Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T15:05:55.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Article: Habitat Conservation Planning: Current Processes and Tomorrow's Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

David Ostermeier ,
David Bidwell  and
Susan Schexnayder
David Ostermeier*
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
David Bidwell
Affiliation:
Formerly with National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research, Ardmore, Pennsylvania, now with Winsor & Associates
Susan Schexnayder
Affiliation:
Energy, Environment & Resources Center, Knoxville, Tennessee
*
Professor, Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Tennessee, PO Box 1071, Knoxville, TN 37901-1071; (fax) 865-974-4714; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Habitat conservation planning has become the primary conservation tool for private landowners and developers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Habitat conservation plans are newly evolving mechanisms and are challenged with addressing the conflicts and paradoxes inherent in integrating conservation and economic decision making. Research results of a 31-case analysis of habitat conservation plans (HCPs) are discussed to provide an objective understanding of the process through which HCPs are developed. A central finding is the significant variation in the ways HCPs have been developed, including who was involved, how decisions were negotiated, and how decision-making roles were designed and executed. The results also indicate that little attention has been given to HCP process design and management, and addressing this deficiency should be rewarding and challenging. Increased attention should be given to the roles of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other organizations and individuals. These roles relate to stakeholder contribution, rules of engagement and participation, process efficiency, and the management of technical information. The practitioners surveyed indicated that HCP processes have often been sluggish and/or problematic; nevertheless, they generally characterized HCPs in positive ways. This suggests a positive base from which to improve HCP processes.

Type
Features & Reviews
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 166 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aengst, Peter et al. , 1997. “Introduction to Habitat Conservation Planning.” Endangered Species UPDATE 14 (7/8):5–9.Google Scholar
Anderson, Jeremy, and Yaffee, Steven. 1998. Balancing public trust and private interest: Public participation in habitat conservation planning, a summary report. University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 40 pp.Google Scholar
Baur, D. C., and Donovan, K. L.. 1997. The No Surprises Policy: Contracts 101 Meets the Endangered Species Act. Environmental Law 27(3):767–790.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Max. 1998. Judgement in Managerial Decision Making, 4th ed.John Wiley & Sons, New York, 179 pp.Google Scholar
Beatley, T. 1994. Habitat Consermtion Planning: Endangered Species and Urban Growth. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Cheever, F. 1996. The Road to Recovery: a New Way of Thinking about the Endangered Species Act. Ecology Law Quarterly 23(1):1–78.Google Scholar
Clark, J. A. 1994. The Endangered Species Act: Its History, Provisions, and Effectiveness. In Endangered Species Recovery. Finding the Lessons, Improving the Process. Clarke, T. W., Reading, Richard P., and Clarke, Alice L., eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 19–43.Google Scholar
Cortner, Hanna J., and Moote, Margaret A.. 1999. The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Island Press, Washington, DC, 179 pp.Google Scholar
Deming, W. E. 1993. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hood, L. 1998. Frayed Safety Nets: Consen-ation Planning under the Endangered Species Act. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, 115 pp.Google Scholar
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. 1996–1997. Shared Power World & Navigating Policy Change. Reflective Leadership Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Harvey M. 1995. “The Anti-Environmental ‘Wise-Use’ Movement in America.” Land Use Law (02):3–8.Google Scholar
Juran, J. M., and Gryna, Frank. 1993. Quality Planning and Analysis, 3rd edition. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Kareiva, Peter et al. , 1998. Using Science in Habitat Conservation Plans. The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) and the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), University of California, Santa Barbara, 65 pp.Google Scholar
Kellert, Sr. 1994. “A Sociological Perspective: Valuational, Socioeconomic, and Organizational Factors.” In Endangered Species Recovery: Finding Lessons, Improving the Process, Clarke, T. W., Reading, Richard P., and Clarke, Alice L., eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 371–89.Google Scholar
Kostyack, John. 1997. Habitat Conservation Planning: Time to Give Conservationists and Other Concerned Citizens a Seat at the Table. Endangered Species UPDATE 14(7/8):56–59.Google Scholar
Mann, Charles C., and Plummer, Mark. 1995. Noah's Choice: The Future of Endangered Species. Alfred Knopf, New York. 238 pp.Google Scholar
Noss, R., and O'Connell, Michael A., 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Oakerso, R. J. 1990. “Institutional diversity and rural development in America: An institutionalist's approach to rural studies.” In National Rural Studies Committee: a Proceedings, Castle, E. and Baldwin, B., eds. Western Rural Development Center at Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, pp. 43–53.Google Scholar
Ostermeier, D. M. 1999. “The Role of Institutions in Ecosystem Management” In Ecosystem Management for Sustainability: Principles and Practices Illustrated by a Regional Biosphere Reserve Cooperative, John Peine, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 457–474.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
Raiffa, Howard. 1982. The Art & Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 360 pp.Google Scholar
Reid, Walter. 1992. The United States Needs a National Biodiversity Policy. WRI Issues and Ideas Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Thornton, Robert D. 1997. “The No Surprises Policy Is Essential to Attract Private Dollars for the Protection of Biodiversity.” Endangered Species UPDATE 14(7/8):65–66.Google Scholar
Tobin, R. J. 1990. The Expendable Future: US Politics and the Protection Biological Diversity. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species. 1999. Habitat Conservation Plans/Incidental Take Permit. http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp/hcp/hcptable.pdf. 03 5.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D. S. et al. , 1996. Rebuilding the Ark: Toward a More Effective Endangered Species Act for Private Land. http://www.edf.org/pubs/Reports/help-esa/index.htm. 12 5.Google Scholar