A Crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and Real HCPs.
The U.S. Departments of Interior and Commerce published the HCP handbook in 1996 to guide the issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs). The HCP handbook lists six guidelines and provides many others throughout the text. However, the guidelines sometimes contradict the intent of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and some are vague due to their use of improperly defined terms, such as ecosystem, region(al), net benefits, and habitat types. A proposed addendum provides little improvement to the HCP handbook. The guidelines in the HCP handbook could be prepared to better match those that scientists would expect from the language of the ESA. Three HCPs met only 3-10% of the 39 guidelines I would expect based on the ESA, and they met only 7-20% of the 30 guidelines in the HCP handbook. Based on a recent legal decision on the Alabama Beach Mouse HCP, ITP applicants are expected to follow the guidelines in the HCP handbook. The three HCPs I reviewed are vulnerable to similar legal decisions. However, many of the guidelines in the HCP handbook are inconsistent with the ESA. Therefore, I recommend that the HCP handbook be revised so that it is consistent with the ESA and with academic standards in the use of scientific methods. The guidelines need to be more explicit to be operationally consistent. Such a revision would provide ITP applicants and all the stakeholders with much more certainty in the outcome of the process. In lieu of a revised HCP handbook, I recommend that ITP applicants prepare their HCPs using the standards presented in Smallwood and others (Environmental Management, 1999, 24:421-435), thereby giving their HCPs a strong scientific foundation.
SMALLWOOD
KS
Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, California 95819, USA