Misplaced Pages

#764235

106-539: The importance of preserving rare species was legally recognized in 1973 when the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into federal law. The purpose of the ESA is not only to protect species that have been listed as threatened or endangered, but also to conserve the ecosystems upon which those species depend. In aiming to protect species in danger of becoming extinct, the ESA prohibits actions that have

212-488: A "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation", the ESA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973. The Supreme Court of the United States described it as "the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species enacted by any nation". The purposes of the ESA are two-fold: to prevent extinction and to recover species to

318-541: A PhD marine biologist by training (Oregon State University, 1969), who had transferred from his post as the senior scientific adviser to the Commandant of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, office of the Commandant of the Corps., to join the newly formed White House CEQ. The staff, under Dr. Train's leadership, incorporated dozens of new principles and ideas into the landmark legislation but also incorporated previous laws, as

424-502: A component of the written decision. Rather, geographic boundaries of operation were set to preclude direct impact on the several populations of the endangered Tiehm's buckwheat . The buckwheat example also displays the lack of scalar considerations regarding species uniqueness and ecological importance, as these were not components of the 2022 listing decision nor of the environmental permitting decision required for lithium mining. Scientific expertise alone determines if an animal or plant

530-482: A habitat-based HCP rather than a species-based HCP is that, if prepared properly, a single HCP would theoretically benefit multiple species or an entire ecosystem rather than only protecting the species listed under the ESA. Once the target species or habitat type to be considered in the HCP have been identified, the geographic boundaries of the planning area need to be established. It is important to be precise when defining

636-422: A hierarchy of priorities based first on the magnitude of threat, then upon its imminence, and finally upon taxonomic distinctiveness (with monotypic genera ranked ahead of other species, and full species ranked ahead of subspecies). Requirements that listing decisions be made based on scientific evidence and considerations, coupled with an inability of the agencies to expand and contract staffing based on shifts in

742-523: A lack of scientific integrity in the federal program." Among the faculty expressing views in a University of Pennsylvania report, one drew attention to an underlying shift in national worldviews during the past half-century: The Act "reflects the confidence of mid-20th century liberal politics that any problem can be fixed with legislation based on scientific data," yet pragmatic solutions that require flexibility have been hindered and polarization has become intense. An academic review paper in 2008 reported that

848-576: A payment to a fund or purchasing mitigation credits. To ensure the effectiveness of the HCP, it is essential for monitoring to be implemented throughout the development of the action/project and following its completion. HCP monitoring programs are recommended to incorporate the following features: Every HCP is required to identify the funding that will be provided for its implementation. Sufficient funding must be provided for all proposed activities, including those relating to any necessary surveys, monitoring programs, mitigation programs, and construction of

954-539: A potential financial loss. As well, while the standard to prevent jeopardy or adverse modification applies only to federal activities, non-federal activities are subject to Section 10 of the Act, and private activities on private lands may require federal discretionary permits (such as those required by the Clean Water Act , Section 404) and thereby triggering Section 7 of the ESA. Controversy sometimes roils when

1060-423: A potential to result in an incidental take of said species. This portion of the HCP is where the applicant provides a detailed comprehensive description of the proposed action/project, which can vary in depth based on the scale of the project and HCP area. For the purpose of long-term planning, applicants are encouraged to include any actions that they have control over that are reasonably foreseeable to occur during

1166-474: A regular HCP. USFWS and NMFS will review the HCP and determine if it may be considered within the low-effect category or not. In requesting a permit that will authorize the incidental take of a listed species, the applicant must determine the extent of the potential take. To do this, the methods for calculating incidental take must be established. First, the number of individuals of each species, or number of acres of specific habitat, of concern that occur within

SECTION 10

#1732791392765

1272-545: A revision to the listed entity." Critics of the Act have noted that, despite its goal of recovering species to the point of delisting, this has rarely happened. As of 2023 (fifty years after its passage), an aggregate of 1,780 species had been listed through the years as endangered or the less severe category of threatened. Of that total, 64 species improved enough to be removed from the list. Another 64 improved enough to be "downlisted" from endangered to threatened. While 11 species have been declared extinct since implementation of

1378-594: A similar international convention. In February 1973 a meeting in Washington, D.C. was convened. This meeting produced the comprehensive multilateral treaty known as CITES , or the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 provided a template for the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by using the term "based on

1484-427: A species is listed, the statutory imperative to prevent extinction precludes scalar considerations in federal permitting of development projects. Economic or other societal benefits, no matter how significant, are not to impede upon scientific decision-making in assessing the degree to which a project would subject a listed species to additional extinction risk. An historic example is the 1978 judicial decision in favor of

1590-604: A species-by-species basis. As of 2023, the most recent report to Congress was by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and presented expenditures cumulative through fiscal year 2020. The report entailed these statistics: "Of the 1,388 status reviews completed, 93 percent (1,294) recommend no change in status for the species, 3 percent (40) recommend reclassifying from endangered to threatened, 3 percent (38) recommend delisting (22 due to extinction, 13 due to recovery, and 3 due to error), 1 percent (13) recommend reclassifying from threatened to endangered, and less than 1 percent (2) recommend

1696-484: A specific allotment of incidental take by the landowner. HCPs are designed to be flexible to accommodate a range of projects that vary greatly in size and scope, from single-property developments to hundreds of thousands of acres involving multiple parties. An HCP created for construction of a single-family home on a 0.44-acre lot in Scotts Valley, California proposed mitigation and minimization measures aimed at

1802-509: A specific habitat type found within the HCP area is selected as the focus of the HCP by the permittee and USFWS/NMFS based on the species known to use the habitat. The habitat-based HCP must consider all sensitive species known to use the particular habitat type and all of their habitat-related needs. All species considered within the habitat-based HCP may be included under the Incidental Take Permit. The benefit of developing

1908-620: A tiny fish (the snail darter ) — even though that decision halted construction of a dam that was already underway on the Little Tennessee River . A listed plant example of non-scalar approaches to endangered species management happened in October 2024. While a federal permit was awarded for a new lithium mining project in Nevada, the purported societal and climate benefits of lithium for electric vehicle manufacturing were not

2014-422: Is calculated based on the factors discussed above, it is up to UFSWS and NMFS to determine if the proposed incidental take should be authorized. When evaluating the estimated level of take, the following criteria (outlined in ESA section 10(a)(2)(B)) are employed to determine if the incidental take is acceptable: The HCP must be consistent with these criteria before being approved for an Incidental Take Permit. If

2120-474: Is certified as a distinct species, rather than a mere variety of an existing species. An academic dissertation informing the listing decision for Tiehm's buckwheat concluded that, of all the species of genus Eriogonum in Nevada, "seven of the thirteen non-tiehmii taxa appear to be close relatives." The author included in his final paragraph the challenges of non-scalar approaches to environmental decision-making: The battle of human need versus habitat conservation

2226-505: Is considered a landmark conservation law. Academic researchers have referred to it as "one of the nation's most significant environmental laws." It has also been called "one of the most powerful environmental statutes in the U.S. and one of the world's strongest species protection laws." The Act itself has been amended four times: 1978, 1982, 1988, and 1992. Formal regulations published in the Federal Register that specify how

SECTION 20

#1732791392765

2332-502: Is considered unlawful "harm". The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are the lead agencies tasked with the implementation of the ESA and are therefore responsible for regulating prohibited and allowable activities. While the primary objective of the ESA is the protection of endangered species, and the take of such species is considered unlawful,

2438-425: Is constant. The situation Tiehm’s buckwheat finds itself, stuck between conservation of its ~25,000 individuals or eradication to allow access to needed resources, is certainly complicated. There are potential services it could provide that are yet to be discovered. If mining were to commence it is unlikely to survive and those services could be lost. If the mining operation is halted or modified to protect E. tiehmii ,

2544-476: Is greater. A widely used statistic supporting effectiveness of the Act is that 99 percent of listed species have not gone extinct. In 2012 the Center for Biological Diversity issued a report that surveyed a sample of 110 listed species and concluded that 90 percent of them were recovering "at the rate specified by their federal recovery plan." On the opposing side of the spectrum, a foundation associated with

2650-443: Is not available or sufficient for the requirements of the HCP, biological studies must be completed to supplement this requirement. If a biological study is determined necessary, USFWS and NMFS can suggest appropriate methods based on the species of concern. After sufficient biological information has been collected for each of the species included in the HCP, the applicant must provide a discussion of all proposed activities that have

2756-409: Is successfully implementing the approved HCP, USFWS and NMFS will not require revisions be made to the accepted plan (such as additional mitigation) if unexpected circumstances arise. Habitat conservation plans may vary to some degree in content; however, there are certain elements that are universally required. Inclusion of the following is required of every HCP: Once the degree of incidental take

2862-507: Is that, unlike the previous legislation, plants became eligible for listing. Section 12 directed the Smithsonian Institution "to review (1) species of plants which are now or may become endangered or threatened and (2) methods of adequately conserving such species, and to report to Congress, within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the results of such review including recommendations for new legislation or

2968-703: The Migratory Bird Conservation Act , a 1937 treaty prohibiting the hunting of right and gray whales, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Despite these treaties and protections, many populations still continued to decline. By 1941, only an estimated 16 whooping cranes remained in the wild. By 1963, the bald eagle , the U.S. national symbol, was in danger of extinction. Only around 487 nesting pairs remained. Loss of habitat, shooting, and DDT poisoning contributed to its decline. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tried to prevent

3074-553: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). FWS and NMFS have been delegated by the Act with the authority to promulgate any rules and guidelines within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement its provisions. Calls for wildlife conservation in the United States increased in the early 1900s because of the visible decline of several species.  One example

3180-399: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service . In practice, recovery plans usually include population targets and "objective, measurable criteria" that would constitute adequate reduction of threats and provision of habitat protection" such that delisting (or down-listing from "endangered" to "threatened") would be warranted. The 1973 Act introduced

3286-534: The 1972 ban of the pesticide DDT by the EPA , rather than the Endangered Species Act. Supporters of the Act argue that listing these species as endangered led to additional actions that were also crucial for species recovery (i.e., captive breeding, habitat protection, and protection from disturbance). Among the most difficult species to protect are mussels because they depend on adequate amounts of clean and flowing freshwater. Home to approximately 300 mussel species,

Habitat Conservation Plan - Misplaced Pages Continue

3392-487: The Act had become "a social, legal, and political battleground" and that "the scientific question of whether the ESA works effectively to protect species remains open." Specific challenges and long-term controversies are summarized in this section. Because the Act allowed species to be listed as endangered without consideration of the economic consequences, it soon became and continues to be controversial. Costs conferred on private landowners and various industries may come in

3498-409: The Act will be implemented have also changed through time. In recent years, U.S. presidential elections that greatly shift environmental priorities have culminated in regulatory shifts in endangered species management back and forth. Congressional elections also affect implementation of the Act via expansions or contractions in annual funding decisions for the agencies. A distinction of the 1973 Act

3604-543: The Act's outcomes and controversies. Congressional overturning of several recent listings and ability to hamper implementation by restricting agency funding were among the points mentioned by some media. In contrast, a foundation associated with the Western Caucus of U.S. senators and representatives issued a 116-page report in 2023 titled "The Endangered Species Act at 50", with a subtitle expressing its primary criticism that "a record of falsified recoveries underscores

3710-418: The ESA has been "weaponized," particularly against western states, constraining state government choices about the use of public lands. The case of the protracted dispute over the greater sage-grouse is one such example, and the spotted owl is another. In the extreme is the largely western saying pertaining to endangered animals, such as wolves: " shoot, shovel, and shut up ." Rep. Don Young (Alaska),

3816-1011: The ESA in 1982, the process of habitat conservation planning has been steadily gaining momentum. Between 1982 and 1992, the USFWS had approved a total of 14 HCPs and had issued 14 incidental take permits. As of December 2005, over 430 HCPs had been officially approved, varying in size and scope, with many more in the development phase. Congress addressed taking restrictions in the 1990s by creating additional agreements to assist in species recovery. Instituted by USFWS and NMFS, safe harbor agreements and candidate conservation agreements are incentive-driven and voluntary. Because of their greater flexibility for property owners, these agreements are likely to become more popular. Similar to HCPs, Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs) are voluntary agreements between non-federal landowners and USFWS or NMFS. SHAs encourage landowners to create, enhance, or maintain habitat for threatened or endangered species on their property. Prior to

3922-557: The ESA is not absolute. In 1982, amendments were made to the 1973 ESA which authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to allow the take of federally listed species (Endangered Species Act, Section 10a(1)(B)). When non-federal activities that would otherwise be legal have the potential to result in the take of a listed species for example, they may be allowed under an Incidental Take Permit, obtained through

4028-531: The Endangered Species Act was enacted, Congress recognized that at any given time there were likely to be more species potentially eligible for listing than the Service could address through the rule-making process. As a result, Congress in 1979 directed the Service to develop a prioritization system that would enable it to determine which of the potentially eligible species should be considered first. The Service responded with listing priority guidance that established

4134-402: The HCP is being developed but are anticipated to be listed within the active duration of the permit; in which case, the HCP would need to be revised to include the newly listed species and may further delay the proposed action. Habitat-based approach An alternative method to developing a HCP for target species of concern is to develop a HCP for a particular habitat type. Under this approach,

4240-414: The HCP planning area or affected species. The purpose of a steering committee is to provide the applicant with direction, guidance, advice, and assistance in developing the HCP. Although the development and participation of a steering committee is not a requirement in preparing a HCP, it can be found valuable in facilitating the HCP process when multiple groups with differing interests and opinions regarding

4346-401: The HCP will be developed for. All federally listed animal species that have the potential to be impacted by the proposed action/project must be included in this list. Additional unlisted species may also be considered in the HCP. Including these additional species may be beneficial in some cases, if the proposed action has the potential to impact species that are not federally listed at the time

Habitat Conservation Plan - Misplaced Pages Continue

4452-606: The HCP, including population abundance, to determine allowable levels of take. The Court found for the Plaintiffs and remanded the decision to issue the Incidental Take Permits to USFWS. Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( ESA or "The Act"; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. ) is the primary law in the United States for protecting and conserving imperiled species. Designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as

4558-478: The Interior to acquire land or interests in land that would further the conservation of these species. The Department of Interior issued the first list of endangered species in March 1967. It included 14 mammals, 36 birds, 6 reptiles, 6 amphibians, and 22 fish. A few notable species listed in 1967 were the grizzly bear , American alligator , Florida manatee , and bald eagle . The list included only vertebrates at

4664-582: The Pacific leatherback sea turtle ; the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon ; the southern resident population of killer whale ; and the white abalone . Human activities are presented as the primary cause of extinction threats for all these species. The two implementing agencies have a combined record of changing species status from threatened to endangered on nine occasions, while the number of status improvements from endangered to threatened

4770-499: The State of California passed a law that prevented killing or removal of the western variety of Joshua tree wherever it was found. Climate change risk was a key factor in the determination. The Act distinguished two grades of species for listing: "endangered" and a lesser category called "threatened". An endangered species is in danger of extinction now; a threatened species faces such a threat in "the foreseeable future." The aim for

4876-399: The USFWS. To mitigate the take of listed species, Section 10 of the ESA requires that parties wishing to obtain an Incidental Take Permit must submit a conservation plan, hereafter referred to as a "Habitat Conservation Plan" or "HCP," with their application. In determining the party to prepare a HCP and application for an Incidental Take Permit, two primary factors must be considered; first,

4982-426: The Western Caucus of U.S. senators and representatives issued a 116-page report in 2023 that points to data and statements made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the past half-century that can be interpreted as disputing proclamations of success. Specifically, statements of numbers of species "recovered" do not distinguish between those delisted owing to actual improvement in populations versus those for which

5088-589: The acres of habitat anticipated to be affected by the proposed project. Once the number of individual species or acres of habitat are confirmed, the probability that proposed activities will result in the take of a species must be evaluated. After an allowable level of take is determined, the applicant may begin to prepare the mitigation program. Because projects requiring an Incidental Take Permit are so diverse, applicable mitigation measures should be equally diverse; therefore, limits and rules are not established for this process. Common mitigation measures often include

5194-510: The active permit period. Low-Effect HCP Due to the varying degrees by which a species may be impacted from a project, the Low-Effect HCP category is established to distinguish projects that are expected to have "minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats or environmental values or resources". Low-Effect HCPs have a simplified and shortened application/approval process compared to

5300-1011: The agreed-upon baseline conditions. Landowners are not bound indefinitely to SHAs and can either renew or let the agreements expire. This allows landowners to freely manage their property, including development, as long as they maintain baseline conditions. As of 2009, USFWS had entered into over 70 SHAs. Similar to SHAs, Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs) are voluntary agreements between private or public parties (including landowners, state, local, and federal agencies) and USFWS or NMFS. CCAs aim to protect candidate species that are in decline and vulnerable to becoming endangered if measures are not taken to protect their habitat. CCAs encourage landowners to create, enhance, or maintain habitat for these species on their property. CCAs do not provide assurances for landowners or authorize incidental take. Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) are voluntary agreements between non-federal landowners and USFWS or NMFS. CCAAs provide assurances and authorize

5406-469: The agreement, landowners and agencies establish baseline conditions for the habitat to be capable of supporting the species. The agency provides assurances to the landowners and guarantees that, if the conditions of the SHA are met, the landowners will not be subject to any additional requirements than previously agreed upon. Incidental take by the landowner is authorized as long as the species does not fall below

SECTION 50

#1732791392765

5512-435: The amendment of existing legislation." As a result, the first plant listings occurred in 1977. Fifty years later, significantly more species of plants were listed in the highest category (endangered) than animals: 766 plants and 486 animals. Historians attribute this new-found concern for imperiled plants to ongoing global treaty negotiations (especially in 1972 and 1973) toward what would eventually be adopted in 1975 under

5618-472: The arbiters of how numerical statements of extinction risk should be gauged in context of other kinds of national risks and priorities. In a multi-author report published in 2016, the Ecological Society of America explained how this kind of controversy develops: Any decision to list a species also requires a policy judgment regarding how much risk to that species is acceptable. Science can inform

5724-539: The beetle's habitat. Alternatively, the large-scale HCP created for 269,769 acres of the Headwaters Forest in Northern California near Eureka dealt with the largest old-growth redwood ecosystem in the United States. The threatened northern spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis caurina ) and marbled murrelet ( Brachyramphus marmoratus ) rely on the large redwoods for nesting as well as

5830-419: The best scientific and commercial data." This standard is used as a guideline to determine if a species is in danger of extinction. In 1972, President Nixon declared current species conservation efforts to be inadequate. He called on the 93rd United States Congress to pass comprehensive endangered species legislation. Congress responded with a completely rewritten law, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which

5936-401: The boundaries of the HCP area and the species within that area to be included in the HCP, current biological information for each of those species must be obtained. Data pertaining to the species' ecology, geographical distribution, and occurrence is required and may be available from existing sources. Guidance for locating this information is provided by USFWS and NMFS. If existing information

6042-480: The concept of what is now called "critical habitat" in only one brief passage. Section 7 required federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorized, funded, or carried out would not result in "the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical." When the Act was amended in 1978, "critical habitat"

6148-580: The day played a prominent role in raising public awareness about the losses. For example, George Bird Grinnell highlighted bison decline by writing articles in Forest and Stream . To address these concerns, Congress enacted the Lacey Act of 1900 . The Lacey Act was the first federal law that regulated commercial animal markets. It also prohibited the sale of illegally killed animals between states ( interstate commerce ). Other legislation followed, including

6254-453: The decision by determining the degree of risk a species faces, but science alone cannot determine whether the risk is acceptable.... Stakeholders with divergent views about acceptable levels of extinction risk frequently mount legal challenges over whether species need to be listed, whether they are endangered or threatened, how much habitat represents a "significant portion" of a species' range, and other key elements of ESA implementation. Once

6360-407: The discussion of possible alternatives, the permittee must explain why each of the alternatives was deemed unsuitable and not chosen as the proposed project. In the development phase of the HCP process, applicants are encouraged to consider elements that have the potential to change over time. Given the unpredictable nature of the future, it would be impossible to prepare for every situation that has

6466-457: The eastern region of the USA is the center of global diversity for these freshwater molluscs . However, 65 percent of them are threatened or endangered. The 1988 Congressional amendments to the Act included a new section, Section 18, to aid effectiveness evaluations by having each of the two implementing agencies periodically report cumulative federal funding (and, to some degree, state funding) on

SECTION 60

#1732791392765

6572-612: The enacting legislation to carry out the provisions outlined in The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill , the Supreme Court found that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." The Act is administered by two federal agencies,

6678-517: The endangered Alabama beach mouse ( Peromyscus polionotus ammobates ) did not fulfill the requirements of ESA section 10(a)(2)(B) requiring the development of "a mitigation program that will minimize and mitigate the impacts of the proposed taking to the maximum extent practicable". Additionally, the Plaintiff argued that there was insufficient biological data for the Alabama beach mouse species in

6784-437: The endangered Mount Hermon June beetle (Polyphylla barbata) and Ben Lomond spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana). Measures for the 5,856 ft project included no development on the land where the spineflower is located and elimination of non-native plants growth on the land to prevent competition. Measures to protect the beetle took into account breeding and flight activities and proposed landscaping to promote

6890-441: The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker . A study of some 1,000 privately owned forest plots within the range of the woodpecker found that when landowners observed pine growth maturing to a stage in which it might attract nesting woodpeckers, they were more likely to harvest – regardless of timber prices at the time. This is a form of intentional habitat destruction for avoiding economic consequences. Legislators have expressed that

6996-542: The environment." The Endangered Species Act is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS handles marine species , and the FWS has responsibility over freshwater fish and all other species. Species that occur in both habitats (e.g. sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon ) are jointly managed. As amended, it consists of 18 sections. Key legal requirements include: The 1973 Act

7102-407: The estimated level of take is determined to exceed allowable amounts by USFWS and NMFS, the HCP must be revised to further reduce the potential for take. This is often most easily achieved by increasing the amount of land that will remain undisturbed. Implementing Agreements are made between the permittee and USFWS/NMFS to assure that the permittee will follow through on their obligation to implement

7208-495: The extinction of these species. Yet, it lacked the necessary Congressional authority and funding. In response to this need, Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act ( Pub. L.   89–669 ) on October 15, 1966. The Act initiated a program to conserve, protect, and restore select species of native fish and wildlife. As a part of this program, Congress authorized the Secretary of

7314-626: The first HCP was created in 1983 for San Bruno Mountain in San Mateo County, California . Congress wanted the San Bruno Mountain HCP to serve as a model for future HCPs in that it was created from "an independent exhaustive biological study" and that it considered the habitat of the mission blue butterfly (Aricia icarioides missionensis) "to allow for enhancement of the survival of the species". This model has drawn concern because it focuses more on species survival, while

7420-415: The following: The general goals of a mitigation program are to offset the immediate incidental take by either positively contributing to the species as a whole or to the objectives of the recovery plan designed for that species by USFWS. Mitigating for habitat loss Most projects requiring an Incidental Take Permit involve impacts to, or losses of, habitat. Mitigating for habitat loss requires either

7526-401: The form of lost opportunity or slowing down operations to comply with the regulations put forth in the Act. Notably, in 1978 the listing of a tiny fish (snail darter) shut down for several years construction of a dam that was already underway on the Little Tennessee River . More broadly, the requirement to consult with the relevant agencies on federal projects has at times slowed operations by

7632-422: The geographic boundaries of the HCP area must be determined. Subsequently, incidental take may be calculated based on the number of animals expected to be "killed, harmed, or harassed" as a result of the proposed action/project. If the applicant is incapable of determining the number of individuals/acres that occur in the area or the number that are expected to be impacted, incidental take may be calculated based on

7738-424: The global need of lithium may begin to outweigh the supply, and potentially cause delays in technological advances that are aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. As of 2023, an aggregate of 1,780 species had been listed through the years as "endangered" or a less severe category of "threatened". While 99% of the total species are still alive, critics have pointed out that only 64 species improved enough to be removed from

7844-467: The intent of HCPs is to aid species recovery; and has resulted in HCPs being frequently challenged in court. In Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 15 F. Supp. 2D 1274 (S.D.Ala.1998) , the Plaintiff challenged the USFWS issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the developers of two beachfront condominium projects based on the HCPs submitted as part of the application process. The Plaintiffs argued that the HCPs created for

7950-421: The land area to which the HCP will apply, with regards to impacts associated with the proposed action, to circumvent potential problems in later phases of the development process. The geographic boundaries of the HCP should encompass all areas that will be directly impacted by the proposed action and any areas where an incidental take has the potential to occur as a result of the proposed action. After delineating

8056-670: The law began, another 23 species have gone missing for so long that they have been proposed for official designation as extinct. The National Marine Fisheries Service lists eight species (or populations of a species) as among the most at risk of extinction in the near future. These animals are the Atlantic salmon ; the Central California Coast coho salmon ; the Cook Inlet beluga whale ; the Hawaiian monk seal ;

8162-510: The lesser category is to enable protective actions by federal agencies at an earlier time, such that the causes of population decline might be corrected before emergency concerns develop. Controversy also arises as to whether and what differences in recovery plan elements, and thus management policies and restrictions, should distinguish "threatened" from "endangered." The Act specifies the types of causes to be identified in species decline, any one of which might be severe enough to merit listing

8268-448: The list ("delisted"). Another 64 improved enough to be "downlisted" from endangered to threatened. Only 11 species have been declared extinct after they were listed, but another 23 species have gone missing for so long that they have been proposed for official designation as extinct. Some have argued that the recovery of imperiled flesh-eating birds (notably, the bald eagle , brown pelican , and peregrine falcon ) should be attributed to

8374-456: The list of protected species. While the 1966 Act only applied to 'game' and wild birds, the 1969 Act also protected mollusks and crustaceans . Punishments for poaching or unlawful importation or sale of these species were also increased. Any violation could result in a $ 10,000 fine or up to one year of jail time. Notably, the Act called for an international convention or treaty to conserve endangered species. A 1963 IUCN resolution called for

8480-557: The longest-serving Republican congressman, said in 2018, "As the one person in the Congress, the only one, that voted for the Endangered Species Act, please beat me with a whip." Some economists have stated that finding a way to reduce such perverse incentives would lead to more effective protection of endangered species. One suggestion for ending perverse incentives would be to compensate property owners for protecting endangered species, rather than having an endangered species regarded as

8586-489: The mitigation program identified by the HCP. They are individually tailored for HCPs and include all applicable permit conditions and requirements of the parties involved. They are signed by all parties, thereby establishing the intent of adhering to the terms identified by the HCP. Implementing Agreements are not required of every HCP; they are most often utilized for large-scale projects involving multiple parties and are rarely used for Low-Effect HCPs. Since its inclusion in

8692-410: The oil and gas industry, including exploration or development on federal lands rich in fossil fuels. One widely held opinion thus is that the protections afforded to listed species curtail economic activity. In the extreme, economic consequences can induce perverse incentives by which landowners actively curtail their lands from attracting endangered species. An example in the eastern USA pertains to

8798-415: The only interested party. For large-scale projects such as those covering a region of land rather than a single property, or those with multiple interested parties rather than a single landowner, the permittee may be a group such as a local or governmental agency. For large-scale projects, applicants have the option of forming a steering committee composed of persons, such as stakeholders, with an interest in

8904-424: The original population numbers were later found to have been greatly underestimated. Had the science been more in line with reality at the start, this report claims 36 of the 62 species reported by the agency as officially recovered would not have achieved listing at the outset. Controversy also develops when the science used to support a delisting decision differs from the numerical population thresholds included in

9010-416: The party must be capable of overseeing the implementation of the HCP once approved and second, the party must be capable of funding the implementation of the HCP. Beyond these requirements, parties can vary based on the scope of the proposed action. For example, a single landowner may be the sole preparer of a HCP if they intend to obtain an Incidental Take Permit for an action on their own property and they are

9116-492: The point where the law's protections are not needed. It therefore "protect[s] species and the ecosystems upon which they depend" through different mechanisms. For example, section 4 requires the agencies overseeing the Act to designate imperiled species as threatened or endangered. Section 9 prohibits unlawful 'take,' of such species, which means to "harass, harm, hunt..." Section 7 directs federal agencies to use their authorities to help conserve listed species. The Act also serves as

9222-576: The points of contention. Ultimately, federal authority over enforcement of endangered plant protections has centered on regulation of interstate commerce of such plants. This legal distinction for plants became controversial in practice when a group of citizens, Torreya Guardians , chose to help an endangered glacial relict plant, Florida Torreya , move to cooler poleward climates before conservation professionals were ready to begin their own experimentation with assisted migration of endangered species. Because movement of seeds and seedlings by this group

9328-427: The potential to arise. For this reason, an assurance policy is incorporated in the HCP process. No Surprises Policy The No Surprises Policy is designed to protect Incidental Take Permit-holders from having to make future revisions to their approved plan due to unforeseen circumstances. This means that once a permittee has prepared a HCP deemed adequate by USFWS/NMFS, has been issued an Incidental Take Permit, and

9434-447: The potential to result in a "taking" of any listed species. The term "take" under the ESA refers to any attempt or action involving the harassment, harm, pursuit, hunting , shooting, wounding, killing, trapping , capturing, or collecting of any listed species. Under this definition, the alteration of habitat that results in injury to, or death of, any listed species by preventing essential behavior (such as breeding, feeding or sheltering)

9540-409: The project are involved. After the applicant and steering committee members have been determined, consultation with USFWS and NMFS is recommended to ensure that responsible parties have a thorough understanding of requirements and resources available for the development phase of the HCP. Once the applicant has decided to initiate the development of a HCP, they must identify the species of concern that

9646-485: The proposed action/project; however, these attributes vary from project to project. It is typically expected that the extent of mitigation should mirror the proposed impact. For example, if a project will result in permanent destruction of habitat, mitigation measures will likely require either the creation of new habitat or the protection of habitat, and mitigated habitat should be permanently protected. Similarly, mitigation for Low-Effect HCPs and small projects may involve

9752-425: The proposed project. Funding amounts and contributors will vary based on the scale of the proposed project. Projects impacting large areas of land, for example, typically require funding from multiple sources. The HCP must identify all financial contributors and planned allocation of funds. Permittees are required to include a discussion of other options, besides the proposed action/project, that would not result in

9858-441: The proposed taking. It is common for this discussion to include two alternatives; one being a "no action" alternative under which a permit would not be issued and the proposed project would not be developed, the other being a specific project alternative that would result in a reduced impact/take than the proposed project. All alternatives considered during the permit application and HCP development process must be included. Following

9964-433: The replacement or protection of habitat within the HCP area or at another location. This may be accomplished through a variety of methods including: Examples of habitat mitigation programs In general, it is recommended that habitat mitigation be located reasonably close to the location of habitat impacted by the proposed action/project, provide similar habitat types, and support the same species expected to be impacted by

10070-399: The species as threatened or endangered. Also known as the "five factors", the set of possible causes entail: A key provision of the 1973 Act was that "preventing extinction" would no longer be sufficient. Rather, "recovery" of listed species, such that "delisting" could become possible, was now a stated goal. "Recovery plans" were now to be developed and published by the two agencies in charge:

10176-440: The species recovery plan. A 2012 court case upheld that the published recovery criteria are not legally binding for later delisting decisions. Listing of a species "triggers two overlapping types of conservation measures: extinction prevention and recovery actions." An official document required by the Act has come to be known as a recovery plan . The Act "gives few guidelines for their preparation and content and does not specify

10282-810: The threatened coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ), who are dependent on the habitat's stream for spawning . Pacific Lumber Company , Scotia Pacific Holding Company, and Salmon Creek Company (collectively known as PALCO) created an HCP in 1998 that addressed road building and timber harvest as the greatest threats to the species. The resulting extensive mitigation and monitoring measures provided strict restrictions for land use, including buffers and operational limitations in riparian areas with active murrelet nests. The HCP also maintained that northern spotted owl nesting, roosting , and foraging habitat be provided and maintained. The environmental community and landowners take different stands on HCPs. Strengths: Weaknesses: The number of approved HCPs has grown since

10388-525: The time because of the Department of Interior's limited definition of "fish and wildlife." The Endangered Species Preservation Act was repealed by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 ( Pub. L.   91–135 ) amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. It established a list of species in danger of worldwide extinction. It also expanded protections for species covered in 1966 and added to

10494-651: The timing of a petition to list a new species overlaps with plans for or initiation of a development project that could be impeded by such a listing. A news editorial marking the 50th anniversary of the Act suggested that "the ESA became the weapon of choice for environmental groups seeking to stop projects or tear down others. Lawsuits by the score have been filed over projects large and small, setting off ill feelings toward environmental groups." The Act points to science professionals as "solely" responsible for making extinction risk assessments. Governmental policies as shaped by various and changing public interests are necessarily

10600-400: The title, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ( CITES ). Prior to this time, attention to the conservation needs of native plants had been stalled by complications that do not pertain to animals. How to adequately distinguish plants illegally collected in the wild from plants propagated from seeds or cuttings taken from horticultural specimens was among

10706-469: The volume of outstanding petitions, induced Congress in 1982 to amend the Act by establishing deadlines for agency decisions. As of 2023, those deadlines still nominally apply, but in practice it is rare for a petitioner to approach the judicial system to force a decision before the agency is able to finish the job on its own timetable. In 2023, with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) achieving its 50th anniversary, journalists were prompted to report on

10812-427: Was desired by Congressman John Dingell (D-Michigan) when he first proposed the idea of an "Endangered Species Act." Among the staff, Dr. Bertrand is credited with having written major parts of the Act, including the infamous "takings" clause, 16 U.S.C.   § 1538 . "We didn't know what we couldn't do," Dr. Bertrand has said about the Act. "We were doing what we thought was scientifically valid and right for

10918-413: Was given a definition and basic terms for how it would be determined and used. (As will be seen in the "Controversies" section, this provision was sometimes challenging to implement for both scientific and political reasons.) A review of the Act published in 2009 recounted the unavoidable problems that arose from granting opportunities even for citizens to submit petitions for species listing: Soon after

11024-477: Was noncommercial and based on horticulturally produced specimens, there was no legal apparatus to halt their actions. Another distinction is that, when an animal is listed as endangered or threatened, "taking" of that animal (by capture or killing) becomes a violation of the Act. For plants, "taking" occurs only within the boundaries of federal properties. Even so, states may choose to legislate and enforce prohibitions even on private lands, as occurred in 2023 when

11130-588: Was signed by Nixon on December 28, 1973 ( Pub. L.   93–205 ). It was written by a team of lawyers and scientists, including Dr. Russell E. Train , the first appointed head of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), an outgrowth of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Dr. Train was assisted by a core group of staffers, including Dr. Earl Baysinger at EPA, Dick Gutting, and Dr. Gerard A. "Jerry" Bertrand,

11236-445: Was the near-extinction of the bison , which used to number in the tens of millions. Similarly, the extinction of the passenger pigeon , which numbered in the billions, caused concern. The whooping crane also received widespread attention as unregulated hunting and habitat loss contributed to a steady decline in its population. By 1890, it had disappeared from its primary breeding range in the north central United States. Scientists of

#764235