| Endangered Species Act |
|
|
|
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of the most powerful of this nation's environmental laws. Passed in 1973, the act's purpose is to both conserve and restore species that have been listed by the federal government as either endangered or threatened (referred to as "listed" species). The act has several provisions that promote those goals:
Endangered Species Act
Key Concepts Endangered Species Threatened Species Species Federal Agencies Responsible for Endangered Species Tribes and the ESA Listing Take, Harm Critical Habitat Recovery Plan Experimental Population Delisting Process Essentials: Section 7 Consultation Informal Consultation Formal Consultation Process Essentials: ESA Tools for the Landowner Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) No Surprises Policy Permit Revocation Rule Conservation Banks Safe Harbor Agreement Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances Process Essentials: Categories of Protection Listed Species Proposed Species Candidate Species Plants and Animals Species Listed With or Without a Critical Habitat Designation Process Essentials: ESA Exceptions or Exemptions Scientific Purposes, Including Experimental Populations Incidental Takings Endangered Species Committee Exemptions Controversies Recovery Crediting Reform by Regulation Special Rules for National Fire Plan Consultation Collaboration in Action Grizzlies on Hold WGA Sagebrush Conservation Council ESA Legislation in the 110th Congress Links Key ConceptsEndangered SpeciesIf an animal or plant species is listed as "endangered," the species is considered to be in danger of extinction throughout a large part of its range. It is possible that a species can be listed as endangered, the highest level of protection the act provides, in one place but not another. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maintains a list of endangered species.Threatened SpeciesFor a species to be listed as "threatened," there must be a significant risk that the species is going to become endangered. Threatened species have a lower risk of extinction than do "endangered" species. As a result, state and federal agencies may have some greater flexibility in how they manage a threatened species than an endangered species. The USFWS maintains a list of threatened species.SpeciesGenerally speaking, a "species" is a group of related plants or animals that can interbreed to produce offspring. Under the ESA, the word "species" is used more broadly to include any "subspecies" of fish, wildlife, or plants, and also any "distinct population segment" of fish and wildlife species that can interbreed.
Federal Agencies Responsible for Endangered speciesThe Secretary of the Interior has delegated most of his or her duties under the ESA to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which is responsible for all land-based species. The Secretary of Commerce has delegated most of his or her responsibilities for sea life and salmon and steelhead ("anadromous fish" that spawn in inland waters, migrate to the ocean for several years, and then return to their spawning grounds) to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).Tribes and the ESA
Secretarial Order Principals:
Many tribes believe that the ESA should not apply to tribal lands both because the Act itself is silent on its applicability to tribes, and due to the special legal status of tribal lands. Additionally they saw conflict between their proposed economic development projects and enforcement of the ESA and felt that implementation of the ESA was giving control of their lands to persons living hundreds of miles away. As a result of these concerns, there were extensive negotiations between tribal representatives and federal officials that resulted in a 1997 Secretarial Order outlining the policy to be followed by the Departments of Commerce (for NMFS) and the Interior (for USFWS).
The Secretarial Order sets out five principals for the Departments. The order also includes explanatory text that emphasizes the sovereignty of tribes including a provision that "the Departments shall give deference to tribal conservation and management plans". Overall, the Order seeks to "ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species". An example of the success of this cooperative approach is the experience of the White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona with restoration of the Mexican gray wolf, Apache trout, and Mexican spotted owl. Listing
Best Available Science
"Listing" refers to the process by which a species is formally designated as a threatened or endangered species. Currently there are more than 1,260 species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Anyone can submit a petition to the federal government to have a species listed. However, that petition must include scientific information that explains why listing is necessary. The two federal agencies that receive petitions are the USFWS and the NMFS. These agencies have a year to evaluate the species for listing. Either agency can also start the process without a petition.The ESA requires that USFWS and NMFS base listing decisions on the best available science and also to use this science as one factor in critical habitat designations. In 2003, a GAO report found procedures in place at USFWS to base listing decisions on best available science. In that report, however, the GAO cited continued concerns over agency use of best available science in critical habitat designations. More recently, critics have charged that both listing and critical habitat decisions have been tainted by political interference. In late 2007, an Idaho District Court judge ruled that USFWS must reconsider its refusal to list the greater sage grouse under the ESA and the USFWS decided to revisit a number of decisions on listing, critical habitat and recovery plans that may have been tainted by political interference by Julie MacDonald, a former Department of the Interior political appointee. After evaluating the species, the agency has three options:
Endangered or Threatened in Part of its Range In March 2007, the USFWS adopted a policy that allows it to list a species in a portion of the species's range. The pollicy is controversial with critics claiming that it will allow the agency to avoid listings and restoring species' historic ranges. For an application of this policy to the Bonneville cutthroat trout, see FWS to reconsider listing Bonneville cutthroat trout , Land Letter 2/14/2008.
Take, harmThe ESA has broad provisions to prevent extinction of plant and animal species. The act prohibits anyone from "taking" a species that has been listed as threatened or endangered. "Take" can be as simple as hunting, shooting or killing a listed animal species. It can also include "harming" a listed species by activities that cause major changes to habitat and leave an animal unable to feed, breed, or find shelter.Critical habitatWhen the federal government lists a species as endangered, it is also supposed to identify that species' critical habitat. Critical habitat includes those areas that are important for the species' survival or recovery and which need special management. While a designated critical habitat area is not intended to include all of the potential habitat of the species, it can include habitat that is not currently occupied by the species. The federal government is required to use the best available scientific information in making a decision about critical habitat. The agency can also consider economics when deciding what areas should be designated as critical habitat, although it does not consider economic impacts when it "lists" a species.The Secretary of the Interior is not allowed to designate critical habitat at a military site if the Secretary decides that the military site has a resource management plan in place that benefits the affected species. In advocating for this relatively new provision, the Pentagon claimed that this provision is necessary to maintain high standards of military training. For more information on critical habitat, see "Species Listed With or Without a Critical Habitat Designation." For more on the controversy of excluding public lands from critical habitat designations, see FWS tweaks policy for critical habitat designation on federal lands , Land Letter 3/13/2008 Recovery plan
For additional information, see GAO Report: Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species Are Largely Unknown. For an example of a recent recovery plan and economic analysis, see Recovery plan released for endangered bighorn sheep, Land Letter 2/14/2008.
National Wildlife Federation v. State of Idaho
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided in April 2007 that federal agencies must consider potential impacts of proposed actions on both species survival and on a species' chance of recovery. This analysis is necessary when developing a biological opinion to evaluate whether an agency action will result in jeopardy to the species. For more information on this case, see Court's salmon ruling strengthens enviros' hand on species recovery. For text of the decision and more information on the endangered salmon litigation, see National Wildlife Federation v. State of Idaho, No. 0635011p - 04/09/2007. Experimental PopulationAn "experimental population" is a group of individuals of an endangered species that has been established outside the current range of the animals. Animals may be reintroduced to their historical range or to new areas because there is insufficient habitat in the animals' traditional range. Experimental populations are considered threatened, not endangered, and "taking" individual animals is permitted under certain circumstances. Protections of experimental populations vary widely, depending on whether the population is considered "essential" or "nonessential" for species survival. Designation as a "nonessential experimental population" under the 10(j) rule of the ESA assures that endangered species are fully protected from intentional harm, but keeps their presence from restricting current and future land management practices. Use of this special designation helped reduce concerns raised by local communities, landowners and political entities about the intentional release of endangered species that might enter and remain on public lands in their region. The reintroduction of gray wolves to their traditional range in Wyoming and the California condor to its historic range in Arizona are examples of experimental populations that are considered "nonessential" to survival of the species.DelistingThe process for "delisting"—removing a species from either the endangered or threatened list, or changing its status from endangered to threatened—is similar to the formal listing process. The process starts with a notice published in the Federal Register. Delisting may include requirements for special management plans to help ensure a healthy population in the future. For example, USFWS required the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to have approved wolf management plans in place before the gray wolf was delisted in their states in 2008. Fearing that hunting allowed by the state management plans will soon decimate the wolf populations, environmental groups have sued to challenge the delisting.
Anatomy of a Delisting — the Bald Eagle
Process Essentials: Section 7 ConsultationSection 7 of the ESA has been at the center of much of the debate over endangered species protection. Section 7 says that federal agencies must make sure that none of their actions, or any action they authorize or fund, is likely either to jeopardize the existence of a listed species or to damage its critical habitat. To meet this requirement,federal agencies considering taking some action—from selling timber to re-issuing a grazing permit or permitting a new dam—must "consult" with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), for land-based species, or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in the case of sea life or salmon and steelhead. The agencies usually use an informal process to determine whether formal consultation is necessary.Informal Consultation
COURTS DECIDE THAT CONSULTATION IS NOT REQUIRED:
Typically, the agency that wants to take an action will informally consult with USFWS or NMFS, asking whether there are any proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat in the project area. If the answer is "yes", then the consulting agency (also know as the "action agency") must do a biological assessment (BA) to assess what impact its action might have on the species or habitat. The contents of the BA are left to the discretion of the action agency, but USFWS regulations suggest the following:State Clean Water Act Programs In June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that EPA does not have to consult with USFWS when it empowers states to issue certain Clean Water Act permits Once they have primacy, the states can follow their own more lenient rules regarding endangered species protection in issuing permits. National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, S. Ct., June 25, 2007 Forest Service Management Plans In early 2007, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that implementation of a Forest Service land and resource management plan (LRMP) does not necessarily require consultation under the ESA. The standards, guidelines, policies, etc.of a plan are not "agency actions" requiring consultation with USFWS. Forest Guardians v Forsgren, 10th Circuit, February 23, 2007
In December 2003 several land management agencies, USFWS, and NMFS adopted new regulations that exempt National Fire Plan projects from the informal consultation process. For more details on these regulations, see Controversies: Special Rules for National Fire Plan Consultation
Formal ConsultationIf a federal agency informs the USFWS or NMFS that a proposed action might affect any proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat (typically done as part of a BA), the agencies begin a formal consultation process. In this process, the USFWS or NMFS prepares a biological opinion (BO)—a detailed evaluation of the impacts on the species and critical habitat—based on the BA produced by the action agency. The BO thoroughly explains the current status of the species and describes how the proposed action would affect the species. The USFWS (or NMFS) can come to one of three conclusions in its BO:The agency then has to explain how it concluded that the action would, or would not, jeopardize the species that is the subject of the opinion.
For more information on consultation, see the USFWS ESA web site. Process Essentials: ESA Tools for the LandownerParticipation by private landowners is extremely important to the protection and recovery of listed species because many listed species depend on private lands for habitat during at least part of their lives. Several federal policies and grant programs are designed to help landowners cooperate in protection of listed species.Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is developed to help protect species from being harmed by activities on private lands and, at the same time, to protect private landowners from liability under the ESA. Sometimes, a private landowner finds out that a planned project (for example, a housing development) may harm or "take" an endangered species. By developing an HCP, the non-federal entity can get the permits it needs to proceed. An HCP outlines what actions the private party plans to take in order to minimize, or mitigate, the impact of his or her actions on the endangered species. When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) signs off on an HCP, it generally gives permission to the private party to "take" endangered species as an incident to the development activity (issues an "incidental take permit"). Plans can be developed for listed threatened or endangered species and for other rare species. Including unlisted species in an HCP can provide for early protection for the species that might keep it from needing to be listed in the future.
Forests and Fish HCP
For more information on HCPs, see the USFWS Habitat Conservation Planning website.The largest HCP in the West covers 9.3 million acres of mostly private forest land in Washington — about 20 percent of the state. The plan attempts to protect salmon by:
No Surprises PolicyIn an effort to encourage private property owners to protect endangered species and their habitat, federal agencies have developed a "no surprises" policy that can be written into an HCP. This policy promises the private landowner that if he or she develops an HCP in good faith and the federal agency later concludes that additional measures (e.g., protection of more land) are needed to protect the endangered species, the federal agency cannot require the private landowner to do anything more than what he or she already has committed to do. In other words, the private party who commits to helping to conserve an endangered species doesn't have to be worried about a "surprise" down the road.Permit Revocation RuleWhen the USFWS approves an HCP plan, they issue an "incidental take" permit that prevents the private property owner from being prosecuted if an endangered species is incidentally killed or injured during the development. Because several conservation groups and an Indian tribe were concerned that there would be no recourse for a species is peril of extinction, the USFWS created a new rule, the permit revocation rule which allows the agency to revoke incidental take permits, despite the "no surprises" policy, when incidental takes would "appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild."For more information on Incidental Take Permits, see Process Essentials: ESA Exceptions or Exemptions . Conservation BanksOne way developers can fulfill a promise to mitigate damage to a species is through the use of conservation banks. Conservation banks are lands acquired and managed for specific endangered species. The lands are usually protected permanently by conservation easements . Once a conservation bank is established, the "banker" may sell a fixed number of "mitigation credits" to developers to offset adverse effects of the developer's project on a species. These effects may include destruction of some of the species' habitat or disturbance of the species from increased activity in the area of the development.The banks operate on the theory that species conservation will be most effective, and people will be most willing to participate in conservation efforts, if everyone benefits from conserving species. Conservation banking benefits all parties:
Safe Harbor AgreementSome private landowners are unwilling to adopt conservation measures that improve habitat for threatened or endangered species on their land for fear that their future development decisions would then be limited by the presence of the endangered species. Unfortunately, that restricts the amount of privately owned land available for use by threatened and endangered species. Safe Harbor Agreements are designed to get around this conflict. The agreements assure landowners who voluntarily improve habitat for endangered species that their future land development won't be limited if they attract endangered species to their property or increase their numbers.Title V of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a healthy forests reserve program for the purpose of restoring and enhancing forest ecosystems to improve biodiversity, enhance carbon sequestration, and to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species. The program provides both funding and technical assistance to landowners who volunteer to enroll their land. Safe harbor agreements and other assurances will be made with the landowners as part of the program. For more information on the reserve program, see Healthy Forests Restoration Act: Title 5. Candidate Conservation Agreements with AssurancesCandidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA) are agreements made between the USFWS or NMFS and landowners. These formal agreements are created to address the specific conservation needs of a particular species, in hopes of keeping it off of the endangered or threatened species lists. The private parties to these agreements voluntarily commit to manage their land and water to decrease current and future threats to a species, so that the population of that species may thrive without federal protection. In exchange, the owners receive assurances from the agency, much like the "no surprises policy" of an HCP, that they will not be required to do more than what they agreed to when they entered the agreement. In order to receive the assurances, the landowner's management activities must significantly contribute to eliminating the need to list the covered species. Species covered in a CCAA may include both animals and plants, and either candidates for listing or species that have already been proposed as threatened or endangered.Process Essentials: Categories of ProtectionNot all species are created equal under the ESA. Different categories of species receive different protection. There are three types of species in the ESA listing process:
Listed Species: Endangered or ThreatenedA "listed species" is any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that has been determined, through the full, formal ESA listing process, to be either threatened or endangered. Endangered species receive the full protections of the ESA—protection from "takings" and other specific prohibited acts (like commercial trade in the species), designations of critical habitat, requirements for Section 7 consultations, and recovery plans. Threatened species are protected with critical habitat designations, Section 7 consultations, and recovery plans, but they are only protected from takings and other prohibited acts if the USFWS or the NMFS decides it is necessary to do so.Proposed SpeciesA "proposed species" is any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that has been formally proposed for listing as either a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. The USFWS or the NMFS publishes a proposal to list the species—a "proposed rule"—in the Federal Register, prior to making a final decision to list the species by publishing a "final rule." Proposed species are not protected from "takings" or other prohibited acts, but the USFWS or NMFS can propose critical habitat for them. Federal agencies must follow the Section 7 consultation process for proposed species in order to avoid jeopardizing the species or destroying its proposed critical habitat.Candidate Species"Candidate species"are plants and animals on a "waiting list" for threatened or endangered status. This means the USFWS or NMFS has sufficient information to list these species, but other, higher-priority species have to be listed first—the agency has concluded that a listing is "warranted but precluded." Candidate species are not legally protected under the ESA, but USFWS and the NMFS encourage partnerships to protect them because effective conservation might reverse their decline and ultimately eliminate the need for ESA protection.Plants and AnimalsUnder the ESA, plants and animals have the same protections from most "prohibited acts"—import-export, possession, transport, or commercial dealing in the species. They have similar protections from more direct harm: it is illegal to kill, harm, harass, or even hunt (collectively called "take") listed animal species; listed plants cannot be picked, dug up or destroyed. Animals are protected from these actions on all lands, but plants are only protected on federal lands unless there is a state law that also protects them.Species listed with or without a critical habitat designation
Critical Habitat Working Group
Only about 12 percent of listed species have a designated critical habitat area. According to the USFWS, a critical habitat designation affords little extra protection to most listed species. The agency has, therefore, used its limited staff and funding to list more species rather than spending resources on designating critical habitat. In some cases, the agency decides not to designate critical habitat in order to better protect the species. Sometimes a critical habitat designation may do more harm than good because of public hostility to the designation, because it makes a species like a rare cactus easier to locate, or because of misconceptions about the lack of value to the species of land outside the designated critical area.At the request of several Senators interested in ESA reform, The Keystone Center hosted discussions on critical habitat. Much of the group's work explored a potential new approach to habitat protection that would build on three interdependent components:
For more information, see The Keystone Center website. Having a critical habitat designation only gives extra protection to a species if there is a federal agency involved, and then only under certain circumstances. If there is no federal agency involved in a project (for example, when a landowner builds a housing development on private land without federal funding or a federal permit), there is no extra protection for the species if the land has been designated as critical habitat. If a federal agency is involved (e.g., in issuing a permit for the housing development), a critical habitat designation may make a difference during the Section 7 consultation process. In a Section 7 consultation, the agency must consult with the USFWS or NMFS to ensure that its actions will not jeopardize the survival of the species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In most places, ensuring that its actions won't jeopardize survival of the plant or animal, provides at least as much protection as protecting the species' critical habitat. Protecting its critical habitat could provide extra protection to the species if the land being developed were currently "unoccupied" by the species, but were nonetheless important to its future survival. Designation -- or not -- of critical habitat for the Canadian lynx in Colorado illustrates this controversy. See, FWS proposal expands critical habitat for Canadian lynx, Land Letter, 3/6/2008 . Process Essentials: ESA Exceptions or ExemptionsThe ESA provides strong protection for threatened and endangered species, but a few exceptions to the law are available through the USFWS, the NMFS, or the Endangered Species Committee after following a formal application process. These exceptions/exemptions allow individuals or agencies to do a variety of things that are otherwise prohibited, like transporting or even causing the death of a listed animal, without fear of prosecution. The most common exceptions are for:Scientific Purposes, Including Experimental PopulationsThe USFWS and the NMFS can issue permits for scientific purposes or for projects that enhance the propagation or survival of the species. For example, the agency might issue a permit for a project designed to establish or maintain a new population of wolf, lynx, or condor. While the intention of the recovery team would be to better understand the species to help it survive, biologists might harass an animal while trying to capture it and might even inadvertently kill it in transport. Or the team might need to intentionally kill it for a special medical test or because an individual from an experimental population threatens livestock.Incidental takingsUSFWS or NMFS can issue permits to either federal agencies or private landowners for taking a species (harming or killing it or destroying its habitat) if the taking is "incidental to," and not the purpose of, the action. To apply for this kind of permit, the individual, corporation, or state or local government has to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The permit applicant must describe actions he or she will take to minimize and mitigate impacts to the species. The applicant must also justify why there is no reasonable way of completely avoiding a potential taking.Endangered Species Committee exemptions
Criteria for an exemption:
Federal agencies have a special duty under the ESA to make sure that their actions don't harm threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. If an agency completes the Section 7 consultation process and is told that its proposed action is likely to jeopardize a species or damage its habitat, the agency can apply for an exemption that would enable it to go ahead with its proposed action (e.g., building a visitor center, operating a dam, or issuing just about any kind of permit or license). The project permitee or licensee, or the governor of the state affected by it,can also apply for the exemption. The final decision on whether to grant an exemption is made by the Endangered Species Committee (the so called "god squad") after following an elaborate public process. The seven-member committee includes several cabinet members, the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and other high-level appointees.
When granting an exemption, the committee must develop reasonable mitigation and enhancement measures to minimize the negative impacts of the agency's action. The committee has been convened only three times—for the snail darter fish in Tennessee, the spotted owl in Oregon and the whooping crane in Nebraska. ControversiesRecovery Crediting"Recovery crediting," is a conservation tool being proposed to provide incentives for private landowners to conserve endangered species and act as environmental stewards of the nation's natural resources. The recovery crediting system would work like other mitigation banks – the system would create a "bank" of credits that federal agencies can accrue through conservation actions on non-federal lands. Agencies could later use these conservation credits to offset the effects of their actions on the species on federal lands. Proponents argue that agencies will benefit in terms of greater flexibility in their operations on federal land; landowners will benefit from revenue for managing their land for the species; and the species will benefit in having more habitat being managed and protected. Skeptics of the system, like the Center for Biological Diversity, question a program that allows the destruction of habitat on public lands in exchange for arguably less secure protection of the species on private lands. The Center is particularly critical of the Ft. Hood, Texas pilot project where recovery crediting is being tested to mitigate military exercises that threatened the golden-cheeked warbler and other birds. Here, the Center charges that there is little accountability for federal dollars going to private landowners because public knowledge and oversight of the program is very restricted.For draft guidance on the USFWS policy, click here. Reform by RegulationChanging agency regulations — rather than enacting new legislation — to change the way public resources are managed is not new. The Clinton administration did it with the Roadless Rule, Forest Service planning regulations, new mining reclamation regulations, and other executive branch actions. The Bush administration reversed (or tried to reverse) most of those changes and has aggressively used both formal and informal rulemaking processes to make its own changes in public lands management. Examples include agency categorical exclusions from NEPA, Clean Air Act regulations and proposed grazing regulations.Many of these proposed or final rule changes have been controversial with both the public and Congress. The Bush Administration's draft proposals to substantially change rules regarding endangered species quickly raised the ire of both Congress and the public in early 2007. The draft regulatory changes, included many of the changes that Republicans had unsuccessfully sought to make through ESA reform in previous sessions of Congress. After the draft proposal was leaked in March 2007, the USFWS quickly denied that the proposals represented current thinking on regulatory reform even though the draft, written in June 2006, was revised in February 2007. For more information on the ESA regulatory proposals, see "Bush admin wants to give states more control over protections" in Land Letter, March 29, 2007 and "House appropriators urged to block ESA changes, drilling on public lands" in Greenwire, May 1, 2007.
Agency Guidance and the Interpretation of 'Endangered Species'
If reform by regulation is controversial, major changes through guidance documents really make people mad! In March 2007, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued a guidance memorandum (M-37013) to the Director of FWS. If it is not retracted, as some critics have requested, FWS will only consider the present range - not the historic range - of species when determining if a species is in danger of extinction "throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Special Rules for National Fire Plan ConsultationIn December, 2003, several federal agencies jointly enacted regulations designed to streamline the consultation process on proposed projects that support the National Fire Plan. This alternative consultation process eliminates the need to conduct informal consultation with USFWS and NMFS for National Fire Plan projects. Under the new process, the USFWS or NMFS will develop an Alternative Consultation Agreement (ACA) with action agencies (Forest Service,Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service). With an agreement in place, USFWS or NMFS will train the agencies to make independent determinations of whether their fire plan projects are likely to adversely affect protected species. Projects might include prescribed fire, thinning and removal of fuels, emergency stabilization, burned area rehabilitation, road maintenance and ecosystem restoration. This process is designed to accelerate the rate at which the agencies process fire projects without changing the actual standards for Section 7 consultations.
ACA 2006 Update
Alternative Conservation Agreements must include:
For a copy of the new regulation and the agencies' justification of it, see Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations in the Federal Register. For a copy of the ACA, see the USFWS web page on consultation. For other USFWS recommendations for streamlining Section 7 consultation, see the agency's memorandum on Alternative Approaches to Section 7.
Will fuels reduction projects jeopardize endangered species?
In evaluating the effects of fuels reduction projects on species, the USFWS balances short-term effects of fuels treatment—including destruction of endangered and threatened species' habitat—against long term benefits of the projects. Long-term benefits may include:
Collaboration in ActionGrizzlies on Hold
The Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho and Montana provide an example of a highly controversial collaboration on hold. In the Bitterroots, the prospect of grizzly bear reintroduction under the ESA spurred creative collaboration. Many view the bear as a "blood thirsty predator" while others "celebrate it as the living symbol of wilderness." A coalition of conservationists,timber mill owners, and timber workers designed a citizen management committee for the federal government's reintroduction plan. The plan,finalized by USFWS under the Clinton Administration would have established a management committee of fifteen members nominated by the governors of Montana and Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe. Additional members would also represent the U.S. Forest Service and the USFWS. The plan charged the committee with making decision that would "lead toward recovery of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem and minimize social and economic impacts." If the plan is ever implemented, this committee will be the first of its kind to share management authority with the USFWS. While the USFWS adopted the plan in late 2000, the Department of the Interior under Gale Norton initiated a process to kill the plan by proposing to adopt a "no action" alternative for grizzly reintroduction. After receiving thousands of comments in support of the reintroduction, as well as strong opposition to it from Idaho and the Idaho congressional delegation, the Department has neither implemented the plan nor followed through with officially abandoning it. WGA Sagebrush Conservation CouncilFollowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision not to list the sage grouse as endangered, the Western Governors Association (WGA) established a Sagebrush Conservation Council to assist locally established sage grouse working groups. The council assists groups—about 60 in 11western states—when they need coordination across political boundaries and the involvement of decision-makers. The council also provides assistance to activate groups and bring together concerned individuals,organizations and agencies. The council will serve as a reliable,broad-based resource for local working groups as they develop and complete sage grouse conservation plans, begin implementing them, and,in some cases, develop broader conservation plans for sagebrush habitat that will benefit other species.WGA has also weighed in on broader ESA issues. Following their Endangered Species Summit in December 2004, the governors recommended that:
ESA Legislation in the 110th CongressS658 Endangered Species Reform Act of 2007S658 would amend provisions of the Endangered Species Act regarding listing, recovery planning, and delisting of species.
H1422/S700 Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2007H1422/S700 would allow property owners whose property includes habitat for endangered or threatened species and who enter into habitat protection agreements a tax credit for costs related to habitat protection easements and restoration costs. The bill would also allow a tax deduction for costs of recovery plans approved by the Endangered Species Act and exclude certain payments under other federal species protection programs from gross income.
Endangered Species Compliance and Transparency Act of 2007H2530 would require the administrators of four power administrations to provide information to customers regarding each customer's share of his/her administration's cost of compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The bill would also require the administrators to provide the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works with an annual report estimating Endangered Species Act compliance costs on a project-by-project basis.
H1507 Salmon Economic Analysis and Planning ActH1507 would require the Secretary of Commerce to make an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct research concerning the effectiveness of salmon recovery plans and the effects of global climate change and other limiting factors on salmon recovery plans. The bill would also require the Comptroller General to study the effects of removing four specified dams to help salmon and require the Comptroller to study the accuracy of cost estimations in a specified Environmental Impact Statement.
H3459 Transparent Reporting Under ESA Listing Act (TRUE Listing Act)H3459 would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to publish the scientific basis for a decision regarding listing or delisting of endangered or threatened species or designation or revision of critical habitat at the same time that the decision is published. The bill also states that any changes to an explanation of scientific basis under the bill must have all amendments attached as addenda; the original document may not be amended.
H1917 Species Rescue ActH1917 would require consultation and conferencing regarding the effect of federal flood control actions on endangered and threatened species to take place within 60 days of the initiation of such actions. The bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, any other federal land management agency, or a state conservation agency, to remove endangered and threatened species or suitable habitat for such species from areas that will be affected by federal flood control actions.
LinksPublic Laws and RegulationsEndangered Species Act of 1973, 16 USC sections 1531 to 1544.The text of the ESA can be viewed at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service web site. READ MORE >> Endangered Species Act Regulations Can be found in 50 CFR sections 17.1 to 17.23. READ MORE >> Federal AgenciesU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAn extensive web site with information on the USFWS's Endangered Species Program, including information on species, and species lists,laws, publications, and links to other agencies and sites about ESA. READ MORE >> National Marine Fisheries Service The NMFS website has general information on the ESA and specific information on the role of the NMFS in implementing it. The site also focuses on marine-related life in general. READ MORE >> Other ResourcesEndangered Species LinkA site listing web links under a wide array of topics. It has good definitions and is very easy to navigate. The web site covers just about every possible aspect of the ESA. READ MORE >> Defenders of Wildlife The Defenders web site, has a section on ESA with an explanation of how it works, success stories, and a discussion of misinformation about the ESA and its consequences. READ MORE >> National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition The National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition is a group of organizations dedicated to improving the ESA. The web site has information about effects of the ESA, including the negative effects.The site includes news and op-ed pieces, as well as a map linking to lists of species for each state. READ MORE >> |
|||||||||||
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 29 April 2008 ) | |||||||||||
Related Items
- Kempthorne taking a hard look at changes to ESA
- FWS proposes delisting gray wolves without Wyoming
- Wyoming officials, enviros question wolf delisting plan
- Senator Crapo readies new ESA bill
- Bald eagle delisting muddled by 'disturb' definition
- New guidance minimizes species' historic range in listing decisions
- Yellowstone grizzlies lose ESA protection
- Bush admin wants to give states more control over protections
- Political appointee pressured scientists to fix ESA findings — IG report
- Senator Crapo readies new ESA bill
- Senate Dems press Kempthorne on 'troubling' ESA rewrite
- Prominent scientists question Interior's ESA guidance
- House appropriators urged to block ESA changes, drilling on public lands
- House Dems slam Interior for politicizing ESA decisions
- House lawmakers ask Interior to halt ESA rewrite
- Enviros fear Supreme Court ruling creates ESA 'loopholes'
- Interior delists bald eagle
- Supreme Court limits ESA's reach, sides with developers
- FWS to review species decisions
- Coalition For Otero Mesa
- FWS program allows outsourcing of conservation efforts
- Malpai Borderlands Group
- Public Lands Partnership
- Scientists take to the Hill over administration's interference with endangered species
- FWS set to start ESA review for sage grouse as states develop their own plan
- FWS lists prairie dog populations in Colo., N.M. under ESA
- Recovery plan released for endangered bighorn sheep
- Northern Rockies' gray wolves to lose federal protection
- USFWS Announces New Sage Grouse Review
- Hearing on USFS's use of fire retardant to continue today in Montana
- As FWS delists gray wolf population in Rockies, enviro groups prepare lawsuits
- Interior will decide on 71 endangered species listings proposals this year
- FWS proposal expands critical habitat for Canadian lynx
- Bald eagles once again protected in Arizona
- Northern Rockies Gray Wolf Delisted
- Suit seeks protection of 681 Western species
- Interior opposes Calif., Ariz. water recycling bills
- Cities wrestle with relocation rules for prairie dogs
- Parker Basin parcel sells at auction for $391,400
