Habitat Conservation Plan
A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a required part of an application for an Incidental Take Permit, a permit issued under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) to private entities undertaking projects that might result in the destruction of an endangered or threatened species.
The term "take" under the ESA refers to any attempt or action involving the harassment, harm, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting of any listed species.
Under this definition, the alteration of habitat that results in injury to, or death of, any listed species by preventing essential behavior (such as breeding, feeding or sheltering) is considered unlawful "harm".
For example, a single landowner may be the sole preparer of a HCP if they intend to obtain an Incidental Take Permit for an action on their own property and they are the only interested party.
[3] For large-scale projects, applicants have the option of forming a steering committee composed of persons, such as stakeholders, with an interest in the HCP planning area or affected species.
After the applicant and steering committee members have been determined, consultation with USFWS and NMFS is recommended to ensure that responsible parties have a thorough understanding of requirements and resources available for the development phase of the HCP.
Once the target species or habitat type to be considered in the HCP have been identified, the geographic boundaries of the planning area need to be established.
It is important to be precise when defining the land area to which the HCP will apply, with regards to impacts associated with the proposed action, to circumvent potential problems in later phases of the development process.
For the purpose of long-term planning, applicants are encouraged to include any actions that they have control over that are reasonably foreseeable to occur during the active permit period.
Low-Effect HCP Due to the varying degrees by which a species may be impacted from a project, the Low-Effect HCP category is established to distinguish projects that are expected to have "minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats or environmental values or resources".
Subsequently, incidental take may be calculated based on the number of animals expected to be "killed, harmed, or harassed" as a result of the proposed action/project.
[Note 4] In the development phase of the HCP process, applicants are encouraged to consider elements that have the potential to change over time.
Implementing Agreements are not required of every HCP; they are most often utilized for large-scale projects involving multiple parties and are rarely used for Low-Effect HCPs.
[5] SHAs encourage landowners to create, enhance, or maintain habitat for threatened or endangered species on their property.
Prior to the agreement, landowners and agencies establish baseline conditions for the habitat to be capable of supporting the species.
This allows landowners to freely manage their property, including development, as long as they maintain baseline conditions.
[7] HCPs are designed to be flexible to accommodate a range of projects that vary greatly in size and scope, from single-property developments to hundreds of thousands of acres involving multiple parties.
An HCP created for construction of a single-family home on a 0.44-acre lot in Scotts Valley, California proposed mitigation and minimization measures aimed at the endangered Mount Hermon June beetle (Polyphylla barbata) and Ben Lomond spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var.
[9] Alternatively, the large-scale HCP created for 269,769 acres of the Headwaters Forest in Northern California near Eureka dealt with the largest old-growth redwood ecosystem in the United States.
The resulting extensive mitigation and monitoring measures provided strict restrictions for land use, including buffers and operational limitations in riparian areas with active murrelet nests.
[13] Congress wanted the San Bruno Mountain HCP to serve as a model for future HCPs in that it was created from "an independent exhaustive biological study" and that it considered the habitat of the mission blue butterfly (Aricia icarioides missionensis) "to allow for enhancement of the survival of the species".
2D 1274 (S.D.Ala.1998), the Plaintiff challenged the USFWS issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the developers of two beachfront condominium projects based on the HCPs submitted as part of the application process.
The Plaintiffs argued that the HCPs created for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) did not fulfill the requirements of ESA section 10(a)(2)(B) requiring the development of "a mitigation program that will minimize and mitigate the impacts of the proposed taking to the maximum extent practicable".
[14] Additionally, the Plaintiff argued that there was insufficient biological data for the Alabama beach mouse species in the HCP, including population abundance, to determine allowable levels of take.
