Assessing the impact of the U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery planning guidelines on managing threats for listed species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of the United States was enacted in 1973 to prevent the extinction of species. Recovery plans, required by 1988 amendments to the ESA, play an important role in organizing these efforts to protect and recover species. To improve the use of science in the recovery planning process, the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) commissioned an independent review of endangered species recovery planning in 1999. From these findings, the SCB made key recommendations for how management agencies could improve the recovery planning process, after which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service redrafted their recovery planning guidelines. One important recommendation called for recovery plans to make threats a primary focus, including organizing and prioritizing recovery tasks for threat abatement. We sought to determine the extent to which results from the SCB study were incorporated into these new guidelines and whether the SCB recommendations regarding threats manifested in recovery plans written under the new guidelines. Recovery planning guidelines generally incorporated the SCB recommendations, including those for managing threats. However, although recent recovery plans have improved in their treatment of threats, many fail to adequately incorporate threat monitoring. This failure suggests that developing clear guidelines for monitoring should be an important priority in improving ESA recovery planning.     

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     

A Critical Assessment of the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Planning in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta,California (U.S.A.)

Abstract: Conservation biology has provided wildlife managers with a wealth of concepts and tools for use in conservation planning; among them is the surrogate species concept. Over the past 20 years, a growing body of empirical literature has demonstrated the limited effectiveness of surrogates as management tools, unless it is first established that the target species and surrogate will respond similarly to a given set of environmental conditions. Wildlife managers and policy makers have adopted the surrogate species concept, reflecting the limited information available on most species at risk of extirpation or extinction and constraints on resources available to support conservation efforts. We examined the use of surrogate species, in the form of cross‐taxon response‐indicator species (that is, one species from which data are used to guide management planning for another, distinct species) in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, California (U.S.A.). In that system there has been increasing reliance on surrogates in conservation planning for species listed under federal or state endangered species acts, although the agencies applying the surrogate species concept did not first validate that the surrogate and target species respond similarly to relevant environmental conditions. During the same period, conservation biologists demonstrated that the surrogate concept is generally unsupported by ecological theory and empirical evidence. Recently developed validation procedures may allow for the productive use of surrogates in conservation planning, but, used without validation, the surrogate species concept is not a reliable planning tool.     

Making the Leap from Researcher to Planner: Lessons from Avian Conservation Planning in the Dominican Republic

Abstract: As research biologists move into conservation biology, especially in foreign countries, providing support for conservation planning efforts presents unique challenges. Published accounts of national, multidisciplinary planning efforts and priority setting for avian conservation are not common. I describe the process and results of a broad-based, grassroots-oriented avian conservation planning workshop held in the Dominican Republic in which we designed a coordinated strategy for avian conservation in the country. The planning process sought to (1) increase communication and cooperation among conservationists; (2) familiarize participants with resources pertinent to avian conservation; (3) encourage the transfer of information between researchers and managers; (4) promote the concepts of long-term avian monitoring, avian conservation plans, and species management plans; and (5) develop a common, multidisciplinary strategy to promote the conservation of birds in the Dominican Republic. The workshop highlighted group discussions among research biologists, managers, educators, and public policy specialists to assess avian conservation needs and priorities with respect to each discipline and has since galvanized a significant portion of the conservation community around several cooperative projects involving diverse segments of the community. Avian biologists can play a significant role in conservation efforts through a willingness to work with key players in diverse fields and to envision holistic, multidisciplinary approaches to conservation issues.     

Improving species status assessments under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and implications for multispecies conservation challenges worldwide

Despite its successes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) has proven challenging to implement due to funding limitations, workload backlog, and other problems. As threats to species survival intensify and as more species come under threat, the need for the ESA and similar conservation laws and policies in other countries to function efficiently has grown. Attempts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to streamline ESA decisions include multispecies recovery plans and habitat conservation plans. We address species status assessment (SSA), a USFWS process to inform ESA decisions from listing to recovery, within the context of multispecies and ecosystem planning. Although existing SSAs have a single-species focus, ecosystem-based research can efficiently inform multiple SSAs within a region and provide a foundation for transition to multispecies SSAs in the future. We considered at-risk grassland species and ecosystems within the southeastern United States, where a disproportionate number of rare and endemic species are associated with grasslands. To initiate our ecosystem-based approach, we used a combined literature-based and structured World Café workshop format to identify science needs for SSAs. Discussions concentrated on 5 categories of threats to grassland species and ecosystems, consistent with recommendations to make shared threats a focus of planning under the ESA: (1) habitat loss, fragmentation, and disruption of functional connectivity; (2) climate change; (3) altered disturbance regimes; (4) invasive species; and (5) localized impacts. For each threat, workshop participants identified science and information needs, including database availability, research priorities, and modeling and mapping needs. Grouping species by habitat and shared threats can make the SSA process and other planning processes for conservation of at-risk species worldwide more efficient and useful. We found a combination of literature review and structured discussion effective for identifying the scientific information and analysis needed to support the development of multiple SSAs. Article impact statement: Species status assessments can be improved by an ecosystem-based approach that groups imperiled species by shared habitats and threats.     

Consensus versus Conservation in the Upper Colorado River Basin Recovery Implementation Program

Abstract: We examined consensus-based management through the lens of the Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program, a consensus-based plan that attempts to develop the Colorado River's water while protecting its endangered fishes. Because this management model has been touted as a preferred substitute to government-imposed regulation, we analyzed the recovery implementation program to determine its strengths and weaknesses. By reviewing secondary information and interviewing members of the diverse groups involved in the program, we gathered detailed information about the program's history, implementation, and progress. Our investigation revealed that the recovery implementation program has allowed development of the Colorado River's water and incorporated more voices into the decision-making process. But the program circumvented federal authority over endangered species conservation, which has proved detrimental to the fishes. Furthermore, we learned that the consensus-based model is vulnerable to control by special-interests and may be driven by bureaucratic procedural goals rather than species recovery. To ameliorate these concerns, (1) program success should be judged by species recovery, rather than political achievements, (2) the federal government should retain the power of issuing statutory sanctions in the event of continued population decline, and (3) funding should be provided by an agency with a clear species-protection agenda to reduce the disproportionate power of utilitarian interest groups. By incorporating these recommendations, conservation programs can better realize the benefits of a consensus-based approach without sacrificing species recovery.     

Climate Change,Marine Environments,and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Climate change is expected to be a top driver of global biodiversity loss in the 21st century. It poses new challenges to conserving and managing imperiled species, particularly in marine and estuarine ecosystems. The use of climate‐related science in statutorily driven species management, such as under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), is in its early stages. This article provides an overview of ESA processes, with emphasis on the mandate to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to manage listed marine, estuarine, and anadromous species. Although the ESA is specific to the United States, its requirements are broadly relevant to conservation planning. Under the ESA, species, subspecies, and “distinct population segments” may be listed as either endangered or threatened, and taking of most listed species (harassing, harming, pursuing, wounding, killing, or capturing) is prohibited unless specifically authorized via a case‐by‐case permit process. Government agencies, in addition to avoiding take, must ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize a listed species’ continued existence or adversely affect designated critical habitat. Decisions for which climate change is likely to be a key factor include: determining whether a species should be listed under the ESA, designating critical habitat areas, developing species recovery plans, and predicting whether effects of proposed human activities will be compatible with ESA‐listed species’ survival and recovery. Scientific analyses that underlie these critical conservation decisions include risk assessment, long‐term recovery planning, defining environmental baselines, predicting distribution, and defining appropriate temporal and spatial scales. Although specific guidance is still evolving, it is clear that the unprecedented changes in global ecosystems brought about by climate change necessitate new information and approaches to conservation of imperiled species. El Cambio Climático, los Ecosistemas Marinos y el Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro     

A Framework for Developing Objective and Measurable Recovery Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Species

For species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service are tasked with writing recovery plans that include “objective, measurable criteria” that define when a species is no longer at risk of extinction, but neither the act itself nor agency guidelines provide an explicit definition of objective, measurable criteria. Past reviews of recovery plans, including one published in 2012, show that many criteria lack quantitative metrics with clear biological rationale and are not meeting the measureable and objective mandate. I reviewed how objective, measureable criteria have been defined implicitly and explicitly in peer‐reviewed literature, the ESA, other U.S. statutes, and legal decisions. Based on a synthesis of these sources, I propose the following 6 standards be used as minimum requirements for objective, measurable criteria: contain a quantitative threshold with calculable units, stipulate a timeframe over which they must be met, explicitly define the spatial extent or population to which they apply, specify a sampling procedure that includes sample size, specify a statistical significance level, and include justification by providing scientific evidence that the criteria define a species whose extinction risk has been reduced to the desired level. To meet these 6 standards, I suggest that recovery plans be explicitly guided by and organized around a population viability modeling framework even if data or agency resources are too limited to complete a viability model. When data and resources are available, recovery criteria can be developed from the population viability model results, but when data and resources are insufficient for model implementation, extinction risk thresholds can be used as criteria. A recovery‐planning approach centered on viability modeling will also yield appropriately focused data‐acquisition and monitoring plans and will facilitate a seamless transition from recovery planning to delisting. Un Marco de Referencia para Desarrollar Criterios de Recuperación Objetivos y Medibles para Especies Amenazadas y en Peligro     

Climate readiness of recovery plans for threatened Australian species

The rapidly changing climate is posing growing threats for all species, but particularly for those already considered threatened. We reviewed 100 recovery plans for Australian terrestrial threatened species (50 fauna and 50 flora plans) written from 1997 to 2017. We recorded the number of plans that acknowledged climate change as a threat and of these how many proposed specific actions to ameliorate the threat. We classified these actions along a continuum from passive or incremental to active or interventionist. Overall, just under 60% of the sampled recovery plans listed climate change as a current or potential threat to the threatened taxa, and the likelihood of this acknowledgment increased over time. A far smaller proportion of the plans, however, identified specific actions associated with ameliorating climate risk (22%) and even fewer (9%) recommended any interventionist action in response to a climate-change-associated threat. Our results point to a disconnect between the knowledge generated on climate-change-related risk and potential adaptation strategies and the extent to which this knowledge has been incorporated into an important instrument of conservation action.     

Actual and Potential Use of Population Viability Analyses in Recovery of Plant Species Listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Use of population viability analyses (PVAs) in endangered species recovery planning has been met with both support and criticism. Previous reviews promote use of PVA for setting scientifically based, measurable, and objective recovery criteria and recommend improvements to increase the framework's utility. However, others have questioned the value of PVA models for setting recovery criteria and assert that PVAs are more appropriate for understanding relative trade‐offs between alternative management actions. We reviewed 258 final recovery plans for 642 plants listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act to determine the number of plans that used or recommended PVA in recovery planning. We also reviewed 223 publications that describe plant PVAs to assess how these models were designed and whether those designs reflected previous recommendations for improvement of PVAs. Twenty‐four percent of listed species had recovery plans that used or recommended PVA. In publications, the typical model was a matrix population model parameterized with ≤5 years of demographic data that did not consider stochasticity, genetics, density dependence, seed banks, vegetative reproduction, dormancy, threats, or management strategies. Population growth rates for different populations of the same species or for the same population at different points in time were often statistically different or varied by >10%. Therefore, PVAs parameterized with underlying vital rates that vary to this degree may not accurately predict recovery objectives across a species’ entire distribution or over longer time scales. We assert that PVA, although an important tool as part of an adaptive‐management program, can help to determine quantitative recovery criteria only if more long‐term data sets that capture spatiotemporal variability in vital rates become available. Lacking this, there is a strong need for viable and comprehensive methods for determining quantitative, science‐based recovery criteria for endangered species with minimal data availability. Uso Actual y Potencial del Análisis de Viabilidad Poblacional para la Recuperación de Especies de Plantas Enlistadas en el Acta de Especies En Peligro de E.U.A     

Functional Ecosystems and Biodiversity Buzzwords

Abstract: Several increasingly popular paradigms in conservation remove organismal information and life-history requirements from management planning with claims that species-specific information is not necessary to the understanding and management of "ecosystem function" and may therefore be discarded. Although several authors have called attention to the fact that ecosystem management has not yet been articulated sufficiently to comprise an adequate paradigm for wildlife protection, there has been a series of suggestions paralleling ecosystem management's popularity that the perceived or imagined emergent properties of communities should be at the root of conservation planning. Such reductions most commonly take the form of abstracted species diversity measures that may be irrelevant or misleading with respect to site-specific planning and to the monitoring of specific management treatments. Following earlier examinations of ecosystem management, I emphasize that several of its apparent outgrowths may be too vague to inform specific recommendations, that the historical mechanics of "ecosystem processes" are essentially unknowable, and that anecdotal definitions of ecosystems allow one to justify virtually any protocol as management. The primacy of process-dependent, landscape-functional considerations in conservation planning is specious in the absence of species- and population-specific information, which should form the foundation for understanding such processes in the first place. Only by viewing nature in terms of the relationships between processes and organisms, rather than in terms of emergent properties of organismal assemblages or abiotic factors divorced from organismal data, can conservation plans claim to protect biological elements.     

Geography and Recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract: The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines an endangered species as one “at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The prevailing interpretation of this phrase, which focuses exclusively on the overall viability of listed species without regard to their geographic distribution, has led to development of listing and recovery criteria with fundamental conceptual, legal, and practical shortcomings. The ESA's concept of endangerment is broader than the biological concept of extinction risk in that the “esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific” values provided by species are not necessarily furthered by a species mere existence, but rather by a species presence across much of its former range. The concept of “significant portion of range” thus implies an additional geographic component to recovery that may enhance viability, but also offers independent benefits that Congress intended the act to achieve. Although the ESA differs from other major endangered‐species protection laws because it acknowledges the distinct contribution of geography to recovery, it resembles the “representation, resiliency, and redundancy” conservation‐planning framework commonly referenced in recovery plans. To address representation, listing and recovery standards should consider not only what proportion of its former range a species inhabits, but the types of habitats a species occupies and the ecological role it plays there. Recovery planning for formerly widely distributed species (e.g., the gray wolf [Canis lupus]) exemplifies how the geographic component implicit in the ESA's definition of endangerment should be considered in determining recovery goals through identification of ecologically significant types or niche variation within the extent of listed species, subspecies, or “distinct population segments.” By linking listing and recovery standards to niche and ecosystem concepts, the concept of ecologically significant type offers a scientific framework that promotes more coherent dialogue concerning the societal decisions surrounding recovery of endangered species.     

Correlates of Population Recovery Goals in Endangered Birds

Abstract: Endangered species recovery plans commonly set goals for population size that are used to define the success of recovery efforts. We examined variation in these population recovery goals for bird species listed under the U. S. Endangered Species Act to determine whether there were simple predictors of recovery population size. The median population sizes that must be met for a species to be removed from the list or downlisted to the threatened category are 4000 and 1500 respectively, but the thresholds varied considerably. Most variation in population recovery goals ( ≥75%) was explained by the population size when the recovery plan was written. Species listed when their population's size was relatively large have higher population recovery goals, whereas those listed when populations were small have lower population goals. Population sizes set for recovery also increased over time and were higher for species listed throughout the United States rather than for part of the country. In combination, these three variables explained 86% of the variance in population goals for delisting and 94% of the variance in goals for downlisting. Body mass, annual fecundity, maximum lifespan, whether the population was listed as threatened or endangered, and whether a formal population viability analysis was conducted were variables not significantly associated with population recovery goals. Thus, we found that variables relating to the circumstances under which the populations were listed could explain almost all of the variance in recovery population goals, and that biological traits of the endangered birds explained little of the variance.     

Multispecies genetic objectives in spatial conservation planning

Growing threats to biodiversity and global alteration of habitats and species distributions make it increasingly necessary to consider evolutionary patterns in conservation decision making. Yet, there is no clear‐cut guidance on how genetic features can be incorporated into conservation‐planning processes, despite multiple molecular markers and several genetic metrics for each marker type to choose from. Genetic patterns differ between species, but the potential tradeoffs among genetic objectives for multiple species in conservation planning are currently understudied. We compared spatial conservation prioritizations derived from 2 metrics of genetic diversity (nucleotide and haplotype diversity) and 2 metrics of genetic isolation (private haplotypes and local genetic differentiation) in mitochondrial DNA of 5 marine species. We compared outcomes of conservation plans based only on habitat representation with plans based on genetic data and habitat representation. Fewer priority areas were selected for conservation plans based solely on habitat representation than on plans that included habitat and genetic data. All 4 genetic metrics selected approximately similar conservation‐priority areas, which is likely a result of prioritizing genetic patterns across a genetically diverse array of species. Largely, our results suggest that multispecies genetic conservation objectives are vital to creating protected‐area networks that appropriately preserve community‐level evolutionary patterns.     

Prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use of wild species inferred from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Unsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species to investigate patterns of intentional biological resource use. Forty percent of species (10,098 of 25,009 species from 10 data-sufficient taxonomic groups) were used. The main purposes of use were pets, display animals, horticulture, and human consumption. Intentional use is currently contributing to elevated extinction risk for 28–29% of threatened or near threatened (NT) species (2752–2848 of 9753 species). Intentional use also affected 16% of all species used (1597–1631 of 10,098). However, 72% of used species (7291 of 10,098) were least concern, of which nearly half (3469) also had stable or improving population trends. The remainder were not documented as threatened by biological resource use, including at least 172 threatened or NT species with stable or improving populations. About one-third of species that had use documented as a threat had no targeted species management actions to directly address this threat. To improve use-related red-list data, we suggest small amendments to the relevant classification schemes and required supporting documentation. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, can inform international policy making, including the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.     

Effects of human activities (raking,scraping, off-road vehicles) and natural resource protections on the spatial distribution of beach vegetation and related shoreline features in New Jersey

This study examined the relative impacts of different human activities and natural resource protections on the spatial distribution of beach vegetation and related habitat features (wrack, dune succession) in New Jersey (USA). Field surveys of the 209-km shoreline categorized beach segments according to vegetation cover classes, human activities, protection measures (exclosures, beach management plans, access restrictions) and ownership status (federal, state, etc.). A partition model (classification tree) was used to confirm the relative dominance hierarchy of human actions on the distribution of beach vegetation observed, and quantitative comparisons of dominant activities were conducted using vegetation data collected on 218 transects. The spatial extent of beach vegetation was found to be severely restricted by human activities when unconstrained by resource protections. The greatest reductions were found to result from mechanical raking (?99 %), scraping (?91 %) and all-year recreational ORV use (?86 %), which were dominant on nearly 70 % of the state shoreline. Beaches containing larger areas of vegetation (>5 m) were concentrated in areas with resource protections of various kinds (99 %), and on federal or other public parklands (68 %). Exclosures resulted in the greatest coverage of vegetation (48 % of beach surface) compared to public access restricted areas (41 %), beach management plans (31 %), government-only ORV use (31 %), and off-season recreational ORVs (15 %). Greater protection and recovery of beach vegetation and habitat is needed for species conservation and erosion protection in New Jersey and other coastal environments where these activities occur.     

Who's Who in Conservation Biology—an Authorship Analysis

Abstract:  As the flagship journal of the field, Conservation Biology represents a multidisciplinary, global constituency of conservation professionals—a constituency composed of more than 5200 authors representing 1500 organizations and 89 countries. Using bibliometric records of research published in Conservation Biology , I evaluated trends in authorship of research papers from 1987 to 2005. Authorship diversified and became increasingly collaborative over time. North Americans now compose one-half of primary authorship, down from 75% in the 1990s, and European primary authors contribute a quarter of the journal's contributed research. Forty-five countries were represented in volume 19 of the journal. The top three most-cited authors are Australian. The percentage of single-authored papers declined from 57% in 1987 to 18% in 2005. Collectively, academic institutions contribute the most research to Conservation Biology , although a government agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, was the single most-productive organization. The maturing of conservation biology as a discipline, the complex geographic and multidisciplinary nature of conservation questions, and the increased ease of communication in a technologically connected world contribute to the increasingly diverse and collaborative Conservation Biology authorship.     

ReefBahia, an integrated GIS approach for coral reef conservation in Bahia, Brazil

Coral reefs around the world are facing serious threats. These fragile ecosystems are in need for conservation. The coastal state of Bahia hosts the most extensive and richest area of coral reefs in the South Atlantic Ocean. Assessment, planning and management of coral reef ecosystems are particularly challenging tasks. This work shows how the creation of a GIS improves the process of management, monitoring and conservation of the Bahian reef environments The initial data input started by the vectorization of 1) bathymetric data from the Bureau of Hydrography and Navigation (DHN), 2) shoreline and mangrove areas from Landsat 7 ETM + images, 3) near surface reefs from Quickbird images, and 4) coastal and marine protected areas of federal, state and local administrations. Geological, physical, biological and social information was then included in order to create a suitable marine GIS for conservation aims. The data includes information on sediment granulometry and transport patterns, rocky substrate outcrops, sea surface temperature, wave direction, rain precipitation, major contributing river discharge, artisanal fishery, benthic cover and bleaching data. ReefBahia GIS has provided essential information for a better understanding of coral reefs of the state of Bahia geological and ecological characteristics such as mapping, representation, connectivity and biodiversity of coral reefs, geological facies, Quaternary sedimentation, numeric modeling of wave refraction and monitoring of bleaching events.     

Ants as a Measure of Effectiveness of Habitat Conservation Planning in Southern California

Abstract: In the United States multispecies habitat conservation plans were meant to be the solution to conflicts between economic development and protection of biological diversity. Although now widely applied, questions exist concerning the scientific credibility of the conservation planning process and effectiveness of the plans. We used ants to assess performance of one of the first regional conservation plans developed in the United States, the Orange County Central‐Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), in meeting its broader conservation objectives of biodiversity and ecosystem‐level protection. We collected pitfall data on ants for over 3 years on 172 sites established across a network of conservation lands in coastal southern California. Although recovered native ant diversity for the study area was high, site‐occupancy models indicated the invasive and ecologically disruptive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) was present at 29% of sites, and sites located within 200 m of urban and agricultural areas were more likely to have been invaded. Within invaded sites, native ants were largely displaced, and their median species richness declined by more than 60% compared with uninvaded sites. At the time of planning, 24% of the 15,133‐ha reserve system established by Orange County NCCP fell within 200 m of an urban or agricultural edge. With complete build out of lands surrounding the reserve, the proportion of the reserve system vulnerable to invasion will grow to 44%. Our data indicate that simply protecting designated areas from development is not enough. If habitat conservation plans are to fulfill their conservation promise of ecosystem‐level protection, a more‐integrated and systematic approach to the process of habitat conservation planning is needed.     

Advancing objectives-based,integrated ocean management through marine spatial planning: current and future directions on the Scotian Shelf off Nova Scotia,Canada

The national legislative and policy context for integrated ocean management in Canada is provided by the Oceans Act (1996) and the supporting policy statement, Canada’s Oceans Strategy. Under the Oceans Act, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is the lead federal authority for ocean affairs and is charged with leading and facilitating the development and implementation of integrated management plans for all marine waters. Integrated management efforts in Canada are being undertaken through an area-based approach that enables marine planning, management and decision making to occur at appropriate spatial scales, from regional to site-specific. This article focuses on the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) process, an offshore-focused effort to develop an integrated ocean management plan for a large portion of the Scotian Shelf, off Nova Scotia. The resulting Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean Management Plan (the ESSIM plan) has been developed through a collaborative process involving all interested and affected government departments and ocean stakeholders, and provides an objectives-based approach to ocean management. The ESSIM plan contains a set of long-term, overarching goals for collaborative governance and integrated management, sustainable human use, and healthy ecosystems. These goals are supported by more specific objectives that express desired outcomes and conditions for the marine region. The objectives-based approach seeks to ensure that interrelationships among ecosystem and human use objectives are recognized and reflected in the identification of management strategies and supporting actions. This article considers the role of marine spatial planning within the context of the integrated ocean management process underway for the Scotian Shelf. The policy and management context for integrated ocean management in Canada is briefly described and a summary of the ESSIM plan is provided. The current and potential role for marine spatial planning in implementing the objectives and strategies of the ESSIM plan is highlighted using examples related to multiple ocean use and marine conservation and protected area planning. The article concludes by drawing out key lessons learned to date through the ESSIM process for marine spatial planning and looks to the future in terms of the development of tools and approaches for this integral aspect of integrated ocean management.