And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:28:36 EST >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: environews >X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 > >Study finds holes in habitat plans >Thursday, January 21, 1999 >Habitat conservation plans allow development to continue when a >threatened or endangered species, like the California gnatcatcher, is >present. Crucial, yet basic, information on species is not available to >the preparers of habitat conservation plans, according to a recently >released scientific study. > >The review, which led to the final report Using Science in Habitat >Conservation Plans, was conducted through a nationwide graduate seminar >involving eight major research universities, 106 students, and 13 >faculty advisors. It was sponsored by the National Center for Ecological >Analysis and Synthesis and The American Institute of Biological >Sciences. > >Habitat conservation plans have been used since the Endangered Species >Act was amended in 1982 to include them. They are the main tool used by >the Clinton administration to manage endangered and threatened species >on nonfederal lands. Some 240 HCPs have been approved so far and 200 >more are in the works nationwide. > >An HCP is a legally binding agreement that allows private landowners and >other non-federal entities to "take" a listed species or destroy some of >its habitat provided they prepare habitat conservation plans that >minimize and mitigate the taking. The plans provide a mechanism to >protect an endangered species while still allowing some development to >occur. > >Critics have long contended that the plans were not being prepared with >adequate guidance, so the study was undertaken to determine whether this >was true. The study backs up the critics' fears. > >The use of the word "crucial", as defined by the study, means >information that is necessary to make determinations about the status of >the species, the estimated take under the habitat conservation plan and >the impact of that take on the species. > >For example, in only one-third of the species assessments, according to >the report, was there enough information to evaluate what proportion of >the population would be affected by a proposed take. If it is known >whether one-half or one-hundredth of a species' total population is >being affected by an action, it is hard to make scientifically justified >decisions, according to the report executive summary. > >A two-pronged approach was used to accomplish the study. First, basic >descriptive information was gathered on 208 habitat conservation plans >that had been approved by August 1997. Next, two separate questionnaires >were developed and 43 of the HCPs were examined in detail. One of the >questionnaires asked for information on the plans themselves and the >other focused on listed species and their treatment under the habitat >conservation plans. > >While crediting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National >Marine Fisheries Service with doing a good job with the available data, >the report authors said the agencies do not have the resources to obtain >the data needed for many of the decisions that must be made. Without >those resources, the report recommends that the best scientific approach >is to be more cautious in making decisions and to use the findings of >the report to justify requests for additional resources. > >Recommendations from the report include: >�Give greater attention to explicit scientific standards for HCPs, but >in a flexible manner that recognizes that all HCPs need not adhere to >the same standards as high impact HCPs. A formalized scheme might be >adopted so that small HCPs draw on data analyses from large HCPs, >assuring that applicants are not paralyzed by unrealistic demands. � >Include an explicit summary of available data on covered species, >including their distribution, abundance, population trend, ecological >requirements and causes of endangerment for individual HCPs with a >potentially large impact (covering a large area or a large portion of a >species' range). �Make HCPs more quantitative in stating their >biological goals and in predicting their likely impact on species. When >information important to the design of the HCP does not exist, it may >still be possible to estimate the uncertainties associated with the >impact, mitigation and monitoring, and to still go forward, as long as >risks are acknowledged and minimized. �Build flexibility into the >mitigation plans so that managers can be responsive to the results of >the monitoring during the period of the HCP. �When highly critical >information is missing, agencies should withhold permits until that >information is obtained. �For the HCP process in general, maintain >information about listed species in accessible, centralized locations, >and make monitoring data accessible to others. �During the early stages >of the design of potentially high-impact HCPs and those that are likely >to lack important information, establish a scientific advisory committee >and increase the use of independent peer review by scientists >specializing in conservation biology. >All of the data sheets, plan descriptions and other detailed results >from the study are available on the National Center for Ecological >Analysis and Synthesis web site, >http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/projects/hcp/. > >Copyright 1999, Environmental News Network, All Rights Reserved > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Related stories: >�ESA no surprises policy spurs lawsuit >�Caution urged in habitat improvements >�Habitat conservation plans become Clinton tool >�Habitat conservation planning streamlined > <<<<=-=-=FREE LEONARD PELTIER=-=-=>>>> If you think you are too small to make a difference; try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito.... African Proverb <<<<=-=http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ =-=>>>> IF it says: "PASS THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW...." Please Check it before you send it at: http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/blhoax.htm
