EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The PLF fully supports the purposes of the ESA to provide a means of conserving ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend, but the PF has concerns that habitat management requirements of T/E species are given precedence over other authorized uses of public lands. The PLF believes the ESA should be reauthorized with adjustments that focus on ecosystems or bioregions as the bases for listings and management decisions, with all land ownership’s, land management programs and affected agencies sharing proportionately in the habitat conservation so as not to over-tax the habitat on the public lands.
ISSUE
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is due for reauthorization. Pending Bills have raised many issues such as meaningful public input, adequate review and inclusion of loopholes for abuse by affected groups.
The ESA mandates conservation and protection of a species and its habitat when in danger or threatened with extinction. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS) is charged with the responsibility for identifying endangered/threatened species and defining and protecting their critical habitat. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has responsibility for management of habitat on public lands under their jurisdiction to accomplish the conservation of dependent species. The viability and protection of any species is inexorably linked with the conservation of its habitat.
The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) supports the purposes of the ESA, ". . . 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 (T/E) species . . ." The PLF specifically recognizes the BLM's major role in achieving the purposes of the act. The public lands under BLM jurisdiction include a significant portion of the habitat in the Western United States and Alaska that are key to maintaining or returning species to healthy populations. This agency also has the scientific skills, policies, procedures, regulations and the mission to support the ESA.
The PLF understands that ecosystems often cross many ownership boundaries resulting in the need for a coordinated planning effort by all affected jurisdictions, agencies and private entities as a basis for decisions impacting species and ecosystems, land and resource uses. Such an approach is necessary in order to support the diversity of natural life systems while also providing needed raw material resources and to ensure local community stability. This concept is particularly important for species with populations involving expansive areas of critical habitat and thus requiring very extensive and comprehensive recovery plans such as for the Desert Tortoise and the Northern Spotted Owl.
A major issue of concerned parties related to the ESA is the imposition of mandatory habitat preservation requirements upon ongoing activities. Under the ESA, as written, habitat management requirements of T/E species are given precedence over other authorized uses of the public lands. In accordance with the principles of multiple use of the public lands, that where an ecosystem or bioregion coordinated plan has been established, management of T/E habitat will consider the permitting of other uses, provided such uses do not compromise survival and recovery of the listed species.
The task of allocating and managing public land use under accelerating demands for traditional and new purposes has over-taxed the capacities of the public land agencies, including BLM and F&WS. The conservation and recovery of T/E species under the ESA involves tremendous workloads including consultation, listing, monitoring, planning, scientific inventories, public participation and a host of other aspects.
In accordance with the ESA and the mission of agencies such as BLM, F&WS and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), public lands must be managed in a manner that does not cause the endangerment or extinction of a species through loss or degradation of the habitat. The PLF believes the ESA should be reauthorized with adjustments that focus on ecosystems or bioregions as the basis for listings and management decisions. The Act should provide for future revision of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) as based on scientific data indicating serious inadequacies. Adjustments should simplify, facilitate, and expedite specie planning, recovery and habitat protection and restoration.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The ESA should be amended to or continue to profess:
1. Add requirements that identified T/E species habitat be considered within whole ecosystems or bioregions.
2. Require that comprehensive planning be initiated at the time the species is identified as threatened or endangered by the F&WS, and such planning include all appropriate agencies, affected species and their total habitat, and when appropriate a multi-national approach.
3. Require that goals for listed species on private land under Habitat Conservation Plans should be proportionate to the overall specie habitat, so as not to over-tax habitat on the Public Lands.
4. Provide that habitat conservation and recovery plans include a requirement that such plans articulate biological goals and a mechanism to monitor whether those goals are being achieved. The Act should also provide for revision of HCP's, where scientific data shows that the goals cannot be met under current HCP provisions.
5. Require that recovery plans for T/E species include socio-economic assessments and require the Secretary to choose the most cost effective strategy leading to specie recovery, while meeting the goals of the Habitat Conservation Plan or appropriate recovery plan.
6. Maintain the Consultation process under Section 7, for all actions that "may affect" species, at the current level.
7. Include meaningful documentation and public notification requirements for all interim management decisions affecting T/E species.
8. Permit the compromise of some T/E species habitat(allowable take) in favor of other beneficial uses, provided other areas are adequate to protect the affected T/E species.
9. Promote harmony between the ESA, NEPA, and FLPMA and other Federal laws recognizing their inherent conflicts and providing land managers with reasonable options for resolving conflicts.
10. Ensure that the designation of critical habitat and the accompanying recovery plan are complementary and internally consistent.
11. Encourage the formulation of federal natural resource management agency budgets and appropriations on an ecosystem basis adequate to achieve the purposes of the ESA in a timely manner, while designating a permanent, reliable funding source. Do not include or consider and stipulation that funding of ESA provisions be provided from the sale of public lands.
Adjustments to the ESA and its implementation constitute an important issue warranting PLF interest. The manner in which threatened and endangered species are managed in concert with other land and resource uses is key to the overall mission of the public lands and to our future well-being. Under current ESA legislation, there have been major negative impacts on both local economies as well as on populations of endangered species.