Many land owners simply cannot afford to pursue it. For example, the government considers an HCP to be subject to consultation as a proposed federal action under ESA section 7, a process which is redundant and which creates several difficulties for the landowner, such as ongoing second-guessing by the agency and application of the irreversible commitment of resources prohibition. Also, the authority to require mitigation in the HCP and permit is relatively unqualified and has resulted in requirements which exceed by several degrees the effect of the activity which would be allowed under the permit. Given the expense and commitment inherent in an HCP, landowners understandably are often willing to address more species than merely those listed. The government must recognize the benefit of addressing a number of species when the landowner chooses to do so.
Current policies tend to create impediments to multi-species HCPs.
Moreover, the Services have not applied HCP policies in a consistent manner, causing considerable delay and frustration among HCP applicants. While Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has instituted various policies which improve the HCP process, legislative changes are necessary to guarantee those improvements. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.