8011

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8011
• Author: Hood, L. C., et al.
• Title: Frayed Safety Nets, Conservation Planning Under the Endangered Species Act 1998.
• USFW Year: 1998.
• USFW - Doc Type: Washington D.C.
• Copyright Material: YES

,.............. ...........".,.... ... ....".,.......... ..........,..,.............. ........ ................,..".".,.........,..........,..,.".,..,..,........,.......... F RAY E 0

SAFETY NETS

protection, edge effects and the effects of urban-
ization may have a large impact on the warblers.
Twenty percent of the plan's preserves are within
330 feet of the preserve boundary or other type
of edge. The biological advisory team recom-
mends that less than five percent of any preserve
be within that distance from an edge, and
research subsequent to the team's recommenda-
tions indicated that these warblers will not occu-

py otherwise suitable habitat that has 1-10
homes within 1,650 feet or has 11-30 percent
urbanization within one kilometer (Engels
1995). In addition, utility corridors currently
cut through some of the preserves, increasing
edge (although there are steps to reduce this
under the plan). Moreover, urbanization itself
has other effects such as increased numbers of

o

nest predators such as blue jays (Cyanocitta
cristata), which will add to edge effects in
decreasing the carrying capacity of reserves
(Engels and Sexton 1994). Given these indica-
tions from biological research, the plan's preserve
design may support a much smaller warbler pop-
ulation than anticipated.
According to the recovery plan for the gold-
en-cheeked warbler (FWS 1992b), recovery will
not be sufficient until each of eight regions has at
least one viable population on its own or
through connections to other regions. One of
the eight regions encompasses the Balcones plan-
ning area. In addition, the warblers in Travis
County are particularly important because the
county has 40 percent more warbler habitat than
any other county. Despite the importance of this
area, it is possible that the planning area will not
sustain viable populations of the two bird species

because of the insufficient preserve acreage, edge
effects and lack of intensive habitat management.

Multiple-Species Planning

The complexity of preserve design discussed
above is magnified when multiple species are
taken into account. Nevertheless, all conserva-

tion plans affect multiple species, whether or not
they result in incidental-take permits for multi-
ple species. Conservation planning for multiple
species, including unlisted species, can address
the dilemma of preventing the decline of species
before they are critically endangered and receive
protection under the E~A. The trade-off, how-
ever, is that landowners want incidental-take per-
mits issued for multiple endangered species, as
well as a commitment that the HCP is sufficient

for unlisted species, so that no additional actions
are required upon new listings. When this assur-
ance is granted, unlisted species that become list-
ed in the future will be included in the inciden-
tal take permit unless FWS can demonstrate that
the HCP would jeopardize the continued exis-
tence of the species. This assurance to the
landowner regarding his/her responsibilities for
species that could be listed in the future is an
extremely important incentive to landowners,
especially those in areas with a high density of
proposed and candidate species, such as
California and Florida.
Providing assurances to landowners for
unlisted species must be accompanied by ade-
quate conservation for those species in the con-
servation plan. Congress clearly intended as
much in establishing Section lOin 1982: "In the
event that an unlisted species addressed in the