8011

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8011
• Author: Hood, L. C., et al.
• Title: Frayed Safety Nets, Conservation Planning Under the Endangered Species Act 1998.
• USFW Year: 1998.
• USFW - Doc Type: Washington D.C.
• Copyright Material: YES

........................................................................................................................................... F RAY E 0 S A F E T Y NET S

vegetation that the butterflies use and the extent
of exotic invasion.

By contrast, in the Fort Morgan Paradise
Joint Venture HCP for the Alabama beach

e

mouse, four times each year there are a survey
and control of house mice (which compete with
the beach mouse) and feral domestic cats (which
eat the beach mouse), but the responsibility for
monitoring the beach mouse is on FWS.
The approach for the Washington DNR
HCP emphasizes habitat monitoring with less
for endangered species. Although the program
was not expected to be complete and approved
by the services until late 1997, the HCP docu-
ment establishes three types of monitoring: (1)
compliance monitoring, involving reports on
whether harvesting activities are in compliance
with the HCP (each harvest will be recorded in a
Geographic Information System), (2) effective-
ness monitoring, in which DNR records the
stand structure and habitats that result from their

actions and (3) validation monitoring, in which
such species as the spotted owl are monitored in
relation to harvesting activities and habitat con-
ditions. Validation monitoring is at the heart of
whether the HCP is effective for endangered
species, yet the HCP indicates that this monitor-
ing will occur for only one portion of the plan-
ning area on the Olympic Peninsula, not in most
of the planning area.
In general, it appears that biological monitor-
ing is a secondary priority in implementing con-
servation plans and that monitoring funds take
away money from habitat conservation. For
example, in the Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP,
for the most part, qualitative assessment

in monitoring programs for biological
resources can provide sufficient information
to evaluate the status of the species of con-
cern.... While monitoring is an important
aspect of the plan, it should not overburden
the funding program and take funds away
from the land acquisition or management
programs.
That view is also summarized in the
Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan:
"While the importance of monitoring and
research is evident, it is likely to remain a sec-
ondary priority for funding by the permit hold-
ers" (pp. 2-41, HCP). When a bond measure
was rejected by Travis County voters (see section
on funding in this report), monitoring was
scaled back in favor of land acquisitions. A
comprehensive monitoring program for all of
the preserves is still under development. To
date, for the golden-cheeked warbler (an endan-
gered species), biologists have kept track of
where the birds' territories are located, including
establishment of permanent plots to be surveyed
each year, but the monitoring program does not
track nesting success, survival or adult and juve-
nile movement. Presence/absence data on the
warblers is unlikely to produce a clear picture of
how development and urbanization under the
plan affects the warblers.
Probably the best future models of monitor-
ing will combine applicant and public funds and
coordinate independent research or information
from ongoing study sites to supplement a large-
scale monitoring plan (this may occur under the
MSCP). Unfortunately, because monitoring has
been viewed as a secondary priority that steals
funds from real conservation, most monitoring
programs for plans reviewed here are not ade-