8011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:.......................................................................................................................................................................... F RAY E 0 SA F E T Y NET S CD ity and/or quantity of the habitat (e.g., restora- tion of the streamside riparian area), or deter- mine if the biological goals of the HCP are being achieved (e.g., if the mitigation strategies are pro- ducing the targeted habitat conditions)" (p. 5, USFWS 1997. Habitat Conservation Plans Monitoring Guidance). Moreover, the guidance states that biological monitoring is a requirement of federal regulations and the responsibility of the landowner. This monitoring guidance is apparently necessary, because many of the moni- toring programs for plans approved before the guidance were inconsistent with suggestions from the services. It is unreasonable to require extensive moni- toring for all plans, no matter how small. Indeed, for the H CPs that are small in scale and/or have a short time span, monitoring may be an inappropriate requirement. Even though there is no individual monitoring required in small HCPs, it is important that FWS conduct programmatic monitoring of multiple small HCPs in order to detect cumulative effects of numerous small HCPs or other management actions on species recovery. Positive Examples As part of the Volusia County HCP for five species of sea turtles, FWS required that the county develop a sea turtle monitoring program that had to be approved by FWS. This monitor- ing program has the goals of documenting the temporal and spatial distribution of sea turtle nests, marking nests for protection from recre- ation and vehicles, documenting the reasons for any nest failures and monitoring daytime sea tur- de nesting and any sea turtle strandings. These goals will be accomplished through daily sea tur- tle nesting surveys each year between May and October and weekly inventories of nest locations and status. In addition, annual reports are required three months before the nesting season begins so that FWS and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection can evaluate com- pliance with the HCP and the effectiveness of the HCP and recommend needed changes to increase the effectiveness of protective actions. This extensive monitoring program is possi- ble largely because the Volusia County HCP is a programmatic HCP, in which the permittee (the county) has the infrastructure and cadre of vol- unteers to carry out intensive monitoring. In another programmatic HCP, the Massachusetts HCP for piping plovers, there is also extensive monitoring of piping plovers by the wildlife agencies as well as a requirement that private beach managers participating in the HCP moni- tor the plovers on their beaches. Both of these examples have established good monitoring pro- grams, although this was more simple than for other plans because habitat monitoring is greatly simplified and public agencies are charged with the monitoring. In perhaps the most complex example of this report, the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in San Diego County contains a biological monitoring program in place from the beginning of the program's implementation. Considering that the monitoring plan developed by the wildlife agencies is projected to cost, on average, only approximately $235,000 a year, this biological monitoring plan is a cost-effective way