website statistics

Usfws Safe Harbor Agreement

By  | 

Safe Harbor Agreements are voluntary agreements between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating non-federal landowners. They are expected to benefit species threatened and threatened by the federal government by assuring landowners that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would not impose restrictions on their lands at any future date due to conservation measures. In other words, these agreements essentially relieve landowners of liability under the Endangered Species Act when conservation practices attract and/or immortalize species on their land. To date, nearly three million hectares of land have been included in the Safe Harbor Agreements, benefiting a large number of listed species. Ignore the shaker anthem “`Tis a Gift to Be Simple.` Safe Harbour agreements require landowners to do things they do not have to do. In addition, they do so either entirely at their own expense or with a partial reimbursement of cost-sharing programs. The safest way to kill a private landowner`s interest in this idea is to make it complicated. If a non-industrial forest owner with a few thousand hectares of mixed long pine and hardwood forests in the southeast is prepared to embark on a program to reduce hardwood, followed by regular incineration and the installation of artificial cavities in suitable trees to avoid the highly threatened red-tailed peak.

The imposition of requirements for frequent written reports, intensive monitoring of results, etc., will likely only deprive landowners of interest in the entire business. Business landowners may accept these requirements, but even then, the question is whether the money spent on compliance would be better spent on on-site conservation. In exchange for measures that contribute to the restoration of species classified on non-federal lands, participating property owners receive formal assurances from the Service that the service, if it meets the SHA requirements, does not require any additional or different management activity from participants without their consent. In addition, at the end of the contract period, participants can return the registered property to the basic conditions that existed at the beginning of the SHA. 3. Section 13.24 is revised in the final rule to provide a lighter approach to the rights to the HCP, Safe Harbor Agreement and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, and Section 13.25 is revised to allow for greater portability of these authorizations. As explained in the proposed rule, restrictions in Sections 13.24 and 13.25 on the succession of authorization and portability for most wild animals are justified, but they are inappropriate and unnecessary for HCP, Safe Harbor Agreement, and applicant conservation agreements with Insurance permits. These authorizations may include significant long-term conservation obligations and the service negotiates these long-term authorizations that recognize that it may belong to an inheritance or transfer of ownership for the duration of the authorization.