8011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F RAY E 0 S A F E T Y NET S ........................................ 1997-see Appendix B). Second, the process of developing HCPs has been criticized. The prob- lems lie mainly in inadequate public participation (Kostyack, 1997) and insufficient biological infor- mation or scientific review (Murphy et al. 1997, Hosack et al. 1997, Kaiser 1997). Third, nearly all conservationists agree that standards for HCP approval are too low, and because FWS and NMFS do not require HCPs to advance recovery, the plans may actually undermine it (Shilling 1997, Nadonal Audubon Society 1997). Finally, some conservationists believe that regional plan- ning would be more effective than the piecemeal protection that results from having many small, single-landowner HCPs strewn across the land- scape. This can lead to greater habitat fragmenta- don and insufficient protection of unoccupied habitat or unlisted species (O'Connell and Johnson 1997). The Clinton administrarion is promoting large-scale HCPs, but most are small- scale. Because HCPs are landowner-initiated, the government has little control over their scope. Safe-Harbor Agreements Unlike HCPs, safe-harbor agreements are for landowners who want to maintain or enhance habitat without fear of land-use restrictions if their actions subsequently attract endangered species to their property. Safe-harbor agreements provide a "carrot" for landowners by exempting them from future regulation if they manage their land in ways that benefit listed species. When a landowner enters into a safe-harbor agreement, he/she agrees to maintain or improve endangered species habitat, thereby producing a "net conservation benefit" for the species. In exchange, the landownet is petmitted to take endangered species attracted to the land in the future. Typically, a survey is conducted to deter- mine the "baseline" number of animals for which habitat must be maintained. In addition to the baseline, which can be zero, the landowner vol- untarily agrees to improve additional habitat. FWS does the compliance monitoring. From a legal perspective, safe-harb/or agreements function as modified HCP arrangements (under Section 10) in which mitigation occurs first and inciden- tal take occurs sometime in the future. Safe-harbor agreements seek to solve two major problems of ESA implementation. First, the Section 9 take prohibition generally mandates pro- tection only for currently occupied habitat and o