The Changing Face

1 4 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN JULY/AUGUST 2000 VOLUME XXV NO. 4 The Changing Faceof HCPsby Marj NelsonSection 10 of the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA), as originally enactedin 1973, authorized permits for thetaking of listed species by non-federalentities only under very limited These permitting provisionswere not flexible enough to addresssituations in which a private landowner sotherwise lawful activities might result inlimited incidental take of listed species,even if the landowner was willing toplan activities carefully to be consistentwith the conservation of the species. Asa result, Congress amended the ESA in1982 to authorize the issuance ofpermits for incidental take of listedspecies in accordance with an approvedHabitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Byminimizing and mitigating the impact ofthe permitted incidental take, HCPscontribute to the long-term conservationof both listed and unlisted an incentive for non-federalproperty owners to make use of theHCP approach, the Fish and WildlifeService and National Marine FisheriesService developed the No Surprises policy to give economic and regulatoryassurances on the overall cost of speciesconservation and mitigation.

2 This policystates that an incidental take permitteewill not be required to provide addi-tional mitigation in the future beyondwhat was agreed to in the HCP, pro-vided that the affected species wereadequately covered and the permitteewas properly implementing the Services codified the No Surprisespolicy as a final rule in the February 23,1998, Federal ManagementIn the June 12, 2000, FederalRegister, the Services amended the HCPH andbook, both to reflect the NoSurprises rule and to further enhancethe HCP process through improvementsin five areas: permit duration, publicparticipation, monitoring provisions,establishment of clear biological goals,and adaptive management. As it is usedhere, the term adaptive management refers to an integrated method foraddressing uncertainty in naturalresource management (Holling 1978,Walters 1986, Gundersen 1999).

3 It wasadopted for natural resource conserva-tion by Holling (1978), who describedadaptive management as an interactiveprocess that not only reduces, butbenefits from, uncertainty. It may alsobe described simply as a structuredprocess for learning by doing. Astructured examination of alternativemanagement strategies helps to addressthe potential uncertainties in achievingbiological goals of an first glance, the concept of NoSurprises assurances for permitteesmight seem to be at odds with theflexibility gained from incorporatingalternative measures and adaptivemanagement into HCPs. However, theNo Surprises final rule solidifies the useof contingency planning in HCPs. Thepotential for changed circumstances, aterm formally defined in the NoSurprises final rule, is considered duringthe development of HCPs. In addition,the addendum to the HCP Handbookemphasizes the up-front developmentand earnest implementation of astructured monitoring program withinand between HCPs.

4 Because the Serviceand the applicant provide these ele-1 Take is defined in the Endangered SpeciesAct as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt toengage in any such conduct. Steve Stinson, right, pictured withhis father Doug at their family sCowlitz Ridge Tree Farm, isspearheading the development of aninnovative HCP for Lewis County,Washington. This HCP will utilizeadaptive management strategies toallow for continued timber harvestand other economic activity whileconserving habitat for a variety ofspecies, including the threatenednorthern spotted owl, pictured onopposite by Fae Marie BeckENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN JULY/AUGUST 2000 VOLUME XXV NO. 45ments in the HCP and are aware ofwhat will be required, they are consis-tent with the assurances of No that use adaptive managementmust contain the key components thatmake the adaptive process components include identifyingpotential uncertainties in the HCP,incorporating a range of alternatives foraddressing those uncertainties, imple-menting a monitoring program todetermine the success of the alterna-tives, and establishing a feedback loopfrom the monitoring program thatallows for change in the managementstrategies, if management may increasethe complexity of an HCP.

5 However,adaptive management strategies shouldbe commensurate with the scope of theHCP ( , the smaller the scope orimpacts, the less complex the HCP andany adaptive management strategy thatmay be warranted). Permit applicantsand the Services can use adaptivemanagement as a tool to meet thestatutory and regulatory criteria for HCPapproval and the issuance of anincidental take permit. Adaptivemanagement is also a means forincreasing the flexibility of an HCP forpermit applicants. Creating an HCP thatis based on achieving results rather thanfulfilling a list of prescriptive actions notonly increases flexibility, it promotesdesired biological outcomes. A results-oriented implementation program (suchas adaptive management) allows apermittee to use a number of differentmethods for achieving a certain goal,rather than adhering to an inflexible listof prescriptions.

6 In addition, a results-oriented program actually providescertainty to the permittee by establishingthe framework for possible modifica-tions in the HCP. Results are periodicallyassessed, and, if shortcomings areevident, previously agreed-uponalternative strategies are implemented,thereby streamlining discussionsbetween the Services and spotted owlsUSFWS photo6 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN JULY/AUGUST 2000 VOLUME XXV NO. 4 Many HCPs have incorporatedcontingency planning to some , they typically have notcontained the formal structure formonitoring and feedback that would bepart of a good adaptive managementapproach. Nonetheless, contingencyplans do have value in achieving theconservation goals of an HCP. Forexample, many large-scale reserve-based HCPs outline areas of habitat tobe conserved as mitigation for develop-ment and other impacts.

7 Frequently, thearea shown within the lines on the mapis larger than the actual area to bepreserved within those planning is oftenlumped together with adaptive manage-ment, particularly when implementeddue to changed circumstances. In orderto address changed circumstances,recent HCPs are bridging the gapbetween loosely structured contingencyplanning and more tightly structuredadaptive management. In the adaptivemanagement section of the City ofSeattle s Cedar River HCP in the PacificNorthwest, there are contingency plansto be implemented in the event ofvarious changed circumstances. Forinstance, in the event of a disease orinsect outbreak, the City of Seattle maytake measures to restore defoliatedforest habitat by reprioritizing HCPfunds for forest restoration orprecommercial tree of the primary objectives of theHCP monitoring and research programis to assist the adaptive managementprocess by providing information on thespecies of concern, testing criticalassumptions in the plan, and providinga learning experience to refine manage-ment decisions.

8 Key to the adaptivestrategy are triggers that create thefeedback loop from results from themonitoring program to changes inmanagement. HCPs that have structuredadaptive management strategies includePlum Creek Timber Company s NativeFish HCP and the Wisconsin StatewideHCP for the Karner blue butterfly(Lycaeides melissa samuelis).The Wisconsin Statewide HCP for theKarner Blue (see article in this issue)contains an adaptive managementprogram that creates flexibility inmeeting the biological goal of the HCPand the land management goals of theparticipants. The biological goal of theHCP is to insure the persistence of theendangered Karner blue butterfly onpartner lands and work towardsrecovery on The Nature Conservancylands and several State of Karner Blue populationsis the cornerstone to the HCP s monitor-ing program. Habitat monitoring beforeand after treatments also play a role inthe adaptive management strategy.

9 Themonitoring program will also evaluatethe status and performance of theongoing conservation managementstrategies. If the populations aresignificantly declining to meet a triggerthen the responsible HCP partner mayeither conduct research or utilize currentinformation to alter may be made and the popula-tions will continue to be monitored. Anygood adaptive management programcontinues the feedback and evaluationeven after initial management changesand in the Wisconsin Statewide HCP, ifthe species continues to decline despiteinitial efforts, other strategies will be putinto HCPs are describing triggersand research up-front in order toprovide more certainty in the implemen-tation of the HCP. Plum Creek TimberCompany s Native Fish HCP (NFHCP)contains a complex adaptive manage-ment program to learn and adjust theimplementation of the HCP to achievethe biological goals.

10 The biologicalgoals of the HCP are the conservationof native salmonids through themaintenance of four conditions coldwater, clean water, complex habitat, andconnected habitat (the HCP s biologicalgoals). These biological goals are thenbroken down to fifteen habitat objec-tives. The NFHCP provides commit-ments to management actions for eachof the habitat objectives. These manage-The Balcones Canyonlands Preservein Travis County, Texas, has an areatargeted for acquisition of habitatfor the golden-cheeked warbler(Dendroica chrysoparia), above,black-capped vireo (Vireoatricapillus), and other the identified area, a targetnumber of acres must be acquiredfor proper implementation of theBalcones Canyonlands the preserve is assembledover time, establishing a larger areafrom which to make acquisitionsincreases flexibility within theboundary while still meeting theconservation objectives of the by Steve Maslowski/USFWSENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN JULY/AUGUST 2000 VOLUME XXV NO.