8011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

............................................................................................................. F RAY E 0 SA F E T Y NET S that area. Uncovered species, if subsequently listed, can also be incorporated into a take per- mit. Public agencies will pay for any additional preservation that is necessary if the species depends upon a habitat type that is "sufficiently conserved" under the original plan. For species dependent upon habitat types that are not suffi- ciently conserved, a combination of public and private money will be required for additional protections. Of the plans reviewed here, two H CPs in the Pacific Northwest have assurances to landowners -- based on protection of habitat types. In the Plum Creek Timber Company HCP, the breed- ing and feeding habitat preferences of all 285 vertebrate species in the planning area are consol- idated into 16 "lifeforms." For each lifeform, the habitat required by the species is defined in terms of stand structure. Since Plum Creek Timber Company performs inventories of stand structures under the HCP (and arguably in the absence of an HCP), they will be able to keep track of whether stand structures will decline or increase under the plan. From this, they will infer whether wildlife in each lifeform are likely to decline or increase. Although this analysis is the basis of granting assurances for all 285 species, there are several serious flaws in this approach. First, a lifeform can contain a group of species that have very different biological requirements (e.g., bats, peregrine falcons and mountain goats are in one lifeform). Second, the stand structure analysis is not spatially explicit (i.e., there is no analysis of habitat patch size or connectivity between patches). Third, the focus on stand structures ignores habitat characteristics that are relevant to particular species (e.g., eleva- tion parameters, geographic location). The Weyerhaeuser Willamette draft HCP has a habitat-based approach to the level of assur- ances granted to Weyerhaeuser for particular species. In this case, FWS recognizes that the HCP is designed for land that has very little old- growth habitat and that species associated with that habitat are not necessarily well protected under the plan. To resolve this, under this draft HCP there are three tiers of species. Tier 1 species are listed or proposed for listing. Tier 2 species are all other unlisted species except Tier 3 species, which are those "interior, upland, older- forest-dependent species that may not benefit form the HCP prescriptions" (pp. 2-20, draft HCP). Weyerhaeuser will receive a permit for Tier 2 species when they are listed. Tier 3 species will be included in the incidental take permit only if "Weyerhaeuser can demonstrate that this HCP maintains, enhances or establishes the habitat conditions or features associated with the species' use of managed forests" (pp. 2-22, draft HCP). This draft HCP represents one way of explicitly tying assurances for landowners to the level of uncertainty associated with the ade- quacy of the plan for particular species. Finally, it is important to emphasize that conservation plans cannot be used as an excuse not to list species that, according to scientific information, should be listed. This issue has a high profile in the MSCp, where environmental groups are suing to list the short-leafed dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae spp. brevifolia - a rare plant) because according to scientific informa- tion, it is imperiled right now whether or not the