Builders Support Several Provisions in Habitat Reform Bill

 Print Article

But there?s a concern the proposal in its current form may lead to more regulation, litigation
RISMEDIA, April 29-The nation?s home builders are supporting most of the reforms in H.R. 2933, the ?Critical Habitat Reform Act of 2003,? a conservation measure designed to ensure species? protection and accommodate the needs of the communities and states where they reside. But there are some concerns over the proposal.

?We believe that several provisions within H.R. 2933 offer a real legislative solution to the current crisis regarding critical habitat. However, we are concerned that the requirement in the bill linking critical habitat designations to the recovery planning process may unintentionally create a new litigation threat and place a higher regulatory burden on landowners,? Don Walters, Jr., a home builder and developer from Flagstaff, Ariz., and president of the Northern Arizona Home Builders Association, recently told the House Resources Committee.

Testifying on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), Walters said that this designation would blur important distinctions between the guidance of recovery plans and the regulation of critical habitat. For example, he noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has used recommendations from working drafts of the recovery plan for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl as justification for density requirements.

Several other provisions in the bill designed to protect the environment and allow local communities to expand and thrive were endorsed by NAHB, including the exclusion of habitat conservation plans and other species management and conservation plans from critical habitat designations.

?By codifying these important practices, the legislation would provide powerful incentives to private landowners to continue entering into such agreements to ensure species conservation and preservation,? said Walters.

The legislation would also require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take into account the direct, indirect and cumulative economic impacts when designating critical habitat and would establish statutory definitions for two key terms relating to critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act ? ?geographical area occupied by the species? and ?essential to the conservation of the species.?

?Protecting our nation?s wildlife in a way that is cost-effective and clarifying the meaning of these terms will help to ensure that common-sense conservation policies and programs ? and not litigation ? will drive the critical habitat designation process. With the notable exception of linking critical habitat and recovery planning, NAHB believes that H.R. 2933 makes great strides in this direction,? said Walters.

RISMEDIA welcomes your questions and comments. Send your e-mail to:
editorial@rismedia.com