Is the ECMSHCP Still Current?
The landowners have committed to implement the tenets of the ECMSHCP as part of their projects within the ECMSHCP area, including by following the geographic layout and design for landscape-level preservation of interconnected habitat, and through contributions to the Marinelli Fund.
Were the Incidental Take Applications Associated with the ECMSHCP Withdrawn?
The landowners originally submitted the ECMSHCP in support of combined applications for incidental take permits (ITPs) for activities spanning a 50-year planning period (ITP applications). After several years of review and discussion, the landowners decided to proceed with implementation of the tenets of the ECMSHCP on a project-by-project basis. With the support of their conservation organization partners, the landowners submitted applications for ITPs for activities to be undertaken within their own lands, and developed the ECMSHCP in connection with those applications. The ECMSHCP that was developed and submitted to the Service would preserve over 100,000 acres of high-value, interconnected habitats located within areas otherwise open to development in order to offset potential disturbance of listed species during construction and mining activities within a 45,000-acre area of low-habitat-value lands that are currently in large-scale agricultural use. As noted previously, the 100,000+ acres identified for preservation include valuable regional wildlife dispersal corridors that connect the vast public conservation lands in Southwest Florida, including the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, the Big Cypress National Preserve, Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, and the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, and can support expansion of the Florida panther’s range and population, as well as dispersal of other protected species. Implementation of the ECMSHCP would also generate tens of millions of dollars in contributions to the Paul J. Marinelli Fund to finance additional species protection measures.
After working with the Service on review of the ECMSHCP for more than a decade, the landowners concluded that several important steps remained to be completed before the Service would be prepared to issue ITPs that would be acceptable to the Service and the landowners, and some planned projects had reached a point at which the landowners needed to proceed with project-specific reviews and incidental take authorization rather than continuation of consultation on the ITP applications. In July 2022, the landowners withdrew their ITP applications. However, the landowners and their conservation partners continue to believe that the basic framework for the ECMSHCP, as reflected in its core tenets, offers significant conservation benefits beyond those typically achieved through individual project planning, and therefore have committed to continue following the tenets of the ECMSHCP. The ECMSHCP and the withdrawal letter are available through the link below.
Does Implementation of the Tenets of the ECMSHCP Require USFWS Approval?
The landowners are free to implement the tenets of the ECMSHCP voluntarily as they proceed with their projects, such as by following the ECMSHCP’s geographic layout and design for landscape-level preservation of habitat. The Service will, as part of its Endangered Species Act (ESA) review of a project, consider aspects of a project’s design and layout, including preservation of habitat (such as the habitat preservation provided for under the ECMSHCP). Such habitat preservation may become a required condition of a permit or review.
A habitat conservation plan (HCP) is only required when an application for an ITP is submitted. Even where an ITP application is submitted, the Service considers an ITP application “a voluntary action by an applicant” and recognizes that “an HCP is the applicant’s document.” See HCP Handbook at 2-7, 3-2. When the Service issues an ITP it authorizes incidental take, not the HCP itself. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1539(a)(1)(A) (ITP authorizes take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity), (a)(2) (applicant for ITP must submit an HCP that the Service finds meets certain requirements). The elements of an HCP may, however, become required terms in an ITP. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2) (ITP “shall contain such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate”). Similarly, a landowner’s commitment to implement the tenets of an HCP may become required conditions of a project permit or of an incidental take authorization under an incidental take statement. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4).
What Assurance is there that the Tenets of the ECMSHCP Will Be Implemented?
The landowners, their conservation partners, and other stakeholders all have strong interests in the successful, continued voluntary implementation of the tenets of the ECMSHCP in connection with future projects in the area. For the landowners, implementation of the ECMSHCP tenets is an important part of their project planning, including mitigation to offset project impacts. It also provides value to future residents and businesses in the area, who will benefit from and enjoy large expanses of nearby private lands placed under permanent preservation and who are likely to support the conservation value of these activities as well as some added costs resulting from preservation of this land and contributions to the Marinelli Fund. The landowners appreciate and value the support of their conservation partners and other stakeholders for implementation of the ECMSHCP tenets. Finally, a landowner’s commitment to implement the tenets of an ECMSHCP as part of a project may become binding conditions of a permit or incidental take authorization associated with that project. See, e.g., 16
U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4).