Mitigation of Habitat “Take”: Application to Habitat Conservation Planning

One of the most important provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act precludes the “taking” of listed species on both public and private land. In past Endangered Species Act litigation, take has been broadly interpreted to include the destruction or modification of habitats as well as the direct killing of animals. This requirement created an extensive burden on private landowners to provide habitats for listed species. This burden was substantially lessened when the ESA was modified in 1982 to allow incidental takings conditioned on preparation of a satisfactory “habitat conservation plan.” Because the majority of listed species are imperiled due to habitat modification, most habitat conservation plans must demonstrate defensible methods to mitigate against incidental habitat loss. A review of HCPs for the Northern Spotted Owl ( Strix occidentalis), and other species, indicates that mitigation solutions are often arbitrary, lacking an empirical foundation in the species’ life history requirements. Based on data from the Spotted Owl, we illustrate a biologically based method for estimating the areal requirements necessary to mitigate against the take of essential habitats. Toward this goal we adopt the concept of “core area,” that portion of an animal’s home range that receives disproportionate use. We estimated core areas by means of the adaptive kernel density function and tested against a null distribution of animal use that assumes a bivariate, uniform distribution of locations within the home range. The method we illustrate, which is defensible, repeatable, and empirical, is a clear improvement over the ad hoc methods used in many habitat conservation plans. Further, the methods we propose should be applicable to a large number of terrestrial species for which home range is a meaningful concept.

[1]  Paul McErlain-Ward Science and the Endangered Species Act , 1996 .

[2]  B. Worton Using Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate kernel-based home range estimators , 1995 .

[3]  C. J. Zabel,et al.  Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) , 1995 .

[4]  J. M. Scott,et al.  Recovery Plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are Criticisms Supported by Data? , 1995 .

[5]  T. Beatley Habitat Conservation Planning: Endangered Species and Urban Growth , 1994 .

[6]  J. C. Hickman,et al.  The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California , 1993 .

[7]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Red Deer: Behavior and Ecology of Two Sexes , 1992 .

[8]  B. Biswell,et al.  Northern Spotted Owls: Influence of Prey Base and Landscape Character , 1992 .

[9]  Stephanie Wray,et al.  Wildlife telemetry - remote monitoring and tracking of animals , 1992 .

[10]  Kevin S. McKelvey,et al.  The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of Its Current Status. , 1992 .

[11]  B. Noon,et al.  Effects of radio tags on spotted owls , 1991 .

[12]  L. Leemis Applied Linear Regression Models , 1991 .

[13]  Guy N. Cameron,et al.  Operationally Defining Home Range: Temporal Dependence Exhibited by Hispid Cotton Rats , 1990 .

[14]  R. J. Gutiérrez,et al.  Summer habitat ecology of Northern Spotted Owls in northwestern California , 1990 .

[15]  Stephen Harris,et al.  Home‐range analysis using radio‐tracking data–a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals , 1990 .

[16]  Gary C. White,et al.  A Comparison of Home-Range Estimators Using Monte Carlo Simulation , 1990 .

[17]  R. Powell,et al.  Identifying Patterns and Intensity of Home Range Use , 1990 .

[18]  A. B. Carey,et al.  Spotted owl home range and habitat use in southern Oregon coast ranges , 1990 .

[19]  B. Noon,et al.  A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committ , 1990 .

[20]  B. Worton Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies , 1989 .

[21]  Michael D. Samuel,et al.  A Revised Test Procedure for Identifying Core Areas Within the Home Range , 1988 .

[22]  P. J. Green,et al.  Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis , 1987 .

[23]  Michael D. Samuel,et al.  Identifying areas of concentrated use within the home range , 1985 .

[24]  N. P. Reed,et al.  United States Fish and Wildlife Service , 1984 .

[25]  R. G. Ford Home Range in a Patchy Environment: Optimal Foraging Predictions , 1983 .

[26]  J. Springer Movement patterns of coyotes in south central Washington , 1982 .

[27]  K. Dixon,et al.  Harmonic mean measure of animal activity areas , 1980 .

[28]  J. Murie,et al.  Territoriality and dominance in male Columbian ground squirrels (Spermophilus columbianus) , 1978 .

[29]  Norman A. Slade,et al.  A BIVARIATE HOME RANGE MODEL WITH POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO ETHOLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS , 1975 .

[30]  Ernest D. Ables,et al.  Home-Range Studies of Red Foxes (Vulpes Vulpes) , 1969 .

[31]  Donald B. Siniff,et al.  Computer Analysis of Animal-Movement Data Obtained by Telemetry , 1965 .

[32]  J. H. Kaufmann Ecology and social behavior of the coati, Nasua narica on Barro Colorado Island Panama , 1962 .

[33]  W. H. Burt Territoriality and Home Range Concepts as Applied to Mammals , 1943 .