Analysis of News Reporting on Habitat Conservation Plans by The Seattle Post-Intelligencer

by Todd Myers, Director, Center for Environmental Policy
July 2005

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently published a three-part series of front page news articles, based on a year of research by reporters Robert McClure and Lisa Stiffler, critiquing Habitat Conservation Plans. HCPs require Washington landowners to abide by environmental planning guidelines, protect habitat and meet habitat goals for threatened and endangered species. As long as they adhere to HCP environmental rules, landowners are granted protection from lawsuits filed under the Endangered Species Act.

The intent of HCPs is to allow federal agencies and landowners to agree voluntarily on effective environmental rules that protect wildlife, while avoiding much of the delay and public controversy created by costly lawsuits.

We looked in detail at four published items from the series – two of the articles and two of the side-bars. Our review of the Post-Intelligencer’s reporting on HCPs found a number of factual and analytical problems. For instance, our research found:

• Factual errors. In one piece, the article says wild elk herds need old growth forests for habitat. Actually, forest clearings and clear cut areas are more suitable for elk, who graze on grasses, shrubs and young trees.
  

• Use of language that shows a general bias. In the articles, selected timber harvesting is described as "denuding" the forest. Land use experts who work for forestry companies are called "timber lobbyists," while environmental activists are described as "independent scientists."
  

• No evidence of environmental harm. The general tone of the reporting is sharply critical of Habitat Conservation Plans, strongly implying that HCPs harm the environment. Yet no actual evidence for this is presented. In fact, one article states that no environmental harm due to HCPs has been found.
  

It is likely the information published in these articles will be used by some environmental activist groups across the country to argue against the use of HCPs. The following review is, of course, not complete, but it provides a general basis for understanding the other side of the debate about Habitat Conservation Plans. On the following pages the full text of the articles is reproduced, and our analysis appears in shaded boxes.

HCPs will continue to be a tool used by government agencies and landowners for protecting the environment while allowing natural resources to be reasonable managed for job growth and economic development. Environmental activists will likely use the Post-Intelligencer’s faulty reporting to continue the attack on HCPs, claiming the plans give too much legal protection to property owners and not enough to the environment. What is clear, however, is that those who oppose HCPs often have no practical solutions of their own, or they promote alternative policies that eliminate jobs, reduce family income and harm local communities while doing little to help the environment.

Links to analysis: requires pdf viewer
(download free adobe acrobat)