Misplaced Pages

#295704

140-586: In California the Department of Fish and Wildlife oversees CESA and makes sure that citizens are following laws/regulations that are in place. They also have a huge impact on what species are added to CESA as they survey species populations in the wild. The Department of Fish and Wildlife issues citation to violators, fines of up to $ 50,000 and/or one year imprisonment for crimes involving endangered species, and fines of up to $ 25,000 and/or six months imprisonment for crimes involving threatened species. In 1970, California

280-527: A "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation", the ESA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973. The Supreme Court of the United States described it as "the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species enacted by any nation". The purposes of the ESA are two-fold: to prevent extinction and to recover species to

420-531: A PhD marine biologist by training (Oregon State University, 1969), who had transferred from his post as the senior scientific adviser to the Commandant of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, office of the Commandant of the Corps., to join the newly formed White House CEQ. The staff, under Dr. Train's leadership, incorporated dozens of new principles and ideas into the landmark legislation but also incorporated previous laws, as

560-430: A PhD marine biologist by training (Oregon State University, 1969), who had transferred from his post as the senior scientific adviser to the Commandant of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, office of the Commandant of the Corps., to join the newly formed White House CEQ. The staff, under Dr. Train's leadership, incorporated dozens of new principles and ideas into the landmark legislation but also incorporated previous laws, as

700-525: A common colloquial term like "fish", and (2) the Act originally included one terrestrial invertebrate, and therefore it was demonstrably intentional that terrestrial invertebrates (including bees) are meant to be granted protection; the trial court's decision was therefore summarily reversed. In September of 2022, California’s Supreme Court denied review of a further petition filed to appeal the Court of Appeal's May decision;

840-502: A component of the written decision. Rather, geographic boundaries of operation were set to preclude direct impact on the several populations of the endangered Tiehm's buckwheat . The buckwheat example also displays the lack of scalar considerations regarding species uniqueness and ecological importance, as these were not components of the 2022 listing decision nor of the environmental permitting decision required for lithium mining. Scientific expertise alone determines if an animal or plant

980-502: A component of the written decision. Rather, geographic boundaries of operation were set to preclude direct impact on the several populations of the endangered Tiehm's buckwheat . The buckwheat example also displays the lack of scalar considerations regarding species uniqueness and ecological importance, as these were not components of the 2022 listing decision nor of the environmental permitting decision required for lithium mining. Scientific expertise alone determines if an animal or plant

1120-563: A deadline for how soon after listing the Services must complete recovery plans." A 2023 report on the Act issued by Defenders of Wildlife calculated that "265 species listed under the Act lack recovery guidance of any kind, while 370 additional species lack final recovery guidance." The group also noted that more than half of the existing recovery plans were more than 20 years old. Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( ESA or "The Act"; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. )

1260-422: A hierarchy of priorities based first on the magnitude of threat, then upon its imminence, and finally upon taxonomic distinctiveness (with monotypic genera ranked ahead of other species, and full species ranked ahead of subspecies). Requirements that listing decisions be made based on scientific evidence and considerations, coupled with an inability of the agencies to expand and contract staffing based on shifts in

1400-422: A hierarchy of priorities based first on the magnitude of threat, then upon its imminence, and finally upon taxonomic distinctiveness (with monotypic genera ranked ahead of other species, and full species ranked ahead of subspecies). Requirements that listing decisions be made based on scientific evidence and considerations, coupled with an inability of the agencies to expand and contract staffing based on shifts in

1540-523: A lack of scientific integrity in the federal program." Among the faculty expressing views in a University of Pennsylvania report, one drew attention to an underlying shift in national worldviews during the past half-century: The Act "reflects the confidence of mid-20th century liberal politics that any problem can be fixed with legislation based on scientific data," yet pragmatic solutions that require flexibility have been hindered and polarization has become intense. An academic review paper in 2008 reported that

SECTION 10

#1732845317296

1680-523: A lack of scientific integrity in the federal program." Among the faculty expressing views in a University of Pennsylvania report, one drew attention to an underlying shift in national worldviews during the past half-century: The Act "reflects the confidence of mid-20th century liberal politics that any problem can be fixed with legislation based on scientific data," yet pragmatic solutions that require flexibility have been hindered and polarization has become intense. An academic review paper in 2008 reported that

1820-575: A listed species must involve mortality, as opposed to habitat alteration that adversely impacts the listed species. The year 1970 brought about two major California enactments: the California Species Preservation Act , and the California Endangered Species Act. The Species Preservation Act tasked the Department with creating an inventory of all fish and wildlife that could be considered rare or endangered. The list

1960-483: A potential financial loss. As well, while the standard to prevent jeopardy or adverse modification applies only to federal activities, non-federal activities are subject to Section 10 of the Act, and private activities on private lands may require federal discretionary permits (such as those required by the Clean Water Act , Section 404) and thereby triggering Section 7 of the ESA. Controversy sometimes roils when

2100-426: A potential financial loss. As well, while the standard to prevent jeopardy or adverse modification applies only to federal activities, non-federal activities are subject to Section 10 of the Act, and private activities on private lands may require federal discretionary permits (such as those required by the Clean Water Act , Section 404) and thereby triggering Section 7 of the ESA. Controversy sometimes roils when

2240-545: A revision to the listed entity." Critics of the Act have noted that, despite its goal of recovering species to the point of delisting, this has rarely happened. As of 2023 (fifty years after its passage), an aggregate of 1,780 species had been listed through the years as endangered or the less severe category of threatened. Of that total, 64 species improved enough to be removed from the list. Another 64 improved enough to be "downlisted" from endangered to threatened. While 11 species have been declared extinct since implementation of

2380-545: A revision to the listed entity." Critics of the Act have noted that, despite its goal of recovering species to the point of delisting, this has rarely happened. As of 2023 (fifty years after its passage), an aggregate of 1,780 species had been listed through the years as endangered or the less severe category of threatened. Of that total, 64 species improved enough to be removed from the list. Another 64 improved enough to be "downlisted" from endangered to threatened. While 11 species have been declared extinct since implementation of

2520-572: A similar international convention. In February 1973 a meeting in Washington, D.C. was convened. This meeting produced the comprehensive multilateral treaty known as CITES , or the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 provided a template for the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by using the term "based on

2660-401: A similar international convention. In February 1973 a meeting in Washington, D.C. was convened. This meeting produced the comprehensive multilateral treaty known as CITES , or the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 provided a template for the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by using the term "based on

2800-427: A species is listed, the statutory imperative to prevent extinction precludes scalar considerations in federal permitting of development projects. Economic or other societal benefits, no matter how significant, are not to impede upon scientific decision-making in assessing the degree to which a project would subject a listed species to additional extinction risk. An historic example is the 1978 judicial decision in favor of

2940-427: A species is listed, the statutory imperative to prevent extinction precludes scalar considerations in federal permitting of development projects. Economic or other societal benefits, no matter how significant, are not to impede upon scientific decision-making in assessing the degree to which a project would subject a listed species to additional extinction risk. An historic example is the 1978 judicial decision in favor of

SECTION 20

#1732845317296

3080-604: A species-by-species basis. As of 2023, the most recent report to Congress was by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and presented expenditures cumulative through fiscal year 2020. The report entailed these statistics: "Of the 1,388 status reviews completed, 93 percent (1,294) recommend no change in status for the species, 3 percent (40) recommend reclassifying from endangered to threatened, 3 percent (38) recommend delisting (22 due to extinction, 13 due to recovery, and 3 due to error), 1 percent (13) recommend reclassifying from threatened to endangered, and less than 1 percent (2) recommend

3220-604: A species-by-species basis. As of 2023, the most recent report to Congress was by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and presented expenditures cumulative through fiscal year 2020. The report entailed these statistics: "Of the 1,388 status reviews completed, 93 percent (1,294) recommend no change in status for the species, 3 percent (40) recommend reclassifying from endangered to threatened, 3 percent (38) recommend delisting (22 due to extinction, 13 due to recovery, and 3 due to error), 1 percent (13) recommend reclassifying from threatened to endangered, and less than 1 percent (2) recommend

3360-601: A tiny fish (the snail darter ) — even though that decision halted construction of a dam that was already underway on the Little Tennessee River . A listed plant example of non-scalar approaches to endangered species management happened in October 2024. While a federal permit was awarded for a new lithium mining project in Nevada, the purported societal and climate benefits of lithium for electric vehicle manufacturing were not

3500-438: A tiny fish (the snail darter ) — even though that decision halted construction of a dam that was already underway on the Little Tennessee River . A listed plant example of non-scalar approaches to endangered species management happened in October 2024. While a federal permit was awarded for a new lithium mining project in Nevada, the purported societal and climate benefits of lithium for electric vehicle manufacturing were not

3640-582: A visit to where the species is, and presenting a report. After 90 days of the petition, the Habitat Conservation Planning Branch sends the report to the director for approval. If the petition is approved the species becomes a candidate species. As of 2014 it was very difficult to convince the CESA to list a plant as an endangered species: the agency had listed no plants at all since 2007, and had only listed six since 2000. The successful listing of

3780-474: Is certified as a distinct species, rather than a mere variety of an existing species. An academic dissertation informing the listing decision for Tiehm's buckwheat concluded that, of all the species of genus Eriogonum in Nevada, "seven of the thirteen non-tiehmii taxa appear to be close relatives." The author included in his final paragraph the challenges of non-scalar approaches to environmental decision-making: The battle of human need versus habitat conservation

3920-474: Is certified as a distinct species, rather than a mere variety of an existing species. An academic dissertation informing the listing decision for Tiehm's buckwheat concluded that, of all the species of genus Eriogonum in Nevada, "seven of the thirteen non-tiehmii taxa appear to be close relatives." The author included in his final paragraph the challenges of non-scalar approaches to environmental decision-making: The battle of human need versus habitat conservation

4060-497: Is considered a landmark conservation law. Academic researchers have referred to it as "one of the nation's most significant environmental laws." It has also been called "one of the most powerful environmental statutes in the U.S. and one of the world's strongest species protection laws." The Act itself has been amended four times: 1978, 1982, 1988, and 1992. Formal regulations published in the Federal Register that specify how

4200-440: Is considered a landmark conservation law. Academic researchers have referred to it as "one of the nation's most significant environmental laws." It has also been called "one of the most powerful environmental statutes in the U.S. and one of the world's strongest species protection laws." The Act itself has been amended four times: 1978, 1982, 1988, and 1992. Formal regulations published in the Federal Register that specify how

4340-408: Is considered superior to similar acts enacted in other states due to its comprehensive design, its involvement in the pursuit of prevention, and for its cooperative relationships with programs such as Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). It is also considered to be significantly more effective than the federal Endangered Species Act because of its protection of plants on private property:

California Endangered Species Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

4480-425: Is constant. The situation Tiehm’s buckwheat finds itself, stuck between conservation of its ~25,000 individuals or eradication to allow access to needed resources, is certainly complicated. There are potential services it could provide that are yet to be discovered. If mining were to commence it is unlikely to survive and those services could be lost. If the mining operation is halted or modified to protect E. tiehmii ,

4620-425: Is constant. The situation Tiehm’s buckwheat finds itself, stuck between conservation of its ~25,000 individuals or eradication to allow access to needed resources, is certainly complicated. There are potential services it could provide that are yet to be discovered. If mining were to commence it is unlikely to survive and those services could be lost. If the mining operation is halted or modified to protect E. tiehmii ,

4760-472: Is greater. A widely used statistic supporting effectiveness of the Act is that 99 percent of listed species have not gone extinct. In 2012 the Center for Biological Diversity issued a report that surveyed a sample of 110 listed species and concluded that 90 percent of them were recovering "at the rate specified by their federal recovery plan." On the opposing side of the spectrum, a foundation associated with

4900-424: Is greater. A widely used statistic supporting effectiveness of the Act is that 99 percent of listed species have not gone extinct. In 2012 the Center for Biological Diversity issued a report that surveyed a sample of 110 listed species and concluded that 90 percent of them were recovering "at the rate specified by their federal recovery plan." On the opposing side of the spectrum, a foundation associated with

5040-497: Is that, unlike the previous legislation, plants became eligible for listing. Section 12 directed the Smithsonian Institution "to review (1) species of plants which are now or may become endangered or threatened and (2) methods of adequately conserving such species, and to report to Congress, within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the results of such review including recommendations for new legislation or

5180-432: Is that, unlike the previous legislation, plants became eligible for listing. Section 12 directed the Smithsonian Institution "to review (1) species of plants which are now or may become endangered or threatened and (2) methods of adequately conserving such species, and to report to Congress, within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the results of such review including recommendations for new legislation or

5320-434: Is the primary law in the United States for protecting and conserving imperiled species. Designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation", the ESA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973. The Supreme Court of the United States described it as "the most comprehensive legislation for

5460-472: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife . Petitions can be submitted to the Department for a species, subspecies, or variety of any plant or animal to add, delete, or note a change in status on the list of endangered or threatened species. The petitions will be handled by the Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. The process includes reviewing a region where the species is in habitation, conducting

5600-623: The Livermore tarplant in 2014 was hoped by supporters to serve as a template for listing more endangered plants under the act. At the state level, as of April 2023 CESA lists 54 animals as Endangered and another 43 as Threatened, together with 89 federally listed Endangered animals and 46 federally listed Threatened animals. As of the same date, there are 137 state-listed Endangered plants and 21 state-listed Threatened plants, in addition to 131 federally listed Endangered Species and 51 federally listed Threatened plants. California's endangered species act

5740-686: The Migratory Bird Conservation Act , a 1937 treaty prohibiting the hunting of right and gray whales, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Despite these treaties and protections, many populations still continued to decline. By 1941, only an estimated 16 whooping cranes remained in the wild. By 1963, the bald eagle , the U.S. national symbol, was in danger of extinction. Only around 487 nesting pairs remained. Loss of habitat, shooting, and DDT poisoning contributed to its decline. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tried to prevent

California Endangered Species Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

5880-567: The Migratory Bird Conservation Act , a 1937 treaty prohibiting the hunting of right and gray whales, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Despite these treaties and protections, many populations still continued to decline. By 1941, only an estimated 16 whooping cranes remained in the wild. By 1963, the bald eagle , the U.S. national symbol, was in danger of extinction. Only around 487 nesting pairs remained. Loss of habitat, shooting, and DDT poisoning contributed to its decline. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tried to prevent

6020-616: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). FWS and NMFS have been delegated by the Act with the authority to promulgate any rules and guidelines within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement its provisions. Calls for wildlife conservation in the United States increased in the early 1900s because of the visible decline of several species.  One example

6160-435: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). FWS and NMFS have been delegated by the Act with the authority to promulgate any rules and guidelines within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement its provisions. Calls for wildlife conservation in the United States increased in the early 1900s because of the visible decline of several species.  One example

6300-399: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service . In practice, recovery plans usually include population targets and "objective, measurable criteria" that would constitute adequate reduction of threats and provision of habitat protection" such that delisting (or down-listing from "endangered" to "threatened") would be warranted. The 1973 Act introduced

6440-399: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service . In practice, recovery plans usually include population targets and "objective, measurable criteria" that would constitute adequate reduction of threats and provision of habitat protection" such that delisting (or down-listing from "endangered" to "threatened") would be warranted. The 1973 Act introduced

6580-461: The "taking" of animals or plants under protection. The term "to take" is basically defined as removing, harming, or killing the protected species. However, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) explicitly defines "take" as not including the terms "harm" or "harass", while these terms do appear in the federal ESA definition of "take". This has been interpreted to mean that in California, "take" of

6720-531: The 1972 ban of the pesticide DDT by the EPA , rather than the Endangered Species Act. Supporters of the Act argue that listing these species as endangered led to additional actions that were also crucial for species recovery (i.e., captive breeding, habitat protection, and protection from disturbance). Among the most difficult species to protect are mussels because they depend on adequate amounts of clean and flowing freshwater. Home to approximately 300 mussel species,

6860-486: The 1972 ban of the pesticide DDT by the EPA , rather than the Endangered Species Act. Supporters of the Act argue that listing these species as endangered led to additional actions that were also crucial for species recovery (i.e., captive breeding, habitat protection, and protection from disturbance). Among the most difficult species to protect are mussels because they depend on adequate amounts of clean and flowing freshwater. Home to approximately 300 mussel species,

7000-487: The Act had become "a social, legal, and political battleground" and that "the scientific question of whether the ESA works effectively to protect species remains open." Specific challenges and long-term controversies are summarized in this section. Because the Act allowed species to be listed as endangered without consideration of the economic consequences, it soon became and continues to be controversial. Costs conferred on private landowners and various industries may come in

7140-487: The Act had become "a social, legal, and political battleground" and that "the scientific question of whether the ESA works effectively to protect species remains open." Specific challenges and long-term controversies are summarized in this section. Because the Act allowed species to be listed as endangered without consideration of the economic consequences, it soon became and continues to be controversial. Costs conferred on private landowners and various industries may come in

SECTION 50

#1732845317296

7280-409: The Act will be implemented have also changed through time. In recent years, U.S. presidential elections that greatly shift environmental priorities have culminated in regulatory shifts in endangered species management back and forth. Congressional elections also affect implementation of the Act via expansions or contractions in annual funding decisions for the agencies. A distinction of the 1973 Act

7420-409: The Act will be implemented have also changed through time. In recent years, U.S. presidential elections that greatly shift environmental priorities have culminated in regulatory shifts in endangered species management back and forth. Congressional elections also affect implementation of the Act via expansions or contractions in annual funding decisions for the agencies. A distinction of the 1973 Act

7560-536: The Act's outcomes and controversies. Congressional overturning of several recent listings and ability to hamper implementation by restricting agency funding were among the points mentioned by some media. In contrast, a foundation associated with the Western Caucus of U.S. senators and representatives issued a 116-page report in 2023 titled "The Endangered Species Act at 50", with a subtitle expressing its primary criticism that "a record of falsified recoveries underscores

7700-479: The Act's outcomes and controversies. Congressional overturning of several recent listings and ability to hamper implementation by restricting agency funding were among the points mentioned by some media. In contrast, a foundation associated with the Western Caucus of U.S. senators and representatives issued a 116-page report in 2023 titled "The Endangered Species Act at 50", with a subtitle expressing its primary criticism that "a record of falsified recoveries underscores

7840-418: The ESA has been "weaponized," particularly against western states, constraining state government choices about the use of public lands. The case of the protracted dispute over the greater sage-grouse is one such example, and the spotted owl is another. In the extreme is the largely western saying pertaining to endangered animals, such as wolves: " shoot, shovel, and shut up ." Rep. Don Young (Alaska),

7980-418: The ESA has been "weaponized," particularly against western states, constraining state government choices about the use of public lands. The case of the protracted dispute over the greater sage-grouse is one such example, and the spotted owl is another. In the extreme is the largely western saying pertaining to endangered animals, such as wolves: " shoot, shovel, and shut up ." Rep. Don Young (Alaska),

8120-526: The Endangered Species Act was enacted, Congress recognized that at any given time there were likely to be more species potentially eligible for listing than the Service could address through the rule-making process. As a result, Congress in 1979 directed the Service to develop a prioritization system that would enable it to determine which of the potentially eligible species should be considered first. The Service responded with listing priority guidance that established

8260-476: The Endangered Species Act was enacted, Congress recognized that at any given time there were likely to be more species potentially eligible for listing than the Service could address through the rule-making process. As a result, Congress in 1979 directed the Service to develop a prioritization system that would enable it to determine which of the potentially eligible species should be considered first. The Service responded with listing priority guidance that established

8400-525: The Interior to acquire land or interests in land that would further the conservation of these species. The Department of Interior issued the first list of endangered species in March 1967. It included 14 mammals, 36 birds, 6 reptiles, 6 amphibians, and 22 fish. A few notable species listed in 1967 were the grizzly bear , American alligator , Florida manatee , and bald eagle . The list included only vertebrates at

8540-426: The Interior to acquire land or interests in land that would further the conservation of these species. The Department of Interior issued the first list of endangered species in March 1967. It included 14 mammals, 36 birds, 6 reptiles, 6 amphibians, and 22 fish. A few notable species listed in 1967 were the grizzly bear , American alligator , Florida manatee , and bald eagle . The list included only vertebrates at

SECTION 60

#1732845317296

8680-569: The Pacific leatherback sea turtle ; the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon ; the southern resident population of killer whale ; and the white abalone . Human activities are presented as the primary cause of extinction threats for all these species. The two implementing agencies have a combined record of changing species status from threatened to endangered on nine occasions, while the number of status improvements from endangered to threatened

8820-460: The Pacific leatherback sea turtle ; the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon ; the southern resident population of killer whale ; and the white abalone . Human activities are presented as the primary cause of extinction threats for all these species. The two implementing agencies have a combined record of changing species status from threatened to endangered on nine occasions, while the number of status improvements from endangered to threatened

8960-495: The State of California passed a law that prevented killing or removal of the western variety of Joshua tree wherever it was found. Climate change risk was a key factor in the determination. The Act distinguished two grades of species for listing: "endangered" and a lesser category called "threatened". An endangered species is in danger of extinction now; a threatened species faces such a threat in "the foreseeable future." The aim for

9100-447: The State of California passed a law that prevented killing or removal of the western variety of Joshua tree wherever it was found. Climate change risk was a key factor in the determination. The Act distinguished two grades of species for listing: "endangered" and a lesser category called "threatened". An endangered species is in danger of extinction now; a threatened species faces such a threat in "the foreseeable future." The aim for

9240-582: The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the petition for appeal allows the Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling to stand. The Supreme Court lets the decision stand that bees can be protected by the California Endangered Species Act. Endangered Species Act of 1973 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( ESA or "The Act"; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. ) is the primary law in the United States for protecting and conserving imperiled species. Designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as

9380-426: The Western Caucus of U.S. senators and representatives issued a 116-page report in 2023 that points to data and statements made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the past half-century that can be interpreted as disputing proclamations of success. Specifically, statements of numbers of species "recovered" do not distinguish between those delisted owing to actual improvement in populations versus those for which

9520-426: The Western Caucus of U.S. senators and representatives issued a 116-page report in 2023 that points to data and statements made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the past half-century that can be interpreted as disputing proclamations of success. Specifically, statements of numbers of species "recovered" do not distinguish between those delisted owing to actual improvement in populations versus those for which

9660-435: The amendment of existing legislation." As a result, the first plant listings occurred in 1977. Fifty years later, significantly more species of plants were listed in the highest category (endangered) than animals: 766 plants and 486 animals. Historians attribute this new-found concern for imperiled plants to ongoing global treaty negotiations (especially in 1972 and 1973) toward what would eventually be adopted in 1975 under

9800-435: The amendment of existing legislation." As a result, the first plant listings occurred in 1977. Fifty years later, significantly more species of plants were listed in the highest category (endangered) than animals: 766 plants and 486 animals. Historians attribute this new-found concern for imperiled plants to ongoing global treaty negotiations (especially in 1972 and 1973) toward what would eventually be adopted in 1975 under

9940-464: The arbiters of how numerical statements of extinction risk should be gauged in context of other kinds of national risks and priorities. In a multi-author report published in 2016, the Ecological Society of America explained how this kind of controversy develops: Any decision to list a species also requires a policy judgment regarding how much risk to that species is acceptable. Science can inform

10080-404: The arbiters of how numerical statements of extinction risk should be gauged in context of other kinds of national risks and priorities. In a multi-author report published in 2016, the Ecological Society of America explained how this kind of controversy develops: Any decision to list a species also requires a policy judgment regarding how much risk to that species is acceptable. Science can inform

10220-419: The best scientific and commercial data." This standard is used as a guideline to determine if a species is in danger of extinction. In 1972, President Nixon declared current species conservation efforts to be inadequate. He called on the 93rd United States Congress to pass comprehensive endangered species legislation. Congress responded with a completely rewritten law, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which

10360-419: The best scientific and commercial data." This standard is used as a guideline to determine if a species is in danger of extinction. In 1972, President Nixon declared current species conservation efforts to be inadequate. He called on the 93rd United States Congress to pass comprehensive endangered species legislation. Congress responded with a completely rewritten law, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which

10500-475: The concept of what is now called "critical habitat" in only one brief passage. Section 7 required federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorized, funded, or carried out would not result in "the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical." When the Act was amended in 1978, "critical habitat"

10640-423: The concept of what is now called "critical habitat" in only one brief passage. Section 7 required federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorized, funded, or carried out would not result in "the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical." When the Act was amended in 1978, "critical habitat"

10780-571: The day played a prominent role in raising public awareness about the losses. For example, George Bird Grinnell highlighted bison decline by writing articles in Forest and Stream . To address these concerns, Congress enacted the Lacey Act of 1900 . The Lacey Act was the first federal law that regulated commercial animal markets. It also prohibited the sale of illegally killed animals between states ( interstate commerce ). Other legislation followed, including

10920-472: The day played a prominent role in raising public awareness about the losses. For example, George Bird Grinnell highlighted bison decline by writing articles in Forest and Stream . To address these concerns, Congress enacted the Lacey Act of 1900 . The Lacey Act was the first federal law that regulated commercial animal markets. It also prohibited the sale of illegally killed animals between states ( interstate commerce ). Other legislation followed, including

11060-453: The decision by determining the degree of risk a species faces, but science alone cannot determine whether the risk is acceptable.... Stakeholders with divergent views about acceptable levels of extinction risk frequently mount legal challenges over whether species need to be listed, whether they are endangered or threatened, how much habitat represents a "significant portion" of a species' range, and other key elements of ESA implementation. Once

11200-453: The decision by determining the degree of risk a species faces, but science alone cannot determine whether the risk is acceptable.... Stakeholders with divergent views about acceptable levels of extinction risk frequently mount legal challenges over whether species need to be listed, whether they are endangered or threatened, how much habitat represents a "significant portion" of a species' range, and other key elements of ESA implementation. Once

11340-454: The eastern region of the USA is the center of global diversity for these freshwater molluscs . However, 65 percent of them are threatened or endangered. The 1988 Congressional amendments to the Act included a new section, Section 18, to aid effectiveness evaluations by having each of the two implementing agencies periodically report cumulative federal funding (and, to some degree, state funding) on

11480-408: The eastern region of the USA is the center of global diversity for these freshwater molluscs . However, 65 percent of them are threatened or endangered. The 1988 Congressional amendments to the Act included a new section, Section 18, to aid effectiveness evaluations by having each of the two implementing agencies periodically report cumulative federal funding (and, to some degree, state funding) on

11620-590: The enacting legislation to carry out the provisions outlined in The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill , the Supreme Court found that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." The Act is administered by two federal agencies,

11760-416: The enacting legislation to carry out the provisions outlined in The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill , the Supreme Court found that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." The Act is administered by two federal agencies,

11900-441: The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker . A study of some 1,000 privately owned forest plots within the range of the woodpecker found that when landowners observed pine growth maturing to a stage in which it might attract nesting woodpeckers, they were more likely to harvest – regardless of timber prices at the time. This is a form of intentional habitat destruction for avoiding economic consequences. Legislators have expressed that

12040-441: The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker . A study of some 1,000 privately owned forest plots within the range of the woodpecker found that when landowners observed pine growth maturing to a stage in which it might attract nesting woodpeckers, they were more likely to harvest – regardless of timber prices at the time. This is a form of intentional habitat destruction for avoiding economic consequences. Legislators have expressed that

12180-539: The environment." The Endangered Species Act is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS handles marine species , and the FWS has responsibility over freshwater fish and all other species. Species that occur in both habitats (e.g. sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon ) are jointly managed. As amended, it consists of 18 sections. Key legal requirements include: The 1973 Act

12320-493: The environment." The Endangered Species Act is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS handles marine species , and the FWS has responsibility over freshwater fish and all other species. Species that occur in both habitats (e.g. sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon ) are jointly managed. As amended, it consists of 18 sections. Key legal requirements include: The 1973 Act

12460-481: The extinction of these species. Yet, it lacked the necessary Congressional authority and funding. In response to this need, Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act ( Pub. L.   89–669 ) on October 15, 1966. The Act initiated a program to conserve, protect, and restore select species of native fish and wildlife. As a part of this program, Congress authorized the Secretary of

12600-403: The extinction of these species. Yet, it lacked the necessary Congressional authority and funding. In response to this need, Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act ( Pub. L.   89–669 ) on October 15, 1966. The Act initiated a program to conserve, protect, and restore select species of native fish and wildlife. As a part of this program, Congress authorized the Secretary of

12740-445: The federal act solely protects plants present on federal property. In 2018, public interest groups petitioned to list four species of bumblebee as endangered in California, and this was initially approved; however, in 2019 this decision was challenged by a petition filed in trial court, and the trial court granted the petition, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the law did not grant authority to list insects as endangered. This decision

12880-401: The form of lost opportunity or slowing down operations to comply with the regulations put forth in the Act. Notably, in 1978 the listing of a tiny fish (snail darter) shut down for several years construction of a dam that was already underway on the Little Tennessee River . More broadly, the requirement to consult with the relevant agencies on federal projects has at times slowed operations by

13020-401: The form of lost opportunity or slowing down operations to comply with the regulations put forth in the Act. Notably, in 1978 the listing of a tiny fish (snail darter) shut down for several years construction of a dam that was already underway on the Little Tennessee River . More broadly, the requirement to consult with the relevant agencies on federal projects has at times slowed operations by

13160-424: The global need of lithium may begin to outweigh the supply, and potentially cause delays in technological advances that are aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. As of 2023, an aggregate of 1,780 species had been listed through the years as "endangered" or a less severe category of "threatened". While 99% of the total species are still alive, critics have pointed out that only 64 species improved enough to be removed from

13300-424: The global need of lithium may begin to outweigh the supply, and potentially cause delays in technological advances that are aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. As of 2023, an aggregate of 1,780 species had been listed through the years as "endangered" or a less severe category of "threatened". While 99% of the total species are still alive, critics have pointed out that only 64 species improved enough to be removed from

13440-644: The law began, another 23 species have gone missing for so long that they have been proposed for official designation as extinct. The National Marine Fisheries Service lists eight species (or populations of a species) as among the most at risk of extinction in the near future. These animals are the Atlantic salmon ; the Central California Coast coho salmon ; the Cook Inlet beluga whale ; the Hawaiian monk seal ;

13580-424: The law began, another 23 species have gone missing for so long that they have been proposed for official designation as extinct. The National Marine Fisheries Service lists eight species (or populations of a species) as among the most at risk of extinction in the near future. These animals are the Atlantic salmon ; the Central California Coast coho salmon ; the Cook Inlet beluga whale ; the Hawaiian monk seal ;

13720-510: The lesser category is to enable protective actions by federal agencies at an earlier time, such that the causes of population decline might be corrected before emergency concerns develop. Controversy also arises as to whether and what differences in recovery plan elements, and thus management policies and restrictions, should distinguish "threatened" from "endangered." The Act specifies the types of causes to be identified in species decline, any one of which might be severe enough to merit listing

13860-510: The lesser category is to enable protective actions by federal agencies at an earlier time, such that the causes of population decline might be corrected before emergency concerns develop. Controversy also arises as to whether and what differences in recovery plan elements, and thus management policies and restrictions, should distinguish "threatened" from "endangered." The Act specifies the types of causes to be identified in species decline, any one of which might be severe enough to merit listing

14000-448: The list ("delisted"). Another 64 improved enough to be "downlisted" from endangered to threatened. Only 11 species have been declared extinct after they were listed, but another 23 species have gone missing for so long that they have been proposed for official designation as extinct. Some have argued that the recovery of imperiled flesh-eating birds (notably, the bald eagle , brown pelican , and peregrine falcon ) should be attributed to

14140-448: The list ("delisted"). Another 64 improved enough to be "downlisted" from endangered to threatened. Only 11 species have been declared extinct after they were listed, but another 23 species have gone missing for so long that they have been proposed for official designation as extinct. Some have argued that the recovery of imperiled flesh-eating birds (notably, the bald eagle , brown pelican , and peregrine falcon ) should be attributed to

14280-456: The list of protected species. While the 1966 Act only applied to 'game' and wild birds, the 1969 Act also protected mollusks and crustaceans . Punishments for poaching or unlawful importation or sale of these species were also increased. Any violation could result in a $ 10,000 fine or up to one year of jail time. Notably, the Act called for an international convention or treaty to conserve endangered species. A 1963 IUCN resolution called for

14420-456: The list of protected species. While the 1966 Act only applied to 'game' and wild birds, the 1969 Act also protected mollusks and crustaceans . Punishments for poaching or unlawful importation or sale of these species were also increased. Any violation could result in a $ 10,000 fine or up to one year of jail time. Notably, the Act called for an international convention or treaty to conserve endangered species. A 1963 IUCN resolution called for

14560-552: The longest-serving Republican congressman, said in 2018, "As the one person in the Congress, the only one, that voted for the Endangered Species Act, please beat me with a whip." Some economists have stated that finding a way to reduce such perverse incentives would lead to more effective protection of endangered species. One suggestion for ending perverse incentives would be to compensate property owners for protecting endangered species, rather than having an endangered species regarded as

14700-501: The longest-serving Republican congressman, said in 2018, "As the one person in the Congress, the only one, that voted for the Endangered Species Act, please beat me with a whip." Some economists have stated that finding a way to reduce such perverse incentives would lead to more effective protection of endangered species. One suggestion for ending perverse incentives would be to compensate property owners for protecting endangered species, rather than having an endangered species regarded as

14840-410: The oil and gas industry, including exploration or development on federal lands rich in fossil fuels. One widely held opinion thus is that the protections afforded to listed species curtail economic activity. In the extreme, economic consequences can induce perverse incentives by which landowners actively curtail their lands from attracting endangered species. An example in the eastern USA pertains to

14980-410: The oil and gas industry, including exploration or development on federal lands rich in fossil fuels. One widely held opinion thus is that the protections afforded to listed species curtail economic activity. In the extreme, economic consequences can induce perverse incentives by which landowners actively curtail their lands from attracting endangered species. An example in the eastern USA pertains to

15120-424: The original population numbers were later found to have been greatly underestimated. Had the science been more in line with reality at the start, this report claims 36 of the 62 species reported by the agency as officially recovered would not have achieved listing at the outset. Controversy also develops when the science used to support a delisting decision differs from the numerical population thresholds included in

15260-424: The original population numbers were later found to have been greatly underestimated. Had the science been more in line with reality at the start, this report claims 36 of the 62 species reported by the agency as officially recovered would not have achieved listing at the outset. Controversy also develops when the science used to support a delisting decision differs from the numerical population thresholds included in

15400-484: The original ruling of scientific and educational purposes only. This has been cause for some controversy. While CESA is considered effective, the multitude of agencies working within the framework of CESA can lead to poor communication and effectiveness due to entities working at cross purposes, which ultimately leads to less protection and poorer use of time and resources for conservation programming. The listing process includes procedures for individuals, organizations or

15540-492: The point where the law's protections are not needed. It therefore "protect[s] species and the ecosystems upon which they depend" through different mechanisms. For example, section 4 requires the agencies overseeing the Act to designate imperiled species as threatened or endangered. Section 9 prohibits unlawful 'take,' of such species, which means to "harass, harm, hunt..." Section 7 directs federal agencies to use their authorities to help conserve listed species. The Act also serves as

15680-576: The points of contention. Ultimately, federal authority over enforcement of endangered plant protections has centered on regulation of interstate commerce of such plants. This legal distinction for plants became controversial in practice when a group of citizens, Torreya Guardians , chose to help an endangered glacial relict plant, Florida Torreya , move to cooler poleward climates before conservation professionals were ready to begin their own experimentation with assisted migration of endangered species. Because movement of seeds and seedlings by this group

15820-576: The points of contention. Ultimately, federal authority over enforcement of endangered plant protections has centered on regulation of interstate commerce of such plants. This legal distinction for plants became controversial in practice when a group of citizens, Torreya Guardians , chose to help an endangered glacial relict plant, Florida Torreya , move to cooler poleward climates before conservation professionals were ready to begin their own experimentation with assisted migration of endangered species. Because movement of seeds and seedlings by this group

15960-642: The preservation of endangered species enacted by any nation". The purposes of the ESA are two-fold: to prevent extinction and to recover species to the point where the law's protections are not needed. It therefore "protect[s] species and the ecosystems upon which they depend" through different mechanisms. For example, section 4 requires the agencies overseeing the Act to designate imperiled species as threatened or endangered. Section 9 prohibits unlawful 'take,' of such species, which means to "harass, harm, hunt..." Section 7 directs federal agencies to use their authorities to help conserve listed species. The Act also serves as

16100-399: The species as threatened or endangered. Also known as the "five factors", the set of possible causes entail: A key provision of the 1973 Act was that "preventing extinction" would no longer be sufficient. Rather, "recovery" of listed species, such that "delisting" could become possible, was now a stated goal. "Recovery plans" were now to be developed and published by the two agencies in charge:

16240-399: The species as threatened or endangered. Also known as the "five factors", the set of possible causes entail: A key provision of the 1973 Act was that "preventing extinction" would no longer be sufficient. Rather, "recovery" of listed species, such that "delisting" could become possible, was now a stated goal. "Recovery plans" were now to be developed and published by the two agencies in charge:

16380-440: The species recovery plan. A 2012 court case upheld that the published recovery criteria are not legally binding for later delisting decisions. Listing of a species "triggers two overlapping types of conservation measures: extinction prevention and recovery actions." An official document required by the Act has come to be known as a recovery plan . The Act "gives few guidelines for their preparation and content and does not specify

16520-440: The species recovery plan. A 2012 court case upheld that the published recovery criteria are not legally binding for later delisting decisions. Listing of a species "triggers two overlapping types of conservation measures: extinction prevention and recovery actions." An official document required by the Act has come to be known as a recovery plan . The Act "gives few guidelines for their preparation and content and does not specify

16660-466: The time because of the Department of Interior's limited definition of "fish and wildlife." The Endangered Species Preservation Act was repealed by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 ( Pub. L.   91–135 ) amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. It established a list of species in danger of worldwide extinction. It also expanded protections for species covered in 1966 and added to

16800-466: The time because of the Department of Interior's limited definition of "fish and wildlife." The Endangered Species Preservation Act was repealed by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 ( Pub. L.   91–135 ) amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. It established a list of species in danger of worldwide extinction. It also expanded protections for species covered in 1966 and added to

16940-651: The timing of a petition to list a new species overlaps with plans for or initiation of a development project that could be impeded by such a listing. A news editorial marking the 50th anniversary of the Act suggested that "the ESA became the weapon of choice for environmental groups seeking to stop projects or tear down others. Lawsuits by the score have been filed over projects large and small, setting off ill feelings toward environmental groups." The Act points to science professionals as "solely" responsible for making extinction risk assessments. Governmental policies as shaped by various and changing public interests are necessarily

17080-651: The timing of a petition to list a new species overlaps with plans for or initiation of a development project that could be impeded by such a listing. A news editorial marking the 50th anniversary of the Act suggested that "the ESA became the weapon of choice for environmental groups seeking to stop projects or tear down others. Lawsuits by the score have been filed over projects large and small, setting off ill feelings toward environmental groups." The Act points to science professionals as "solely" responsible for making extinction risk assessments. Governmental policies as shaped by various and changing public interests are necessarily

17220-400: The title, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ( CITES ). Prior to this time, attention to the conservation needs of native plants had been stalled by complications that do not pertain to animals. How to adequately distinguish plants illegally collected in the wild from plants propagated from seeds or cuttings taken from horticultural specimens was among

17360-400: The title, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ( CITES ). Prior to this time, attention to the conservation needs of native plants had been stalled by complications that do not pertain to animals. How to adequately distinguish plants illegally collected in the wild from plants propagated from seeds or cuttings taken from horticultural specimens was among

17500-469: The volume of outstanding petitions, induced Congress in 1982 to amend the Act by establishing deadlines for agency decisions. As of 2023, those deadlines still nominally apply, but in practice it is rare for a petitioner to approach the judicial system to force a decision before the agency is able to finish the job on its own timetable. In 2023, with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) achieving its 50th anniversary, journalists were prompted to report on

17640-469: The volume of outstanding petitions, induced Congress in 1982 to amend the Act by establishing deadlines for agency decisions. As of 2023, those deadlines still nominally apply, but in practice it is rare for a petitioner to approach the judicial system to force a decision before the agency is able to finish the job on its own timetable. In 2023, with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) achieving its 50th anniversary, journalists were prompted to report on

17780-437: Was amended and became a more complex Act that determined it the state’s responsibility to preserve and protect endangered species. The amendment to CESA now included plant and invertebrate species and also announced the intention to purchase lands for preservation of protected species. Mitigation and enhancement methods were also introduced. In 1997, CESA was amended again to allow the "incidental taking" of protected species beyond

17920-427: Was desired by Congressman John Dingell (D-Michigan) when he first proposed the idea of an "Endangered Species Act." Among the staff, Dr. Bertrand is credited with having written major parts of the Act, including the infamous "takings" clause, 16 U.S.C.   § 1538 . "We didn't know what we couldn't do," Dr. Bertrand has said about the Act. "We were doing what we thought was scientifically valid and right for

18060-427: Was desired by Congressman John Dingell (D-Michigan) when he first proposed the idea of an "Endangered Species Act." Among the staff, Dr. Bertrand is credited with having written major parts of the Act, including the infamous "takings" clause, 16 U.S.C.   § 1538 . "We didn't know what we couldn't do," Dr. Bertrand has said about the Act. "We were doing what we thought was scientifically valid and right for

18200-413: Was given a definition and basic terms for how it would be determined and used. (As will be seen in the "Controversies" section, this provision was sometimes challenging to implement for both scientific and political reasons.) A review of the Act published in 2009 recounted the unavoidable problems that arose from granting opportunities even for citizens to submit petitions for species listing: Soon after

18340-413: Was given a definition and basic terms for how it would be determined and used. (As will be seen in the "Controversies" section, this provision was sometimes challenging to implement for both scientific and political reasons.) A review of the Act published in 2009 recounted the unavoidable problems that arose from granting opportunities even for citizens to submit petitions for species listing: Soon after

18480-477: Was noncommercial and based on horticulturally produced specimens, there was no legal apparatus to halt their actions. Another distinction is that, when an animal is listed as endangered or threatened, "taking" of that animal (by capture or killing) becomes a violation of the Act. For plants, "taking" occurs only within the boundaries of federal properties. Even so, states may choose to legislate and enforce prohibitions even on private lands, as occurred in 2023 when

18620-477: Was noncommercial and based on horticulturally produced specimens, there was no legal apparatus to halt their actions. Another distinction is that, when an animal is listed as endangered or threatened, "taking" of that animal (by capture or killing) becomes a violation of the Act. For plants, "taking" occurs only within the boundaries of federal properties. Even so, states may choose to legislate and enforce prohibitions even on private lands, as occurred in 2023 when

18760-526: Was one of the first states to officially create statutory schemes for protecting endangered wildlife and environments. This was completed earlier than the Federal Government's Endangered Species Act (ESA), which was mandated in 1973. However, according to the chronologies listed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, California began preservation and protection statutes in 1909 when non-game birds were first protected. In 1957, rules were devised to prevent

18900-570: Was signed by Nixon on December 28, 1973 ( Pub. L.   93–205 ). It was written by a team of lawyers and scientists, including Dr. Russell E. Train , the first appointed head of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), an outgrowth of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Dr. Train was assisted by a core group of staffers, including Dr. Earl Baysinger at EPA, Dick Gutting, and Dr. Gerard A. "Jerry" Bertrand,

19040-446: Was signed by Nixon on December 28, 1973 ( Pub. L.   93–205 ). It was written by a team of lawyers and scientists, including Dr. Russell E. Train , the first appointed head of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), an outgrowth of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Dr. Train was assisted by a core group of staffers, including Dr. Earl Baysinger at EPA, Dick Gutting, and Dr. Gerard A. "Jerry" Bertrand,

19180-445: Was the near-extinction of the bison , which used to number in the tens of millions. Similarly, the extinction of the passenger pigeon , which numbered in the billions, caused concern. The whooping crane also received widespread attention as unregulated hunting and habitat loss contributed to a steady decline in its population. By 1890, it had disappeared from its primary breeding range in the north central United States. Scientists of

19320-445: Was the near-extinction of the bison , which used to number in the tens of millions. Similarly, the extinction of the passenger pigeon , which numbered in the billions, caused concern. The whooping crane also received widespread attention as unregulated hunting and habitat loss contributed to a steady decline in its population. By 1890, it had disappeared from its primary breeding range in the north central United States. Scientists of

19460-540: Was then appealed, and the California Court of Appeal in May of 2022 upheld that bumblebees (and all other invertebrates) are protected under the CESA, because (1) the statute has since 1984 explicitly listed invertebrates under the law's definition of fish ("a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals"), and the legal definition overrides any other definition, even for

19600-478: Was to be reported to the Legislature along with suggestions on methods for protection. The California Endangered Species Act put into effect the Department's authority to determine the designation under which wildlife was labeled as "rare" or "endangered" and provided restrictions on the importing and moving of those species except by permit. At the time, this Act did not include plants or invertebrates. In 1984, CESA

#295704