8011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

................................................... .................................................................................................................. F RAY E 0 S A F E T Y NET S e the 4(d) rule for the bear only forbids destruc- tion of denning sites and does not protect any other habitat per se, the Black Bear Conservation Committee recognized the need to inform landowners about management that is compati- ble with or beneficial to the bear. The commit- tee wrote the Black Bear Management Handbook and distributed it widely among landowners, especially those in the two important river basins that harbor the bears. This handbook identifies forestry and agricultural practices that benefit bears, including maintaining riparian corridors, limiting road construction and selecting and locating crops so that they provide both forage and cover for bears. Despite the other problematic aspects of the HCP for piping plovers (because it decreases pro- tection for the birds from vehicular and pedestri- an disturbance), the HCP contains a rigorous strategy for adaptive management, where inciden- tal take is tied explicitly to population fluctua- tions and reproductive success of the plovers. Under this programmatic HCP, beach managers can participate in the H CP and therefore receive the benefits of somewhat relaxed restrictions on recreation only if a variety of criteria are met. Some of these requirements are that: (1) for that specific beach, the plover population's rate of increase was at least 15 percent over the previous two years; (2) the plovers in the management zone of that particular beach (there are eight management zones in the state) have averaged at least 1.5 chicks fledged per pair over the previous several years; and (3) the entire Massachusetts piping plover population has averaged at least 1.5 chicks fledged per pair in the previous year. Explicitly tying any possible incidental take to the results of monitoring both locally and regionally ensures that a declining population will not have authorized incidental take, regardless of whether that decline was due to effects of the HCP or environmental conditions. Negative Examples The agreement between Plum Creek Timber Company, the U.s. Forest Service, the Montana Department of Natural Resource Conservation and FWS is designed to coordinate management to conserve grizzlies in the Swan Valley by pro- moting habitat connectivity between the Swan Mountains and the Mission Mountains and reducing mortality risk to grizzlies. This agree- ment does take a positive step in provisions to rotate commercial activities through the area's subunits so that seven of 11 subunits are inactive for between three and six years. However, pre- scriptions for road management in the planning area are inadequate, despite the impacts of roads on grizzly bears. According to the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (FWS 1993), "roads probably pose the most imminent threat to grizzly habitat today" (p. 21). Because roads result in direct mortality by vehicles, roads decrease the amount of effective bear habitat and promote habituation of bears to humans (Elgmork 1978; Brannon 1984; McLellan 1989). According to one study in the area, habitat that has greater than one mile per square mile open road density was used sig- nificantly less than normal by adult grizzlies (Mace and Manley 1993). The U.S. Forest Service has recognized the importance of road density and adheres to rec-