Grenada Dove Researcher); STANLEY TEMPLE (UNIVERSITY of WISCONSIN)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY –SOCIETY FOR THE CONSERVATION AND STUDY OF CARIBBEAN BIRDS ‐ DAVID BLOCKSTEIN (Grenada Dove researcher); STANLEY TEMPLE (UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN) Darren Arekion Development Director Cinnamon 88 (Grenada), Ltd. 14 November 2007 P.O. Box 3169 St. George’s, Grenada [email protected] RE: Four Seasons Resort & Private Residences at Mt. Hartman Estate and National Park, Grenada Dear Mr. Arekion, Thank you very much for sharing with us your letter of 6 November to the government of Grenada where you stated, “we are also fully committed to protecting and enhancing the natural environment of Grenada, preserving in perpetuity the flora and fauna, most importantly the Grenada dove.” We applaud that statement and wish to offer our scientific conservation judgment about what is necessary for you to achieve that commitment. Thank you also for sharing the proposal by Cinnamon 88 for the development of the Four Seasons Resort & Private Residences at Mt Hartman Estate and National Park, Grenada . This proposal is in the form of a map overlaying the development configuration with Grenada Dove territories and a suggested realignment of the Mt. Hartman National Park boundaries (Figure 1). We understand that this proposal has been submitted (or is about to be submitted) to the Government of Grenada for review by the National Parks Advisory Council. We, the undersigned, feel strongly that this proposal, while no doubt, well intentioned, falls short of what is needed to adequately address the long‐term needs of the Grenada Dove. We have prepared an alternative that we would like your comments on. The alternative is prepared based on the Draft recovery plan for the Grenada Dove, by Rusk, B.L., D. E. Blockstein, S. A. Temple, and N. J. Collar. 1998. Unpubl. report. The World Bank and the Government of Grenada. Consistent with the recovery plan, we make recommendations both for the Mount Hartman area (protected area, other government land, and adjacent lands) and for the other areas where Grenada Doves are found. The Grenada Dove is One of the Rarest Birds on Earth and Dangerously Close to Extinction It cannot be stressed enough that this is not a typical site for a development. The planned resort complex coincides with the most significant, and only viable, population of one of the world’s rarest birds, indeed one of the world’s rarest animals ‐ period. Rusk’s (2007) most recent estimates place the population of doves within the Mt. Hartman Estate and National Park at just 29 confirmed territories and perhaps as high as 1 36, counting suspected territories. Assuming all these birds are paired, a liberal population estimate places the Mt. Hartman population at 58‐72 birds. Counting an additional 6‐16 birds located outside the estate, possibly as many as 30 in the Grenville Vale/Beauséjour area, and possibly as many as 19 pairs in the Perseverance/Woodford area, based on Pre‐Hurricane Ivan estimates, the maximum total estimated population of the Grenada Dove is just 113‐137 birds. Mt Hartman Estate and National Park thus contains approximately half of all of the world’s Grenada Doves. The Grenada Dove is listed as Critically Endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and BirdLife International. Mt Hartman Estate and National Park are listed by the Alliance for Zero Extinction (www.zeroextinction.org, a 63 member global alliance of international conservation NGOs dedicated to preventing species extinctions) as an irreplaceable site for the Grenada Dove. Although the Grenada Dove hangs on at Mt. Hartman, Grenville Vale/Beauséjour, and Perseverance/Woodford, it is important to note that it is perilously close to extinction. Natural disasters, particularly hurricanes, can destroy dove habitat and disrupt food supplies resulting in population declines, such as those following Hurricane Ivan in 2004. Development, land conversion for agriculture and grazing, introduced predators and inbreeding can place additional strains on small, isolated dove populations. These vulnerabilities of small populations are well known and documented. In the long‐term, without intensive conservation measures, small populations such as the Mt. Hartman population are very likely to die out. Saving the Grenada Dove for Future Generations will Require Aggressive Measures Considering the dove’s status and the importance of Mt. Hartman to its overall protection, strong measures need to be taken at Mt. Hartman to not only conserve the existing population, but to increase its size and to improve habitat conditions for the species that will enhance its long‐term survival. This means increasing the size of the protected area, not maintaining its current size or reducing it, and committing more resources to management of the site. It also means conserving other sites in addition to Mt. Hartman to reduce the risk of extinction inherent in any situation where a species depends on a single site for survival. A 20‐year goal of recovery would be 600 wild Grenada Doves: 300 birds in SW Grenada and 100 birds each at 3 other locations (Rusk et al. 1998). Short of this, the dove will always require intensive management. Development at Mt. Hartman Potentially Increases the Likelihood of the Extinction of the Grenada Dove Currently, the Grenada Dove population at Mt. Hartman is protected only on the 155 acre Mt. Hartman National Park. Much of the land surrounding the national park is degraded by grazing and small‐scale agriculture, and a quarry takes up a significant portion of land along the western border. While much of the non‐park area is not dove habitat, it could be restored or allowed to regenerate into suitable habitat for the dove. However, the current land use is such that doves can and do occasionally use it or disperse through it to areas of more suitable habitat. The proposed development, as detailed in Cinnamon 88’s development plan map, will destroy and/or forever alter the non‐park land and permanently close the door on opportunities to increase the number of doves at Mt. Hartman. The redefined national park would have a sharp boundary between dove habitat and developed land unsuitable for doves. Doves whose territories are presently close to these boundaries would be forced to move further into the new reserve, increasing territory densities there and, potentially competition for precious food and nesting resources. The plan also calls for two golf holes to be imbedded in the protected area with golf cart roads crossing the reserve to provide access. This will fragment the protected area, increase edge effects, and further reduce the effective size of the protected area. 2 In the absence of development at Mt. Hartman, the dove population has been relatively stable, as documented by Rusk’s October 2007 report to Cinnamon 88. However, if the development is built as planned and the dove population at Mt. Hartman declines as we believe it will, blame will undoubtedly, and probably legitimately, be leveled at Cinnamon 88 and Four Seasons. The Rusk Surveys and Report are Positive Steps on the part of Cinnamon 88 We applaud Cinnamon 88’s decision to hire Ms. Bonnie Rusk to conduct surveys of the Grenada Dove and to provide those survey results with recommendations that could inform the development design. Ms. Rusk is the foremost authority on the dove and she has the respect of the scientific and conservation communities. We now hope that Cinnamon 88 will consider the full range of recommendations offered by Ms. Rusk and factor them into the development design. Because the proposed development map predates the Rusk report by several weeks, it is not clear to us how much information in the Rusk report has been taken into consideration by Cinnamon 88. Limitations of the Rusk Report Ms. Rusk’s report is excellent, and we generally support its results and conclusions. However, it is important to note that Ms. Rusk’s recommendations for Grenada Dove critical habitat were developed using two constraining assumptions: 1. That only land on the government‐owned estate would be considered for inclusion in recommendations for dove critical habitat; and that 2. Proposed critical habitat would be the same size as the current Mt. Hartman National Park. These are not criticisms of Ms. Rusk’s or her scientific findings, but it is important to point out these constraints in her recommendations to Cinammon88. Ms. Rusk also made recommendations for the need to protect dove habitat in other specific areas (e.g., Beauséjour), but those comments were directed more to government. Given the precarious status of the Grenada Dove and the likelihood of negative impacts from the proposed development, we do not believe that these recommendations go far enough, and we believe that considerably more land needs to be brought under protection to ensure the long‐term security of the Mt. Hartman population and, indeed, of the species as a whole. A Redefined National Park and Development Plan Needs to Take into Account Recovery Goals for the Grenada Dove The long‐term recovery goal for the Grenada Dove should not be to maintain populations at their existing levels, since this does not reduce the risk of extinction. The draft recovery plan for the Grenada Dove developed under the auspices of the World Bank and Government of Grenada calls for the Mt. Hartman population to increase to 50 pairs within 10 years, and to 300 birds in southwest Grenada in the next 10 years (Rusk, B.L., D. E. Blockstein, S. A. Temple, and N. J. Collar. 1998, Draft recovery plan for the Grenada Dove. Unpubl. report. The World Bank and the Government of Grenada. Washington, D.C.). The 10 year goal would bring the dove back to where it was in 1987 with 100 Grenada Doves in southwestern Grenada, 80% on the Mount Hartman Estate (Blockstein1988) Ideally, the protected area would be expanded dramatically to protect all occupied Grenada Dove habitat and allow for substantial regeneration of currently unsuitable habitat, thereby facilitating long‐term expansion of the Mt.