Times Left Gaps in Land Coverage

The coverage July 20 regarding a study of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) treats an important national issue: How can endangered species and human uses of land coexist, especially on private lands?

HCPs are clearly part of that answer. Unfortunately, both this draft study and the reporting of it by The Times do not address the whole picture.

There are more questions about the recent study than The Times revealed. Seven months after early findings were made public, the study remains a draft that has not completed peer review or U.S. Fish and Wildlife review. The study’s sponsors appear to have shared the draft with more reporters than HCP holders.

The idea of the study was to examine the paper trail of HCPs, and thereby measure their science, public involvement, and future monitoring standards.

It remains unclear whether graduate students across eight universities chasing paper can make these assessments. Their work may yet produce useful information, but it stops well short of the most relevant question: Do HCPs produce good conservation on the ground?

In the real world, HCPs produce significant conservation gains. In the Central/Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Plan, which will set aside 38,738 acres of prime habitat in Orange County for 42 species, encouraging results in the Californian gnatcatcher population have been coming in for some time.

From a low of five pairs in the Laguna Canyon area in 1994, the population has grown to 69 pairs. Eight young in two nests were fledged this season in newly revegetated coastal sage scrub along the San Joaquin Hills toll road in Newport Beach, a feat critics said would not occur. HCPs are like democracy: imperfect, but better than the alternatives.

These voluntary conservation commitments benefit hundreds of species (many of which have absolutely no protected status) and for longer time frames than would be otherwise achievable.

GARY T. SMITH

Director

Foundation for Habitat Conservation

Seattle