Tucson Citizen.com
Views From Baja Arizona - brought to you by Hugh Holub

Posts Tagged ‘US fish and wildlife’

Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes To Revise Critical Habitat For Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Saturday, August 13th, 2011

Press Release from US Fish and Wildlife Service Ausugt 12, 2011:

Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes To Revise Critical Habitat For Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to revise critical habitat for an endangered migratory bird, the southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed revision identifies 2,090 stream miles within the 100-year floodplain of waters in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico as critical habitat. Of the total proposal, approximately 779 stream miles are currently being considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation. The Service is seeking input on the proposal, including exclusions, through October 14, 2011.

“Our proposal identifies riparian habitat needed to attain the established southwestern willow flycatcher recovery goals — the flycatcher habitat and populations that will remove the threat of flycatcher extinction,” said Steve Spangle, the Service’s Arizona field supervisor. “Now we’re seeking input to refine our strategy. Did we identity the features and areas essential to conservation of the species? What are the anticipated impacts of designating various areas?”

In 2005, the Service designated 737 river miles of flycatcher critical habitat (after initially proposing 1,556 river miles). The critical habitat is being revised following a settlement agreement stemming from legal challenges to the 2005 designation. The 2005 critical habitat designation remains in effect during the current rulemaking process, anticipated to be completed in one year.

The proposed critical habitat uses the conservation strategies from the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan and flycatcher movement data to identify river segments within each of 29 management units that would meet the flycatcher distribution and abundance (1,950 territories) recovery goals. Because flycatcher habitat and Southwest rivers are dynamic, a broad distribution of flycatcher populations throughout the bird’s range is important to retain population stability and gene flow, and to prevent simultaneous catastrophic loss of populations and local extirpation.

However, the Service recognizes that a substantial amount of the proposed areas are already being managed to accommodate or advance flycatcher recovery through Habitat Conservation Plans, tribal management, and other partnerships. Areas such as these, and areas where resulting economic and other relevant impacts may occur, can be excluded from the final critical habitat designation if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.

The Service is also preparing a draft economic analysis and environmental assessment of the proposed critical habitat that will be released for public review and comment at a later date.

Critical habitat is a term in the Endangered Species Act that identifies geographic areas essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, establish a refuge or preserve, and has no impact on decisions that private landowners make on their land that do not require Federal funding or permits.

Federal agencies that undertake, fund or permit activities that may affect critical habitat are required to consult with the Service to ensure such actions do not adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.

The 5¾-inch flycatcher breeds and rears its chicks in late spring and through the summer in dense vegetation along streams, rivers, wetlands, and reservoirs in the arid Southwest. The most recent 2007 flycatcher rangewide assessment described 288 separate flycatcher breeding sites (areas that contain a collection of territories) and estimated 1,299 flycatcher territories. A territory is a discrete area defended by a resident single flycatcher or pair of flycatchers during a breeding season. The flycatcher migrates to Mexico, Central, and possibly northern South America for the non-breeding season.

A copy of the proposed rule, maps and other information about the southwestern willow flycatcher is available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ or >http://www.regulations.gov“, or by contacting the Service’s Arizona Ecological Service Office at (602) 242-0210.

Comments on the proposal and relevant scientific and commercial information will be accepted within 60 days, on or before October 14, 2011, and can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov, or can be mailed or hand delivered to Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2-ES-2011-0053; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. Written requests for a public hearing will be accepted within 45 days, on or before September 29, 2011, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal or Division of Policy and Directives Management mailing address.

The ESA provides a critical safety net for America’s native fish, wildlife, and plants. This landmark conservation law has prevented the extinction of hundreds of imperiled species across the nation and promoted the recovery of many others. The Service is working to actively engage conservation partners and the public in the search for improved and innovative ways to conserve and recover imperiled species. To learn more about the Endangered Species Program, visit http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals, and commitment to public service.

For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov Connect with our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/usfws, follow our tweets at www.twitter.com/usfwshq, watch our YouTube Channel at http://www.youtube.com/usfws>

and download photos from our Flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwshq

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/

More photos:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/images/SpeciesImages/JRorabaugh/05-30-2000/BirdsB/Southwestern%20willow%20flycatcher%20on%20nest.jpg

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/images/Rorabaugh/Willow%20flycatcher%20Glendale%20AZ3%20D4.jpg

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/images/SpeciesImages/WIFL_AndreSilva_TNF.jpg

CLICK HERE TO SEE PROPOSED NEW RULE AND MAP OF IMPACTED AREAS

Included in the proposed habitat conservation area near Tucson are the Santa Cruz River from the Nogales Wastewater Treatment Plant to Chavez Siding Road, a portion of the Cienega Creek, and all of the San Pedro River. There have never been willow flycatchers in the Santa Cruz River south of Tucso.

Center for Biological Diversity press release August 12, 2011:

2,000+ Stream Miles of Critical Habitat Proposed for Protection of Endangered Desert Bird

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher to Gain Ground in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah

TUCSON, Ariz. In response to a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today proposed 2,090 stream miles as protected critical habitat for the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. If finalized, today’s proposal would substantially increase protection for the rare bird over a previous designation of 730 stream miles finalized by the Bush administration in 2005 and challenged by the Center.

“With today’s proposal, the southwestern willow flycatcher has a shot at survival,” said Noah Greenwald, the Center’s endangered species director. “Like so many species dependent on the rivers and streams of the Southwest, the southwestern willow flycatcher is on the brink of extinction and urgently needs more habitat protection.”

The proposed designation includes numerous important and well-known rivers, including the San Gabriel, Ventura, San Diego, Virgin, Colorado, Little Colorado, Gila, Rio Grande, and San Pedro.

“Protection of southwestern rivers for the flycatcher will benefit hundreds of other species and millions of people, too, who depend on these rivers for water and recreation,” said Greenwald. “There are so many benefits, economic and otherwise, of protecting endangered species that are often underappreciated.” 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is still considering excluding 779 stream miles it says are “already being managed to accommodate or advance flycatcher recovery through Habitat Conservation Plans, tribal management, and other partnerships.”

“Although we support the efforts of local governments or other entities to conserve habitat for the flycatcher, we believe all 2,090 stream miles should be designated as critical habitat,” said Greenwald. “In many cases, ongoing conservation efforts for flycatchers don’t take into account recovery of the rare songbird, or they’re voluntary and therefore uncertain.”

The flycatcher was listed as an endangered species in 1995 in response to a petition from the Center. According to a 2007 survey, there are roughly 1,299 territories spread across the species range with substantial populations on the upper Gila River and middle Rio Grande in New Mexico, Roosevelt Lake and the lower San Pedro in Arizona and numerous scattered locations in California.

Background on the Flycatcher
The flycatcher is a small, neotropical migrant bird that breeds in streamside forests of Southern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas and extreme northwestern Mexico. Within this range, the flycatcher has lost more than 90 percent of its habitat to dams, water withdrawal, livestock grazing, urban sprawl and other factors.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 320,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

COMMENTARY: When one looks at the proposed habitat conservation plan areas for the Willow Flyctacher, the chriricahua leapord frog and a number of other endangered species one finds that virtually all of the streams, rivers and watercourses in Arizona are covered.

The goal is pretty clear beyond just protecting the endangered species…radical limitations in access to water via state granted water rights, elimination of grazing on federally-managed lands, and other goals radical evironmental groups seek in the name of protecting endangered species but have everything to do with removing humans and their access to their water rights in the habitat conservation plan watersheds.

US Fish and Wildlife Gestapo busts mom over daughter saving baby woodpecker

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011

This news story from WUSA

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. (WUSA) — Eleven-year-old aspiring veterinarian, Skylar Capo, sprang into action the second she learned that a baby woodpecker in her Dad’s backyard was about to be eaten by the family cat.

Woodpecker-Saving Daughter Costs Mom $500, Possible Jail Time

 

“I’ve just always loved animals,” said Skylar Capo. “I couldn’t stand to watch it be eaten.”

Skylar couldn’t find the woodpecker’s mother, so she brought it to her own mother, Alison Capo, who agreed to take it home.

“She was just going to take care of it for a day or two, make sure it was safe and uninjured, and then she was going to let it go,” said Capo.

More…

What happened next was a US Fish and Wildlife agent spotted the kid with the woodpecker.

According to the news item “The problem was that the woodpecker is a protected species under the Federal Migratory Bird Act. Therefore, it is illegal to take or transport a baby woodpecker. ”

The US Fish and Wildlife agent cited the mom for a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Act with a $535 fine and possible jail time.

That was even though the kid let the woodpecker fly away.

The US Fish and Wildlife Agency is totally out of control, using the Endangered Species Act and other federal wildlife laws, to terrorize Americans and destroy our econopmy.

Congress needs to find out how much money US Fish and Wildlife has extorted from other federal agencies using the Endangered Species Act as its weapon.

And ask how many kids the agency has busted because all they wanted to do was save a baby bird.

America has a wildlife gestapo in its midst.

UPDATE: Now US F&W is blaming issuing the citation on a clerical error. Obviously some folks need to be fired.

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

Besides burying US Fish and Wildlife with petitions to list endangered species, and filing lots of lawsuits over the Endangered Species Act, litigious environmental groups make sure the media knows about their efforts.

At least in Tucson, the press release is the only story published (for example: KGUN Group says threatened frogs at AZ mine site

Here is a listing of recent press releases issued by Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project:

From Center for Biological Diversity’s web site:

May 25, 2011 New Orleans Court Hearing Will Include Arguments on $19 Billion Lawsuit Against BP Over Gulf Oil Spill

May 25, 2011 Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Boreal Toads

May 24, 2011 Deadly Bat Disease Arrives in Maine

May 19, 2011 Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Puts Fragile Pronghorn Population at Risk From Motorized Mayhem

May 18, 2011 Senate Rejects Massive Expansion of Dangerous Offshore Drilling

May 18, 2011 New Habitat Protections Finalized for California Desert Plant Threatened With Extinction

May 18, 2011 State Politician Holds Farce “Science” Panel on Endangered Species Act Protection for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard

May 17, 2011 Oregon Kills Imnaha Pack Wolf, Gunning for a Second

May 17, 2011 New Federal Plan to Tackle Bat-killing Disease Inadequate to Stop Epidemic

May 17, 2011 Judge Halts Settlement Over Hundreds of Endangered Species, Orders Parties Back to Negotiations

May 16, 2011 Years of Advocacy to Protect Kaua’i's Imperiled Seabirds Pay Off

May 16, 2011 Federal Pumps in Delta Are Killing Huge Numbers of Critically Imperiled Salmon and Other Native Fish

May 13, 2011 Center for Biological Diversity Statement on Shell’s Submission of Its Chukchi Sea Exploration Plan for 2012-2013

May 12, 2011 More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

May 12, 2011 Government Urged to Increase Habitat Protection for Chiricahua Leopard Frog

May 11, 2011 Groups Call on Government to Finally Kill Proposed Dam

May 6, 2011 United Nations Report Projects 10 Billion People by Century’s End

May 5, 2011 Pearce Asked to Immediately Release Data Said to Support Claims About Imperiled Lizard

May 5, 2011 U.S. House of Representatives Approves Dangerous Measure Expanding Offshore Drilling

May 5, 2011 Lawsuit Challenges Constitutionality of Anti-wolf Rider

May 4, 2011 Obama Administration Prematurely Lifting Wolf Protections in Great Lakes, Northern Rockies

May 4, 2011 Congressional Proposals Aim to Eviscerate Environmental Laws Along U.S. Borders, Coasts

May 4, 2011 Report Debunks New Mexico Congressman Pearce’s Claims About Protection for Rare Lizard

May 3, 2011 Lawsuit Filed to Stop Unlawful Killing of Endangered Wolves in Oregon

April 29, 2011 Activists Confront AES Over Damaging Dam Project, Broken Promises in Panama

April 28, 2011 Group Calls on New Mexico Congressman to Recant False Statements about Dunes Sagebrush Lizard

April 28, 2011 Lawsuit Launched to Protect Alabama Shad Under the Endangered Species Act

April 28, 2011 Lawsuit Launched to Speed Recovery of Imperiled California Amphibians

April 27, 2011 Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Sierra Nevada Red Fox

April 21, 2011 Lawsuit Seeks to Rescue Pacific Walrus From Indefinite Wait for Endangered Species Protection

April 21, 2011 Lawsuit Launched to Protect 400-plus Freshwater Species in Southeast Under Endangered Species Act

April 20, 2011 Conservationists Intervene in Lawsuit That Aims to Take Away Polar Bear Habitat

April 20, 2011 Conservation Groups Appeal Ruling on Failure to Designate Critical Habitat for Endangered Florida Panther

April 20, 2011 One Year After Gulf Disaster: Reforms Left Unaddressed, New Offshore Drilling Must Be Halted

April 19, 2011 Lawsuit Seeks to Protect U.S. West Coast Waters for Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtles

April 19, 2011 Forest Service’s New Mexico Road Plan a Financial Boondoggle That Puts Wildlife, Watersheds at Risk

April 18, 2011 Lawsuit Launched to Force EPA to Study Oil-dispersant Impacts on Endangered Wildlife

April 15, 2011 Proposal Would Prematurely Strip Endangered Species Act Protections From Gray Wolves in Great Lakes Region

April 14, 2011 Congress Approves Wolf-killing Rider in Budget Act to Aid Montana Democrat’s Re-election

April 14, 2011 One Year After Gulf Oil Disaster, Significant Dangers Remain Unaddressed

April 14, 2011 Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Iconic Plains Bison

April 13, 2011 Southern California Butterfly Denied Endangered Species Protection

April 13, 2011 Fast-spreading, Bat-killing Disease Arrives in Kentucky

April 13, 2011 Lawsuit Launched to Protect Disappearing Miami Blue Butterfly

April 13, 2011 Legal Action Filed to Defend Habitat Protections for Imperiled Green Sturgeon

April 12, 2011 Tester, Simpson Sneak Wolf-killing Rider Into Budget Bill

April 12, 2011 A Year After Gulf Oil Spill, New Report Tallies Full Cost of Wildlife Disaster

April 11, 2011 Two Arizona Springsnail Species Proposed for Federal Protection

April 11, 2011 Upper Klamath River Chinook Salmon One Step Closer to Endangered Species Act Protection

April 8, 2011 More than 22,000 Pledge Support for Saving Imperiled Bluefin Tuna

April 8, 2011 Endangered Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Gains Nearly 2 Million Acres of Protected Habitat

April 8, 2011 Three New Scientific Studies Confirm Lead Poisoning of Wildlife Due to Hunting Ammunition

April 7, 2011 House Passes Legislation to Gut America’s Most Important Pollution Law

April 6, 2011 Senate Rejects Back-door Moves to Roll Back America’s Most Important Air Pollution Law

April 6, 2011 Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Nation’s Smallest Seahorse

April 5, 2011 Georgia Wildlife Officials Criticized for Rattlesnake Roundup Permit

April 4, 2011 Obama Administration Fails to Protect Rare Glacier National Park Insect Threatened With Climate-caused Extinction

March 31, 2011 National Campaign to Boycott Endangered Bluefin Tuna Coming to Las Vegas Sushi Restaurants

March 31, 2011 Rare Alabama Fish One Step Closer to Endangered Species Act Protection

March 30, 2011 Bat-killing White-nose Disease Spreads to Ohio, New Brunswick

March 28, 2011 Court Gives Endangered Status Back to West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel, Rules That Recovery Plans Must Be Followed

March 24, 2011 Winter Sea Ice Hits Historic Low

March 24, 2011 New Protests Filed Against Water-rights Applications to Protect Rare Nevada Wildlife

March 22, 2011 Harmful New Mexico Forest Road Plan Blocked in Response to Conservation Groups’ Appeal

March 22, 2011 New House Bill Would Exempt National Forest Logging From Environmental Laws

March 22, 2011 Lawsuit Withdrawn After Minnesota Legislature Exempts Iron Range Resources From Environmental Review

March 21, 2011 Western Snowy Plover to Get Critical Habitat Protection Doubled

March 21, 2011 First Deepwater Drilling Plan Approved for Gulf of Mexico; Feds Claim No Significant Environmental Impacts

March 21, 2011 Obama Administration Denies Protection to Knoxville Area Salamander

March 20, 2011 Center for Biological Diversity Statement on Possible New Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

March 18, 2011 Settlement Reached on Wolf Recovery in Idaho and Montana

March 17, 2011 U.S. Government Fails to Protect Loggerhead Sea Turtles by Legal Deadline

March 11, 2011 More Than 11,000 Acres of Critical Habitat Proposed for Rare Chiricahua Leopard Frog in Arizona, New Mexico

March 11, 2011 As Congress Takes Aim, New Numbers Show Declining Wolf Population in Northern Rockies

March 10, 2011 Arizona Regulators Risk Damage to Water, Air Near Grand Canyon With Uranium Mine Permits

March 9, 2011 Senate Rejects House Attempt to Roll Back America’s Most Important Environmental and Public Health Laws

March 9, 2011 Forty-eight Conservation Groups Call on Sen. Barbara Boxer to Oppose Legislation Removing Protection for Wolves

March 7, 2011 Obama Administration Denies Protection to Nevada Butterfly

March 3, 2011 New Bill Would Cripple America’s Most Important Pollution Law

March 2, 2011 Eastern Cougar Declared Officially Extinct; Florida Panther Still Has a Chance If Reintroduced to Okefenokee

March 2, 2011 San Francisco Sued for Killing Endangered Species at Sharp Park Golf Course

March 1, 2011 New EPA Report Debunks Congressional Attacks on Clean Air Act, Demonstrates Law’s Public Health and Economic Benefits

February 28, 2011 North Carolina’s Golden Sedge Plant Receives Critical Habitat Protection

February 24, 2011 Statements by Conservation Groups on San Francisco’s Change of Position on Sharp Park Golf Course Management

February 24, 2011 Report: Nation’s Best Pollution Law Should Combat Global Warming

February 23, 2011 Obama Administration Denies Protection to Plains Bison

February 23, 2011 Lawsuit Filed to Increase Habitat Protection for Nebraska’s Vanishing Salt Creek Tiger Beetle

February 22, 2011 Campaign to Stop Consumption of Endangered Bluefin Tuna Is Heading to Streets, Sushi Restaurants of San Francisco

February 22, 2011 Obama Administration Denies Protection for Three More Endangered Species

February 22, 2011 Southern Rockhopper Penguins Listed as Threatened Species; Climate Change Protections Needed

February 18, 2011 U.S. House Votes to Repeal Clean Air Act Protections

February 18, 2011 Rare Texas Cave Species Get Big Increase in Protected Habitat

February 18, 2011 Obama Administration Delays Protection for Yet Another Endangered Species

February 17, 2011 Statement of Center for Biological Diversity on the Comment by Representative Denny Rehberg that Federal Judge Donald Malloy Should be “on the Endangered Species List”

February 17, 2011 Federal Plan Announced to Protect Grand Canyon From Uranium Mining

February 17, 2011 Government Urged to Finalize Habitat Protection for Sonoma County’s California Tiger Salamander

February 16, 2011 – Obama Administration Denies Endangered Species Act Protection for Dwindling Alabama Shad

February 16, 2011 – House Republicans’ Bill Would Gut Decades of Environmental Protections

February 15, 2011 – Settlement Sets Deadlines for Cleaning up Particulate Air Pollution

February 15, 2011 – New Bill Would Protect Bats, Other Species From Wildlife Diseases

February 15, 2011 – Center for Biological Diversity Statement on Proposed Confirmation of Dan Ashe as Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

February 14, 2011 – Lawsuit Filed to Save Lake Tahoe Wildlife Habitat From Logging

February 11, 2011 – Statement From Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director Kierán Suckling on House Republicans’ Continuing Resolution Bill

February 11, 2011 – As World’s Human Population Approaches 7 Billion, Global Species Extinction Crisis Accelerates

February 11, 2011 – Forest Service Plan Threatens More Than 900,000 Acres of Public Lands Near Grand Canyon

February 10, 2011 – President Obama’s Forest Service Tries to Weaken Wildlife Protections in National Forests

February 10, 2011 – Lawsuit Launched to Protect Endangered Whales From Gulf of Mexico Oil Exploration

February 10, 2011 – Florida Panther Reintroduction to Okefenokee Needed for Recovery

February 10, 2011 – First Peer-reviewed Study of Sharp Park: Removing Golf Course, Creating New Public Park Is Least Costly, Best Option

February 9, 2011 – Appeal Filed to Save Tejon Ranch, Condor Habitat

February 9, 2011 – Killer Bat Disease Reaches North Carolina as Swath of Epidemic Widens Rapidly

February 8, 2011 – Pacific Walrus Found Imperiled by Global Warming But Left Without Protections

February 8, 2011 – Arroyo Toad, Rare Southern California Lily Get Big Increases in Habitat Protection

February 7, 2011 – Lawsuit Asks Federal Court to Ensure Public Interest Is Represented in Rosemont Mine Process

February 7, 2011 – Endangered Sea Turtles Saved From Capture in Hawaii Swordfish Fishery

February 4, 2011 – Lawsuit Launched to Protect Pacific Waters for Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtles Threatened by Fishing Gear, Climate Change

February 3, 2011 – Shell Halts Plans to Drill in Heart of Polar Bear’s Alaska Habitat

February 3, 2011 – Arctic Sea Ice Hits Historic Low Just As Congress Moves Against Controls on Global Warming

February 3, 2011 – After Closed-door Meeting With Major Polluters, Upton Moves to Repeal Clean Air Act Protections

February 2, 2011 – Endangered Mexican Wolves Increase in Southwest

February 2, 2011 – Deadly Bat Disease Expands in Midwest

February 2, 2011 – Feds Will Reevaluate Endangered Status of Longfin Smelt

February 1, 2011 – Livestock Growers, Counties Withdraw Lawsuit to Eradicate Gray Wolves From New Mexico

February 1, 2011 – Agencies Refuse to Raise Paltry Fee for Destructive Cattle Grazing on 258 Million Acres of Public Land

January 31, 2011 – Court Orders Redo of Federal ORV Plan for Millions of Acres in California’s West Mojave Desert

January 31, 2011 – Lawsuit Filed Against Interior Department Over San Juan River Coal Pollution

January 31, 2011 – Wyoming Senator Moves to Gut Long List of Environmental Protections

January 27, 2011 – Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Klamath River Chinook Salmon

January 26, 2011 – Plan for Delta Water Use Should End Big Agriculture Takeover of State Water Project, Groups Say

January 26, 2011 – Report: Federal Land Managers’ Failure to Close Caves Leaves Millions of Bats in West Vulnerable to Fast-moving, Deadly Disease

January 26, 2011 – Study: Peril From Fort Huachuca/Sierra Vista Groundwater Pumping Nears San Pedro River

January 25, 2011 – Obama Plan to Eliminate Oil Subsidies a Good First Step, But “Clean Energy” Shouldn’t Include Coal, Nuclear, Biofuels or Natural Gas

January 25, 2011 – Suit Filed to Protect One of Nevada’s Largest Bat Roosts, National Park

January 25, 2011 – Two Georgia Counties Asked to Enforce State Wildlife Laws at Rattlesnake Roundups

January 25, 2011 – Lawsuit Seeks Protections for 82 Corals Facing Extinction

January 21, 2011 – Environmental Report Card: Obama Gets “C-” for First Half of Term

January 20, 2011 – Landmark Lawsuit Filed to Protect Hundreds of Rare Species From Pesticides

January 19, 2011 – Snowmobile Plan Challenged to Protect Wildlife, Quiet Recreation

January 19, 2011 – Coalition of Clean Air Groups Brings Actions Against Federal Government for Its Failure to Reduce Air Pollution in Iconic National Parks

January 19, 2011 – Two Colorful Mussel Species Proposed for Federal Protection

January 19, 2011 – Obama Administration Refuses to Reform Public-lands Grazing Fee

January 18, 2011 – Lawsuit Filed to Stop Release of Toxic Metals at Wisconsin’s Flambeau Mine

January 18, 2011 – Two Public-land Grazing Plans Dismissed to Protect Arizona Wildlife

January 18, 2011 – World-renowned Chefs Join Call to Boycott Bluefin Tuna

January 14, 2011 – Lawsuit Filed to Block Minnesota Agency’s $4 Million Loan to PolyMet Mining Company

January 13, 2011 – Lawsuit Seeks to Protect Polar Bear Critical Habitat From Oil Development

January 13, 2011 – Habitat Protection Sought for Endangered Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel

January 13, 2011 – EPA Vetoes Permit for Largest Mountaintop-removal Mine Ever Proposed in Appalachia

January 12, 2011 – EPA Capitulates to Timber, Biomass Industries on Global Warming Pollution

January 11, 2011 – In Memory of Federal Judge John M. Roll (1948-2011)

January 11, 2011 – Oil Spill Commission Releases Safety Recommendations

January 11, 2011 – Court Blocks Federal Effort to Cut San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Habitat Protection

January 11, 2011 – Emergency Protection Sought for Disappearing Miami Blue Butterfly

January 7, 2011 – San Francisco River Would Be Protected From ORVs in Proposed Gila National Forest Plan

January 5, 2011 – New Report: Sierra Nevada Among Top 10 Places Whose Species Are Threatened by Climate Change

January 5, 2011 – New Report: Southwest Deserts Among Top 10 Places Whose Species Are Threatened by Climate Change

January 5, 2011 – New Report: Arctic Sea Ice Among Top 10 Places Whose Species Are Threatened by Climate Change

January 3, 2011 – Lawsuit Opposes Wildlife Agency’s Approval of Massive Newhall Ranch Project

Press Releases from WildEarth Guardians:
Rare Texas Lizard Could Gain Endangered Status
Monday, May 23, 2011
Government Issues Positive Finding on Guardians’ Petition

Groups Formally Call Upon New Mexican Officials to Ban Traps
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Cruel, Indiscriminate, and Harmful to Wildlife and Recreationists

Government Report: Less Than 1% of Cattle Killed by Native Carnivores and Domestic Dogs
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Taxpayers Fleeced by Federal, Predator-Control Program

Coalition Offers Reward in Case of Wolf Illegally Poisoned in Colorado
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Offering a reward of as much as $4,500 for information leading to the identification

Hope for Endangered Species Act Candidates
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
WildEarth Guardians and Interior Reach Settlement on Endangered Species Listings

Cattle Growers Fight Clean Water Rules in New Mexico
Monday, May 9, 2011
Hearing in Santa Fe to Consider a Stay of Outstanding Waters

Conservation Groups Challenge Wolf Delisting Rider
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Lawsuit Seeks to Restore Federal Protection to Gray Wolves in Northern Rockies

Group Charges Pearce with Perpetrating Hoax over Lizard Listing
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Drilling would be Unaffected by Species’ Conservation in More than 99 Percent of Permian Basin

Interior Withdraws Illegal Endangered Species Memo
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Group Urges Obama Administration to Leave Flawed Bush Policies Behind

Lawsuit Challenges Uranium Development in New Mexico
Friday, April 29, 2011
WildEarth Guardians demands transparency in Forest Service Permitting.

Arapahoe Snowfly on the Brink of Extinction
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
USFWS Initiates Endangered Species Act Status Review

Conservation groups oppose “Scorched Earth” Border Patrol plan for Rio Grande
Monday, April 25, 2011
Mowing Plan Would Eliminate Wildlife Habitat Along 91 Miles of the Rio

Easter Bunny: Hopping Toward Extinction?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Group Presses Forward on Protection for Rare Southwestern Jackrabbit

A Step Up for Wolves in the Southwest, on the Heels of Setbacks Up North
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Legal Settlement Reached for Wolf on Gila National Forest

Conservation Groups Set for Showdown Over West Fork Wolves
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Small Group of Wolves Living in Remote Area Is in the Crosshairs

All Press Releases

Press Releases from Western Watersheds Project:

April 19, 2011
News Release BLM Temporarily Halts Fence Construction On The “Fast Tracked” Ivanpah Solar Power Plant

April 14, 2011
News Release WWP Wins Court Ordered Deadline For Removal of Livestock From 450,000 Acres of Sage-Grouse Habitat On Public Lands in Southwest Idaho

March 1, 2011
News Release WWP Wins A Federal Court Injunction Stopping Livestock Grazing on over 450,000 Acres of Public Land in Southern Idaho

January 25, 2011
News Release Suit Filed to Protect One of Nevada’s Largest Bat Roosts, National Park

January 18, 2011
News Release Obama Administration Refuses to Reform Public-lands Grazing Fee

January 17, 2011
News Release WWP Sues to Stop Fast Tracked Power Plant in CA

January 7, 2011
News Release Federal Court Tosses BLM Grazing Decisions

December 30, 2010
News Release Livestock Grazing Halted to Protect Steelhead On a Quarter-million Acres of the Malheur National Forest

December 13, 2010
News Release Tortoise Takes Place in Line For Federal Listing

Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians are suing the the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in federal court over two decisions the BLM’s Bishop Field Office made to reauthorize cattle grazing on four public land allotments in the Bodie Hills just north of Mono Lake despite their impacts to imperiled Bi-State sage-grouse.

News Release Conservationists Challenge Grazing in Bodie Hills to Protect Mono Basin Sage-Grouse

_________________________________

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

 
 
 
 

 

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm”and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

Endangered Species Act —  Critical or Protected  Habitat Designation

The next step in using the Endangered Species Act as a weapon to throttle virtually all human activity in the country is the designation of critical or protected  habitat.

If the species or subspecies or “distinct” population is endangered oe threatened…obviously the plants or animals need a “place” to live without being harmed. That  is the “critical or protected habitat”.

But first one must understand the definition of “harm” that threatens or endangers the plant or animal.

After a convoluted process US Fish and Wildlife will issue a “biological opinion” defining what it believes is threatening or endangered the plant or animal.

This is mostly a non-scientific exercise in speculation….this “may” that “might’ harm the plant or animal.

When you look at petitions for listing in the first place, you will see the alleged “harm” type activities that must be stopped…cattle grazing, global warming, road construction, obstructing natural migratory paths,  wind turbine blades turning, whatever.  If you really want to read some good science fantasy, read this stuff.

Here is just one example from the Sonoran Desert Tortoise decision from US Fish and Wildlife to make the turtle a candidate for listing as an endangered species:

Development as a Barrier

Urban development, canals, and transportation infrastructure, such
as roads and railroads, disrupt ecological processes, increase
mortality in animals, promote the degradation, loss, and isolation of
wildlife habitat, and cause fragmentation of populations (Sonoran desert tortoise populations are island-like in their distribution, meaning they are generally concentrated on the bajadas and hillsides of mountains, and less-
distributed within the valleys between these areas. As a result, they
may be particularly vulnerable to large-scale disturbances that affect
the suitability of intervening habitat.Factors that affect inter-population dynamics in Sonoran desert tortoises include distance between populations, physical size of habitat areas, sizes of source populations, and the ease of which intervening areas can be crossed by dispersing individuals.

The effect of potential barriers to inter-population movements of
Sonoran desert tortoises (discussed above in the Species Information
section) is not equal across their range. The ability for the Sonoran
desert tortoise to move among populations is also important for
allowing shifts in their range in response to climate change, and to
promote recolonization after fire or other regional disturbances. Dispersal of Sonoran desert tortoises between populations through sparse desertscrub is less likely in very hot, dry valleys in the Lower Colorado subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub and populations in mountain ranges, such as the Eagletails, Maricopas, and Sand Tanks, have likely been existing in isolation for a long time.

Genetic analysis of blood samples collected from Sonoran desert
tortoises in Saguaro National Park in Pima County, Arizona, suggest
that intermediate gene flow still occurs, or occurred recently, among
isolated populations at the rate of at least 1 migrant per generation
(12-15 years). However, thousands of acres of tortoise habitat have been recently lost to large residential developments in the foothills of the Santa Catalina, Tortolita, Rincon, and Tucson Mountains in the greater Tucson metropolitan area.

The importance of allowing movement of individual tortoises between
populations is observable by evaluating historical gene flow. Edwards
et al. (2004, p. 485) used seven microsatellite DNA markers to examine
the genetic relationships of tortoises in eight populations in southern
and central Arizona, in the vicinity of Tucson and Phoenix. They also
calculated migration rates among these populations to estimate
historical rates of gene flow, and, therefore, the importance of
individuals moving between populations (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 485).
Edwards et al. (2004, p. 496) found no evidence of recent loss of
genetic diversity that would indicate genetic bottlenecking that could
occur from lack of mixing among Sonoran desert tortoise populations in
southern Arizona. However, the authors acknowledged that a small sample
size and small number of genetic markers (alleles) used in their
analyses would likely not detect this genetic effect. Despite reduced
mixing among populations, Sonoran desert tortoises may be capable of
maintaining small effective population sizes (still viable populations,
despite small size), even with a low degree of genetic diversity
(Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). However, Edwards et al. (2004, p. 496)
also stated, “Because effective population sizes of Sonoran desert
tortoises are small, dispersal events probably play an important role
in the long-term maintenance of these populations.” This suggests that
while dispersal and movement of tortoises may be rare, they may be
important events. Therefore, barriers that prevent this movement could
result in significant genetic impacts, by preventing mixing of
populations over the long term.

The effect of urban barriers limits inter-population movements of
Sonoran desert tortoises resulting in “closed” populations. Experts
believe that an isolated population of Sonoran desert tortoises that
experiences significant declines in population size could not overcome
losses simply through an increase in reproduction, based on evidence of
past gene flow (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). Therefore, if a
population were to experience a catastrophic decline as a result of a
stochastic event such as drought, the immigration of new tortoises from
adjacent populations would be necessary for population recovery
(Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). Urban barriers effectively prevent this
immigration of new tortoises, resulting in closed, or isolated, Sonoran
desert tortoise populations, which are now evident within the
metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson. Mountains and associated
foothills with Sonoran desertscrub habitat occur in these urban areas,
and although development within this habitat has been restricted by
zoning laws, development is still allowed to virtually surround the
bases of the mountains, isolating tortoise populations. Examples of
this development include the Union Hills, White Tank Mountains,
McDowell Mountains, Black Mountains, and South Mountain Park in the
Phoenix metropolitan area and Tumamoc Hill, Tucson Mountains, and
Saguaro National Park West in the Tucson metropolitan area (Edwards et
al. 2004, p. 496). Zylstra and Swann (2009, pp. 10-11) remarked that
the increasing negative effect of human-made barriers on Sonoran desert
tortoise movements between populations may require translocation
(moving animals out of harm’s way into more secured areas of suitable
habitat), or occasional augmentation of populations with tortoises from
other populations, to remain viable.

Translocation has been considered an option, and implemented to
some degree for Mojave desert tortoise conservation and recovery. In
assessing the viability of translocation as a recovery and conservation
tool for the Mojave population, concern has been expressed for
potentially moving tortoises into areas where threats to desert
tortoise populations remain, which could negate any conservation value
associated with the action. Our (Mojave) Desert Tortoise Recovery
Office stresses that translocation of tortoises should not occur under
such circumstances, emphasizing the need to address threats which
impact all tortoises regardless of origin.

Translocation of desert tortoises has received mixed reviews in the
scientific literature and, as noted, may not be a viable option for the
Sonoran desert tortoise. There are several factors that must be
considered in deciding whether or not to translocate tortoises into new
areas, including temporary or longer-term holding conditions of
tortoises; the propensity for post-release, long-distance movements;
drought; the status of receiving population; and disease screening,
among other factors (Berry 1986a, p. 113; Field et al. 2007, pp. 232,
237, 240, 242; Martel et al. 2009, p. 218). Translocated Mojave desert
tortoises have been shown to settle at release sites, travel in
straight lines for substantial distances, or disperse up to
approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) (Berry 1986a, p. 113). Translocated
desert tortoises may disrupt social hierarchies in receiving
populations by displacing residents or they may be displaced themselves
(Berry 1986a, p. 113). Howland and Rorabaugh (2002, p. 341) suggest
that translocation of Sonoran desert tortoises may not be a viable tool
for conservation because most intact Sonoran desert tortoise
populations in Arizona are currently considered relatively healthy, and
likely occur at or near carrying capacity. Mullen and Ross (1997, pp.
145-146) found that translocated Mojave desert tortoises have a lower
survivorship than resident individuals (especially when moved during
the summer versus during the spring), but that negative effects
commonly associated with translocations are generally short-lived (1-2
years).

A 2004 population viability analysis for the Mojave desert tortoise
recommended that a minimum of 50,000 individuals are required for a 50
percent chance of persistence for 500 years, yet extrapolation of
Sonoran desert tortoise population data from southern Arizona suggest
that most populations number less than 20,000 individuals, with some as
low as several hundred (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). Because the
average generation time of a Sonoran desert tortoise is approximately
12-15 years and much of the urban development is relatively recent, the
full effect of developments as barriers to genetic exchange among
Sonoran desert tortoise populations cannot be fully assessed at this
time (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 486). Edwards et al. (2004, p. 495)
further cautioned that their estimates of gene flow are contingent on
what occurred pre-settlement, and should not be taken as evidence that
natural immigration or emigration still occurs.

In conclusion, the literature documents that urban development and
population growth, roads and highways, canals, railroad tracks, and
other types of development threaten the Sonoran desert tortoise by
creating barriers to movement in Arizona and, perhaps to a lesser
extent, in Sonora, Mexico. The creation of barriers affects the
tortoises’ genetic exchange capacity within and between populations,
which in turn affects their ability to recolonize habitat in the event
of population declines or extirpations, and may lead to isolation and
eventual genetic bottlenecking. This threat acts synergistically with
other factors as discussed above.

[Federal Register: December 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 239)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78093-78146]

The litanty of threats to plants and animals containined in petitions for endangered species listings and in US Fish and Wildlife decision to list…read like sermons on the evil of huamn activity.

The next step in the process is to throw the net as far and as wide as possible to define where the threatened or endangered plant or animal lives, could live, or once lived.

For prime example, Center for Biological Diversity is pushing for a “critical habitat” designation of most of southern and eastern Arizona for the jaguar.

Not coincidentally all efforts to designate “critical habitat”  or “protected habitat” seem to intersect with proposed projects or existing activities the litigious environmental groups don’t like.

The “critical habitat” of many species pursued for listing and habitat protection cover all the riparian areas of the state, all grazing lands, and so forth.

Right now there is a fight going on about a protected habitat designation for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog, and the Center for Biological Diversity is pushing to have the proposed Rosemont Mine site designated as frog habitat.

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Why…because once a “critical habitat” or “proitected habitat” is designated, no one can do anything inside that declared “critical or protected habitat” without permission from US Fish and Wildlife.

You think you own your land or water? Not really if your land and water serves as designated critical or protected habitat for a threatened or endangered species, subspecies or  distinct population.
_________________________________________________
The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation 

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

Delhi Sands Fly

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

The third part of the use of the Endangered Species Act in the war against the American economy is Section 9 …. Which makes it a felony to “take” an endangered species.

The Endangered Species ActBy Virginia S. Albrecht and James N. Christman of Hunton & Williams LLP

Section 9: “Take” of Endangered or Threatened SpeciesESA § 9 prohibits everyone, private person and federal agency alike, from “taking” endangered wildlife. The regulations extend this to threatened animals (see e.g. , 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.31, 17.21). “Take” includes “harming” a listed species, [12] and “harm” is defined by FWS regulation to include habitat alteration:
Harm in the definition of “take” in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impacting essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

50 C.F.R. § 17.3. See Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon , 515 U.S. 687 (1995). Section 11(b) of the ESA makes it a crime knowingly to “take” an endangered species without a permit or violate a regulation implementing the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(b)(1). You are permitted, however, to defend yourself of others from bodily harm. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(b)(3).

This prohibition against “take” covers fish and wildlife but not plants. Cf . 16 U.S.C. § 1532(8) and § 1532(14). It is, however, illegal to remove an endangered plant from federal land and reduce it to possession, and federal law also federalizes state law prohibitions on the taking of plants.

The Secretary may issue a permit for an “incidental take” of listed species that are incidental to and not for the purpose of a proposed activity (ESA § 10). Permits may be issued only after the landowner submits a “habitat conservation plan” (HCP), including proposed mitigation measures and an explanation of why alternatives were rejected. If FWS finds that the “take” will be incidental, will be satisfactorily mitigated, and will not appreciably reduce the species’ chances for survival or recovery, it must issue the permit. There has been a move afoot recently to incorporate a “recovery” standard into HCPs, which would mean that HCPs would have to contribute affirmatively to the recovery of affected species, whereas under present law an HCP can be approved so long as it does not degrade the species further. HCPs can be very expensive to prepare and are especially burdensome for small businessmen and small landowners.

In 1996 the FWS and NMFS issued a joint Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process (HCP Handbook), which explains that HCPs may be processed under three models. 61 Fed. Reg. 63,854 (December 2, 1996); see also notice of draft addendum, 64 Fed. Reg. 11,485 (March 9, 1999). It created a “low-effect” HCP category for small landowners and other low-impact projects that have only minor or negligible effects on listed species or other environmental resources. A low-effect HCP is exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and does not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. “Moderate” HCPs require an environmental assessment, and “high-effect” ones require an environmental impact statement.

FWS’s and NMFS’s “no surprises” rule, 63 Fed. Reg. 8859 (February 23, 1998), allows an applicant for an incidental take permit to negotiate long-term assurances that no additional mitigation of impacts will be required, even if circumstances change. The rule provides some assurance that no additional land use restrictions or financial compensation will be required from the permit holder if unforeseen circumstances arise indicating that additional mitigation is necessary. It has been challenged in court by environmentalists.

In mid-1997 FWS and NMFS published a series of proposals having to do with their Safe Harbor Policy and Candidate Conservation Agreements. [13] The final version was published in June 1999. 64 Fed. Reg. 32,706, 32,717, 32,726 (June 17, 1999). Safe Harbor agreements are an attempt to soften the rule that no good deed goes unpunished. Landowners are often willing to manage their properties so as to improve habitat but may fear that if they are too successful and endangered animals colonize their land, they will then be prohibited from using the land in the future because of the § 9 “take” prohibition. In return for voluntarily undertaking land management activities that will provide a “net conservation benefit,” the landowner receives assurances that he will be allowed to alter or modify the property even if the alteration will result in an incidental “take” that would return the species back to originally agreed-upon “baseline conditions.” 62 Fed. Reg. 32,180 col. 1-2 (June 12, 1997).

Candidate Conservation Agreements, as their name suggests, apply to species that are not yet listed as threatened or endangered but are being considered for listing. They provide assurances that, if the covered species are eventually listed, the property owners or state or local land managing agencies will not be required to do more than the agreement calls for. 62 Fed. Reg. 32,183 col. 3 (June 12, 1997).

More…

Once you have a plant or animal designated as threatened or endangered, and you have gotten the critical habitat or protected habitat designated as widely as possible….the teeth in the Endangered Species Act is the “take” provision.

You cannot harm the plant or animal because if you do…you go to jail.

If you have lots of time and money and still want to go ahead with your protect that might cause a “taking” of an endangered species…you have to make a deal with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The deals are often called “habitat conservation plans”.

This often means modifying the design of your project or setting aside a portion of your project site as protected or critical habitat for the endangered species.

A prime example of how this works is the Delhi Sands Fly which lives near San Bernadino, California.

When the Delhi Sands Fly was first listed as an endangered species, serious consideration was given to shutting down Interstate 10 for the two week period when the Delhi Sands Fly is breeding.

Here is a very recent example of the impact of the Delhi Sands Fly…a “fly perserve” was created:

To minimize and mitigate incidental take of the Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly within the project area, the Applicant proposes to set aside
approximately 20 ac (8 ha) as a permanent, on-site conservation area.
The Applicant would fund the restoration and management of the
conservation area for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly through an
agreement with the Riverside Land Conservancy, a nonprofit land trust.

A couple of other items of interest on the Fly going back to the 90s. At one time I10 was almost closed down for the fly.

Also construction on a hospital was delayed for over a year and about $3 million in cost was added all for the fly.

(Friday, May 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29260-29261]

Incidental Take Permit; San Bernardino County, CA; Proposed
Habitat Conservation Plan, Draft Implementing Agreement, and Draft
Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have
received an application from Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
(Applicant), for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We are considering issuing a 25-year
permit to the Applicant that would authorize incidental take of the
endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly incidental to activities
related to operations and maintenance of storage and distribution
facilities for petroleum products within the Colton and Colton North
Terminals, and with habitat restoration and management on a proposed
on-site conservation area located in the cities of Rialto and Colton,
San Bernardino County, California. We request public comment on the
proposed HCP, draft Implementing Agreement, and draft Environmental
Assessment for the Applicant’s proposed activities.

DATES: Send written comments on or before July 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to Jim Bartel, Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011.You also
may send comments by facsimile to (760) 431-5902.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Corey, Assistant Field Supervisor,
at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office address above; telephone (760)
431-9440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have received an application from Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (Applicant), for an incidental take permit
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We are
considering issuing a 25-year permit to the Applicant that would
authorize take of the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
(Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) incidental to activities
described in the Applicant’s proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
The permit, if issued, would authorize incidental take of the species
associated with proposed site preparation, future construction, and
routine operations and maintenance of storage and distribution
facilities for petroleum products on approximately 20 acres (ac) (8
hectares (ha)) within the Colton and Colton North Terminals, and with
habitat restoration and management on a proposed approximately 20-ac
(8-ha) on-site conservation area, located in the cities of Rialto and
Colton, San Bernardino County, California.

Background

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations prohibit the “take”
of fish and wildlife species Federally listed as endangered or
threatened. Take of Federally listed fish or wildlife is defined under
the Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect listed species, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). “Harm” includes significant habitat
modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns such
as breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). To “harass”
includes the carrying out of an intentional or negligent act or
omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying
it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral
patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Under
limited circumstances, we may issue permits to authorize incidental
take, which the Act defines as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activities.
Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and
endangered species are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The incidental take permit, if
issued, would confer assurances to the Applicant regarding the
endangered Delhi Sands flower-

[[Page 29261]]

loving fly under the Service’s “No Surprises” regulation at 50 CFR
17.22(b)(5). Take authorization for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
would become effective upon permit issuance.

Project Location

The Applicant is proposing site preparation (vegetation clearing
and grading), future construction, and routine operations and
maintenance of storage and distribution facilities for petroleum
products on approximately 20 ac (8 ha) within the existing Colton and
Colton North Terminals and their respective pipeline easements in San
Bernardino County, California. The Colton Terminal is located in Rialto
and Colton, on the east side of Riverside Avenue, south of Slover
Avenue, and north of Santa Ana Avenue. The Colton North Terminal is
located in Colton, on the east side of Sycamore Avenue, and north and
south of Slover Avenue. The pipeline easements for the terminals
traverse the cities of Ontario, Fontana, Rialto, and Colton, from the
western end of Ontario International Airport to the Santa Ana River.
Land uses surrounding the terminals include petroleum facilities, city
streets, vacant lands, a flood control channel (Rialto Creek), and the
Colton Dunes Conservation Bank (operated by Vulcan Materials Company as
a conservation bank for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly).

Project Information

The Applicant is proposing a variety of projects located both on
and off the terminals. These projects are as follows:
(1) Clearance of all vegetation for future developments on several
of the vacant parcels located on the Colton and Colton North Terminals.
(2) Construction of the Calnev Expansion Project, a new 16-inch-
(41-centimeter-) diameter multiple-product pipeline in Colton. This
project also includes the construction of a new electrical transmission
line located just east of the Colton North Terminal.
(3) Future development of approximately 6.19 ac (2.5 ha) in the
westernmost area of the Sycamore North Parcel.
(4) Routine operations and maintenance of all facilities, including
excavations, inspections, and repairs to all the Applicant’s pipelines
and facilities located within the species’ habitat. The combined total
length of pipeline to be covered under the permit would be
approximately 26 miles.
(5) Inspection, repair (if necessary), and permanent reburial of
the exposed portion of Line Section 111, which is located on lands
owned by Union Pacific east of the Colton North Terminal.
(6) The placement of Southern California Edison (SCE) substation
facilities (i.e., electrical transmission line tower, access roads,
etc.) off site, within lands owned by the Union Pacific Railroad
Company, just outside the northeastern boundary of the Colton North
Terminal.
Based on the results of focused surveys, we consider undeveloped
portions of the proposed project area, which contain habitat of varying
suitability, as occupied by the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly.
Therefore, we have determined that the Applicant’s proposed activities
would result in incidental take of the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly.
No other Federally listed species are known to occupy the site.
To minimize and mitigate incidental take of the Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly within the project area, the Applicant proposes to set aside
approximately 20 ac (8 ha) as a permanent, on-site conservation area.
The Applicant would fund the restoration and management of the
conservation area for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly through an
agreement with the Riverside Land Conservancy, a nonprofit land trust.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have prepared the draft Environmental Assessment under the
National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), to analyze the impacts of authorizing incidental take of the
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, based on the Applicant’s application for
an incidental take permit and the proposed HCP included with the
application. The proposed HCP describes the Applicant’s proposed
development activities and the measures the Applicant will undertake to
minimize and mitigate the effects of incidental take to the maximum
extent practicable. The proposed issuance of an incidental take permit
is a Federal action requiring Service compliance with NEPA and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6. Our draft Environmental
Assessment analyzes the environmental consequences of three
alternatives: (1) The “Proposed Action,” which would result in
Service issuance of an incidental take permit and implementation of the
Applicant’s proposed HCP; (2) an “Other Compensation Lands”
alternative, which would involve permit issuance and implementation of
a HCP based on the purchase of credits at the Colton Dunes Conservation
Bank; and (3) a “No Action” alternative, which would not involve
Service issuance of an incidental take permit or the Applicant’s
implementation of a HCP, would not result in impacts to the Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly, and would not establish any additional conservation.

One could argue that endangered species have more rights in America than do people.
____________________________________________________
The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Endangered Species Act — Introduction and Key Sections

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

Since I am posting a lot of articles and commentaries about the Endangered Species Act…and abuses of that law….I am posting source information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to provide background:

From US Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered Species Act | Overview

Photo of Puerto Rican parrot by Tom MacKenzie, USFWSPuerto Rican parrot

Photo credit: Tom MacKenzie, USFWS

When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, it recognized that our rich natural heritage is of “esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our Nation and its people.” It further expressed concern that many of our nation’s native plants and animals were in danger of becoming extinct.

The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. It is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The FWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine wildlife such as whales and anadromons fish such as salmon.

Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. “Endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. For the purposes of the ESA, Congress defined species to include subspecies, varieties, and, for vertebrates, distinct population segments.

 

Endangered Species Act | Section 2

FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICY

SEC. 2.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds and declares that—
(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;

(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;

(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;

(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to—

(A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico; (B) the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan; (C) the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere; (D) the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries; (E) the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean; (F) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and (G) other international agreements; and

(5) encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation’s heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section. (c) POLICY.—(1) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. (2) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of endangered species.

*As amended by P.L. 94-325, June 30, 1976; P.L. 94-359, July 12, 1976; P.L. 95-212, December 19, 1977; P.L. 95-632, November 10, 1978; P.L. 96-159, December 28, 1979; P.L. 97-304, October 13, 1982; P.L. 98-327, June 25, 1984; and P.L. 100-478, October 7, 1988; P.L. 107-171, May 13, 2002; P.L. 108-136, November 24, 2003.

 

Endangered Species Act | Section 3

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 3.
(1) The term “alternative courses of action” means all alternatives and thus is not limited to original project objectives and agency jurisdiction.

(2) The term “commercial activity” means all activities of industry and trade, including, but not limited to, the buying or selling of commodities and activities conducted for the purpose of facilitating such buying and selling: Provided, however, That it does not include exhibition of commodities by museums or similar cultural or historical organizations.

(3) The terms “conserve”, “conserving”, and “conservation” mean to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.

(4) The term “Convention” means the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed on March 3, 1973, and the appendices thereto.

(5)(A) The term “critical habitat” for a threatened or endangered species means— (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
(B) Critical habitat may be established for those species now listed as threatened or endangered species for which no critical habitat has heretofore been established as set forth in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
(C) Except in those circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species.

(6) The term “endangered species” means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man.

(7) The term “Federal agency” means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.

(8) The term “fish or wildlife” means any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof.

(9) The term “foreign commerce” includes, among other things, any transaction—

(A) between persons within one foreign country;
(B) between persons in two or more foreign countries;
(C) between a person within the United States and a person in a foreign country; or
(D) between persons within the United States, where the fish and wildlife in question are moving in any country or countries outside the United States.

(10) The term “import” means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.

(11) [Repealed]

(12) The term “permit or license applicant” means, when used with respect to an action of a Federal agency for which exemption is sought under section 7, any person whose application to such agency for a permit or license has been denied primarily because of the application of section 7(a) to such agency action.

(13) The term “person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any other private entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or of any foreign government; any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State; or any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(14) The term “plant” means any member of the plant kingdom, including seeds, roots and other parts thereof.

(15) The term “Secretary” means, except as otherwise herein provided, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce as program responsibilities are vested pursuant to the provisions of Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 1970; except that with respect to the enforcement of the provisions of this Act and the Convention which pertain to the importation or exportation of terrestrial plants, the term also means the Secretary of Agriculture.

(16) The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

(17) The term “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(18) the term “State agency” means any State agency, department, board, commission, or other governmental entity which is responsible for the management and conservation of fish, plant, or wildlife resources within a State.

(19) The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.

(20) The term “threatened species” means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

(21) The term “United States,” when used in a geographical context, includes all States.

 

Endangered Species Act | Section 4

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 4. (a) GENERAL.—

(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

(2) With respect to any species over which program responsibilities have been vested in the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 1970—
(A) in any case in which the Secretary of Commerce determines that such species should—
(i) be listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, or
(ii) be changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered species,
he shall so inform the Secretary of the Interior, who shall list such species in accordance with this section;
(B) in any case in which the Secretary of Commerce determines that such species should—
(i) be removed from any list published pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, or
(ii) be changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species,
he shall recommend such action to the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Interior, if he concurs in the recommendation, shall implement such action; and
(C) the Secretary of the Interior may not list or remove from any list any such species, and may not change the status of any such species which are listed, without a prior favorable determination made pursuant to this section by the Secretary of Commerce.

(3)(A) The Secretary, by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) and to the maximum extent prudent and determinable— (i) shall, concurrently with making a determination under paragraph (1) that a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat; and (ii) may, from time-to-time thereafter as appropriate, revise such designation. (B)(i) The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 5 in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. (ii) Nothing in this paragraph affects the requirement to consult under section 7(a)(2) with respect to an agency action (as that term is defined in that section). (iii) Nothing in this paragraph affects the obligation of the Department of Defense to comply with section 9, including the prohibition preventing extinction and taking of endangered species and threatened species. (b) BASIS FOR DETERMINATIONS.—(1)(A) The Secretary shall make determinations required by subsection (a)(1) solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction, or on the high seas. (B) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give consideration to species which have been— (i) designated as requiring protection from unrestricted commerce by any foreign nation, or pursuant to any international agreement; or (ii) identified as in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future, by any State agency or by any agency of a foreign nation that is responsible for the conservation of fish or wildlife or plants. (2) The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned. (3)(A) To the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving the petition of an interested person under section 553(e) of title 5, United States Code, to add a species to, or to remove a species from, either of the lists published under subsection (c), the Secretary shall make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. If such a petition is found to present such information, the Secretary shall promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned. The Secretary shall promptly publish each finding made under this subparagraph in the Federal Register. (B) Within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found under subparagraph (A) to present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make one of the following findings: (i) The petitioned action is not warranted, in which case the Secretary shall promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register. (ii) The petitioned action is warranted, in which case the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a general notice and the complete text of a proposed regulation to implement such action in accordance with paragraph (5). 6 (iii) The petitioned action is warranted, but that— (I) the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation implementing the petitioned action in accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6) is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species, and (II) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the lists published under subsection (c) and to remove from such lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary, in which case the Secretary shall promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register, together with a description and evaluation of the reasons and data on which the finding is based. (C)(i) A petition with respect to which a finding is made under subparagraph (B)(iii) shall be treated as a petition that is resubmitted to the Secretary under subparagraph (A) on the date of such finding and that presents substantial scientific or commercial information that the petitioned action may be warranted. (ii) Any negative finding described in subparagraph (A) and any finding described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (iii) shall be subject to judicial review. (iii) The Secretary shall implement a system to monitor effectively the status of all species with respect to which a finding is made under subparagraph (B)(iii) and shall make prompt use of the authority under paragraph 7 to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species. (D)(i) To the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving the petition of an interested person under section 553(e) of title 5, United States Code, to revise a critical habitat designation, the Secretary shall make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the revision may be warranted. The Secretary shall promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register. (ii) Within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found under clause (i) to present substantial information indicating that the requested revision may be warranted, the Secretary shall determine how he intends to proceed with the requested revision, and shall promptly publish notice of such intention in the Federal Register.

(4) Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6) of this subsection, the provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code (relating to rulemaking procedures), shall apply to any regulation promulgated to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(5) With respect to any regulation proposed by the Secretary to implement a determination, designation, or revision referred to in subsection (a)(1) or (3), the Secretary shall— (A) not less than 90 days before the effective date of the regulation— (i) publish a general notice and the complete text of the proposed regulation in the Federal Register, and (ii) give actual notice of the proposed regulation (including the complete text of the regulation) to the State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, and to each county or equivalent jurisdiction in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comment of such agency, and each such jurisdiction, thereon; (B) insofar as practical, and in cooperation with the Secretary of State, give notice of the proposed regulation to each foreign nation in which the species is believed to occur or whose citizens harvest the species on the high seas, and invite the comment of such nation thereon; 7 (C) give notice of the proposed regulation to such professional scientific organizations as he deems appropriate; (D) publish a summary of the proposed regulation in a newspaper of general circulation in each area of the United States in which the species is believed to occur; and (E) promptly hold one public hearing on the proposed regulation if any person files a request for such a hearing within 45 days after the date of publication of general notice.

(6)(A) Within the one-year period beginning on the date on which general notice is published in accordance with paragraph (5)(A)(i) regarding a proposed regulation, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register— (i) if a determination as to whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, or a revision of critical habitat, is involved, either— (I) a final regulation to implement such determination, (II) a final regulation to implement such revision or a finding that such revision should not be made, (III) notice that such one-year period is being extended under subparagraph (B)(i), or (IV) notice that the proposed regulation is being withdrawn under subparagraph (B)(ii), together with the finding on which such withdrawal is based; or (ii) subject to subparagraph (C), if a designation of critical habitat is involved, either— (I) a final regulation to implement such designation, or (II) notice that such one-year period is being extended under such subparagraph. (B)(i) If the Secretary finds with respect to a proposed regulation referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) that there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination or revision concerned, the Secretary may extend the one-year period specified in subparagraph (A) for not more than six months for purposes of soliciting additional data. (ii) If a proposed regulation referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) is not promulgated as a final regulation within such one-year period (or longer period if extension under clause (i) applies) because the Secretary finds that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the action proposed by the regulation, the Secretary shall immediately withdraw the regulation. The finding on which a withdrawal is based shall be subject to judicial review. The Secretary may not propose a regulation that has previously been withdrawn under this clause unless he determines that sufficient new information is available to warrant such proposal. (iii) If the one-year period specified in subparagraph (A) is extended under clause (i) with respect to a proposed regulation, then before the close of such extended period the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register either a final regulation to implement the determination or revision concerned, a finding that the revision should not be made, or a notice of withdrawal of the regulation under clause (ii), together with the finding on which the withdrawal is based. (C) A final regulation designating critical habitat of an endangered species or a threatened species shall be published concurrently with the final regulation implementing the determination that such species is endangered or threatened, unless the Secretary deems that— 8 (i) it is essential to the conservation of such species that the regulation implementing such determination be promptly published; or (ii) critical habitat of such species is not then determinable, in which case the Secretary, with respect to the proposed regulation to designate such habitat, may extend the one-year period specified in subparagraph (A) by not more than one additional year, but not later than the close of such additional year the Secretary must publish a final regulation, based on such data as may be available at that time, designating, to the maximum extent prudent, such habitat.

(7) Neither paragraph (4), (5), or (6) of this subsection nor section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall apply to any regulation issued by the Secretary in regard to any emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of any species of fish or wildlife or plants, but only if— (A) at the time of publication of the regulation in the Federal Register the Secretary publishes therein detailed reasons why such regulation is necessary; and (B) in the case such regulation applies to resident species of fish or wildlife, or plants, the Secretary gives actual notice of such regulation to the State agency in each State in which such species is believed to occur. Such regulation shall, at the discretion of the Secretary, take effect immediately upon the publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. Any regulation promulgated under the authority of this paragraph shall cease to have force and effect at the close of the 240-day period following the date of publication unless, during such 240-day period, the rulemaking procedures which would apply to such regulation without regard to this paragraph are complied with. If at any time after issuing an emergency regulation the Secretary determines, on the basis of the best appropriate data available to him, that substantial evidence does not exist to warrant such regulation, he shall withdraw it. (8) The publication in the Federal Register of any proposed or final regulation which is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act shall include a summary by the Secretary of the data on which such regulation is based and shall show the relationship of such data to such regulation; and if such regulation designates or revises critical habitat, such summary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, also include a brief description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may adversely modify such habitat, or may be affected by such designation. (c) LISTS.—(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register a list of all species determined by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be endangered species and a list of all species determined by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be threatened species. Each list shall refer to the species contained therein by scientific and common name or names, if any, specify with respect to each such species over what portion of its range it is endangered or threatened, and specify any critical habitat within such range. The Secretary shall from time to time revise each list published under the authority of this subsection to reflect recent determinations, designations, and revisions made in accordance with subsections (a) and (b). (2) The Secretary shall— (A) conduct, at least once every five years, a review of all species included in 9 a list which is published pursuant to paragraph (1) and which is in effect at the time of such review; and (B) determine on the basis of such review whether any such species should— (i) be removed from such list; (ii) be changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species; or (iii) be changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered species. Each determination under subparagraph (B) shall be made in accordance with the provisions of subsections (a) and (b). (d) PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS.—Whenever any species is listed as a threatened species pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. The Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants, with respect to endangered species; except that with respect to the taking of resident species of fish or wildlife, such regulations shall apply in any State which has entered into a cooperative agreement pursuant to section 6(c) of this Act only to the extent that such regulations have also been adopted by such State. (e) SIMILARITY OF APPEARANCE CASES.—The Secretary may, by regulation of commerce or taking, and to the extent he deems advisable, treat any species as an endangered species or threatened species even though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act if he finds that— (A) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; (B) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (C) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this Act. (f)(1) RECOVERY PLANS.—The Secretary shall develop and implement plans (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as “recovery plans”) for the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to this section, unless he finds that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. The Secretary, in developing and implementing recovery plans, shall, to the maximum extent practicable— (A) give priority to those endangered species or threatened species, without regard to taxonomic classification, that are most likely to benefit from such plans, particularly those species that are, or may be, in conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity; (B) incorporate in each plan— (i) a description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the species; (ii) objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this section, that the species be removed from the list; and 10 (iii) estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal. (2) The Secretary, in developing and implementing recovery plans, may procure the services of appropriate public and private agencies and institutions, and other qualified persons. Recovery teams appointed pursuant to this subsection shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. (3) The Secretary shall report every two years to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives on the status of efforts to develop and implement recovery plans for all species listed pursuant to this section and on the status of all species for which such plans have been developed. (4) The Secretary shall, prior to final approval of a new or revised recovery plan, provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment on such plan. The Secretary shall consider all information presented during the public comment period prior to approval of the plan. (5) Each Federal agency shall, prior to implementation of a new or revised recovery plan, consider all information presented during the public comment period under paragraph (4). (g) MONITORING.—(1) The Secretary shall implement a system in cooperation with the States to monitor effectively for not less than five years the status of all species which have recovered to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary and which, in accordance with the provisions of this section, have been removed from either of the lists published under subsection (c). (2) The Secretary shall make prompt use of the authority under paragraph 7 of subsection (b) of this section to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such recovered species. (h) AGENCY GUIDELINES.—The Secretary shall establish, and publish in the Federal Register, agency guidelines to insure that the purposes of this section are achieved efficiently and effectively. Such guidelines shall include, but are not limited to— (1) procedures for recording the receipt and the disposition of petitions submitted under subsection (b)(3) of this section; (2) criteria for making the findings required under such subsection with respect to petitions; (3) a ranking system to assist in the identification of species that should receive priority review under subsection (a)(1) of this section; and (4) a system for developing and implementing, on a priority basis, recovery plans under subsection (f) of this section. The Secretary shall provide to the public notice of, and opportunity to submit written comments on, any guideline (including any amendment thereto) proposed to be established under this subsection. (i) If, in the case of any regulation proposed by the Secretary under the authority of this section, a State agency to which notice thereof was given in accordance with subsection (b)(5)(A)(ii) files comments disagreeing with all or part of the proposed regulation, and the Secretary issues a final regulation which is in conflict with such comments, or if the Secretary fails to adopt a regulation pursuant to an action petitioned by a State agency under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency’s comments or petition.

 

Endangered Species Act | Section 7

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

SEC. 7. (a) FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND CONSULTATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act. (2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an “agency action”) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available. (3) Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementation of such action will likely affect such species. (4) Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under section 4 or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. This paragraph does not require a limitation on the commitment of resources as described in subsection (d).

(b) OPINION OF SECRETARY.—(1)(A) Consultation under subsection (a)(2) with respect to any agency action shall be concluded within the 90-day period beginning on the date on which initiated or, subject to subparagraph (B), within such other period of time as is mutually agreeable to the Secretary and the Federal agency. (B) In the case of an agency action involving a permit or license applicant, the Secretary and the Federal agency may not mutually agree to conclude consultation within a period exceeding 90 days unless the Secretary, before the close of the 90th day referred to in subparagraph (A)— (i) if the consultation period proposed to be agreed to will end before the 150th day after the date on which consultation was initiated, submits to the applicant a written statement setting forth— (I) the reasons why a longer period is required, (II) the information that is required to complete the consultation, and (III) the estimated date on which consultation will be completed; or (ii) if the consultation period proposed to be agreed to will end 150 or more days after the date on which consultation was initiated, obtains the consent of the applicant to such period. The Secretary and the Federal agency may mutually agree to extend a consultation period established under the preceding sentence if the Secretary, before the close of such period, obtains the consent of the applicant to the extension. (2) Consultation under subsection (a)(3) shall be concluded within such period as is agreeable to the Secretary, the Federal agency, and the applicant concerned. (3)(A) Promptly after conclusion of consultation under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide to the Federal agency and the applicant, if any, a written statement setting forth the Secretary’s opinion, and a summary of the information on which the opinion is based, detailing how the agency action affects the species or its critical habitat. If jeopardy or adverse modification is found, the Secretary shall suggest those reasonable and prudent alternatives which he believes would not violate subsection (a)(2) and can be taken by the Federal agency or applicant in implementing the agency action. (B) Consultation under subsection (a)(3), and an opinion issued by the Secretary incident to such consultation, regarding an agency action shall be treated respectively as a consultation under subsection (a)(2), and as an opinion issued after consultation under such subsection, regarding that action if the Secretary reviews the action before it is commenced by the Federal agency and finds, and notifies such agency, that no significant changes have been made with respect to the action and that no significant change has occurred regarding the information used during the initial consultation. (4) If after consultation under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary concludes that— (A) the agency action will not violate such subsection, or offers reasonable and prudent alternatives which the Secretary believes would not violate such subsection; (B) the taking of an endangered species or a threatened species incidental to the agency action will not violate such subsection; and (C) if an endangered species or threatened species of a marine mammal is involved, the taking is authorized pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972; the Secretary shall provide the Federal agency and the applicant concerned, if any, with a written statement that— (i) specifies the impact of such incidental taking on the species, (ii) specifies those reasonable and prudent measures that the Secretary considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact, (iii) in the case of marine mammals, specifies those measures that are necessary to comply with section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 with regard to such taking, and (iv) sets forth the terms and conditions (including, but not limited to, reporting requirements) that must be complied with by the Federal agency or applicant (if any), or both, to implement the measures specified under clauses (ii) and (iii).

(c) BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT.—(1) To facilitate compliance with the requirements of subsection (a)(2), each Federal agency shall, with respect to any agency action of such agency for which no contract for construction has been entered into and for which no construction has begun on the date of enactment of the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978, request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action. If the Secretary advises, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that such species may be present, such agency shall conduct a biological assessment for the purpose of identifying any endangered species or threatened species which is likely to be affected by such action. Such assessment shall be completed within 180 days after the date on which initiated (or within such other period as is mutually agreed to by the Secretary and such agency, except that if a permit or license applicant is involved, the 180-day period may not be extended unless such agency provides the applicant, before the close of such period, with a written statement setting forth the estimated length of the proposed extension and the reasons therefor) and, before any contract for construction is entered into and before construction is begun with respect to such action. Such assessment may be undertaken as part of a Federal agency’s compliance with the requirements of section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). (2) Any person who may wish to apply for an exemption under subsection (g) of this section for that action may conduct a biological assessment to identify any endangered species or threatened species which is likely to be affected by such action. Any such biological assessment must, however, be conducted in cooperation with the Secretary and under the supervision of the appropriate Federal agency.

(d) LIMITATION ON COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES.—After initiation of consultation required under subsection (a)(2), the Federal agency and the permit or license applicant shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the agency action which has the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures which would not violate subsection (a)(2).

(e)(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE.—There is established a committee to be known as the Endangered Species Committee (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Committee”). (2) The Committee shall review any application submitted to it pursuant to this section and determine in accordance with subsection (h) of this section whether or not to grant an exemption from the requirements of subsection (a)(2) of this section for the action set forth in such application. (3) The Committee shall be composed of seven members as follows: (A) The Secretary of Agriculture. (B) The Secretary of the Army. (C) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. (D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. (E) The Secretary of the Interior. (F) The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (G) The President, after consideration of any recommendations received pursuant to subsection (g)(2)(B) shall appoint one individual from each affected State, as determined by the Secretary, to be a member of the Committee for the consideration of the application for exemption for an agency action with respect to which such recommendations are made, not later than 30 days after an application is submitted pursuant to this section. (4)(A) Members of the Committee shall receive no additional pay on account of their service on the Committee. (B) While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Committee, members of the Committee shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703 of title 5 of the United States Code. (5)(A) Five members of the Committee or their representatives shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of any function of the Committee, except that, in no case shall any representative be considered in determining the existence of a quorum for the transaction of any function of the Committee if that function involves a vote by the Committee on any matter before the Committee. (B) The Secretary of the Interior shall be the Chairman of the Committee. (C) The Committee shall meet at the call of the Chairman or five of its members. (D) All meetings and records of the Committee shall be open to the public. (6) Upon request of the Committee, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to the Committee to assist it in carrying out its duties under this section. (7)(A) The Committee may for the purpose of carrying out its duties under this section hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence, as the Committee deems advisable. (B) When so authorized by the Committee, any member or agent of the Committee may take any action which the Committee is authorized to take by this paragraph. (C) Subject to the Privacy Act, the Committee may secure directly from any Federal agency information necessary to enable it to carry out its duties under this section. Upon request of the Chairman of the Committee, the head of such Federal agency shall furnish such information to the Committee. (D) The Committee may use the United States mails in the same manner and upon the same conditions as a Federal agency. (E) The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Committee on a reimbursable basis such administrative support services as the Committee may request. (8) In carrying out its duties under this section, the Committee may promulgate and amend such rules, regulations, and procedures, and issue and amend such orders as it deems necessary. (9) For the purpose of obtaining information necessary for the consideration of an application for an exemption under this section the Committee may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and documents. (10) In no case shall any representative, including a representative of a member designated pursuant to paragraph (3)(G) of this subsection, be eligible to cast a vote on behalf of any member.

(f) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations which set forth the form and manner in which applications for exemption shall be submitted to the Secretary and the information to be contained in such applications. Such regulations shall require that information submitted in an application by the head of any Federal agency with respect to any agency action include, but not be limited to — (1) a description of the consultation process carried out pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of this section between the head of the Federal agency and the Secretary; and (2) a statement describing why such action cannot be altered or modified to conform with the requirements of subsection (a)(2) of this section.

(g) APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION AND REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE.—(1) A Federal agency, the Governor of the State in which an agency action will occur, if any, or a permit or license applicant may apply to the Secretary for an exemption for an agency action of such agency if, after consultation under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary’s opinion under subsection (b) indicates that the agency action would violate subsection (a)(2). An application for an exemption shall be considered initially by the Secretary in the manner provided for in this subsection, and shall be considered by the Committee for a final determination under subsection (h) after a report is made pursuant to paragraph (5). The applicant for an exemption shall be referred to as the “exemption applicant” in this section. (2)(A) An exemption applicant shall submit a written application to the Secretary, in a form prescribed under subsection (f), not later than 90 days after the completion of the consultation process; except that, in the case of any agency action involving a permit or license applicant, such application shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the date on which the Federal agency concerned takes final agency action with respect to the issuance of the permit or license. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “final agency action” means (i) a disposition by an agency with respect to the issuance of a permit or license that is subject to administrative review, whether or not such disposition is subject to judicial review; or (ii) if administrative review is sought with respect to such disposition, the decision resulting after such review. Such application shall set forth the reasons why the exemption applicant considers that the agency action meets the requirements for an exemption under this subsection. (B) Upon receipt of an application for exemption for an agency action under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall promptly (i) notify the Governor of each affected State, if any, as determined by the Secretary, and request the Governors so notified to recommend individuals to be appointed to the Endangered Species Committee for consideration of such application; and (ii) publish notice of receipt of the application in the Federal Register, including a summary of the information contained in the application and a description of the agency action with respect to which the application for exemption has been filed. (3) The Secretary shall within 20 days after the receipt of an application for exemption, or within such other period of time as is mutually agreeable to the exemption applicant and the Secretary— (A) determine that the Federal agency concerned and the exemption applicant have— (i) carried out the consultation responsibilities described in subsection (a) in good faith and made a reasonable and responsible effort to develop andfairly consider modifications or reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed agency action which would not violate subsection (a)(2); (ii) conducted any biological assessment required by subsection (c); and (iii) to the extent determinable within the time provided herein, refrained from making any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources prohibited by subsection (d); or (B) deny the application for exemption because the Federal agency concerned or the exemption applicant have not met the requirements set forth in subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), and (iii). The denial of an application under subparagraph (B) shall be considered final agency action for purposes of chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. (4) If the Secretary determines that the Federal agency concerned and the exemption applicant have met the requirements set forth in paragraph (3)(A)(i), (ii), and (iii) he shall, in consultation with the Members of the Committee, hold a hearing on the application for exemption in accordance with sections 554, 555, and 556 (other than subsection (b)(1) and (2) thereof) of title 5, United States Code, and prepare the report to be submitted pursuant to paragraph (5). (5) Within 140 days after making the determinations under paragraph (3) or within such other period of time as is mutually agreeable to the exemption applicant and the Secretary, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee a report discussing— (A) the availability of reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency action, and the nature and extent of the benefits of the agency action and of alternative courses of action consistent with conserving the species or the critical habitat; (B) a summary of the evidence concerning whether or not the agency action is in the public interest and is of national or regional significance; (C) appropriate reasonable mitigation and enhancement measures which should be considered by the Committee; and (D) whether the Federal agency concerned and the exemption applicant refrained from making any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources prohibited by subsection (d). (6) To the extent practicable within the time required for action under subsection (g) of this section, and except to the extent inconsistent with the requirements of this section, the consideration of any application for an exemption under this section and the conduct of any hearing under this subsection shall be in accordance with sections 554, 555, and 556 (other than subsection (b)(3) of section 556) of title 5, United States Code. (7) Upon request of the Secretary, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to the Secretary to assist him in carrying out his duties under this section. (8) All meetings and records resulting from activities pursuant to this subsection shall be open to the public.

(h) EXEMPTION.—(1) The Committee shall make a final determination whether or not to grant an exemption within 30 days after receiving the report of the Secretary pursuant to subsection (g)(5). The Committee shall grant an exemption from the requirements of subsection (a)(2) for an agency action if, by a vote of not less than five of its members voting in person— (A) it determines on the record, based on the report of the Secretary, the record of the hearing held under subsection (g)(4) and on such other testimony or evidence as it may receive, that— (i) there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency action; (ii) the benefits of such action clearly outweigh the benefits of alternative courses of action consistent with conserving the species or its critical habitat, and such action is in the public interest; (iii) the action is of regional or national significance; and (iv) neither the Federal agency concerned nor the exemption applicant made any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources prohibited by subsection (d); and (B) it establishes such reasonable mitigation and enhancement measures, including, but not limited to, live propagation, transplantation, and habitat acquisition and improvement, as are necessary and appropriate to minimize the adverse effects of the agency action upon the endangered species, threatened species, or critical habitat concerned. Any final determination by the Committee under this subsection shall be considered final agency action for purposes of chapter 7 of title 5 of the United States Code. (2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an exemption for an agency action granted under paragraph (1) shall constitute a permanent exemption with respect to all endangered or threatened species for the purposes of completing such agency action— (i) regardless whether the species was identified in the biological assessment; and (ii) only if a biological assessment has been conducted under subsection (c) with respect to such agency action. (B) An exemption shall be permanent under subparagraph (A) unless— (i) the Secretary finds, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that such exemption would result in the extinction of a species that was not the subject of consultation under subsection (a)(2) or was not identified in any biological assessment conducted under subsection (c), and (ii) the Committee determines within 60 days after the date of the Secretary’s finding that the exemption should not be permanent. If the Secretary makes a finding described in clause (i), the Committee shall meet with respect to the matter within 30 days after the date of the finding.

(i) REVIEW BY SECRETARY OF STATE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Committee shall be prohibited from considering for exemption any application made to it, if the Secretary of State, after a review of the proposed agency action and its potential implications, and after hearing, certifies, in writing, to the Committee within 60 days of any application made under this section that the granting of any such exemption and the carrying out of such action would be in violation of an international treaty obligation or other international obligation of the United States. The Secretary of State shall, at the time of such certification, publish a copy thereof in the Federal Register.

(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Committee shall grant an exemption for any agency action if the Secretary of Defense finds that such exemption is necessary for reasons of national security.

(k) SPECIAL PROVISIONS.—An exemption decision by the Committee under this section shall not be a major Federal action for purposes of the National Environ mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.): Provided, That an environmental impact statement which discusses the impacts upon endangered species or threatened species or their critical habitats shall have been previously prepared with respect to any agency action exempted by such order.

(l) COMMITTEE ORDERS.—(1) If the Committee determines under subsection (h) that an exemption should be granted with respect to any agency action, the Committee shall issue an order granting the exemption and specifying the mitigation and enhancement measures established pursuant to subsection (h) which shall be carried out and paid for by the exemption applicant in implementing the agency action. All necessary mitigation and enhancement measures shall be authorized prior to the implementing of the agency action and funded concurrently with all other project features. (2) The applicant receiving such exemption shall include the costs of such mitigation and enhancement measures within the overall costs of continuing the proposed action. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence the costs of such measures shall not be treated as project costs for the purpose of computing benefit-cost or other ratios for the proposed action. Any applicant may request the Secretary to carry out such mitigation and enhancement measures. The costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying out any such measures shall be paid by the applicant receiving the exemption. No later than one year after the granting of an exemption, the exemption applicant shall submit to the Council on Environmental Quality a report describing its compliance with the mitigation and enhancement measures prescribed by this section. Such a report shall be submitted annually until all such mitigation and enhancement measures have been completed. Notice of the public availability of such reports shall be published in the Federal Register by the Council on Environmental Quality.

(m) NOTICE.—The 60-day notice requirement of section 11(g) of this Act shall not apply with respect to review of any final determination of the Committee under subsection (h) of this section granting an exemption from the requirements of subsection (a)(2) of this section.

(n) JUDICIAL REVIEW. —Any person, as defined by section 3(13) of this Act, may obtain judicial review, under chapter 7 of title 5 of the United States Code, of any decision of the Endangered Species Committee under subsection (h) in the United States Court of Appeals for (1) any circuit wherein the agency action concerned will be, or is being, carried out, or (2) in any case in which the agency action will be, or is being, carried out outside of any circuit, the District of Columbia, by filing in such court within 90 days after the date of issuance of the decision, a written petition for review. A copy of such petition shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Committee and the Committee shall file in the court the record in the proceeding, as provided in section 2112, of title 28, United States Code. Attorneys designated by the Endangered Species Committee may appear for, and represent the Committee in any action for review under this subsection.

(o) Notwithstanding sections 4(d) and 9(a)(1)(B) and (C), sections 101 and 102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, or any regulation promulgated to implement any such section— (1) any action for which an exemption is granted under subsection (h) shall not be considered to be a taking of any endangered species or threatened species with respect to any activity which is necessary to carry out such action; and (2) any taking that is in compliance with the terms and conditions specified in a written statement provided under subsection (b)(4)(iv) shall not be considered to be a prohibited taking of the species concerned.

(p) EXEMPTIONS IN PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTER AREAS.—In any area which has been declared by the President to be a major disaster area under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the President is authorized to make the determinations required by subsections (g) and (h) of this section for any project for the repair or replacement of a public facility substantially as it existed prior to the disaster under section 405 or 406 of the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and which the President determines (1) is necessary to prevent the recurrence of such a natural disaster and to reduce the potential loss of human life, and (2) to involve an emergency situation which does not allow the ordinary procedures of this section to be followed. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Committee shall accept the determinations of the President under this subsection.

 

Endangered Species Act | Section 9

PROHIBITED ACTS

SEC. 9.

(a) GENERAL.—(1) Except as provided in sections 6(g)(2) and 10 of this Act, with respect to any endangered species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to— (A) import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States; (B) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States; (C) take any such species upon the high seas; (D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C); (E) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species; (F) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species; or (G) violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threatened species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act and promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authority provided by this Act. (2) Except as provided in sections 6(g)(2) and 10 of this Act, with respect to any endangered species of plants listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to— (A) import any such species into, or export any such species from, the United States; (B) remove and reduce to possession any such species from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy any such species on any such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law;(C) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species; (D) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species; or (E) violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threatened species of plants listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act and promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authority provided by this Act.

(b)(1) SPECIES HELD IN CAPTIVITY OR CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.—The provisions of subsections (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(G) of this section shall not apply to any fish or wildlife which was held in captivity or in a controlled environment on (A) December 28, 1973, or (B) the date of the publication in the Federal Register of a final regulation adding such fish or wildlife species to any list published pursuant to subsection (c) of section 4 of this Act: Provided, That such holding and any subsequent holding or use of the fish or wildlife was not in the course of a commercial activity. With respect to any act prohibited by subsections (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(G) of this section which occurs after a period of 180 days from (i) December 28, 1973, or (ii) the date of publication in the Federal Register of a final regulation adding such fish or wildlife species to any list published pursuant to subsection (c) of section 4 of this Act, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the fish or wildlife involved in such act is not entitled to the exemption contained in this subsection. (2)(A) The provisions of subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to— (i) any raptor legally held in captivity or in a controlled environment on the effective date of the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978; or (ii) any progeny of any raptor described in clause (i); until such time as any such raptor or progeny is intentionally returned to a wild state. (B) Any person holding any raptor or progeny described in subparagraph (A) must be able to demonstrate that the raptor or progeny does, in fact, qualify under the provisions of this paragraph, and shall maintain and submit to the Secretary, on request, such inventories, documentation, and records as the Secretary may by regulation require as being reasonably appropriate to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. Such requirements shall not unnecessarily duplicate the requirements of other rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary.

(c) VIOLATION OF CONVENTION.—(1) It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in any trade in any specimens contrary to the provisions of the Convention, or to possess any specimens traded contrary to the provisions of the Convention, including the definitions of terms in article I thereof. (2) Any importation into the United States of fish or wildlife shall, if — (A) such fish or wildlife is not an endangered species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act but is listed in Appendix II to the Convention, (B) the taking and exportation of such fish or wildlife is not contrary to the provisions of the Convention and all other applicable requirements of the Convention have been satisfied, (C) the applicable requirements of subsections (d), (e), and (f) of this section have been satisfied, and (D) such importation is not made in the course of a commercial activity, be presumed to be an importation not in violation of any provision of this Act or any regulation issued pursuant to this Act.

(d) IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for any person, without first having obtained permission from the Secretary, to engage in business— (A) as an importer or exporter of fish or wildlife (other than shellfish and fishery products which (i) are not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act as endangered species or threatened species, and (ii) are imported for purposes of human or animal consumption or taken in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States or on the high seas for recreational purposes) or plants; or (B) as an importer or exporter of any amount of raw or worked African elephant ivory. (2) REQUIREMENTS.—Any person required to obtain permission under paragraph (1) of this subsection shall— (A) keep such records as will fully and correctly disclose each importation or exportation of fish, wildlife, plants, or African elephant ivory made by him and the subsequent disposition made by him with respect to such fish, wildlife, plants, or ivory; (B) at all reasonable times upon notice by a duly authorized representative of the Secretary, afford such representative access to his place of business, an opportunity to examine his inventory of imported fish, wildlife, plants, or African elephant ivory and the records required to be kept under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, and to copy such records; and (C) file such reports as the Secretary may require. (3) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this subsection.(4) RESTRICTION ON CONSIDERATION OF VALUE OR AMOUNT OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT IVORY IMPORTED OR EXPORTED.—In granting permission under this subsection for importation or exportation of African elephant ivory, the Secretary shall not vary the requirements for obtaining such permission on the basis of the value or amount of ivory imported or exported under such permission.

(e) REPORTS.—It is unlawful for any person importing or exporting fish or wildlife (other than shellfish and fishery products which (1) are not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act as endangered or threatened species, and (2) are imported for purposes of human or animal consumption or taken in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States or on the high seas for recreational purposes) or plants to fail to file any declaration or report as the Secretary deems necessary to facilitate enforcement of this Act or to meet the obligations of the Convention.

(f) DESIGNATION OF PORTS.— (1) It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import into or export from the United States any fish or wildlife (other than shellfish and fishery products which (A) are not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act as endangered species or threatened species, and (B) are imported for purposes of human or animal consumption or taken in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States or on the high seas for recreational purposes) or plants, except at a port or ports designated by the Secretary of the Interior. For the purpose of facilitating enforcement of this Act and reducing the costs thereof, the Secretary of the Interior, with approval of the Secretary of the Treasury and after notice and opportunity for public hearing, may, by regulation, designate ports and change such designations. The Secretary of the Interior, under such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, may permit the importation or exportation at nondesignated ports in the interest of the health or safety of the fish or wildlife or plants, or for otherreasons if, in his discretion, he deems it appropriate and consistent with the purpose of this subsection. (2) Any port designated by the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act of December 5, 1969 (16 U.S.C. 666cc-4(d)), shall, if such designation is in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, be deemed to be a port designated by the Secretary under paragraph (1) of this subsection until such time as the Secretary otherwise provides.

(g) VIOLATIONS.—It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in this section.

 

Laws & Policies | Regulations and Policies

The Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries in the Department of Commerce share responsibility for administration of the Endangered Species Act. We have issued internal guidance and national policies to promote efficiency and nationwide consistency in implementing the ESA to conserve and recover listed species of plants and animals native to the United States and its territories.

Below you will find links to summaries of our major policies, sorted by the associated section of the Act. Most of these and other policies can be downloaded in PDF format from our document library .

Find information on policies and programs that work to protect and recover species in other countries.

General Policies

Notice of Intent To Clarify the Role of Habitat in Endangered Species Conservation (64 FR 31871, June 14, 1999)
Definition of “Harm” (64 FR 607277, November 8, 1999)
Interagency Policy for Conserving Species Listed or Proposed Under the ESA While Providing and Enhancing Recreational Fisheries Opportunities (61 FR 27978, June 3, 1996)
Interagency Policy for the Ecosystem Approach to the Endangered Species Act (59 FR 34274, July 1, 1994)
Interagency Policy for Peer Review in ESA Activites ([59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994)
Interagency Policy on Information Standards under the ESA (59 FR 34271, July 1, 1994)
Interagency Policy for ESA Section 9 Prohibitions (59 FR 34272, July 1, 1994)
Interagency Policy Regarding the Role of State Agencies in ESA Activities (59 FR 34275, July 1, 1994)

Access General Policy Documents

Candidate Conservation Policies

Final Decision on Identification of Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened (61 FR 64481, December 5, 1996)
Draft Handbook for Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances and Enhancement of Survival Permit Processing (68 FR 37170, June 23, 2003)
Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Conservation Banks - Notice (68 FR 24753, May 8 2003)
Response to Public Comments on Amending General Permitting Regulations Relating to Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements and Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances (66 FR 6483, January 22, 2001)
Final Policy for Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (64 FR 32726, June 17, 1999)
Safe Harbors and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances - Regulations (64 FR 32705, June 17, 1999)

Access Candidate Conservation Policy Documents

Listing Program Policies

Final Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Year 2000 (64 FR 57114, October 22, 1999)
Interagency Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996)
Final Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003) [109KB]

Access Listing Program Policy Documents

Consultations Program Policies

Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations – National Fire Plan (68 FR 68254, December 8, 2003)
Evaluating the Net Benefit of Hazardous Fuels Treatment Projects (68 FR 1629, January 13, 2003)
Alternative Approaches for Streamlining Section 7 Consultation on Hazardous Fuels Treatment Projects (68 FR 1628, January 13, 2003)
Notice of Availability: Final Endangered Species Consultation Handbook for Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the ESA (64 FR 31285, June 10, 1999)

Access Consultations Program Policy Documents

Habitat Conservation Planning Policies

Notice of Availability: Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process (61 FR 63854, December 2, 1996)
Habitat Conservation Plan Assurances (“No Surprises”) Rule (63 FR 8859, February 23, 1998)
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the “No Surprises” Rule
Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit Revocation Regulations (69 FR 71723, December 10, 2004)

Access Habitat Conservation Planning Policy Documents

Recovery Program Policies

NMFS-FWS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance

Adoption of NMFS-FWS Recovery Planning Guidance as Interim Guidance (August 26, 2010)

Policy Regarding Controlled Propagation of Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act (65 FR 56916, September 20, 2000)
Final Safe Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717, June 17, 1999)
Safe Harbors and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances – Regulations (64 FR 32705, June 17, 1999)
Interagency Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996)
Interagency Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation under the ESA (59 FR 34272, July 1, 1994)

Access Recovery Program Policy Documents

Endangered Species Act — Definition of “Harm” and “Take”

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

Since I am posting a lot of articles and commentaries about the Endangered Species Act…and abuses of that law….I am posting source information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to provide background:

The Endangered Species ActBy Virginia S. Albrecht and James N. Christman of Hunton & Williams LLP

Section 9: “Take” of Endangered or Threatened SpeciesESA § 9 prohibits everyone, private person and federal agency alike, from “taking” endangered wildlife. The regulations extend this to threatened animals (see e.g. , 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.31, 17.21). “Take” includes “harming” a listed species, [12] and “harm” is defined by FWS regulation to include habitat alteration:
Harm in the definition of “take” in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impacting essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

50 C.F.R. § 17.3. See Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon , 515 U.S. 687 (1995). Section 11(b) of the ESA makes it a crime knowingly to “take” an endangered species without a permit or violate a regulation implementing the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(b)(1). You are permitted, however, to defend yourself of others from bodily harm. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(b)(3).

This prohibition against “take” covers fish and wildlife but not plants. Cf . 16 U.S.C. § 1532(8) and § 1532(14). It is, however, illegal to remove an endangered plant from federal land and reduce it to possession, and federal law also federalizes state law prohibitions on the taking of plants.

The Secretary may issue a permit for an “incidental take” of listed species that are incidental to and not for the purpose of a proposed activity (ESA § 10). Permits may be issued only after the landowner submits a “habitat conservation plan” (HCP), including proposed mitigation measures and an explanation of why alternatives were rejected. If FWS finds that the “take” will be incidental, will be satisfactorily mitigated, and will not appreciably reduce the species’ chances for survival or recovery, it must issue the permit. There has been a move afoot recently to incorporate a “recovery” standard into HCPs, which would mean that HCPs would have to contribute affirmatively to the recovery of affected species, whereas under present law an HCP can be approved so long as it does not degrade the species further. HCPs can be very expensive to prepare and are especially burdensome for small businessmen and small landowners.

In 1996 the FWS and NMFS issued a joint Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process (HCP Handbook), which explains that HCPs may be processed under three models. 61 Fed. Reg. 63,854 (December 2, 1996); see also notice of draft addendum, 64 Fed. Reg. 11,485 (March 9, 1999). It created a “low-effect” HCP category for small landowners and other low-impact projects that have only minor or negligible effects on listed species or other environmental resources. A low-effect HCP is exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and does not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. “Moderate” HCPs require an environmental assessment, and “high-effect” ones require an environmental impact statement.

FWS’s and NMFS’s “no surprises” rule, 63 Fed. Reg. 8859 (February 23, 1998), allows an applicant for an incidental take permit to negotiate long-term assurances that no additional mitigation of impacts will be required, even if circumstances change. The rule provides some assurance that no additional land use restrictions or financial compensation will be required from the permit holder if unforeseen circumstances arise indicating that additional mitigation is necessary. It has been challenged in court by environmentalists.

In mid-1997 FWS and NMFS published a series of proposals having to do with their Safe Harbor Policy and Candidate Conservation Agreements. [13] The final version was published in June 1999. 64 Fed. Reg. 32,706, 32,717, 32,726 (June 17, 1999). Safe Harbor agreements are an attempt to soften the rule that no good deed goes unpunished. Landowners are often willing to manage their properties so as to improve habitat but may fear that if they are too successful and endangered animals colonize their land, they will then be prohibited from using the land in the future because of the § 9 “take” prohibition. In return for voluntarily undertaking land management activities that will provide a “net conservation benefit,” the landowner receives assurances that he will be allowed to alter or modify the property even if the alteration will result in an incidental “take” that would return the species back to originally agreed-upon “baseline conditions.” 62 Fed. Reg. 32,180 col. 1-2 (June 12, 1997).

Candidate Conservation Agreements, as their name suggests, apply to species that are not yet listed as threatened or endangered but are being considered for listing. They provide assurances that, if the covered species are eventually listed, the property owners or state or local land managing agencies will not be required to do more than the agreement calls for. 62 Fed. Reg. 32,183 col. 3 (June 12, 1997).

More…

From US Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered Species Act | Regulations and Policies | Definition of “Harm”

[Federal Register: November 8, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 215)]

[Rules and Regulations] [Page 60727-60731]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr08no99-20] [[Page 60727]]

——————————————————–

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 222 [Docket No. 980414094-9287-02; I.D. No. 091797A] RIN 0648-AK55

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Definition of “Harm”

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: This final rule defines the term “harm”, which is contained in the definition of “take” in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The purpose of this rulemaking is to clarify the type of actions that may result in a take of a listed species under the ESA. This final rule is not a change in existing law. It provides clear notification to the public that habitat modification or degradation may harm listed species and, therefore, constitutes a take under the ESA as well as ensuring consistency between NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This final rule defines the term “harm” to include any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Mobley, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, phone (301)713-1401 or Garth Griffin, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232, phone (503)231- 2005.

_________________________
Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

Since I am posting a lot of articles and commentaries about the Endangered Species Act…and abuses of that law….I am posting source information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to provide background:

From US Fish and Wildlife Service

Listing and Critical Habitat | Overview

Photo of Miami blue butterfly by H.L. SalvatoMiami blue butterfly, a species that is a candidate for listing as endangered.

Photo credit: H.L. Salvato

Before a plant or animal species can receive the protection provided by the Endangered Species Act, it must first be added to the Federal lists of threatened and endangered wildlife and plants. The List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) and the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12) contain the names of all species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, insects, plants, and other creatures that have been determined by the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (for most marine life) to be in the greatest need of Federal protection.

A species is added to the list when it is determined to be endangered or threatened because of any of the following factors:

  • the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
  • overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
  • disease or predation;
  • the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
  • the natural or manmade factors affecting its survival

But how exactly does a species become listed under the ESA? The process is cumbersome, complex, and generally poorly understood. It can happen two different ways: through the petition process or through the candidate assessment process. The ESA provides that any interested person may petition the Secretary of the Interior to add a species to, or to remove a species from, the list of endangered and threatened species. Through the candidate assessment process, FWS biologists identify species as listing candidates.

For all the details, download the Listing fact sheet. [328KB]