Conserving Biodiversity on Private Lands Kelly Cassidy and Christian Grue “Think Globally, Act Locally”

Conserving Biodiversity on Private Lands

Kelly Cassidy and Christian Grue

“Think Globally, Act Locally”

Regional and Local Land Managers

Regional Land Managers

• Federal land managers (National Parks, National Forest, NWRs, etc.

• State land managers (DNR, State Wildlife Areas, etc.)

Local Land Managers•County planners•City planners•Private land managers and owners

Regional Land Managers manage relatively large blocks of land

Local Land Managers manage relatively small land parcels

Regional land managers have many advantages

• Manage parcels often large enough to maintain viable populations of many species

• Can make long-term plans (within political swings)

• Have biologists to interpret a constant flood of conservation studies and recommendations

Local land managers face many difficulties

• If city/county planners, they manage a few small parks and have limited control over zillions of small private parcels

• Private land owner reactions to city/county plans range from enthusiastic to hostile

• If a private land owner, they have only their own parcel and little control over neighbors

Local land managers face many difficulties (continued)

• Can rarely afford to hire biologists to help sift through a mountain of information

• When they can hire biologists, biologists may pinpoint priority locations incompatible with existing plans, zoning, or land ownership

Merging Local Land Planning with Conservation is So Difficult

Why do it?

Why not let regional land managers have all the conservation

responsibility?• 45% of lands in WA are in public

ownership

• 26% a combination of National Park, National Forest, Wilderness, NWRs, BLM

Isn’t that enough for biodiversity?

Neither land ownership nor species are randomly distributed

American Bittern – modeled distribution in Washington

Public land ownership in Washington

American Bittern example

• A secretive bird of marshes

• 88% of its breeding range and 89% of non-breeding range on private land

• No state or federal listing, but seems to be declining throughout its range and in the Pacific NW

• Even if all state and federal land were completely protected, little of the bittern’s range would be protected

Well-protected Habitats

• High-elevation• Dry• Rocky• Rugged• Cold

About 83% of alpine habitat in Washington is protected. Less than 1% is privately owned.

Poorly-protected Habitats

• Low-elevation• Fertile• Gentle terrain

Less than 1% of the Palouse of eastern Washington is protected. About 97% is privately owned.

Conservation actions taken by local land managers are as

important as those of regional (state and federal) land managers

How does a local land manager manage for biodiversity?

Bone up on a little conservation literature:

→

Apply to the home front:→

Our Goals

• Determine the species and habitats likely to be most affected by local land planning

• Put each county in a regional perspective

• Suggest conservation goals for each county

Non-goals

• Identify specific locations (with rare exceptions) as conservation priorities

• Not meant as a substitute for state and federal regulations

• Each county has unique ecological communities that pass through our coarse filter

• Doesn’t address most coastal/marine species or fish

Local Priority Species

• Species most likely to be affected by the actions of local land planners

• Terrestrial vertebrates only (no fish, no marine reptiles, mammals, or birds)

• Generally also excluded vertebrates that rarely ventured inland more than a few feet from shore, but included many species that used both shore/marine habitats and inland habitats (e.g., Peregrine Falcons

Local Priority Rank

• Local Priority Scores assigned to 4 categories

• A – Highest Local Priority

• B – High Local Priority

• C – Moderate Local Priority

• D – Not a current Local Priority

Local Priority Amphibians – Western Washington Counties

Species Cla Jef Ma

s Gra Pac Wa

h Cow

Cla Ska Lew Thu Pie Kit Kin Sno Ska Wha

Isl San State

Federal

Northwestern Salamander C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Long-toed Salamander macrodactylum

A A A A B B A A B A A A A A A A A A A

Cope's Giant Salamander C C C C C C C C C C C C SM Pacific Giant Salamander C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Olympic Torrent Salamander C C C C SM Columbia Torrent Salamander A A A A A SC FCo Cascades Torrent Salamander

A A A A B D SC

Dunn's Salamander A A A A A SC Larch Mountain Salamander B B B B C SS FCo Van Dyke's Salamander B B B B B B B B B B B SC FCo Tailed Frog B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B SM FCo Western Toad A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A SC Fco Columbia Spotted Frog C SC FCo Oregon Spotted Frog Z B A Z Z Z Z SE FC Local Priority A 2 2 2 4 3 3 5 3 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Local Priority B 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 Local Priority C 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 2 2 2 3 2 0 Total Local Priority A, B, C 7 7 7 10 9 9 11 8 9 11 8 8 3 5 5 5 6 4 2

Land managers don’t usually manage species. They manage

land.

Local Priority Species → Local Priority Habitats

• Macrohabitats

• Mesohabitats

• Microhabitats

• Actions

Priority Macrohabitats

• Open natural vegetation (prairies, etc.)

• Late seral (old) forests, esp. at low-elevations

• Large rivers and lakes

• Shore/coastal (partly addressed)

Priority Mesohabitats

• Ponds and small lakes, esp. without introduced fish or bullfrogs

• Shrub, hardwood dominated riparian areas• Small streams, seeps• Marshes, swamps

Priority Microhabitats

• Snags, downed logs, brush piles

• “Untended” vegetation patches

• Talus slopes• Caves (for Townsend’s Big-

eared Bat)

Needs other than habitat

• Varies widely with species• Some examples

– Education on coexisting with large carnivores (mainly by avoiding human-carnivore interaction)

– Discourage use of lead shot (Trumpeter Swans)– Discourage/regulate pesticide use, esp. insecticide – Discourage feeding of nest predators (corvids,

coyotes, raccoons, squirrels, etc.) and exotic species via pet food left outside, garbage, intentional feeding

– Nest box installation– Encourage tolerance of raptors

Example: Local Priority Species Associated with Late-seral Dry ForestSpecies (Highest westside local priority rank)

Notes

Amphibians Northwestern Salamander (C) Low, mid, and high elevations Western Long-toed Salamander (A) Ponds within forest. Low elevations. Cascades Torrent Salamander (A) Hilly terrain. Low, mid elevations; Tailed Frog (A) Rugged terrain. Mid and high elevations. Reptiles Painted Turtle (B) Appropriate water bodies within Western Pond Turtle (A) Appropriate water bodies within Ringneck Snake (B) Low-elevation forests with a major

hardwood component. California Mountain Kingsnake (A) Low elevation oak and pine woodlands in

Skamania Co. Mammals Keen's Myotis (B) Low elevations. Fringed Myotis (B) Low elevations. Clark, Skamania, Cowlitz

Cos. only. Long-legged Myotis (C) Low, mid, and high elevations. Silver-haired Bat (C) Low, mid, and high elevations Western Gray Squirrel (A) Nut-bearing trees must be present. Marten (C) Mid and high elevations Fisher (B) Large tracts of low, mid elevation forests. Birds ……. …….

Put Counties in a Regional Perspective

• Western Washington counties fairly uniform in priority habitats and species → Priority habitat suggestions generally apply to all counties

• But, each county has its unique characteristics

Comments

• Emphasis on habitat, not species

• Species should be used as barometers of success or failure

• Give regional perspective to county planners and offer suggestions, but do not identify specific locations as priorities

“Ask Me Again in Ten Years”

• Effective conservation requires regional perspective

• Effective conservation requires both regional and local implementation

• Local land managers need information they can translate into the action of numerous individuals with small plots of land