Safe Harbor Agreements Usfws

Refuse the security of port guarantees for landowners who receive federal funds. Unfortunately, ill-thought-out ideas are not the exclusive province of the regulated community or government. Among the more self-destructive ideas adopted by at least some environmental groups, it is understood that landowners who receive public cost assistance for the implementation of habitat improvements are not allowed to enter into safe harbour agreements with respect to these improvements. As a result, the Partner for Fish and Wildlife Program, the USDA Wild Habitat Improvement Program and other similar cost-sharing programs would not be available under this proposal for landowners seeking safe harbour agreements. It is certainly true that, at present, a small number of private owners participate in these programs and carry out activities that can benefit threatened species, all without secure port guarantees, either because they are not aware of the potential costs of their property or because they do not care about these charges. However, it is also true that participants in these programmes generally sign agreements that give them a contractual right to return their country to its former state and its use, without being told anything about the presence of threatened species qualifying that right. If landowners who wish to exercise this right of ownership find that they cannot do so, the sigh is probably not beneficial to the program. Their experience, if well known, will make it even more difficult to convince others to participate in such programs, if their participation has the potential to bring threatened species into their lands. Such a result would be extremely counterproductive. 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.

Susan Sorrells, referred to as the applicant, applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for section 10 a) (A) (A) (A) (A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C 1531 and following. The application for authorization contains a draft Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) that includes 467 hectares owned by the applicant in Inyo County, California. The proposed duration of the authorization and the SHA is 30 years. The authorization would authorize the accidental capture of the at-risk muhlaus amargosa (Microtus californicus scirpensis) in exchange for habitat conservation measures to provide the species with a clear conservation benefit. We have prepared a draft Environmental Action Statement (EAS) for our preliminary conclusion that the SHA decision and approval under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 43 U.S.C can be considered a categorical exclusion).