Difference between revisions of "Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)"

From CCoWS Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(HCP Process)
(List of all HCPs in the Central Coast Region USFWS HCP database)
Line 58: Line 58:
 
==List of all HCPs in the [[Central Coast Region]]<ref name="HCPs"> [http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/public.jsp USFWS HCP database]</ref>==
 
==List of all HCPs in the [[Central Coast Region]]<ref name="HCPs"> [http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/public.jsp USFWS HCP database]</ref>==
 
*[[Fort Ord Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)]]
 
*[[Fort Ord Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)]]
*Marina Peninsula Trail and Rehabilitation Project Site
+
*Marina Peninsula Trail and Rehabilitation Project Site (Morro Bay State Park Boardwalk)
 
*Seascape Uplands
 
*Seascape Uplands
 
*Santa Cruz Gardens Unit 12
 
*Santa Cruz Gardens Unit 12

Revision as of 07:53, 7 April 2016

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are required planning documents for entities interested in applying for incidental take permits (ITP). HCPs are part of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) that protects threatened and endangered species throughout the nation. The goals of HCPs is to allow economic growth without compromising long-term species survival. There have been more than 430 HCPs approved nationwide with many more in the planning stage [1].

HCP Requirements

Under section 10 of the ESA, a HCP must meet six requirements before any ITP can be issued. [2] The six requirements are:

  • All take must be incidental
  • Impacts will be mitigated and minimized as much as possible
  • Adequate funding to address unexpected problems
  • Take must not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of species
  • Applicant must ensure other Federal regulations will also be implemented
  • Federal regulators must be certain HCP can and will be implemented

HCP Process

HCPs are split up into three phases: HCP development, formal permit processing and post permit issuance.

HCP Development [3]

The first step is determining who will be holding the permit. States, local governments, corporations,businesses, and private land owners are allowed to apply for incidental take permits. The permittee will be responsible for overseeing the HCP implementation. The applicant will then establish a steering committee that represents the affected interest and will serve in an advisory role in the development of the HCP. It is recommended that applicants invite the Services as technical advisers on steering committees. The next step is to list which species will be protected by the HCP. Generally, numerous species are listed in the HCP, including non-listed species, because it can protect the applicant from delays in the future. However, this will result in a complicated HCP that will take time to develop.

Under section 10 (a)(2)(A), the conservation plan must include the following information:

  • Impacts from the result of the proposed taking of species
  • Measures to monitor, minimize, and mitigate the impacts; funding for these measures and contingency plans for unforeseen complications
  • Alternatives actions that would not have resulted in take of species and why those actions were not pursued
  • Additional measures the Service may require as necessary

To determine the likely effects of the project the applicant must also delineate the HCP boundary, collect and synthesize biological data for listed species in the HCP, list the activities within the boundary that will result in take, and quantify take levels. A mitigation plan will then be developed by the applicant.

Formal Permit Processing [4]

There is no set time frame for the processing time of applications. If an HCP is considered to be low-impact it should take less than 3 months. If an HCP requires an environmental assessment it will take roughly half a year and if a environmental impact statement is required then it will take up to a year. These time frames are from the submission of a complete application to the issuance of a take permit. Delays are possible if there are legitimate reasons like project controversies or workload problems.

Under section 7 of the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to consult on permit issuance. The purpose of this consultation is to ensure that any action by the Federal government does not threaten the survival of listed species. The final report of the consultation is referred to as a biological opinion. Biological opinions must include the information which the opinion was based on, discussion of the effects that the proposed actions will have on species and critical habitat, and the final word on whether the actions will jeopardize or not jeopardize species and their habitat.

There will also be a 30-day commenting period for the public. There will be notices made to the public and interested parties when documents become available. Informational meetings can be held to answer any questions about the proposed HCP. If a permit is issued any member of the public that disagrees can file for objection by submitting a paper with valid reasons as to why the permit should not be issued.

Post Permit Issuance [5]

A permit that has been issued will include the list of species, authorized activities, and location where those activities will take place. Additional requirements may be issued with the permit such as monitoring and reporting, which will ensure that conditions are being met. Each permit must also have a specified expiration date and it can be renewed as long as the applicant files for renewal at least 30 days before permit expiration.

Court Cases Involving HCPs

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

A proposed logging project came to a halt when a federal district court in California negated a habitat conservation plan and ITP issued by the FWS and NMFS. [6] The logging project operated in Northern spotted owl habitat and also had effects on coho salmon by increasing sediments entering streams. The federal district court found that the biological opinion did not comply with section 7 of the ESA since it failed to analyze short-term impacts to coho salmon [7].


Bear Valley Municipal Water Company v. Jewell

Municipalities and water districts sued the FWS after they designated 9,331 acres of critical habitat across three river systems for the Santa Ana sucker that covered land that fell within the boundaries of the Western Riverside HCP. [8] The plaintiffs lawsuit was on the grounds that the FWS did not cooperate with them resolve water resource concerns, arbitrarily and capriciously designated land and violated NEPA by not preparing an EIS. [9] The U.S Courts of Appeal ruled in favor of the FWS stating that they did comply with statutory obligations to cooperate, the designation of critical habitat was based on best available science, and claims under NEPA is barred by Douglas County.

List of all HCPs in the Central Coast Region[10]

References

  1. HCP Factsheet
  2. HCP Requirements
  3. HCP Pre-application
  4. HCP Permit Processing
  5. HCP Permit Processing
  6. Federal Court Strikes down Habitat Conservation Plan
  7. Klamath V NOAA
  8. Ninth Circuit Critical Habitat Decision
  9. Bear Valley Mutual Water District v. Jewell
  10. USFWS HCP database

Disclaimer

This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of CSUMB, its staff, or students.