With dozens of new habitat conservation plans in the works, potentially covering millions of acres, the time has come to take stock of the national strategy and consider a major overhaul, experts say.

Leading conservation biologists and environmentalists believe that the 23-year-old federal program that aims to balance development, logging and mining with protection of endangered species is in dire need of an overhaul.

With inadequate conservation plans, "we're destroying some of the last remaining habitats of endangered species and not getting offsetting conservation measures," said John Kostyack, a lawyer with the National Wildlife Federation. "What really counts is, are the species better off as a result?"

Based on a Seattle Post-Intelligencer investigation, officials should:

Bolster the underlying science behind the plans. Require independent scientists to review the strategy for safeguarding endangered species before the "license to kill" permit is granted.

• Require landowners to assess and monitor the populations of endangered species on their lands, and issue regular reports to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Creatures that are difficult or impossible to count could be tracked using habitat conditions as a proxy, but the approach would need to be verified in the field.
• Build in "adaptive management" benchmarks in each plan that would trigger changes if species-protection goals are not met.
• Reconsider the practice of granting participants in the program "no surprises" guarantees, which shields them from lawsuits and demands for further action if endangered species suffer. Some experts suggest creating a federal fund to reimburse landowners who have to take additional steps.
• Improve monitoring by requiring in-the-field inspections by Fish and Wildlife and the Fisheries Service.
• Make a key goal of the program recovery of endangered species rather than the current standard of status-quo management. Plans that best help species recover should get longer-lasting protection from lawsuits.
• Require landowners to post a bond that would pay for changes needed to save a species from extinction. Guarantee that the money needed to manage preserves will be there over the long haul.
• Expand incentives for state and local governments to adopt regional habitat plans that better protect endangered species. Provide funding to make endangered creatures on private land an asset, not a liability.
• Require earlier public involvement, particularly for large-scale habitat plans. Provide better public access to the plans, supporting documents and monitoring reports. There is no central repository for the records, and most are not available via the Internet.
• Conduct the government's first-ever national assessment of the habitat conservation program, and require future performance audits on a regular basis.

  Some of the changes come with a price tag.

  More oversight means a bigger budget for the government agencies responsible for endangered species. Some added costs would undoubtedly be passed on to consumers as higher home or lumber prices.

  But when it comes to endangered species, a broader and more coordinated approach is needed in order to be effective, experts say.

  They have recommended compiling pertinent information about species and habitat plans into a public database that would include population trends, threats to species and recovery efforts.

  "Frankly, we think that centralized and readily accessible data on endangered species could do for species protection what centralized and accessible data on criminals and outstanding warrants has done for public safety protection," scientists stated in a study in 1998 by eight universities. "Surely, if we can do this for law enforcement, we can also do this for environmental protection."

  Experts say that the Bush administration and Congress need to think big if true conservation is going to be achieved.

  "What we've got to do is set up ... an ecologically based, open-space planning program which would set up incentives and mandates for states," said former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. "That's the ultimate answer. You heard it here. We've got to start talking about it."