8011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

............................................................................................................. F RAY E 0 SA F E T Y NET S In 1994 and 1995, Defenders of Wildlife sponsored a series of roundtable discussions of the ESA among industrial and non-industrial private landowners, conservationists and govern- ment representatives. Although there were dis- agreements, participants agreed that some prob- lems could be solved if the ESA was funded ade- quately and used to encourage more public-pri- vate conservation partnerships (Ferris 1996). Meanwhile, other experts were recommending that economic incentives be used to engage more private landowners in conservation. In this set- ting, conservation planning has emerged as an incentive-based approach that potentially can address both conservationist and private landowner concerns. . Advent of Conservation Planning In 1982, Congress amended the ESA in a way that radically altered its application on non- federal land. This was by authorizing habitat conservation plans. The impetus came from a decade-long battle between developers and envi- ronmentalists over the fate of San Bruno Mountain, several thousand acres of mostly undeveloped land five miles from San Francisco. Two endangered butterfly species occurred on the mountain. In a highly unusual move, devel- opers and environmentalists, joined by local offi- cials, developed a plan allowing some develop- ment to occur but protecting most of the butter- flies' habitat. But there was concern that the plan would violate the ESA because it allowed destruction of some occupied butterfly habitat. To remedy the problem, Congress changed the ESA to permit incidental taking of endangered species by private landowners provided they develop habitat conservation plans (HCPs) to offset the damage. Few landowners developed HCPs until the early 1990s. Only 12 HCPs were approved between 1983 and 1992 (FWS and NMFS 1996). Since 1992, however, there has been an explosion of such approvals - 200 by the end of 1996. By September, 1997, millions of acres nationwide were covered by more than 220 HCPs. Indeed, HCPs have become one of the most prominent mechanisms employed by FWS to address the problem of threatened and endan- gered species on private lands. This rapid proliferation has led in turn to widespread concern among conservationists and independent scientists that plans are not being prepared with adequate scientific guidance and, in fact, may seriously undermine species recovery (Murphy et al. 1997-see Appendix B). ESA- related conservation planning for private landowners, however, now goes beyond HCPs. Increasingly, new legal tools are being developed to address multispecies and ecosystem planning, raising some of the same concerns that are being directed toward H CPs. Types of ESA-Related Conservation Plans Landowners can develop several different types of ESA-related conservation plans. The HCP is the most widely used. Because it is avail- able only for landowners with listed species on their property, the Clinton administration has established "safe harbor" agreements that encour- age landowners to maintain suitable habitat not occupied by endangered species. The administra-