3 best practices to streamline habitat conservation plans

For state and local governments, utilities, and energy companies, navigating the complexities of both Section 7 and Section 10 pathways of Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance can be a demanding and nuanced process.

Understanding the critical differences between these regulatory tools allows applicants to identify the most appropriate mechanism based on project type, scope, and species considerations. From there, the focus should be on ensuring process efficiency, regulatory clarity, and successful project completion through each step of the process—whether it's a federal consultation under Section 7 or a non-federal applicant developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under Section 10.

Developing a regional HCP that enables economic development (such as housing development or critical infrastructure construction) while preserving ecosystems for endangered species often requires extensive data collection and analysis, stakeholder engagement, and regulatory review. These efforts take time, so an efficient plan development process is critical to stay on schedule and minimize uncertainty and costs.

Whether it’s a utility company needing to remove trees from a transmission corridor in the range of the northern long-eared bat, or a local government needing to permit development in golden-cheeked warbler habitat, how can applicants streamline HCP preparation and secure their incidental take permit faster?

Drawing on ICF’s experience developing HCPs, like our work with Santa Clara County, we’ve identified three best practices to make the planning and HCP development process more efficient.

1. Tackle uncertainty with better data

Uncertainty is one of the biggest barriers to efficient HCP development, especially when research regarding basic ecology or management needs of covered species is lacking. In such cases, reaching consensus with stakeholders and federal agencies can be challenging, leading to decision paralysis and stalled HCP development progress.

Applicants can invest in targeted studies to fill key data gaps. Using species distribution modeling and cost-effective tools to gather occurrence and habitat data reduces uncertainty by providing more complete, accurate, and reliable species information. This approach could reduce delays in HCP development and lead to more cost-efficient implementation by providing agencies and stakeholders with reliable species data.

ICF’s data collection for the Humboldt Redwood Company’s HCP is leading to simpler monitoring protocols that save time and money. Using robust statistical sampling designs, we implemented new HCP compliance monitoring protocols as part of the successful isolation of the company’s road network from salmon-bearing streams. We’re now using these results to help negotiate a streamlined compliance monitoring program as part of the HCP amendment process.

2. Leverage technology

Developing regional HCPs requires compiling, analyzing, and communicating environmental data in a way that facilitates consensus-driven decisions. Applicants benefit from a technology-enabled approach, ranging from predictive models that identify species habitat to web-based reporting and mapping tools. This approach can help streamline collaboration, improve transparency, and accelerate decision-making by enabling real-time data sharing and visualization through digital platforms.

As part of the Elliott State Research Forest HCP development, we designed and implemented a custom WayPoint data portal to support real-time collaboration and transparency. This secure, centralized platform enabled stakeholders—including state agencies, federal partners, and technical experts—to share spatial data, review draft materials, and track progress throughout the HCP process. By fostering open communication and data accessibility, we built trust among participants, streamlined document development, and ultimately contributed to the successful issuance of the incidental take permit.

We recently used a proprietary Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment (EDT) model for HCP applications for the Salinas River HCP. The model demonstrates how water supply and floodwater management operations affect steelhead abundance and productivity, and prioritizes conservation actions (e.g., passage improvements, habitat augmentation) with the highest potential to benefit populations. EDT is widely applicable across geographies and fish species, making it an important tool as aquatic HCPs become more prevalent.

It’s also worth exploring how applying AI and advanced modeling techniques could support faster plan development. Multi-agent AI systems may accelerate HCP development through distributed problem-solving to rapid implementation of quality assurance measures. While still emerging, these technologies show promise for improving efficiency and reducing costs.

3. Integrate your HCP with other environmental reviews

Obtaining an incidental take permit also requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 7 of the ESA. Expertise in these four areas is crucial to understanding the full project scope and potential risks:

• Ensuring a focused and efficient process
• Defining clear scopes of action
• Determining the appropriate level of NEPA review
• Preparing legally defensible analyses that meet regulatory requirements

This approach helps to minimize legal risks and avoid schedule delays by anticipating regulatory challenges early and aligning HCP development with NEPA and Section 7 requirements.

ICF regularly prepares both the HCP and NEPA documents for a particular permit and supports project proponents through consultation processes under Section 7. We developed both the HCP and environmental impact statement (EIS) for American Electric Power regarding the American burying beetle in Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas. The EIS was the first to be published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to meet the 150-page limit requirement in 2018. Since then, we have prepared many NEPA documents for similar projects within the required page limits and time limits.

Understanding the key differences in regulatory requirements under Section 7 and Section 10, and how to develop HCPs to support USFWS’ findings under Section 7, makes the environmental review process more efficient.

Leading the way on faster approvals and fewer bottlenecks

As a member of the National HCP Coalition, our commitment to effective species conservation and regulatory efficiency was underscored in July 2025 when we joined other Coalition members in sending a formal comment letter to USFWS. The letter offered practical recommendations to broaden the applicability of regional HCPs while making them more adaptable and streamlined.

By applying the three best practices outlined here, you can demonstrate how smarter planning and technology reduce delays and improve outcomes. The result? More time spent implementing HCPs that support development and conservation—not paperwork.