8011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F RAY E 0 SA F E T Y NET S .........................................................................................................................................................................., report), and is part of statewide HCPs being developed for at least four southern states, including the draft HCP for the red-cockaded woodpecker in Texas. Typically, when a landowner destroys habitat he or she mitigates the loss by allowing the otherwise doomed woodpecker group to be captured and translocat- ed and by providing money to build artificial nest cavities on another site. But widespread reliance on this technique does not appear to be justified. In 143 translocation attempts by the Forest Service between 1989 and 1994, the suc- cess rate was 70 percent for single juvenile females but only 20 percent for adult males, and other studies have found that translocation of adult males is generally unsuccessful (Allen et al. 1993; Jackson et al. 1983; Peters 1996). This controversial technique underlies the continuing debate over whether woodpecker recovery is mainly limited by a shortage of birds for unoccu- pied habitat (according to Ralph Costa, wood- pecker recovery coordinator for FWS) or the amount of suitable habitat, especially on private land (see Endangered Species and Wetlands Report, February and March 1997). Biological Monitoring Biological monitoring is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of management techniques and to adapt management to changing conditions over time. In order to determine whether a con- servation plan is producing the expected results with respect to maintaining or enhancing endan- gered species populations, there must be biologi- cal monitoring of both the species and its essen- tial habitat. This is particularly crucial for plans that rely upon manipulative techniques for restoring habitat or translocating individuals. At the same time, this monitoring must be com- bined with an adaptive management program. If properly implemented, monitoring can sig- nificantly advance knowledge about endangered species on private lands. Much more is known about biological resources on public land than on private land, a fact seriously impeding recov- ery plans and conservation efforts for species that occur on both. Surveying and monitoring asso- ciated with conservation plans could help fill a major gap in information about biological resources on private lands. From monitoring data, land managers should be able to determine whether plans are fulfilling stated biological goals, whether management changes are necessary to adapt to changing con- ditions (adaptive management), and whether actions under the plan have inadvertently caused a species to decline so much that the plan jeopar- dizes the species' continued existence. Therefore, monitoring must go beyond counting acres of habitat and individual animals and address (1) multiple species, (2) parameters for ecological models, (3) spatial patterns, (4) cumulative effects, (5) information that directly links it to identified biological goals and adaptive manage- ment, (6) thresholds beyond which the plan jeopardizes the species' continued existence and (7) the greater need for quantitative data over qualitative information. FWS's HCP monitoring guidance provides sound advice. "The services should strive to col- lect sufficient information to detect trends in covered species populations, changes in the qual- e