8011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F RAY E 0 S A F E T Y NET S ..........................................................................................................................................................................; information may become available during the timespan of the plan. Also, stochastic environ- mental fluctuations, as well as demographic fluc- tuations, typically occur in populations, and management must be able to respond to those fluctuations. Despite the importance of environ- mental variability (Lacy 1993) and catastrophic events (Mengel and Tier 1994; Schaffer 1987) to the likelihood of population persistence, almost no species' recovery plans have information on environmental variability (Schemske et al. 1994; Tear et al. 1995), and few plans evaluated here incorporated such information. It is difficult to assign responsibility for guar- anteeing the persistence of species which decline because of environmental factors or catastrophic events beyond human control. But it is irre- sponsible and against the public interest for HCPs to be designed as if environmental fluctu- ations will not occur. FWS has recognized that the applicant should provide for "changed cir- cumstances" or contingencies that can reason- ably be anticipated during the course of an HCP, but this has mainly applied to foreseeable changes in the plan or its implementation, rather than biological changes (FWS and NMFS 1996). Under the no-surprises policy, changes in plans will be very difficult to impose, and it is essential that landowners incorporate up front the possibility of natural fluctuations by design- ing plans that can adapt to them. Although the no-surprises policy makes extensive plan changes quite difficult, some plans have incorporated methods for employing an experimenral approach or tying management to monitoring results. Some of the best examples include the Massachusetts piping plover HCP and the Washington DNR HCP. Positive Examples The safe-harbor program for the sandhills region of North Carolina is a good example of a program that promotes active habitat manage- ment through incentives to landowners. As dis- cussed earlier in this report, periodic fire distur- bance has historically maintained longleaf pine forests, home to the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. In the absence of fire or active managemenr to remove hardwood understory, areas become unsuitable for woodpeckers. Although Section 9 of the ESA prohibits landowners from taking woodpeckers or destroy- ing their habitat, there is no requirement that they manage the habitat so that it remains suit- able. For this species and many other species that depend upon habitat that requires active management, current ESA regulations fail to protect them in the long term. Under the sand- hills safe-harbor program, however, participating landowners sign a Certificate of Inclusion in which they agree to perform voluntary habitat management or enhancement (e.g., hardwood removal, periodic burning, or drilling cavities for woodpecker nests) in exchange for the assurance that any additional woodpeckers that settle on the property will not result in additional land- use restrictions. When the Louisiana black bear was listed as threatened in 1992, private landowners raised many questions about their obligations under the ESA, and also about what land management techniques are compatible with bears. Although -