8011

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8011
• Author: Hood, L. C., et al.
• Title: Frayed Safety Nets, Conservation Planning Under the Endangered Species Act 1998.
• USFW Year: 1998.
• USFW - Doc Type: Washington D.C.
• Copyright Material: YES

FRAYED SAFETY

NET S .............,...,."..".,..............................................."...,..,.............................,.....',.....'....'.......................................:

(e.g., Weyerhaeuser Willamette draft HCP).
In our critiques of preserve designs estab-
lished in particular plans, it is important to keep
in mind that some plans reviewed here did not
establish preserves to mitigate for take occurring
under the plan, or failed to be consistent with
recovery in other ways. The Ben Cone HCP, for
example, authorized take of 12 red-cockaded
woodpecker groups without the requirement of
setting aside preserves for woodpeckers else-
where. Such unmitigated habitat loss is clearly
worse than insufficient preserve design, and such
examples are discussed elsewhere in this report
(see Incidental Take, Minimization and
Mitigation).

Positive Examples

Of the HCPs reviewed here, plans developed
for timber harvest management in the Pacific
Northwest (including the Washington DNR
HCp, the Weyerhaeuser Willamette Timberlands
HCP and the Plum Creek Timber Company
HCP) include substantial reductions in timber
harvest in riparian buffers. These companies are
undertaking these conservation measures in order
to improve habitat conditions for salmon species,
and these measures are considerably more protec-
tive than state regulations for riparian buffers.
For example, salmon spawning areas must have
large woody debris and reduced sedimentation,
which translates to reduced timber harvesting
along streams and management practices to
reduce erosion. With a high likelihood that
some salmon species will be listed during the
timeframe of these HCPs, it has become very
important to have conservation strategies for

salmon in these HCPs, even though no salmon
conservation is required under the ESA before
the species are proposed to be listed.
It is unknown what forest practices will be
required for riparian areas when salmon species
are listed, but it may be substantially more pro-
tective than current state regulations. Currently
in Washington, state forest practice rules allow
some harvest within 25 feet of streams, and non-
fish-bearing streams have no minimum width of
riparian management zones, which allows inten-
sive harvest next to the stream. This contrasts

sharply with federal lands. The scientific assess-
ment team that developed recommendations for
the Northwest Forest Plan established much larg-
er buffers of 300 feet on fish-bearing streams
(FEMAT 1993).
The HCPs reviewed here are substantially
better for salmon than are current state regula-
tions, although it is unclear how they would
measure up to obligations under Section 9 of the
ESA once the salmon are listed. In short, these
measures are better than practices of other pri-
vate landowners, but they do fall short of the sci-
entific assessment team's recommendations. The
Washington DNR HCP establishes, for all per-
manent streams, an average riparian buffer width
of 150 feet, with a minimum of 100 feet.
Within that, no harvest will occur in the first 25
feet, and minimal harvest will occur in the rest of
the buffer. For the Plum Creek Timber
Company HCP, fish-bearing streams will have
200-foot buffers, with a 30-foot no harvest zone,
and non-fish-bearing streams will have a 100-
foot managed buffer. For the Weyerhaeuser
Willamette HCP, riparian buffers of 50 to 100

e