According to the P-I, hundreds of exemptions the the Endangered Species Act have been issue in the past decade. These 'habitat conservation plans' allow developers, loggers and others to harm or kill a certain number of protected creatures in return for doing something to help their survival. For example, a developer may get the right to build houses on 2000 acres of land inhabited by an endangered animal in return for buying and protecting an equal amount of land as habitat for the species.
[Photo: Gilbert W. Aria/P-I]
These habitat conservation plans were originated under the Clinton administration, and have become a huge part of the conservation landscape under Dubya. While they are touted as being the solution for the problem of balancing the needs of people and endangered creatures, they have one big problem: They usually don't work.
Many of the nation's habitat plans have serious shortcomings that tip the scales in favor of development over endangered species, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer investigation has found.
Although the conservation strategy was conceived by a developer's lawyer and launched to help the private sector, state, county and city governments are increasingly signing on -- primarily to shield major public-works projects from costly lawsuits. Coming up are plans covering state-owned Puget Sound waterfront and the King County sewage-treatment system.
It's a delicate balancing act: protecting endangered species, often by setting up preserves, while allowing private landowners to make a living.
The strategy is sweeping the country, embraced by prominent Democrats and Republicans, big-scale developers and leading conservation groups. All say the program keeps the economy running smoothly while preventing further declines in the populations of some of the planet's rarest creatures....
There is no evidence of any species going extinct under the program, but there are signs that some are in decline. The P-I's nine-month examination of major habitat plans nationwide revealed systemic breakdowns that undermine the national strategy:
- The agency charged with protecting most threatened species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, doesn't know whether these plans are shielding creatures from further decline or speeding them toward extinction.
- Many plans open the door to permanent damage of wild places before scientists know how to best protect vulnerable animals. Most fail to predict how many creatures will be killed or harmed. Few spell out an exit strategy if things go wrong.
- Local governments eager to help developers are cutting them deals -- allowing existing parkland to count as "preserves" or defraying their costs by securing millions from federal coffers.
- The public, including independent scientists, often has little voice in the plans -- even some covering vast acreages -- until they are virtually a done deal.
- While habitat conservation plans focus on setting aside land to spare it from the bulldozer or chain saw, money is sometimes lacking to maintain the preserves.
The P-I investigation reviewed 98 habitat conservation plans of 100 acres or more, including all of those approved from 1999 to 2004. Of those, half failed to say how the development, timber cutting or other activity would affect the overall health of a species.
Each plan came with a promise to help the animal in question, but only 27 percent in the P-I study included benchmarks to ensure that, in fact, the "mitigation" would help the threatened animals.
This is an excellent series that shows what a newspaper can do when it really tries. You can read all the stories and sidebars for the first two parts here. If you live in the Seattle area and have already seen the story in the print paper, make sure to check out the web version. Much of the material is only available on the P-I's website.
The series continues for at least one more day (Thursday).