Blog

Latest Industry News

Safe Harbor Agreement Usfws

The combination of traditional HCPS and safe-harbor agreements will have another negative effect: it will destroy the important concept that the current situation of an endangered species does not degrade under the safe-harbor agreements. This concept is included in the description of a risky “baseline” that exists at the time the contract is negotiated. The baseline represents the existing obligations (i.e. prior agreement) of the ESA landowner. A Safe Harbor Agreement grants a landowner a future right to repossess threatened species for lawful activities, provided that the occasional catch does not reduce the status of the species or its habitat in the rural areas concerned under the conditions of departure. As Ben Cone`s example shows, the combination of a traditional HCP and a Safe Harbor agreement seriously undermines the basic concept. This agreement meant that Kegel could eliminate all red tail peaks on his land and all future green peaks. This is how the “base” was rendered meaningless. What species are threatened with “safe harbor” agreements and what is their potential value? These are essentially agreements between a non-federal landowner and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service, in which the landowner declares himself ready to restore or improve the habitat of an endangered or threatened species, and FWS agrees that no additional restrictions will be imposed on the burrow owner, as the species is attracted , or , the area in which the restoration was carried out. To put it simply, a Safe Harbor agreement requires a landowner to do a good deed rather than blindly following the maxim “No good deed goes unpunished,” forcing the government not to punish him for it. Landowners are not required to obtain improved habitat conditions above the original value at the expiry of the SHA contract.

At the end of the SHA, landowners may, before entering a SHA, cancel conservation measures that increase species populations on their land at the basic level and bring the number of species and habitat back to its state. ShaD can be extended as long as the landowner and USFWS agree each other; However, if the landowner does not renew the contract, the landowner is no longer protected from ASE regulatory sanctions or possible land use restrictions. Figure 1 shows an example of SHA using hectares of significant habitat to determine the landowner`s fundamental liability. Combine safe-harbor chords with traditional HCPs. Safe-harbor agreements can take the form of habitat conservation plans or HCPs. Indeed, most safe ports agreements approved so far have done so. However, these are not “traditional” HCPs. In traditional HCPs, landowners seek direct authority to harm an endangered species (usually by destroying their habitat) and propose to mitigate this damage through conservation measures that may or may not leave the species as well as before. On the other hand, in safe harbour agreements, landowners have no direct intention of doing something that harms an endangered species or its habitat; Indeed, their intention is exactly the opposite.

Back to top