8011

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8011
• Author: Hood, L. C., et al.
• Title: Frayed Safety Nets, Conservation Planning Under the Endangered Species Act 1998.
• USFW Year: 1998.
• USFW - Doc Type: Washington D.C.
• Copyright Material: YES

F RAY E 0 S A F E T Y NET S .........................................................................................................................................................................,

related conservation plan to arrest the decline of
a species. Ideally, this occurs before the species
warrants listing under the ESA. These agree-
ments may satisfy both conservationists calling
for more proactive conservation measures and
landowners seeking to avert land-use restrictions.
The Clinton administration has announced a
draft candidate conservation agreement policy for
proposed, candidate and other unlisted species.
For candidate species, FWS or NMFS will assist
landowners in developing programs or plans that,
if undertaken on a broad scale, would "remove
the threat(s)" to the species and thus preclude the
need to list it. The landowner will receive an
"enhancement of survival permit" at the time of
entering into the agreement. It will assure the
landowner of having no further obligations if the
species is listed, regardless of new information or
changed circumstances.

Concerns About Prelisting Agreements

Pre-listing agreements often are not legally
enforceable, and many of them are developed to
avert listing and subsequent regulations, even
though scientific information indicates that the
species should be listed. This has occurred with
many species, including the Barton Springs sala-
mander (Eurycea sosorum), the jaguar (Felis onca)
and the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
Moreover, biological goals and standards are
absent or unacceptably vague for many pre-listing
agreements. As for the draft policy for candidate
conservation agreements, conservation advocates
are most concerned about the level of assurances
that are granted to participating landowners. First,
the draft policy states that some agreements may

"remove the need to list" the species. This is
inconsistent with Section 4 of the ESA, which
requires that listing determinations be based solely
on science. Second, if the species is listed, then
landowners who fulfill their obligations under the
agreement have no additional responsibilities and
will receive incidental-take permits, regardless of
whether they intend to use their property in ways
that may jeopardize species survival.

Ecosystem Planning

We define ecosystem planning as any attempt
at ecosystem-scale planning and management
(including development and natural resources
extraction and natural resources preservation)
that includes all endangered species within the
planning area.
Some conservationists have decried ecosystem
planning because it allows incidental take on a
broad scale. Some developers and property rights
advocates, on the other hand, have criticized it
because it restricts development over large areas.
Large-scale ecosystem planning, however, has
given landowners and governmental jurisdictions
the flexibility to apply principles of preserve
design to large areas and enabled them to avoid
the piecemeal approach to conservation that can
lead to habitat fragmentation. Such plans hold
promise if they incorporate sufficient scientific
information and if they provide safety nets for
imperiled species.
The Natural Community Conservation

e