Decision‐Making Triggers in Adaptive Management

We analyzed whether decision‐making triggers increase accountability of adaptive‐management plans. Triggers are prenegotiated commitments in an adaptive‐management plan that specify what actions are to be taken and when on the basis of information obtained from monitoring. Triggers improve certainty that particular actions will be taken by agencies in the future. We conducted an in‐depth, qualitative review of the political and legal contexts of adaptive management and its application by U.S. federal agencies. Agencies must satisfy the judiciary that adaptive‐management plans meet substantive legal standards and comply with the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act. We examined 3 cases in which triggers were used in adaptive‐management plans: salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the Columbia River, oil and gas development by the Bureau of Land Management, and a habitat conservation plan under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In all the cases, key aspects of adaptive management, including controls and preidentified feedback loops, were not incorporated in the plans. Monitoring and triggered mitigation actions were limited in their enforceability, which was contingent on several factors, including which laws applied in each case and the degree of specificity in how triggers were written into plans. Other controversial aspects of these plans revolved around who designed, conducted, interpreted, and funded monitoring programs. Additional contentious issues were the level of precaution associated with trigger mechanisms and the definition of ecological baselines used as points of comparison. Despite these challenges, triggers can be used to increase accountability, by predefining points at which an adaptive management plan will be revisited and reevaluated, and thus improve the application of adaptive management in its complicated political and legal context. Detonadores de la Toma de Decisiones en el Manejo Adaptativo     

Taxonomic and Geographic Patterns of Decline for Threatened and Endangered Species in the United States

Abstract: Species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (i.e., listed species) have declined to the point that the probability of their extinction is high. The decline of these species, however, may manifest itself in different ways, including reductions in geographic range, number of populations, or overall abundance. Understanding the pattern of decline can help managers assess extinction probability and define recovery objectives. Although quantitative data on changes in geographic range, number of populations, and abundance usually do not exist for listed species, more often qualitative data can be obtained. We used qualitative data in recovery plans for federally listed species to determine whether each listed species declined in range size, number of populations, or abundance relative to historical levels. We calculated the proportion of listed species in each state (or equivalent) that declined in each of those ways. Nearly all listed species declined in abundance, and range size or number of populations declined in approximately 80% of species for which those data were available. Patterns of decline, however, differed taxonomically and geographically. Declines in range were more common among vertebrates than plants, whereas population extirpations were more common among plants. Invertebrates had high incidence of range and population declines. Narrowly distributed plants and invertebrates may be subject to acute threats that may result in population extirpations, whereas vertebrates may be affected by chronic threats that reduce the extent and size of populations. Additionally, in the eastern United States and U.S. coastal areas, where the level of land conversion is high, a greater percentage of species’ ranges declined and more populations were extirpated than in other areas. Species in the Southwest, especially plants, had fewer range and population declines than other areas. Such relations may help in the selection of species’ recovery criteria.     

Supporting habitat conservation with automated change detection in Google Earth Engine

A significant limitation in biodiversity conservation has been the effective implementation of laws and regulations that protect species’ habitats from degradation. Flexible, efficient, and effective monitoring and enforcement methods are needed to help conservation policies realize their full benefit. As remote sensing data become more numerous and accessible, they can be used to identify and quantify land-cover changes and habitat loss. However, these data remain underused for systematic conservation monitoring in part because of a lack of simple tools. We adapted 2 algorithms that automatically identify differences between pairs of images. We used free, publicly available satellite data to evaluate their ability to rapidly detect land-cover changes in a variety of land-cover types. We compared algorithm predictions with ground-truthed results at 100 sites of known change in the United States. We also compared algorithm predictions to manually created polygons delineating anthropogenic change in 4 case studies involving imperiled species’ habitat: oil and gas development in the range of the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus); sand mining operations in the range of the dunes sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus); loss of Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) coastal habitat after Hurricane Michael (2018); and residential development in St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) habitat. Both algorithms effectively discriminated between pixels corresponding to land-cover change and unchanged pixels as indicated by area under a receiver operating characteristic curve >0.90. The algorithm that was most effective differed among the case-study habitat types, and both effectively delineated habitat loss as indicated by low omission (min. = 0.0) and commission (min. = 0.0) rates, and moderate polygon overlap (max. = 47%). Our results showed how these algorithms can be used to help close the implementation gap of monitoring and enforcement in biodiversity conservation. We provide a free online tool that can be used to run these analyses ( https://conservationist.io/habitatpatrol ).     

Floodplain Rehabilitation as a Hedge against Hydroclimatic Uncertainty in a Migration Corridor of Threatened Steelhead

A strategy for recovering endangered species during climate change is to restore ecosystem processes that moderate effects of climate shifts. In mid‐latitudes, storm patterns may shift their intensity, duration, and frequency. These shifts threaten flooding in human communities and reduce migration windows (conditions suitable for migration after a storm) for fish. Rehabilitation of historic floodplains can in principle reduce these threats via transient storage of storm water, but no one has quantified the benefit of floodplain rehabilitation for migrating fish, a widespread biota with conservation and economic value. We used simple models to quantify migration opportunity for a threatened migratory fish, steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), in an episodic rain‐fed river system, the Pajaro River in central California. We combined flow models, bioenergetic models, and existing climate projections to estimate the sensitivity of migration windows to altered storm patterns under alternate scenarios of floodplain rehabilitation. Generally, migration opportunities were insensitive to warming, weakly sensitive to duration or intensity of storms, and proportionately sensitive to frequency of storms. The rehabilitation strategy expanded migration windows by 16–28% regardless of climate outcomes. Warmer conditions raised the energy cost of migrating, but not enough to matter biologically. Novel findings were that fewer storms appeared to pose a bigger threat to migrating steelhead than warmer or smaller storms and that floodplain rehabilitation lessened the risk from fewer or smaller storms across all plausible hydroclimatic outcomes. It follows that statistical downscaling methods may mischaracterize risk, depending on how they resolve overall precipitation shifts into changes of storm frequency as opposed to storm size. Moreover, anticipating effects of climate shifts that are irreducibly uncertain (here, rainfall) may be more important than anticipating effects of relatively predictable changes such as warming. This highlights a need to credibly identify strategies of ecosystem rehabilitation that are robust to uncertainty. Rehabilitación de Planicies Inundables como Cerco contra la Incertidumbre Hidroclimática en un Corredor Migratorio de Oncorhynchus mykiss, Especie Amenazada     

Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species

The term critical habitat is used to describe the subset of habitat that is essential to the survival and recovery of species. Some countries legally require that critical habitat of listed threatened and endangered species be identified and protected. However, there is little evidence to suggest that the identification of critical habitat has had much impact on species recovery. We hypothesized that this may be due at least partly to a mismatch between the intent of critical habitat identification, which is to protect sufficient habitat for species persistence and recovery, and its practice. We used content analysis to systematically review critical habitat documents from the United States, Canada, and Australia. In particular, we identified the major trends in type of information used to identify critical habitat and in occupancy of habitat identified as critical. Information about population viability was used to identify critical habitat for only 1% of the species reviewed, and for most species, designated critical habitat did not include unoccupied habitat. Without reference to population viability, it is difficult to determine how much of a species’ occupied and unoccupied habitat will be required for persistence. We therefore conclude that the identification of critical habitat remains inconsistent with the goal of protecting sufficient habitat to support persistence and recovery of the species. Ensuring that critical habitat identification aligns more closely with its intent will improve the accuracy of the designations and may therefore help improve the benefits to species recovery when combined with adequate implementation and enforcement of legal protections.     

Predicting Recovery Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Plant Species on the Basis of Past Abundances and Biological Traits

Recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are required to specify measurable criteria that can be used to determine when the species can be delisted. For the 642 listed endangered and threatened plant species that have recovery plans, we applied recursive partitioning methods to test whether the number of individuals or populations required for delisting can be predicted on the basis of distributional and biological traits, previous abundance at multiple time steps, or a combination of traits and previous abundances. We also tested listing status (threatened or endangered) and the year the recovery plan was written as predictors of recovery criteria. We analyzed separately recovery criteria that were stated as number of populations and as number of individuals (population‐based and individual‐based criteria, respectively). Previous abundances alone were relatively good predictors of population‐based recovery criteria. Fewer populations, but a greater proportion of historically known populations, were required to delist species that had few populations at listing compared with species that had more populations at listing. Previous abundances were also good predictors of individual‐based delisting criteria when models included both abundances and traits. The physiographic division in which the species occur was also a good predictor of individual‐based criteria. Our results suggest managers are relying on previous abundances and patterns of decline as guidelines for setting recovery criteria. This may be justifiable in that previous abundances inform managers of the effects of both intrinsic traits and extrinsic threats that interact and determine extinction risk. Predicción de Criterios de Recuperación para Especies de Plantas en Peligro y Amenazadas con Base en Abundancias Pasadas y Atributos Biológicos     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.     

Biodiversity Conservation and Indigenous Land Management in the Era of Self‐Determination

Abstract: Indigenous people inhabit approximately 85% of areas designated for biodiversity conservation worldwide. They also continue to struggle for recognition and preservation of cultural identities, lifestyles, and livelihoods—a struggle contingent on control and protection of traditional lands and associated natural resources (hereafter, self‐determination). Indigenous lands and the biodiversity they support are increasingly threatened because of human population growth and per capita consumption. Application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to tribal lands in the United States provides a rich example of the articulation between biodiversity conservation and indigenous peoples' struggle for self‐determination. We found a paradoxical relationship whereby tribal governments are simultaneously and contradictorily sovereign nations; yet their communities depend on the U.S. government for protection through the federal‐trust doctrine. The unique legal status of tribal lands, their importance for conserving federally protected species, and federal environmental regulations' failure to define applicability to tribal lands creates conflict between tribal sovereignty, self‐determination, and constitutional authority. We reviewed Secretarial Order 3206, the U.S. policy on “American Indian tribal rights, federal–tribal trust responsibilities, and the ESA,” and evaluated how it influences ESA implementation on tribal lands. We found improved biodiversity conservation and tribal self‐determination requires revision of the fiduciary relationship between the federal government and the tribes to establish clear, legal definitions regarding land rights, applicability of environmental laws, and financial responsibilities. Such actions will allow provision of adequate funding and training to tribal leaders and resource managers, government agency personnel responsible for biodiversity conservation and land management, and environmental policy makers. Increased capacity, cooperation, and knowledge transfer among tribes and conservationists will improve biodiversity conservation and indigenous self‐determination.