Abstract Listing by Session


SY63 - Bridging the Science-Policy Gap in Implementation of Critical Habitat under the ESA and SARA

Salon 10      Sunday, 08:00 - 12:30

   Understanding the Science-Policy Gap in Implementation of Critical Habitat under the ESA and SARA SCHMIEGELOW, FKA*, Dept Renewable Resources, University of Alberta ; Hebblewhite, M, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana; Aldridge, C, NREL, Colorado State University and US Geological Survey
Conservation of endangered species is a cornerstone of the science of conservation biology, and arguably the most publicly prominent pursuit of the discipline. One of the main vehicles for endangered species recovery in the US has been the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and in Canada, the relatively new Species-at-Risk Act (SARA). Dspite the high profile afforded conservation successes under the ESA and fledgling SARA, reviews of the ESA almost a decade ago revealed systematic problems with the implementation of the ESA at the critical habitat identification stage. Despite the intention of SARA to avoid these problems, recent challenges in Canada suggest that similar problems of translating science into policy are hampering the implementation of critical habitat provisions. Here we review the impetus for, and evolution of, the ESA and SARA, and respective considerations for critical habitat. We use this to frame the various contributions to this symposium, with a particular emphasis on understanding the source of potential barriers to implementation of critical habitat provisions at the science-policy interface. We also explore perceptions of the role of conservation science in public policy, recognizing that endangered species conservation is ultimately an interdisciplinary undertaking, and that impediments to implementation of legislative provisions may be rooted in different value systems.
   08:00  Critical Habitat for imperiled species: some Canada-US comparisons Findlay, C.S.*, University of Ottawa ; Doak, D.F., University of Wyoming; Wolf, S., Center for Biological Diversity; Mooers, A.O., Simon Fraser University
There is evidence that Critical habitat (CH) designation is correlated with improving viability of listed species in the USA, but such designation has been contentious and unevenly applied under both the ESA and SARA. For example, 88% of listed plants in Hawaii have CH designations, 27% in California do, while elsewhere in the USA, the range is 18% to 0%. Lawsuits regarding CH are not uncommon under the ESA. Recent legal decisions in Canada should help clarify policy on designating CH under SARA. Prior to these court decisions, of the 99 species with Recovery Strategies on March 19, 2009, only 19 species had CH at least partially identified, and of these, 17 had CH identified either entirely or partly within existing protected areas. Interestingly, only 10% of listed species had CH identified under the ESA by the year 2000. Under both SARA and ESA, delineation of CH makes particular places, individuals and governments specifically responsible for the welfare of an imperiled species, a daunting responsibility. We conclude with thoughts on how to solve this roadblock in order to hasten action on species protection.
   08:30  Clarifying the critical habitat concept: insight from conservation planning for Spotted Owls Noon, BR*, Colorado State University
Critical habitat can generally be defined as the set of locations on the landscape needed for a listed species to reach an appropriate population size and geographic distribution so that its risk of extinction meets some predetermined recovery criterion (e.g., a 5% chance of extinction over the next 50 years). Implicit in this definition is a set of scale-dependent biological criteria that must be addressed in critical habitat designations: 1) habitat provides the resources and physical conditions necessary for individual organisms to survive and reproduce (individual organism scale); 2) habitat is sufficiently extensive and connected so that it has a high probability of supporting local populations of sufficient size to be resilient to natural and human disturbance events and not experience local extinction (local population scale); and 3) habitat is sufficiently extensive at the scale of the target geographic distribution that it is highly unlikely that all local populations will simultaneously experience catastrophic events (geographic range scale). I will discuss how these spatial scales of critical habitat were addressed in the Northwest Forest Plan for the Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). In addition, I will discuss how these insights can used to improve the recovery planning process for threatened and endangered species.
   08:45  Conservation lessons across borders: critical habitat protection for the endangered Canadian population of Northern Spotted Owls Sutherland, Glenn D.*, Environment Canada and Cortex Consultants Inc. ; Waterhouse, F. Louise, British Columbia Ministry of Forests
With limited connectivity to the US population, the endangered Canadian population of Northern Spotted Owls faces imminent extirpation. Assessments of landscape management options using spatially-explicit modelled representations of population dynamics and habitat supply - particularly representing the multi-scaled functional nature of critical habitat - have informed successive stages of Spotted Owl recovery efforts under SARA. Important lessons from this collective, multi-staged effort are: (1) ‘critical’ habitat for larger-ranging species is imprecisely defined, frustrating adequate policy implementation dependent on differentiating among multiple marginal utilities of habitat value; (2) projections of critical habitat condition integrating weighted habitat quality values across site, territory, connectivity, and population factors, assisted stakeholders to identify ecological and socio-economic risks of alternative decisions, although agreement on assumptions was difficult to achieve; (3) spatio-temporal habitat projections provides a consistent means for making iterative refinements to management plans as policy responses to the population’s status changes. We conclude that the large investment of effort to develop an effective suite of tools for applying the science behind critical habitat does improve the transparency of the information used during the process and offers a framework for effectiveness monitoring, but does not necessarily expedite a policy driven process.
   09:00  Lessons learned in the application of habitat models to identify critical habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse Aldridge, CL*, NREL, Colorado State University, & US Geological Survey ; Gummer, DL, Northern Service Centre, Parks Canada Agency
Identification of habitat necessary for survival or recovery of imperilled species is critical for future conservation, yet quantitative understanding of resources required for a viable population is not available for most species. For Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations in the U.S. and Canada, there is a considerable base of knowledge that includes detailed, quantitative understanding of habitat selection across scales and life stages, and assessment of the effects anthropogenic and abiotic drivers. Capitalizing on existing quantitative models to provide a credible analysis of critical habitat poses many technical challenges, including: (i) the need to extrapolate beyond original models to different time and space; (ii) comparable geospatial datasets for predictor variables are not readily available across the area of interest; (iii) there is a paucity of independent data with which to validate the habitat identification; (iv) habitat model results need to be classified in a meaningful way to represent critical habitat; and (v) propagation of spatial and statistical uncertainty need to be evaluated. We highlight recent work to identify critical habitat for Sage-Grouse in Canada. Lessons learned have high relevance to future efforts to identify important habitat for Sage-Grouse throughout its range, and for other endangered species in general.
   09:30  Does Defining Critical Habitat Facilitate Canada Lynx Conservation in the Contiguous U.S.? Squires, John R.*, Rocky Mountain Research Station ; Sartorius, Shawn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services; DeCesare, Nick , University of Montana
After many legal challenges, lynx was federally listed as an endangered species throughout the contiguous U.S. in 2000. In 2006, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) narrowly defined critical habitat based on the assumption that sanctioned management plans could exempt broad landscapes from critical habitat designations. Critical habitat was remanded in 2008 due to the undue influence of agency administrators over current science in identifying important landscapes for lynx. In 2009, critical habitat was defined a second time by the USFWS based on current best science. The lynx example illustrates many of the strengths and weaknesses of assigning critical habitat under ESA. Recent studies clearly define important habitat-use associations for lynx in the contiguous U.S., yet defining critical habitat remains contentious. We review the strengths and weaknesses of defining critical habitat under ESA from biological and management perspectives. Specifically, we consider the following: 1) compare the costs associated with defining critical habitat to the biological benefits to lynx conservation; 2) how should critical habitat be defined for highly mobile species; 3) do consultation requirements under Section 7 of the ESA make regulation of critical habitat impacts redundant; 4) what factors should be considered in determining critical areas for species conservation?
   09:45  Killer whales and critical habitat in Canada and the US: different paths, similar endpoints. Barrett-Lennard, L.G.*, Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre, Box 3232, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3X8, Canada and University of British Columbia, Zoology Department, 2370-6270 University Blvd, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Killer whales live in small sympatric or parapatric populations, are highly mobile, have no predators, and tolerate wide ranges of water temperature, salinity, turbidity, and depth. They therefore present two challenges to conservation managers: delineating management units and identifying critical habitat. The endangered southern resident population straddles the Washington/British Columbia border and affords an opportunity to compare the application of the US Endangered Species Act and the Canadian Species at Risk Act (ESA and SARA). In the US, recognizing the population as a ‘distinct population segment’ took several years and a court decision. Following this, critical habitat was defined with few further delays in 2006. In Canada, the distinctiveness of the population was formally recognized without controversy, prior to the US decision, and a draft recovery plan with a description of critical habitat was completed in 2006. However, the Canadian government undertook a series of measures, each one of which, if not subsequently withdrawn, would have relieved it of legal requirements to define or protect critical habitat. The final measure was rescinded in 2009 after environmental groups filed suit. At the present time, the situation in both countries is similar: the effect of the ESA and SARA decisions has been a marked increase in conservation-oriented research. No broad-reaching plan to protect critical habitat has yet been developed in either country.
   10:30  When the Geographic Range is the Same as Critical Habitat: the Case of the Banff Springs Snail Lepitzki, DAW*, Wildlife Systems Research, Banff; COSEWIC Member ; Pacas, C, Parks Canada Agency, Banff National Park
Sometimes it’s easier to delineate Critical Habitat (CH) than to protect it. The diminutive and endemic Banff Springs Snail (Physella johnsoni) is the only species in Canada to have full protection under provisions of the Species-at-Risk Act (SARA). It was reassessed as endangered by COSEWIC in 2008 and continues to be listed as such under SARA. Both a Recovery Strategy and an Action Plan have been approved (2007) and CH has been delineated and gazetted (2008). Systematic population surveys once every three (Jan 1996-July 2000) or four weeks (thereafter) identified an occupied thermal spring habitat (595 sq. m.) slightly small than the penalty box area on a soccer field. Having this small area all within Banff National Park facilitated its delineation as CH. However, challenges continue between implementing policies for protection and for providing memorable visitor experiences as four of the seven snail subpopulations are in a high-visitor use area and birthplace of Canada’s national park system – the Cave and Basin National Historic Site (C&BNHS). These challenges may increase as annual visitation at the C&BNHS is targeted to increase from 100,000 to 300,000 visitors per year following the 2010-2012 redevelopment.
   10:45  Critical habitat for boreal caribou in Canada: concepts and conservation challenges SCHMIEGELOW, FKA*, Dept Renewable Resources, University of Alberta
The boreal population of woodland caribou, distributed across a vast area of Canada, was assessed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in May 2002. In June 2007, a draft National Recovery Strategy(NRS) was completed. However, although earlier versions of the NRS included extensive deliberations on the concept of critical habitat for boreal caribou, critical habitat was not identified in the draft NRS. In August 2007, largely in response to threats of legal action, Environment Canada (EC), the lead federal agency responsible for recovery planning for boreal caribou, launched a scientific review to apply the best available science to support identification of critical habitat. The undertaking was framed as an exercise in decision analysis and adaptive management, was guided by an 18-member science advisory group, and involved analysis and synthesis of data across the entire distribution of boreal caribou in Canada. The resultant report recommended that critical habitat for boreal caribou be identified at the scale of local population ranges, and expressed the current conditions on each range relative to its probability of supporting a self-sustaining local population (the recovery objective specified in the draft NRS). EC concluded that the information provided was insufficient to support identification of critical habitat for boreal caribou, and subsequently launched a second phase of science work, which is ongoing. A revised NRS is now scheduled for 2011. Here I review the scientific underpinnings of the concept of critical habitat for boreal caribou, the process of identifying it, and the institutional challenges in implementing conservation and management actions to protect it.
   11:00  Putting lines on a map: an approach for classifying species occurrence models to identify critical habitat for endangered species GUMMER, DL*, Western and Northern Service Centre, Parks Canada Agency ; Aldridge, CL, NREL, Colorado State University and U.S. Geological Survey
Conservation efforts require understanding of species resource needs across space and time, and increasingly involve detailed quantitative models to delineate important habitat areas for protection, management, or broader-scale planning. Resource selection function models are frequently developed to estimate the relative probability of occurrence of a species across an area of interest. Inevitably, however, it becomes necessary to classify the resulting habitat map into categories for further analysis or interpretation. Common approaches to classify habitat areas are based on frequency histogram analysis or confusion matrices, and typically utilize arbitrary thresholds. We expanded on commonly used methods for testing the validation of species occurrence models as the basis of a more meaningful approach for classifying habitat models. This approach assesses the predictive capability of model classifications at maximizing the proportion of species occurrence records captured. We tested this approach using a nest occurrence model for Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and identified habitat that contained 87% (95% CI 76-95%) of nest sites within 49% of the study area in southeastern Alberta, Canada. This approach is likely to be useful for classification of detailed habitat models for other endangered species where the challenge is to use the best available information to identify critical habitat.
   11:15  Reviewing the Conservation Science of Critical Habitat Hebblewhite, Mark*, Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana ; Aldridge, Cameron, , Colorado State University, & US Geological Survey ; Schmiegelow, Fiona, University of Alberta
One of the challenges in the implementation of critical habitat is the scientific problem of defining it for an endangered species. After reviewing the individual cases of critical habitat designation challenges for Canada lynx, Sage grouse, killer whales, spotted owls, Banff springs snail, and other examples in this symposium, our goal in this paper is to review the conceptual definition of critical habitat to identify the scientific implementation gaps in critical habitat science. Starting from niche theory and the theory of density dependent habitat selection, we develop a quantitative definition of habitat quality for endangered species. We then extend habitat quality to an operational definition of critical habitat by considering concepts of minimum viable populations, thresholds for extinction, and other general conservation biology ‘rules’ for preventing extinction. This emphasizes that critical habitat itself does not conceptually exist in the absence of a population target or goal, as recognized in both SARA and the ESA in the link between critical habitat and a recovery goal. Therefore, the concept of critical habitat is ultimately tied to the recovery goal, and so we conclude by reviewing some of the different standards of ‘recovery’ as exemplified in the various case studies discussed in the symposium. For the science of critical habitat to develop, more focus on the link between populations and habitats is needed, one of the most challenging scientific aspects of endangered species recovery.
   11:30  Delineating the Science-Policy Gap in Critical Habit Designation: Social Science Insights Hoberg, George*, Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia
Conservation biologists, as well as other scientists in similar situations, are frequently frustrated when governments fail to act, or act promptly, when science demonstrates the existence of a clear problem demanding a management response. While the metaphor of the “bridging the science-policy gap” suggests mutual responsibility between scientists and government resource managers, the complexity of the constraints on effective government action are frequently not appreciated. This paper uses the social science literature on “science in policy” to help delineate the nature of this gap. At least three different types of constraints can occur: uncertainty in science, political resistance, and an unfavourable legal framework. After synthesizing the theoretical basis for each constraint, the paper will develop operational measures for each constraint and apply them to two cases of species at risk shared by Canada and the United States.
   12:00  How to reconcile the science-policy gap in implementation of critical habitat under ESA and SARA? A panel discussion. Aldridge, Cameron L*, NREL, Colorado State University, & US Geological Survey ; Schmiegelow FKA, Northern Environmental and Conservation Sciences Program, Department Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta; Hebblewhite, M, Wildlife Biology Program, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana
Many scientific challenges exist in the identification of critical habitat for endangered species, including definition of the words ‘critical and ‘habitat’, determination of the appropriate scale(s) for assessments (individual, population, geographic), and appropriate incorporation of demographic processes into the spatial delineation of critical habitat. Many of these challenges were highlighted in case studies of individual species presented in this symposium, and evaluated in the assessment of approaches in conservation science to addressing critical habitat. Moreover, once critical habitat has been identified based on ecological criteria, implementing critical habitat designations through existing policy and legal frameworks represents another set of challenges that has rarely been addressed, particularly in Canada, where federal legislation (SARA) has only recently been enacted, and related policy is still under development. Here, identifying the institutional impediments to effective conservation and management of critical habitat, to support the recovery and long-term persistence of species at risk, is key. In this panel discussion, we involve participants in the symposium in a round-table discussion aimed at identifying and reconciling science-policy gaps when implementing critical habitat provisions under ESA and SARA.