8011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:......................................................................................................................................................................... F RAY E 0 SA F E T Y NET S o Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1996) governs HCP development and implementation as well as the processing of Section lO(a) incidental-take permit applications. The handbook is intended to ensure that H CPs nationwide are developed and implemented in a consistent manner. To accomplish that, the hand- book gives guidelines on issuance criteria, pro- cessing procedures, permit suspension and revo- cation and related issues. In the HCP, the landowner must specifY the impact that will result from the taking; what steps are being taken to monitor, minimize and mitigate the taking; what alternatives were con- sidered; and why they were not implemented. FWS (NMFS for incidental take of listed salmon) is responsible for ultimately approving or rejecting the HCP. The landowner is responsi- ble for developing the HCP, although FWS often works with the landowner from the beginning to develop a plan that will be acceptable. Typically, the landowner minimizes harm by limiting the geographic extent of harmful activities or limit- ing the seasons those activities are allowed (e.g., limiting timber harvest during the nesting sea- son). Mitigation often involves setting aside (through purchase or conservation easements) habitat elsewhere to replace habitat lost through development. Any nonfederallandowner, whether a private citizen, corporation, county or state, can initiate an HCP. FWS (or NMFS) approval of HCPs is based on whether (1) the taking will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, (2) the impacts of the taking will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, (3) there will be adequate funding to carry out the HCP and the landowner has established procedures for address- ing unforeseen circumstances, (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild and (5) the landowner agrees to include other measures that FWS (or NMFS) may require. Again, FWS typically works with the applicant and provides guidance as to what is or is not acceptable with respect to the above requirements. The approval of incidental-take permits is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), requiring that an environmental assess- ment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared. FWS and NMFS, however, categorically exclude from environmental analysis HCPs that they determine will have minor or negligible effects ("low effect" HCPs - FWS and NMFS 1996). To date, nearly all HCPs have been accompanied by either an EA or an EIS (for large-scale or multiple-landowner HCPs) dis- cussing how mitigation reduces the significant impacts of the landowner activity. Concerns About HCPs Conservation advocates and scientists have identified a number of major problems with HCPs as currently implemented. First, the "no surprises" policy is problematic because it exempts landowners from paying for changes in approved plans that may be necessary to halt species declines, and the federal government is unlikely to be able to cover the shortfall. These assurances to landowners are particularly unacceptable when plans do not have adequate biological goals, mon- itoring and adaptive management (Murphy et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ..................................................................................,........................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .