A framework for decision points to trigger adaptive management actions in long-term incidental take permits

Report

Title: A framework for decision points to trigger adaptive management actions in long-term incidental take permits
Publication Date:
December 02, 2015
Document Number: Open-File Report 2015-1227
Pages: 98
Receptor:
Interactions:
Technology Type:

Document Access

Website: External Link
Attachment: Access File
(3 MB)

Citation

Dalthorp, D.; Huso, M. (2015). A framework for decision points to trigger adaptive management actions in long-term incidental take permits. Report by US Geological Survey (USGS). pp 98.
Abstract: 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has begun to issue incidental take permits (ITPs) to wind power companies to allow limited take of bird and bat species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Huso and others, 2015). Expected take rates are determined using scientifically based collision-risk models and knowledge about the ecology of the population of interest. ITPs often include mitigation requirements to compensate for estimated take and further describe (1) adaptive management actions (AMAs) that may be required to reduce take rates if permitted rate is exceeded, or (2) additional compensatory mitigation to offset take that exceeds permitted levels.

Confirming the accuracy of predicted take and providing evidence that permitted take levels have not been exceeded can be challenging because carcasses may be detected with probability much less than 1, and often no carcasses are observed. When detection probability is high, finding 0 carcasses can be interpreted as evidence that none (or few) were actually killed. As the probability of observing an individual decreases, the likelihood of missing carcasses increases, making it unclear how to interpret having observed 0 (or few) carcasses. In a practical sense, the consequences of incorrect inference can be significant: overestimating take could result in costly and unjustified mitigation, whereas underestimating could result in unanticipated declines in species populations already at risk.

Find Tethys on FacebookFind Tethys on Twitter
 
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.