 |
 |
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) should be a model for cooperation and conservation. So-called environmental interests profess the urgent need for conservation; private landowners, in large part, possess that which is professed to be in need of conservation. The only way to bring together these two presumably essential components of this complex equation is to give appropriate recognition to all competing considerations.
As the Times correctly noted, the true divisiveness with the ESA lies not with its species issues, but rather its planning implications. In 1983, the Act was amended to allow incidental take of species when supported by a habitat conservation plan ("HCP"). HCPs have evolved from project-specific programs to broad, voluntary, region-wide conservation cooperatives, sometimes consisting of hundreds of thousands of acres and protecting hundreds of species. The ESA should not only allow but should incentivize the establishment of HCPs by, among other things, establishing credibility to the listing process with good science, establishing greater notice and certainty for stakeholders, and streamlining the process.
| |
