Evaluating the benefits and costs of ocelot recovery in Southern Texas.

Abstract

Ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) are listed as endangered within the United States (U.S.). A recent population viability analysis of ocelots within the U.S. evaluated the effectiveness of ocelot recovery strategies (i.e. habitat protection and restoration, reduced road mortality, translocation, and combinations thereof). The objective of this study was to develop a net-benefit analysis of these strategies to examine their economic feasibility. We used various estimates for the monetary value of an individual ocelot and estimated costs of ocelot recovery strategies to calculate net benefits. Low cost actions, such as translocation and reducing road mortality, were economically beneficial when ocelot values were moderate ($500,000-$2,000,000). When ocelots had a high monetary value (i.e., [greater than or equal to] $3 million per individual), expensive recovery strategies that resulted in the largest increase in ocelot population size had higher net benefits. A contingent valuation is needed to determine the most appropriate monetary values for ocelots in the U.S. In addition, efforts to reduce the cost of ocelot habitat protection and restoration by working with private landowners should be pursued.

Introduction

The ocelot (Leopardus pardalis albescens) population in the United States (U.S.) was listed as federally endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1982, and was included in Appendix I of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) in 1989 (CITES 2005). This was the result of large scale extirpation of ocelot populations and subsequent range reduction within the U.S. during the 19th and 20th centuries due to over exploitation and increased agricultural and urban development, resulting in habitat loss (Koford 1978; Tewes and Everett 1986). Currently, only 2 small, isolated ocelot populations reside in the U.S., one in Willacy County, Texas, and the other in Cameron County, Texas (Haines et al. 2006; Janeeka et al. In Press).

Recently, Haines et al. (2006) used a population viability analysis (PVA) to evaluate the impacts of different recovery strategies on ocelot population viability in southern Texas. Haines et al. (2006) evaluated these recovery strategies based on biological parameters and concluded that the greatest reduction in the probability of ocelot extinction within the U.S. occurred when using combinations of recovery strategies (Haines et al. 2006). An examination of the cost effectiveness of recovery strategies is necessary to provide economic information to recovery biologists, thus providing a strong basis for selecting actions to implement. The objective of this study was to develop a net benefit analysis for the ocelot recovery strategies in the U.S. that were evaluated by Haines et al. (2006).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Methods

Economic value of ocelots

Determining the monetary value of an endangered species is controversial. Engeman et al. (2004) recommended using contingent valuation, which is based on surveys that assess people's willingness to pay for a resource. However, contingent valuations that have been conducted for other endangered species have shown a wide variation in the amount different people would be willing to pay for an endangered species (Loomis and White 1996; Eagle and Betters 1998). A contingent valuation has yet to be calculated for wild ocelots in southern Texas.

People's willingness to pay for an endangered species has been found to be inversely related to its population size (Loomis and White 1996). The estimated population size for ocelots ranges from 40-80 individuals within the U.S. (Haines 2006), but in Central and South America populations of ocelots are much larger and relatively stable, which may limit public willingness to pay for this species (Sunquist & Sunquist 2002). However, the ocelot is the only Neotropical felid residing in the U.S. and is known internationally for the value and aesthetics of its appearance (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). In addition, many people have emotional attachment to felids and emotional attachments to objects tend to increase their value.

The Florida panther (Felis concolor coryii) is an endangered subspecies that occurs in small populations within Florida, despite larger mountain lion populations in other parts of its range. This scenario is similar to the Texas ocelot (CITES 2005; Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Coursey (1998) calculated an implicit monetary value for the Florida panther by comparing the money spent on panther recovery programs with the number of animals saved. The implicit monetary value of an individual Florida panther was nearly $5 million. Therefore, for our analysis, we varied the value of an individual ocelot from $50,000 to $5 million based on the large variation of contingent valuations for endangered species calculated by Eagle and Betters (1998) and the implicit monetary value of Florida panthers calculated by Coursey (1998).

Benefits and costs of ocelot recovery strategies

Haines et al. (2006) modeled 4 ocelot recovery strategies (i.e. habitat protection and restoration, reduction of road mortality, translocation, and linkage of 2 breeding populations) implemented over 50 years in southern Texas. The linkage of 2 ocelot breeding populations produced no significant benefits for ocelots in southern Texas, thus we did not include this recovery strategy in our analysis (Haines et al. 2006; Table 1). We developed cost estimates for the other 3 recovery strategies that were found to reduce extinction probabilities in order to estimate their cost-effectiveness.

For the habitat protection and restoration scenario (i.e. habitat), Haines et al. (2006) assumed a doubling of ocelot carrying capacity, which would require approximately 56 [km.sup.2] of additional ocelot habitat. The Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (LANWR) is the only public land area in southern Texas that contains a breeding ocelot population. The LANWR currently supports 27.1 [km.sup.2] of ocelot habitat and an additional 32.4 [km.sup.2] of preferred soil types suitable for ocelot habitat restoration (Haines et al. 2005). Thus an additional 23.6 [km.sup.2] (32.4 [km.sup.2] subtracted from 56 [km.sup.2]) of private land that could support ocelot habitat would be needed for this recovery strategy. We estimated the cost of farmland in southern Texas at $4,800/ha or approximately $3 million/ [km.sup.2]. This was based on the median cost of farmland advertised for sale in Willacy and Cameron Counties on the LandandFarm.com website accessed July 7, 2007. The estimated value of 23.6 [km.sup.2] of farmland in southern Texas is approximately $70 million. Young (1994) estimated that the cost to effectively restore ocelot habitat within southern Texas was approximately $500/ha, or approximately $2.8 million for 56 [km.sup.2]. Therefore, the total cost of ocelot habitat protection and restoration in southern Texas for this recovery strategy would be approximately $72.8 million.

In a recent article in The Monitor, written by Smith, J. C. on March 2, 2005, Mark Iglesias, an environmental quality specialist for the Texas Department of Transportation, gave a personal communication stating that 14 wildlife crossings in the form of culverts and underpasses, each costing $200,000, and one $1 million wildlife bridge were proposed for southern Texas. For our analysis of reducing road mortality (i.e. Road), we assumed that the 14 wildlife-crossing structures and the wildlife bridge would reduce ocelot-vehicle collisions by 50% if they were properly placed and constructed (Haines et al. 2006). Thus, the total cost to mitigate ocelot vehicle collisions would be $3.8 million (14 crossing structures $200,000 + $1 million Wildlife Bridge).

For the translocation scenario (i.e. Trans.), Haines et al. (2006) assumed that 1 female ocelot would be supplemented into southern Texas from Mexico every other year for 40 years (i.e. 20 ocelots). However, Scott (1989) found that over 46% of translocations fail, thus to meet the assumption made by Haines et al. (2006) we specified that 40 wild female ocelots would be relocated from Mexico into the U.S over 40 years. Cost of translocation was based on a personal communication from Dr. Darrell Land, Wildlife Biologist, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, who stated that it cost $15,000 to capture, quarantine (food and veterinarian services), and move 10 cougars from Texas to Florida. We assumed the costs for ocelots would be similar. Because the translocation of ocelots from Mexico to Texas would occur over 40 years, we also included salary for a wildlife researcher ($45,000/year) to conduct the translocation project. The estimated cost of translocating 40 ocelots over 40 years from Mexico into southern Texas was calculated to be $1.86 million, $60,000 (i.e. $15,000 [per 10 ocelots] x 4) + $1.8 million (i.e. $45,000 [annual salary] x 40).

Net-benefit analysis

To economically justify the costs of implementing recovery strategies for ocelots, the net financial benefits from the increased number of ocelots must be greater than the cost of the recovery strategy. We calculated net benefits for ocelot recovery strategies using the following formula:

NB = ([V.sub.i] N) - [C.sub.j],

where NB is the net monetary benefit of ocelots, [V.sub.i] is the value of an individual ocelot (i.e. $50,000, $100,000, $500,000, $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, and $5 million), N represents the number of ocelots (i.e. mean population size after 50 years with recovery strategy minus population size of ocelots with no recovery strategy) and [C.sub.j] represents the cost of each recovery strategy (i.e. Trans., Road, Habitat, Trans./Road, Trans./Habitat, Road/Habitat, Trans./ Road/Habitat).

Results

The cost of recovery strategies ranged from $1.86 million for the Trans. scenario to $78.46 million for the Trans./Road/ Habitat scenario, with the most expensive strategies being those that focused on habitat protection and restoration (Table 1). We calculated net-benefits of each ocelot recovery strategy based on different monetary values for an individual ocelot (i.e., $50,000, $100,000, $500,000, $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, and $5 million). There were no net benefits to any ocelot recovery strategy when values were [less than or equal to] $100,000. Therefore, if the value of ocelot is below this figure there is no monetary incentive to recover the ocelot in the U.S. (Table 2).

When the value of an ocelot is [greater than or equal to] $500,000, translocation and reduction of road-mortality had positive net benefits while habitat protection and restoration produced the lowest net benefits because of its high cost. The combination of translocation and reduction of road mortality provided the greatest net benefits when the value of an ocelot was between $500,000 and $2 million, but if the value of an ocelot was [greater than or equal to] $3 million then a combination of all 3 strategies produced the greatest net benefits (Table 2).

Discussion

The results of our cost-benefit analysis model clearly showed that an increase in the monetary value of individual ocelot determines the cost effectiveness of recovery strategies. This result is intuitive, and supports the need for a contingency valuation to be conducted for ocelots in the U.S. to obtain an estimate of ocelot monetary worth. However, our analysis also showed that less expensive strategies such as translocations and reduction of road mortality had positive net-benefits when an ocelot value was moderate ($500,000 to $2,000,000). The effective population size of both remnant populations in the U.S. is below what is recommended for short-term viability, and inbreeding depression and loss of adaptive variation may have significant impacts on the extinction probability in southern Texas that to date have not been quantified (Haines et al. 2006; Janecka et al. In Press). Therefore, the genetic benefits of translocations from northeastern Mexico may be greater than estimated in the PVA model constructed by Haines et al. (2006).

If a contingency valuation for ocelots is conducted and the value for ocelots is < $2 million, then the benefit of protecting and restoring ocelot habitat is not cost effective. However, implementing the protection and restoration of additional ocelot habitat leads to a significant increase in the number of ocelots (Haines et al. 2006). The majority of cost for this recovery strategy comes from the purchase of private land. Therefore, initiatives that would reduce the cost or need to purchase land would be beneficial for increasing available ocelot habitat.

Haines et al. (2005) stated that the protection and restoration of ocelot habitat would require participation from local private landowners, because important tracts of potential ocelot habitat occur on private land. Landowner participation is even more critical in light of the lack of economic benefit of ocelot habitat protection via purchasing land when individual ocelot value is < $2 million. Incentives provided by the Farm Bill (Ports 2003), conservation easements, and Safe Harbor Agreements (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1997) need to be further explored and used to encourage landowners to retain and expand ocelot habitat (Fulbright and Bryant 2002), and new programs specific to southern Texas that provide financial benefits to landowners voluntarily maintaining or expanding ocelot habitat need to be developed. It will be more cost effective to offer economic incentives for landowners to maintain and restore ocelot habitat on their land rather than to purchase other private lands.

Another strategy would be to manage habitat for an economically important species that would incidentally benefit ocelot recovery. Southern Texas is renowned for trophy white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and large tracts of native habitat have been retained by private landowners for the benefit of this species (Fulbright and Bryant 2002; Fulbright and Ortega 2006). Fulbright and Taylor (2001) developed a brush management plan for white-tailed deer in southern Texas emphasizing the importance of maintaining dense brush cover. This type of management would also benefit ocelot populations adjacent to these private ranches. If landowners are encouraged to finance brush restoration to improve deer habitat quality, then ocelots would benefit without expending cost directly for ocelot recovery. We recommend the development of management strategies that merge ocelot and white-tailed deer brush management.

Our analysis provides a basic framework for evaluating the cost effectiveness of various ocelot recovery strategies within southern Texas. However, this model should be used with an adaptive management approach by continuing to refine estimates of recovery strategy costs and monetary values of ocelot, and continuing biological research that will provide information on the effectiveness of recovery strategies and whether new recovery strategies are warranted. In addition, the costs of recovery strategies over time will change in value, thus further analyses need to include discount values of what future costs and values are at present cost (Loomis 1993). The results presented in our analysis emphasize the economic reality and importance of working with private landowners in southern Texas to reduce extinction probabilities of the endagered ocelot populations remaining in the U.S.

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Young for his input during this study. We thank L. Brennan and T. Fulbright for their comments and reviews of this manuscript. This is publication #06-111 of the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute.

Literature Cited

Boardman, A. E., D. H. Greenberg, A. R. Vining, and D. L. Weimer. 1996. Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

CITES. 2005. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. http://www.cites.org. Accessed 10 Feb 2005.

Coursey, D. L. 1998. The revealed demand for a public good: evidence from endangered and threatened species. New York University Environmental Law Journal 6:411-1149

Eagle, J. G. and D. R. Betters. 1998. The endangered species act and economic values: a comparison of fines and contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics 26:165-171.

Engeman, R. M., S. A. Shwiff, H. T. Smith, and B. Constantin. 2004. Monetary valuation of rare species and imperiled habitats as a basis for economically evaluating conservation approaches. Endangered Species Update 21:66-73.

Fulbright, T. E. and F. C. Bryant. 2002. The last great habitat. Special Publication Number 1. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, Texas.

Fulbright, T. E. and J. A. Ortega-S. 2006. White-tailed deer habitat: ecology and management on rangelands. Texas A&M University Press.

Fulbright, T. E., and R. B. Taylor. 2001. Brush management for white-tailed deer. Joint Wildlife Technical Publication of the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Texas A&M University-Kingsville and Texas Parks and Wildlife.

Haines, A. M., M. E. Tewes, L. L. Laack, W. E. Grant, and J. Young. 2005. Evaluating recovery strategies for an ocelot population in southern Texas. Biological Conservation 126:512-522.

Haines, A. M., M. E. Tewes, L. L. Laack, J. S. Horne, and J. H. Young. 2006. Habitat-based population viability analysis of ocelots in southern Texas. Biological Conservation 132:424-436.

Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Second edition. Volume 2. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.

Janecka, J. E., M. E. Tewes, L. L. Laack, L. I. Grassman, A. M. Haines, and R. L. Honeycutt. In Press. Small effective population sizes of two remnant ocelot populations (Leopardus pardalis albescens) in the United States. Conservation Genetics.

Koford, C. B. 1978. Latin American cats: economic value and future prospects. In: Eaton, R. L. (Ed), The world's cats: contributions in status, management, and conservation, Vol. 3, No. 1. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Loomis, J. B. 1993. Integrated public lands management: principles and applications to national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and BLM lands. Columbia University Press, New York.

Loomis, J. B. & D. S. White. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: ummary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18:197-206.

Potts, R. J. 2003. Keeping landowners on the land: policy, incentives, and legislative issues. In: Forgason, C. A., Bryant, F. C., Genho, P. C. (Eds), Ranch management: integrating cattle, wildlife, and range. King Ranch, Kingsville, TX.

Scott. J. M., J. W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477-480.

Sunquist, M. E. and F. Sunquist. 2002. Wild cats of the world. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Tewes, M. E. and D. D. Everett. 1986. Status and distribution of the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi in Texas. In: Miller S. D. & D. D. Everett D. D. (Eds), Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Press, Kingsville, Texas, and National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C.

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1982. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status for U.S. population of the ocelot. Federal Registrar 47:31670-31672.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1997. Announcement of draft safe harbor policy. Federal Registar 62:32178-32183.

Young, J. H. and M. E. Tewes. 1994. Evaluation of techniques for initial restoration of ocelot habitat. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 48:336-342.

Aaron M. Haines (1)

Michael E. Wewes (2)

Jan E. Janeeka (2)

Lon I. Grassman (2)

(1) Upper Iowa University, Division of Science and Mathematics, Baker-Hebron Room 105, Fayette, IA. 52142. [e-mail]

(2) Feline Research Program, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, 700 University Blvd., MSC 218, TX 78363, USA

Author Credit

Aaron Haines is the lead author of the manuscript and conducted the net-benefit analysis.

Michael Tewes served as a mentor on this manuscript and proposed the idea of conducting a net-benefit analysis of ocelot recovery strategies.

Lon Grassman, Jr. served as a mentor on this manuscript and helped review and refine the language of the manuscript.

Jan Janeeka reviewed the manuscript and helped with the net-benefit analysis.

Table 1. Mean ocelot
population size after
50 years based on the
results of 8 PVA modeling
scenarios conducted
by Haines et al. (2006).
Estimated costs of each
recovery strategy modeled
are included for the
ocelot populations in
southern Texas, U.S.

Recovery Strategy         Mean Population Size   Cost

Control                   5                      $0.00 million
Trans.                    9                      $1.86 million
Habitat                   11                     $72.80 million
Road                      19                     $3.80 million
Trans. & Habitat          19                     $74.66 million
Trans. & Road             24                     $5.66 million
Road & Habitat            40                     $76.60 million
Trans. & Road & Habitat   151                    $78.46 million

Table 2. Net-benefit
values (in millions)
of ocelot recovery
strategies based
on the value of an
individual ocelot
(M = million) within
southern Texas, U.S.
(NV = net-benefit
value < 0 or negative
net-benefit value).

Value of an Ocelot      $50,000    $100,000   $500,000   $1 M

Trans.                  NV         NV         0.14       2.14
Habitat                 NV         NV         NV         NV
Road                    NV         NV         3.20       10.20
Trans. & Habitat        NV         NV         NV         NV
Trans. & Road           NV         NV         3.84       13.34
Road & Habitat          NV         NV         NV         NV
Trans. Road & Habitat   NV         NV         NV         NV

Value of an Ocelot      $2 M       $3 M       $4 M       $5 M

Trans.                  6.14       10.14      14.14      18.14
Habitat                 NV         NV         NV         NV
Road                    24.20      38.20      52.20      66.20
Trans. & Habitat        NV         NV         NV         NV
Trans. & Road           32.34      51.34      70.34      89.34
Road & Habitat          NV         28.40      63.40      98.40
Trans. Road & Habitat   13.54      59.54      105.54     151.54