Laserfiche WebLink
<br />................................................................................................................................................... F RAY E 0 SA F E T Y NET S <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />managed so that each subunit will have less than <br />33 percent with more than one mile per square <br />mile. In addition, "the long-term goal is to vol- <br />untarily reach no more than 21 percent of any <br />subunit exceeding one mile of open road per <br />square mile" (p. 3, italics added). Moreover, here <br />we have been referring to open roads. This <br />agreement sets up no requirements on closed <br />road densities, nor does it establish a plan to <br />reclaim closed roads, which can be open for <br />"administrative use." Therefore, the guidelines <br />for road densities are actually less protective in <br />Swan Valley than in the rest of the Flathead <br />National Forest and far less protective than rec- <br />ommended by biologists. <br />Because the San Bruno Mountain HCP has <br />been implemented for 15 years, it is much easier <br />to identify management difficulties than for <br />plans that have been recently approved. <br />Although managers have encountered numerous <br />difficulties in plan implementation thus far, habi- <br />tat management for San Bruno has not been a <br />failure, and there are lessons for the implementa- <br />tion of subsequent conservation plans. <br />The success of the San Bruno Mountain <br />HCP in sustaining endangered butterflies ulti- <br />mately rests on the effectiveness of management <br />activities that are necessary for maintaining grass- <br />land habitat. Indeed, the major advantage of <br />establishing this HCP was the creation of a fund- <br />ing source and program for actively managing <br />the grassland habitat which is threatened by nat- <br />ural succession to brushland as well as invasion <br />by exotic species such as gorse, broom, eucalyp- <br />tuS and fennel. In general, the plan has failed to <br />reduce the extent of exotic species and restore <br /> <br />areas to native grassland suitable for butterflies. <br />A strategy designed to reverse the spread of <br />exotics into native grassland, however, has been <br />effective, and some people argue that many acres <br />of grassland would have been lost this way with- <br />out the HCP. Nevertheless, the goals of the orig- <br />inal H CP were to reclaim disturbed areas to <br />grassland and res~ore some areas degraded by <br />exotic species to native grassland. <br />Difficulty in fulfilling habitat management <br />goals has occurred because at the beginning of <br />the plan there was little understanding about <br />exotic removal techniques and restoration ecolo- <br />gy, and therefore there was no specific manage- <br />ment strategy that was approved along with the <br />H CP. Removal of exotics has been harder and <br />more costly than originally anticipated, and some <br />attempts at restoring grassland have failed. For <br />example, probably the most controversial aspect <br />of this plan has been habitat management. In <br />1995, Planned Sierra Resources offeted to <br />clearcut 63 acres of eucalyptus in the planning <br />area for free, and the county accepted the offer. <br />Unfortunately, erosion resulted from the removal <br />of vegetation, the eucalyptus has resprouted <br />(although volunteers have helped to control <br />resprouts). Reclamation of the clearcut area is <br />expected to take more than ten years. <br />Mter ten years of plan implementation, <br />Thomas Reid Associates developed an exotic <br />species management plan for gorse, broom, fen- <br />nel and eucalyptus in the planning area. These <br />plans summarized the extent of invasion, tech- <br />niques to remove those invasive species, what <br />had been done in the first ten years of the plan <br />to control them and priorities for future action. <br />