Environmental Management

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 241–250 | Cite as

A Structured Approach to Incidental Take Decision Making



Decision making related to incidental take of endangered species under U.S. law lends itself well to a structured decision making approach. Incidental take is the permitted killing, harming, or harassing of a protected species under the law as long as that harm is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and does not “reduce appreciably the probability of survival and recovery in the wild.” There has been inconsistency in the process used for determining incidental take allowances across species and across time for the same species, and structured decision making has been proposed to improve decision making. I use an example decision analysis to demonstrate the process and its applicability to incidental take decisions, even under significant demographic uncertainty and multiple, competing objectives. I define the example problem, present an objectives statement and a value function, use a simulation model to assess the consequences of a set of management actions, and evaluate the tradeoffs among the different actions. The approach results in transparent and repeatable decisions.


Charadrius melodus Endangered Species Act Piping Plover Section 7 consultation Structured decision making 


  1. Blomquist SM, Johnson TD, Smith DR, Call GP, Miller BN, Thurman WM, McFadden JE, Parkin MJ, Boomer GS (2010) Structured decision-making and rapid prototyping to plan a management response to an invasive species. J Fish Wildl Manag 1:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Catlin DH (2009) Population dynamics of piping plovers on the Missouri River in South Dakota. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, BlacksburgGoogle Scholar
  3. Choy SL, O’Leary R, Mengersen K (2009) Elicitation by design in ecology: using expert opinion to inform priors for Bayesian statistical models. Ecology 90:265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Converse SJ, Shelley KJ, Morey S, Chan J, LaTier A, Scafidi C, Crouse D, Runge MC (2011) A decision-analytic approach to the optimal allocation of resources for endangered species consultation. Biol Conserv 144:319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elliott-Smith E, Haig SM (2004) Piping plover (Charadrius melodus). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/002
  6. Gregory RS, Keeney RL (2002) Making smarter environmental management decisions. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:1601–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregory RS, Long G (2009) Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Anal 29:518–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H (2002) Smart choices. Broadway Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson FA, Kendall WL, Dubovsky JA (2002) Conditions and limitations on learning in the adaptive management of mallard harvests. Wildl Soc Bull 30:176–185Google Scholar
  10. Keeney RL, Gregory RS (2005) Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper Res 53:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larson MA, Ryan MR, Root BG (2000) Piping plover survival in the Great Plains: an updated analysis. J Field Ornithol 71:721–729Google Scholar
  12. Larson MA, Ryan MR, Murphy RK (2002) Population viability of piping plovers: effects of predator exclusion. J Wildl Manag 66:361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin TG, Kuhnert PM, Mengersen K, Possingham HP (2005) The power of expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: impact of grazing on birds. Ecol Appl 15:266–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin J, Runge MC, Nichols JD, Lubow BC, Kendall WL (2009) Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify thresholds for conservation and management. Ecol Appl 19:1079–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McGowan CP (2008) Incidental take and endangered species demography. Dissertation, University of Missouri, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  16. McGowan CP, Ryan MR (2009) A framework to evaluate incidental take and endangered species population viability. Biol Conserv 142:3128–3136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McGowan CP, Ryan MR (2010) Arguments for using population models in incidental take assessments for endangered species. J Fish Wildl Manag 1:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGowan CP, Millspaugh JJ, Ryan MR, Cruse KC, Pavelka GA (2009) Estimating survival of precocial chicks during the pre-fledging period using a catch-curve method and age based count data. J Field Ornithol 80:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGowan CP, Ryan MR, Runge MC, Millspaugh JJ, Cochrane J (2011) The role of demographic compensation theory in incidental take assessments for endangered species. Biol Conserv 144:730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nichols JD, Runge MC, Johnson FA, Williams BK (2007) Adaptive harvest management of North American waterfowl populations: a brief history and future prospects. J Ornithol 148:S343–S349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noon BR, Sauer JR (1992) Population models for passerine birds: Structure, parameterization and analysis. In: McCullough DR, Barrett RH (eds) Wildlife 2001: populations. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK, pp 441–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Plissner JH, Haig SM (2000) Viability of piping plover Charadrius melodus metapopulations. Biol Conserv 92:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prindiville Gaines E, Ryan MR (1988) Piping plover habitat use and reproductive success in North Dakota. J Wildl Manag 52:266–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Roche EA, Cohen JB, Catlin DH, Amirault-Langlais DL, Cuthbert FJ, Gratto-Trevor CL, Felio J, Fraser JD (2010) Range-wide piping plover survival: correlated patterns and temporal declines. J Wildl Manag 74:1784–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Runge MC (2003) A model for assessing incidental take of manatees due to watercraft-related activities. Appendix I in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Impact Statement: Rulemaking for the incidental take of small numbers of Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris) resulting from government programs related to watercraft access and watercraft operation in the state of Florida (March 2003). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, JacksonvilleGoogle Scholar
  27. Runge MC (2012) An introduction to adaptive management for threatened and endangered species. J Fish Wildl Manag 2:220–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Runge MC, Converse SL, Lyons JE (2011) Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program. Biol Conserv 144:1214–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ryan MR, Root BG, Mayer PM (1993) Status of piping plovers in the Great Plains of North America: a demographic simulation model. Conserv Biol 7:581–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swartzman GL, Van Dyne GM (1972) An ecologically based simulation-optimization approach to natural resource planning. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 3:347–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2000) Formal biological opinion of the Missouri River main stem reservoir system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DenverGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1998) Endangered species consultation handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams BK, Szaro RC, Shapiro CD (2007) Adaptive management: the US Department of the Interior technical guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological Survey, Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Forestry and Wildlife SciencesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations