1970s and then gradually de-
feet (Brown 2000). tember 1 to October 31, during the clined (Seeman 2000). Perhaps the
One comprehensive study of bird fall migration. A total of 19,880 birds decline is due to the presence of fewer
mortality was conducted at a commu- representing 112 species were col- birds or due to an increase in preda-
nication tower in Florida. The study lected, with the top five species in- tors. A colony of gulls was estab-
began in 1955 and continued for 25 cluding Ovenbirds (Seiurus lished near the Eau Claire tower in
years at the Tall Timbers Research aurocapillus), Red-eyed vireo (Vireo recent decades and may be scaveng-
Station near Tallahassee, in Leon olivaceus) and three warblers [Ten- ing bird carcasses before they can be
County, Florida, where a 1,010-foot nessee (Vermivora peregrina), Mag- counted (Weisensel 2000).
tower stood just north of Lake nolia (Dendroica magnolia) and The USFWS estimate that four
Iamonia. Ornithologists collected Black-and-White (Mniotilta varia)] to five million birds are killed annu-
ally by collisions with communica-
tion towers (Brown 2000). Though
most kills are associated with towers
greater than 500-feet, on January 22,
1998 approximately 10,000 Lapland
longspurs (Calcarius lapponicus)
were killed as a result of a 420-foot
guyed communication tower in West-
ern Kansas. Power lines, a lighted
pumping station, other smaller tow-
ers, buildings and fences that likely
contributed to the mortality sur-
rounded the tower. The flock report-
edly took flight during the night due
to a heavy snowstorm and dense fog.
The flock became disoriented, circled
the tower and perished due to colli-
sions with the tower, guy wires and
Figure 2. Red knot (Calidris canutus), Outer Harbor, Princeton, California. with each other. Longspurs were
July 2000 © Peter LaTourrette.

52 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


found dead in an adjacent agricultural ute seeds and prey on insects. Accord- area around the tower that attracts
field, impaled by wheat stalks, sug- ing to the Ornithological Council, on birds, causing them to circle and
gesting that the birds were so disori- average, a pair of adult warblers can switch to their dinural (visual) mode
ented that they flew straight into the remove caterpillars from more than one of navigation. Steve Ugoretz, a bi-
ground at full speed. Surprisingly, million leaves within two to three ologist with the Wisconsin Depart-
the communication tower in Western weeks in order to feed hatchlings. This ment of Natural Resources, stated
Kansas was lit with three flashing type of natural insect control can pro- that scientists believe it is the red
white strobe lights, which are report- vide an enormous benefit to forestry lights on communication towers that
edly less troublesome than the blink- and agricultural industries. lure the birds to their death when they
ing red incandescent lights typically Migratory birds are fundamental are flying in fog and other low vis-
found at communication towers. components of many local econo- ibility conditions says. On nights
The aftermath of a tower kill mies. Birding is reportedly second with heavy fog or a low cloud ceil-
rarely is seen. Tall communication only to gardening as the most rapidly ing, migrating birds lose their cues
towers typically are located in growing leisure interest in the U.S., for stellar and geomagnetic naviga-
sparsely populated areas. In addition, increasing 155 percent from 1982 to tion. The lights from the communi-
reported incidents document only the 1995 and outpacing golf by 150 per- cation towers offer visual clues that
birds that are not removed by scav- cent (Weisensel 2000). According to are thought to dominate the birds’
engers and exclude birds that are fa- surveys completed by the USFWS, magnetic compass. Subsequently,
tally wounded, but die later in areas more than 63 million Americans the birds position themselves with the
far from the tower. Based upon this watch and feed birds. Each year more tower lights as they would navigate
information, it is likely that the ac- than 24 million Americans travel to in relation to the moon, keeping the
tual mortality rate is higher than the watch birds. In 1991, bird watchers light at right angles to their flight to
estimated four to five million birds spent $5.2 billion on goods and ser- keep going in the same direction
killed annually. vices related to bird feeding and (DNR News 1999). Eventually the
The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) watching. The expenditures gener- birds either die from exhaustion or
has conducted continent-wide bird ated nearly $600 million in tax rev- from colliding with the tower or guy
counts on an annual basis using vol- enue for states and the federal gov- wires in the lighted space.
unteers since 1966. During the first ernment. Non-consumptive bird use The Migratory Bird Treaty Act
ten to fifteen years, BBS surveys re- supports almost 20,000 American (MBTA) of 1918 states that no mi-
vealed little evidence of declines in jobs (Cherepy 2000). gratory bird may be killed unless it
most songbird populations; however, is specifically exempted under a per-
recent analyses have revealed trends Solutions mit. The MBTA is a strict liability
in the 1970s and 1980s that suggest In order to slow down the construc- statute, making the "taking" of a mi-
sharp declines in many populations. tion of new towers, Albert Manville, gratory bird without a permit illegal,
The abundance of Neotropical mi- a biologist with the USFWS, stated even if it is unintentional, incidental
grants, such as the Red-eyed vireos that expanding companies will be or inadvertent. The Endangered Spe-
(Vireo olivaceus), Hooded warblers asked to co-locate equipment rather cies Act (ESA) gives further protec-
(Wilsonia citrina) and Ovenbirds than erecting towers in new locations. tion to birds present on the Endan-
(Seiurus aurocapillus) has dropped If not possible, they would be encour- gered Species List. However, none
by 50 percent or more in the span of aged to build shorter towers with no of the protection factors set forth by
several decades (Sauer 2000). These supporting guy wires, locate the tow- the MBTA or the ESA are being regu-
declines, coupled with concurrent ers outside areas that are prone to low lated or enforced.
reports of a diminishing number of clouds and mark towers with white Constructing a tower without
migratory flocks seen on weather ra- strobe lights rather than slow puls- supportive guy wires would likely
dar as migrant songbirds cross the ing red lights (Seeman 2000). reduce avian mortality; however, the
Gulf of Mexico, have led to a sense The construction and location of construction would require additional
of urgency for the protection of mi- a tower with respect to regional ge- concrete and steel, and thus would be
gratory songbirds. ography and migration patterns play more costly to build. American
an important role in determining a Tower Corporation (ATC) plans to
Importance tower’s kill potential. Red aviation build 1,200 towers this year. ATC
Birds are critical ecosystem compo- warning lights reflect the water va- estimates that it would cost an addi-
nents. Birds pollinate plants, distrib- por in the air and form an illuminated tional $70,000 per site to build with-

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 53


out the guy wires (Seeman 2000). in the mid-1980s following a change these methods would be effective.
With the increased costs, communi- in the city street lighting. When the Nonetheless, as migratory bird popu-
cation companies are not likely to city shifted the streetlights to a stron- lations face the hazards of collisions
voluntarily construct bird-friendly ger vapor light that emitted an orange with the communication towers, it is
towers without the implementation of hue, the massive kills stopped. Based evident that we must rely on technol-
government regulations. Therefore, upon this information, it is clear that ogy to protect the remaining avian
biologists are searching for alterna- additional research into low cost, ef- populations from our own techno-
tive methods to protect birds from fective methods to protect migratory logical advances.
collisions with communication tow- birds is necessary. Some inexpensive
ers. Some scientists feel that if the protection features proposed by re- Literature cited
towers were limited to urban, well lit searchers include white lights, fluo- American Bird Conservancy. 2000. ABC
areas, the overall mortality rate of the rescent paints, mirrors that shine Letter on Tower Kills, Bird Calls, Vol. 4
No. 3:1-9.
migratory birds may be reduced as lights skyward, giant netting, devices Brown, Karen, Shire, Gavin G., and
the birds would be less drawn to the that spin in the wind, and horns or Winegrad, Gerald, June 2000, Communi-
"room" of light caused by towers lo- devices that broadcast low frequency cation Towers: A Deadly Hazard to Birds,
cated in sparsely populated areas. sounds, similar to sonic booms Report Documents a Report Compiled by
American Bird Conservancy, Killing of
Many land management plans in (Seeman 2000).
230 Bird Species.
North America include provisions to Cherepy, Andrea K, 2000, Swords in the Sky:
protect migratory songbirds, includ- Conclusion Communication Towers and Migratory
ing virtually every federal and most Conserving migratory songbirds is a Birds, Field Notes April 2000:11-12.
state plans (Brown 2000). Addition- very difficult task, since nearly any Crawford, R.L. 1981.Bird Casualties at a
Leon County, Florida TV Tower: A 25-year
ally, on July 20, 2000, President human activity can affect each spe- migration study. Bulletin of Tall Timers
Clinton signed the Neotropical Mi- cies in a different way. Almost any Research Station. 22:1-30.
gratory Bird Conservation Act into land that is taken for urban, agricul- Evans, W.R., and A. M. Manville, II (eds.).
law, which authorizes $5 million an- tural, silviculture, or other human use 2000. Avian mortality at communication
towers. Transcripts of Proceedings of the
nually in grants to promote the con- comes at the expense of another spe-
Workshop of Avian Mortality at Commu-
servation of Neotropical migratory cies. In addition to collisions with nication Towers August 11, 1999, Cornell
songbirds. According to Leslie J. communication towers, factors that University, Ithaca, NY, Published on the
Evans of the World Wildlife Fund and contribute to the decline of Neotro- internet at <http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/
the Fatal Light Awareness Program pical migratory songbird populations issues/ towers/agenda.html.
Green. 2000. Defenders of Wildlife. Issue #1144.
(FLAP), currently the FCC policy include habitat loss, pesticides, and Robinson, Scott K., 1997, The Case of the
states that communication towers exotic predators. Missing Songbirds, Consequences, Vol-
should be as far as possible from mi- Since 1997, there has been very ume 3, Number 1.
gratory bird corridors. FLAP, a reg- little new information regarding col- Sauer, J.R, J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon
and G. Gough, 2000. The North Ameri-
istered non-profit organization, was lisions with communication towers
can Breeding Bird Survey, Results and
formed in April 1993 to raise aware- and few studies are currently being Analysis 1966-1999, Version 98.1, USGS
ness and attempt to find a solution conducted, largely due to lack of Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Lau-
for bird fatalities resulting from col- funding. Researchers have con- rel, MD.
lisions with man-made structures cluded that in the absence of legisla- Seeman, Bruce Taylor. 2000. Communica-
tions Industry Struggle with Bird Kills at
(Weisensel 2000). tive mandates, alternative forms of Towers, Newhouse News Service Scien-
Some promising information protection must be implemented to tists, May 18, 2000.
came about at a communication protect birds from communication Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. 2000.
tower located within the city of towers; however, without sufficient Neotropical Migratory Bird Basics Pub-
lished on the internet at <http://
Youngstown, Ohio. The 1,100-foot funding, these protection devices
natzoo.si.edu/smbc/fxshts/fxsht9.html.
communication tower was lit by tiers cannot be implemented. Research- Weisensel, Wendy K., Battered by the Air-
of 3,600-watt red globe incandescent ers propose inexpensive protection waves?, Wisconsin Natural Resource
bulbs. From 1974 to 1990, approxi- devices, such as white lights, fluores- Magazine, February 2000.
mately 4,000 migratory birds fatali- cent paints, mirrors, netting, spinning Ugoretz, Steve, DNR News, Wisconsin Dept
of Natural Resources, August 17, 1999.
ties were documented at the tower. devices, horns or broadcast speakers.
However, the fatalities fell off sharply Presently, it is unknown if any of

54 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


Marine Matters
Marine Protected Areas: Examples from the San Juan
Islands, Washington
Terrie Klinger
School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105-6715; tklinger@u.washington.edu

Abstract
Marine protected areas and marine reserves increasingly are promoted as tools for the manage-
ment of marine resources, and strong support for their implementation has emerged among
scientists and non-scientists alike. In San Juan County, WA, voluntary marine protected areas for
eight species of bottomfish (Sebastes spp., Scorpaenichthys marmoratus, Hexagrammos
decagrammus, Ophiodon elongatus) and southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) have been
established through citizen action. Although the efficacy of these protective measures has not yet
been demonstrated, they may contribute substantially to the conservation of local marine species.

Introduction to marine pro- marine systems. and local interests to establish a


tected areas As presently defined, MPAs con- comprehensive, representative na-
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are stitute spatially-explicit management tional system of MPAs that will in-
areas set aside for the protection areas within which some level of re- crease protection for marine re-
and recovery of living and non-liv- source protection is conferred through sources. In response to this order,
ing marine resources, in much the regulatory or voluntary action. Many the National Oceanic and Atmo-
same way that terrestrial reserves MPAs are managed for multiple hu- spheric Administration is assem-
are set aside for the protection and man uses and allow extraction of bio- bling an advisory committee, estab-
recovery of land-based resources. logical resources. This class of lishing an MPA Center, compiling
Different from their terrestrial MPAs includes shoreline and under- an inventory of candidate MPA
counterparts, however, MPAs have water parks as well as National Ma- sites, and creating a website
been employed far less frequently rine Sanctuaries. Other, more restric- (www.mpa.gov) for dissemination
to achieve management and conser- tive MPAs are fully protected from of information. Independently, in
vation goals, and our collective ex- extractive activities; these are often late 2000, the National Research
perience in their design, implemen- referred to as "marine reserves" or Council of the National Academy
tation, and management is far "fully-protected marine reserves." of Sciences completed a two-year
weaker. Additionally, many char- Contrary to traditional fisheries-man- review of the utility, design, and
acteristics of marine systems differ agement techniques, which typically implementation of MPAs (National
substantially from those of terres- seek to maximize yield of a target Research Council 2000;
trial systems. For example, long- stock or population, MPAs offer www.nap.edu). Among their con-
distance dispersal of larvae is com- place-based protection and man- clusions were that MPAs can be
mon among some marine species, agement of resources without re- used as effective management tools
causing local recruitment to be un- gard to yield. to conserve habitats, maintain ma-
coupled from local reproduction. MPAs increasingly are pro- rine communities and their associ-
Furthermore, the dynamics of lar- posed as a means of addressing ated ecosystem functions, and pro-
val and adult stages can be strongly population declines and habitat loss mote recovery of overexploited
affected by local and regional in marine environments in the U.S. populations. Importantly, the group
oceanographic circulation patterns. and elsewhere. For example, in argued against maintaining conven-
For these and other reasons, design May 2000, President Clinton signed tional strategies as the sole means
criteria developed for terrestrial Executive Order 13158 directing of managing marine resources. In-
systems are not fully transferable to federal agencies to work with state stead, they suggested that MPAs

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 55


offer a promising alternative man- best evidence for the success of protection from harassment by
agement strategy that can be used MPAs in achieving species protec- whale-watching boats. The south-
in addition to conventional manage- tion comes from these and other ern sea otter (Enhydra lutris),
ment strategies to achieve conser- tropical reef areas (e.g., Alcala and which is listed as threatened under
vation goals. Most recently, at the Russ 1990, Roberts 1995). In the the U.S. Endangered Species Act,
annual meeting of the American U.S., several MPAs were estab- has gained similar protection from
Associate for the Advancement of lished in the middle of the last cen- harassment by the establishment of
Science, a group of scientists ex- tury, well before the current rush to a refuge along parts of the central
pressed strong support for MPAs as designate protected areas; these in- California coast. In Mexico, breed-
a means of providing more effec- clude Everglades National Park, ing lagoons used by the eastern
tive management for protection of Fort Jefferson National Monument in North Pacific gray whale
biodiversity, exploited populations, the Dry Tortugas, and the Key Largo (Eschrichtius robustus; recently re-
and marine ecosystem health Coral Reef Preserve (established in moved from the U.S. List of Endan-
(www.seaweb.org). The consensus 1934, 1935, 1960, respectively). gered and Threatened Wildlife)
statement produced by this group have been protected from certain
was signed by 150 scientists in sup- Protection of threatened and types of shoreline development and
port of the use of MPAs in marine endangered species whale-watching guidelines have
management. Finally, numerous Although MPAs most often are been put in place. The establish-
shorter articles on the science and used as management tools to pro- ment of MPAs holds promise for the
implementation of MPAs have ap- tect biodiversity, restore overex- recovery of other threatened and
peared in both peer-reviewed and ploited popula-
popular publications over the last tions, and re-
decade, indicating widespread in- duce uncer-
terest among professionals in the tainty inherent
development of a coherent, scien- in conventional
tifically-based theory of MPA de- management
sign and management (National strategies, in a
Research Council 2000 and refer- few cases they
ences therein). have been es-
The growing enthusiasm for tablished for
MPAs has been matched in recent the explicit pro-
years by efforts to establish MPAs tection of
in the U.S. and elsewhere. Inter- threatened or
nationally, the number of MPAs in- endangered
creased by an order of magnitude species. For
between 1970 and 1994 (Kelleher example, the
et al. 1995). Within the U.S., Cali- Hawaiian Is-
fornia, Washington, Hawaii, and lands Hump-
Florida have all designated MPAs back Whale Na-
within the last decade. Even so, tional Marine
less than one percent of the U.S. Sanctuary was
shoreline is currently protected established for
within designated MPAs (National the protection
Research Council 2000). of endangered
Despite their current popularity humpback
as management tools, MPAs do not w h a l e s
represent a new management strat- (Megaptera
egy. Spatially-explicit closures his- novaeangliae).
torically have been used by some Among the pro-
tropical island nations to manage tections con-
local marine resources (e.g., ferred by the Figure 1. The San Juan Archipelago (arrow) in northwestern
Johannes 1978), and some of the Sanctuary is Washington state. Map courtesy of the author.

56 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


endangered marine species, espe- biological resources of the area are tablished the San Juan County Ma-
cially when there is fidelity to spe- declining (West 1997). The current rine Resources Committee (MRC).
cific sites during all or part of the status of local marine populations is This committee is composed of local
species' life history. indicated by two recent petitions to citizens and is charged with advising
list local species under the U.S. En- the BOCC on issues of concern in the
Voluntary versus regulatory dangered Species Act. The first, a marine environment.
protections petition to list eighteen species of fish One of the first actions taken by
MPAs have been established through (excluding salmon), was submitted to the MRC was to recommend the es-
both voluntary and regulatory means, the National Marine Fisheries Ser- tablishment of voluntary no-take re-
and each approach has its merits (e.g., vice (NMFS) in 1999. NMFS re- serves for the recovery of eight spe-
Gubbay and Welton 1995). Although viewed the status of stocks for seven cies of bottomfish. Populations of
only regulatory MPAs can guarantee of the 18, but declined to list any as these species are depressed locally
full protection of resources, the costs threatened or endangered. Even so, as a consequence of recreational
of enforcement are high, and the im- there is general recognition that lo- and other fishing pressures. In
position of regulations can erode pub- cal fish populations have declined 1997, after receiving recommenda-
lic support for protection efforts. steeply over the last two to three de- tions from the MRC, the BOCC
Voluntary approaches can build pub- cades. Currently, a petition to list the established eight voluntary no-take
lic support and enhance stewardship southern resident killer whale popu- reserves for the protection and re-
without the considerable costs of en- lation is being prepared, based on covery of these eight species of
forcement. In addition, voluntary small extant population size and bottomfish. As conceived by the
MPAs often can be established more documented declines in population MRC, the bottomfish recovery
quickly than regulatory MPAs, be- size since 1995 (van Ginneken et al. zones will act as harvest refugia for
cause no new legislation needed. 2000). The petition will be submit- the depleted stocks. Protected
However, in order for voluntary ted to NMFS later this year. populations within the reserves will
MPAs to be even moderately success- Independent of federal regulatory serve as spawning stock for the re-
ful, they must have the support of the actions, the citizens of San Juan plenishment of fish stocks outside
local population and provide protec- County have initiated efforts to ad- the reserves. The location of the
tion from poaching. These are con- dress declines both of bottomfish and reserves was decided by a public
ditions that cannot always be met. southern resident killer whale popu- process in which recreational fish-
lations. The following recounts the ers identified sites that formerly had
Case study in voluntary protec- history of local attempts to increase been, but no longer were, produc-
tion: The San Juan Archipelago protection for bottomfish and killer tive fishing areas. The number and
The San Juan Archipelago comprises whales by implementation of volun- sizes of the reserves were based on
hundreds of islands and emergent tary reserves. political feasibility. The reserves
rocky reefs in northwestern Washing- Between 1988 and 1996, the are relatively small, ranging from
ton State (Figure 1). The larger is- waters surrounding the San Juan Is- about 12 to 60 hectares, and pro-
lands are inhabited by both year- lands were considered for designa- tect less than one percent of the
round and seasonal residents, and the tion as a National Marine Sanctuary shoreline within the county (San
entire area is a popular recreational under the National Marine Sanctuar- Juan County Marine Resources
destination for people from western ies Act. The proposed designation Committee, unpublished data).
Washington and elsewhere. Earlier was based on the natural beauty of Concurrent with the establish-
in this century, fishing and farming the area, the perceived value of the ment of the bottomfish reserves, the
were mainstays of the economy; a local biological resources, and the an- MRC initiated public outreach efforts
more diversified economy in which ticipated threats to their persistence to increase citizen support for the re-
tourism represents an important ele- posed by increasing urbanization. serves and implemented a bottomfish
ment now exists. However, due to intense local oppo- monitoring program to detect trends
The San Juan Islands are rich in sition to federal action and oversight, in fish abundance over time. The life-
marine biological resources. Fish (in- sanctuary designation was never history characteristics of the species
cluding salmon; Onchorhynchus achieved. Following the defeat of the of interest dictate that a decade or so
spp.), marine mammals, and seabirds sanctuary designation process in may be required before the benefits
all are present on a seasonal or year- 1996, the San Juan County Board of of protection are detectable; there-
round basis. However, the marine County Commissioners (BOCC) es- fore, the effectiveness of these pro-

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 57


tection efforts has not yet
been demonstrated. Even so,
a reduction in fishing inten-
sity within the voluntary re-
serves has already been
noted, and public awareness
of, and support for the pro-
gram is growing. Similar
voluntary reserves now are
being proposed in other
counties within the region
and in neighboring British
Columbia.
A second example of
citizen-based efforts at vol-
untary, spatially-explicit
protection in San Juan
County is provided by the
establishment of a 'no-boat'
zone for the protection of Figure 2. Southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca). Photo by Kelley Balcomb-Bartok.
resident killer whales. Rec-
reational and commercial whale- voluntary guidelines is increasing Literature cited
watching boat traffic surrounding (Soundwatch Program, Friday Har- Alcala, A.C. and G.R. Russ. 1990. A direct test
killer whales in San Juan County is bor, WA, unpublished data). of the effects of protective management on
often intensive; on some days, more abundance and yield of tropical marine re-
sources. J. Cons. Ciem. 47:40-47.
than 100 private and commercial Summary Gubbay, S. and S. Welton. 1995. The volun-
boats can be seen following the lo- It is too early to determine whether tary approach to the conservation of ma-
cal pods. Some argue that such citizen-based efforts to protect lo- rine areas,” pp. 199-227 in Marine Pro-
high densities of boats may inter- cal populations of bottomfish and tected Areas: Principles and Techniques
for Management, ed., Susan Gubbay. Suf-
fere with feeding and communica- killer whales will confer long-term
folk, Great Britain: Chapman and Hall.
tion by the whales, and may add to benefit to these populations. Cer- Johannes, R.E. 1978. Traditional Marine
stresses imposed on the whales by tainly, the rate of compliance Conservation Methods in Oceania and
increasing urbanization and declin- among users, many of whom are their Demise. Annual Review of Ecology
ing availability of salmonid prey. occasional visitors and therefore and Systematics 9: 349-364.
Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley, and S. Wells. 1995.
Consequently, a local non-profit or- not highly invested the conserva- A Global Representative System of Marine
ganization established a program in tion of local resources, will play a Protected Areas. The Great Barrier Reef
1993 to manage and reduce pres- large role in the success or failure Marine Park Authority, the World Bank, and
sures from boat traffic. Among the of these efforts. Levels of compli- the Work Conservation Union (IUCN).
elements of this program was the ance may diminish as fish densities National Research Council. 2000. Marine
Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining
establishment of a voluntary 'no- within the MPAs increase relative Ocean Ecosystems. National Academy
boat' zone extending for several to populations in unprotected areas. Press, Washington, D.C.
miles along the western shore of Furthermore, meaningful compari- Roberts, C.M. Rapid build-up of fish biom-
San Juan Island, varying in width sons between voluntary protection ass in a Caribbean marine reserve. Con-
servation Biology 9: 815-826.
from one-quarter to one-half mile and 'hard' regulatory protection will Van Ginneken, A., D. Ellefrit, and K.
offshore. Boaters are asked to al- be difficult to draw, because appro- Balcomb. 2000. Official Orca Survey Field
low the whales to pass through this priate regulatory reference sites Guide. Center for Whale Research, Friday
zone without harassment. The pro- currently are unavailable. Even so, Harbor, WA.
West, J.E. 1997. Protection and restoration
gram has gained the support of the the extension of voluntary protec-
of marine life in the inland waters of
International Whale Watch Opera- tion to these sites is better than no Washington State. Puget Sound/Georgia
tors Association Northwest as well protection at all. Basin Environmental Report Series 6.
as many private boat owners and Puget Sound Water Quality Action
citizens, and compliance with the Team, Olympia, WA.

58 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 18 No. 2 2001


News from Zoos
Deeper Look at Dolphins

The Florida Aquarium is launching a dolphin tour with a research twist. Customers on the aquarium's
new 64-foot catamaran, the Bay Spirit, will photograph and help build a family album of bottlenose
dolphins in Tampa Bay. The pictures will go into a catalog that will identify each dolphin seen between
the Port of Tampa and the mouth of the Alafia River. Each sighting will add information about individu-
als and the population as a whole.

The goal of this project is to answer questions such as how many dolphins live in the area and how
many just visit, whether there are locations especially favored by mother-and-calf groups, what an indi-
vidual animal's range is and which dolphins are related to each other. Researchers at Eckerd College's
Dolphin Project have identified about 500 dolphins in Boca Ciega Bay. The Bay Spirit catalog will
extend that research to the rest of Tampa Bay. Even though bottlenose dolphins are not endangered,
studying them can offer important insights into their endangered relatives. [Adapted from an article by
Linda Gibson, St. Petersburg Times]

Rabbits on a Come Back

The Oregon Zoo is working with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to save
the endangered pygmy rabbit (Sylvilagus idahoensis). With less that 100 pygmy rabbits left in the wild
sagebrush habitat in the state of Washington, the zoo will help the WDFW design a captive breeding
facility. The facility, will supply rabbits for reintroduction to two tracts of protected habitat.

The zoo is home to four pygmy rabbits now under 24 hour monitoring through the use of video
recording equipment. Researchers will use the data to catalog mating rituals and reproductive biology.
Pygmy rabbits are a protected "sensitive" species in Oregon, but it is thought their populations continue
to decline in other regions, including neighboring states of Washington, southern Idaho, northeastern
California and parts of Nevada.

Rare Birds Return to Wild

The San Diego Zoo's Keauhou Bird Conservation Center released six endangered Hawaiian puaiohi
(Myadestes palmeri) on the island of Kauai – the bird's native home. Researchers fitted the captive-bred
birds with radio transmitters to track their progress through the island's Alakai Swamp, said to be the
rainiest place on earth.

The introduction of non-native animals and diseases has imperiled the island's native puaiohi popu-
lation, which currently numbers less than 300. To combat this trend, researchers have successfully
released two-dozen captive-bred puaiohi into the wild in the past three years.

The Keauhou Bird Conservation Center works cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, the State of Hawaii's Division of Forestry and Wildlife and the Biological Resources Division of
the U.S. Geological Survey.

Information for News from Zoos is provided by Joseph Lankard of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association.

Vol. 18 No. 2 2001 Endangered Species UPDATE 59


News & Events
World to Share Biodiversity Data velopment on the Arctic Refuge's vides conservation information on
Anyone with access to the Internet Coastal Plain: Historical Overview more than 5,500 common, rare, and
will soon be able to access data about and Issues of Concern." endangered birds and mammals of
biological diversity from the Global Latin America and the Caribbean.
Biodiversity Information Facility Waterfowl & Wetland Symposium InfoNatura, produced by the Asso-
(GBIF). GBIF will contain informa- Ducks Unlimited will sponsor the ciation for Biodiversity Informa-
tion about 1.8 million species rang- eighth international waterfowl and tion, is an online conservation and
ing from whales to bacteria and will wetlands symposium, "The Waterfowl educational resource that includes
include data on 3 billion specimens Legacy: Links to Watershed Health," taxonomic, conservation status, and
located in the world's natural history in Washington D.C. from 20 to 22 July national distribution information
collections. GBIF is funded by 32 2001. Experts from around the world for each species, all in a searchable
countries and intergovernmental or- will share research and opinions on a database that is easy to access and
ganizations. Further information can range of issues affecting waterfowl, understand. You can search
be found at http://www.gbif.org. wetlands, and their management. Ses- InfoNatura to find scientific names
sion topics include watershed health for each species, common names in
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and waterfowl, North American Water- English, Spanish, and Portuguese,
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge fowl Management Plan, and beyond conservation status, and color-
(ANWR) is the focus of curry debate North America. For more information coded distribution maps that show
about oil and gas exploration and de- contact Brenda Carlson, Ducks Unlim- the countries where each species
velopment. The U.S. Fish and Wild- ited, One Waterfowl Way, Memphis, occurs. For more information:
life Service (USFWS) maintains the TN 38120, (901) 758-3707, http://www.infonatura.org.
official homepage of ANWR (http:// bcarlson@ducks.org, http://
www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/), which w w w. d u c k s . o rg / c o n s e r v a t i o n / Announcements for the Bulletin Board are wel-
gives information on the refuge, wild- symposium_2001.asp. comed. Some items have been provided by the
life, habitats, and people. The devel- Smithsonian Institution's Biological Conserva-
opment issues are summarized in the InfoNatura: Birds and Mammals tion Newsletter or found on the Society for
Conservation Biology Bulletin Board (http://
USFWS document, "Potential Im- of Latin America
conbio.net/scb/Services/Bboard/).
pacts of Proposed Oil and Gas De- A new web site, InfoNatura, pro-

View publication stats

You might also like