< Return to Press Releases

Broad Support for Updated Endangered Species Act Favors Conservation Planning Incentives

• Water and energy supplies, state and regional infrastructure projects are at risk unless Habitat Conservation Plans are protected.

• Changes are needed to protect vital Habitat Conservation Plans, which face their own “extinction” in 9th Circuit this week.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Laer Pearce, for the California Natural Resources Group, 949/599-1212

Cliff Moriyama, California Natural Resources Group, 916/743-6721

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (July 12, 2005)  -  As news spreads of an effort by the House Resource Committee leadership to update the Endangered Species Act (ESA),  strong support for an updated ESA is coming from local governments, western water and power producers, agriculture, and industry. 

“All these interests are united by the need to strengthen protections for Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), which have proved to be the best way to protect species on private and non-federal land while meeting society’s need for water, power, food and housing,” said Cliff Moriyama of the California Natural Resources Group (CNRG).

The importance of updating the ESA is evident this week, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments Wednesday in National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, a case that could undermine 20 years of cooperative and successful conservation planning, jeopardizing protections for hundreds of species nationwide.

The case pending in the 9th Circuit involves challenges to a National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion concerning operation of federal dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.  The issues in the case, however, are much broader.  Contrary to the plain language of the ESA, which authorizes HCPs to be approved so long as the “survival” of a species is not put in jeopardy, the District Court interpreted the “jeopardy” provisions of ESA in a manner that would impose a higher “recovery” standard.  If upheld by the 9th Circuit, the District Court’s interpretation could have the unintended consequence of undoing Habitat Conservation Plans and similar programs that protect 590 species on 39 million acres across the U.S. 

“The HCP amendments enjoyed broad bipartisan and environmental community support when passed in 1982, as did the Act itself earlier,” Moriyama said.  “The improvements we are recommending should enjoy similar bipartisan support because they protect both species and the economy – but we fear that in these times, this will unnecessarily become a partisan issue.”

Examples of the Domino Effect of Dismantling HCPs

• The Cal-Fed water supply agreement relies on cooperative conservation efforts between federal agencies, the State of California and urban and agriculture interests.  Without Cal-Fed, water deliveries to California’s State Water Project and Central Valley Project would be jeopardized, in turn jeopardizing water supplies to California farms and cities.
• Power generation on the Columbia and Snake Rivers would be reduced by the National Wildlife Federation decision.  Power generators fear the decision could jeopardize their plans to protect fish, and would increase power costs.
• Riverside County, Calif., like many growing jurisdictions, spent several years developing a large-scale HCP that will create a 500,000-acre habitat reserve system and that will allow the County to accommodate growth. That plan is jeopardized by recent court decisions.
• Water deliveries and the $600 million the lower Colorado River HCP could be jeopardized under the District Court’s decision.

Additional Media Contacts

Hon. John Tavaglione
(Riverside County, CA Supervisor)
Ph:951/955-1020

The Supervisor worked on the $40 million Riverside MSHCP, which protects more than 150 species and conserves more than 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County, America’s fastest-growing county.  Ask for Karen in his office to arrange an interview.

Benjamin Higgins
(Executive Vice President, California Cattlemen’s Assn)
Ph: 916-444-0845

Because ranching and farming don’t permanently change the landscape, ag interests do not often use HCPs; nevertheless they support protecting HCPs through improvements to ESA.

Karen Keene
(Leg. Representative, CA State Assn. of Counties)
Ph: 916/327-7500  Ext. 511

Keene is also Agriculture & Natural Resources Federal Legislative Coordinator for CSAC.  She can assist in reaching well-informed contacts at California Counties.

Dennis Oliver
(Communications Director, CA Alliance for Jobs)
Ph: 510/547-5307

The alliance represents the construction industry, which is concerned that flaws in the ESA would make infrastructure improvements unachievable, delayed or overly expensive.

Rikki Schroeder
Ph: 760/741-7462

A biologist and environmental regulatory consultant who has worked on the Riverside County MSCHP, the San Diego MSCP, the Chula Vista MSCP and the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP.

Bill Swan
(Horton, Knox, Carter & Foote)
Ph: 602/955-0442

An attorney who has worked on Colorado River water rights and supply issues for 25 years, including 10 years working on the Lower Colorado River habitation conservation plan.

CNRG’s Recommendation:

A Few Simple Improvements to ESA Can Protect HCPs

• The Fish & Wildlife Service frequently excludes HCPs from critical habitat designations. This exclusion should become part of the ESA.
  
• "No surprises" assurances, which provide landowners with protection they need to participate in HCPs, should become part of the ESA.
  
• It should be possible to mitigate impacts to critical habitat in one land ownership through actions taken on other land within the HCP, if that gives more landowners incentive to participate in HCPs.
  
• HCP Implementation Agreements need to become enforceable.
  
• The Act should promote improved recovery planning, with greater landowner participation in these non-regulatory plans.
  
• Adverse modification of critical habitat should be defined to mean “a direct alternation that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species.”
  
• Improvements made to ESA should be retroactive to existing HCPs.