Jointly implemented by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of our nation's most important wildlife conservation laws. This act requires us to use the best scientific data and commercial information available to identify and address the threats facing imperiled species and to facilitate their recovery.
We are committed to conserving
threatened and endangered species and protecting the nation's rich
biological diversity for future generations. To best serve this goal, we
have taken on the task of improving implementation of the ESA to make
the law work better for species of concern and the American people.
The ESA has had some notable successes since its passage more than 40 years ago, as bald eagles and peregrine falcons, once rare in the lower 48 states, are fully recovered and species like the California condor and black-footed ferret
have been brought back from the brink of extinction. However, as we
look at our record of delisting species from these categories and the
law's track record for species recovery, there is clearly room for
improvement.
Implementation
of the ESA -- whereby the FWS and NMFS actively identify plants,
animals and fish that may need the Act's legal tools to aid in their
recovery and to protect their habitat -- has, at times, generated
frustration and disagreement among private landowners, states, regulated
industries, and environmental advocates. This is particularly the case
in western states where the ESA and the impacts associated with listing
certain species -- such as habitat restoration, requirements for various
human activities like farming and ranching, and consistent monitoring
-- can become lightning rods for controversy. We can do better for both
our wildlife and the people asked to sacrifice for their conservation.
Nearly two years ago, the Department of
the Interior and the Department of Commerce began considering
improvements to the internal rules the federal government uses to put
into practice the Endangered Species Act with the intention of making
them more efficient and effective. There was a need to facilitate easier
and faster engagement across federal agencies, encourage individuals
and communities to support conservation, and provide the maximum degree
of regulatory predictability. We approached this undertaking with
reverence for the ESA's goals and a commitment to advancing them.
We have now published final updates and clarifications to these regulations.
Our work has been subject to a robust, transparent public process as
evidenced by the tens of thousands of comments we received from the
public, members of Congress and representatives from every level of
government.
The previous
regulations utilized by the Department of the Interior often took a
one-size-fits-all approach to species protections, making species
population recovery more difficult. Treating threatened and endangered
species the same failed to consider the specific needs of unique species
and failed to generate the private and public support that is so often
critical to getting the threatened species on the road to recovery. The
threat levels to these species are not all the same, but by categorizing
them as though they are, we can fail to provide the support to their
habitats that will best facilitate population growth.
The
revised regulations now follow the two-tiered classification system
Congress established for "endangered" and "threatened" species. Congress
intentionally created this system to ensure the most stringent
protections are applied to species that are considered "endangered." A
major benefit of this approach is that it gives the Department of the
Interior and the Department of Commerce the discretion to tailor unique
rules to help recover threatened species populations and facilitate
delisting -- removing them from the threatened or endangered species
list. NMFS' regulations
already follow this model; we are now bringing the Department of the
Interior's regulations into conformity to best promote species recovery.
Additionally,
legal challenges to the old regulations created some confusion as to
what requirements a species must meet to be removed from the endangered
species list. While it was possible to delist, understanding when those
requirements were met was unnecessarily complicated. The new
regulations reinforce the statute: the same standards apply to list and
de-list a species.
Population recovery efforts should be
recognized and celebrated, not used to keep species on the list in
perpetuity. Once we get these species out of the intensive care unit,
the conservation management strategies should be returned to the capable
hands of the states, so we can best direct our resources toward the
species that still need critical support.
One
of our primary responsibilities under the ESA is to consult with other
federal agencies to help ensure that their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species.
But complicated interagency consultations can take years to complete,
which can hinder a sister agency and its constituents. These new regulations
improve the consultation process by clarifying the standards used to
evaluate actions that may affect species and by strengthening
alternative consultation mechanisms to allow for greater creativity and
flexibility when engaging with other agencies.
The
new regulations recognize that the ESA's ultimate goal is species
recovery and that goal is best advanced by tailoring appropriate
protections to particular species' biological needs, based on the best
available science. With this goal in mind, resources can be used more
efficiently and financial support can go to where it will do the most
good: on-the-ground conservation.
Our
guidepost has been President Trump's overarching effort to reduce
regulatory burden without sacrificing protections for threatened and
endangered species. The Trump Administration is committed to achieving
the ESA's conservation goals and to improve the law's implementation.
Unilateral actions by the federal government will not save the more than 2,300 species
that are currently listed as threatened or endangered. The majority of
the habitats that are critical to these species' survival are located on
private land. The American conservation model
depends on federal partnerships with states, landowners,
conservationists, and sportsmen. Only by working together with each
interested party bringing its expertise and resources to the table will
we be able to accomplish the ESA's purpose of conserving threatened and
endangered species and protecting the ecosystems upon which they depend.
No comments:
Post a Comment