Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Endangered species policy in the United States
This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
Last updated: May 2016
 |
|
Endangered species policy in the United States includes the laws, regulations, and programs aimed at conserving endangered species. In the late 19th century, the United States instituted federal protection for animals and plants that inhabit national parks and other federally managed land. After the passage of the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act and the creation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 1940, federal policies were enacted to conserve and manage potentially endangered or threatened animal and plant species on private and federal land.
The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 required that the federal government enact policies aimed at preventing the extinction of endangered and threatened species and recovering these populations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service oversees the law's implementation. As of May 2016, there were 2,389 endangered and threatened species listed in the 50 states.
Background
An endangered species is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." A threatened species is "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future."[1]
The Endangered Species Act requires a federal list of endangered and threatened species and ecosystems. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines which species qualify for the list based on potential threats their survival and determine whether federal protection of a species is adequate.[1]
Listing a species
Before a species is added to the threatened or endangered list, it is placed on a list of candidate species. The public may petition to list a species as a candidate or biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service can study a species whose population may be in decline and determine if the species qualifies as a candidate. Agency scientists must make their decisions based on the best available scientific information as required by the Endangered Species Act.[2]
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses five criteria to list a species as endangered or threatened:[2]
| “ |
|
” |
| —U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service | ||
If one or more of these criteria are met, the agency can begin action to protect the species and its habitat.
Taking a species
Federal law prohibits the taking of a listed species. Under Endangered Species Act, to take a species is to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service further defines harm to mean "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife." According to federal law, harassing a species is defined as "an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering." State governments may apply further restrictions on the taking of a listed species.[2]
Penalties
Under the Endangered Species Act, individuals who knowingly take a listed species can be fined up to $25,000 each violation or instance. Individuals who otherwise unknowingly take a species can be fined up to $500 for each violation or instance. The text of the law containing all federal penalties can be found here.[4][5][6]
Listed species by state
The table below shows the number of endangered and threatened animals and plants in each state. The data below is based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) estimates of where federally listed species are believed or known to occur based on the best available information.
As of May 2016, there were 2,389 endangered and threatened species listed in the 50 states (this total does not include species in U.S. territories and includes species that are listed in more than one state). The list contained 1,353 animal species and 1,036 plant species.[7]
| Endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act by state (as of May 2016) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | Number of endangered and threatened species | Animal species | Plant species |
| Alabama | 127 | 105 | 22 |
| Alaska | 12 | 11 | 1 |
| Arizona | 65 | 44 | 21 |
| Arkansas | 34 | 29 | 5 |
| California | 305 | 122 | 183 |
| Colorado | 33 | 17 | 16 |
| Connecticut | 11 | 9 | 2 |
| Delaware | 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Florida | 124 | 64 | 60 |
| Georgia | 69 | 42 | 27 |
| Hawaii | 434 | 66 | 368 |
| Idaho | 15 | 11 | 4 |
| Illinois | 31 | 22 | 9 |
| Indiana | 25 | 19 | 6 |
| Iowa | 17 | 12 | 5 |
| Kansas | 18 | 16 | 2 |
| Kentucky | 42 | 32 | 10 |
| Louisiana | 22 | 19 | 3 |
| Maine | 11 | 8 | 3 |
| Maryland | 17 | 11 | 6 |
| Massachusetts | 15 | 12 | 3 |
| Michigan | 25 | 17 | 8 |
| Minnesota | 18 | 14 | 4 |
| Mississippi | 46 | 43 | 3 |
| Missouri | 39 | 29 | 10 |
| Montana | 15 | 12 | 3 |
| Nebraska | 14 | 10 | 4 |
| Nevada | 39 | 29 | 10 |
| New Hampshire | 10 | 7 | 3 |
| New Jersey | 16 | 10 | 6 |
| New Mexico | 53 | 40 | 13 |
| New York | 21 | 13 | 8 |
| North Carolina | 59 | 32 | 27 |
| North Dakota | 10 | 9 | 1 |
| Ohio | 25 | 19 | 6 |
| Oklahoma | 22 | 21 | 1 |
| Oregon | 56 | 36 | 20 |
| Pennsylvania | 14 | 12 | 2 |
| Rhode Island | 9 | 7 | 2 |
| South Carolina | 37 | 16 | 21 |
| South Dakota | 15 | 13 | 2 |
| Tennessee | 93 | 73 | 20 |
| Texas | 97 | 67 | 30 |
| Utah | 42 | 17 | 25 |
| Vermont | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Virginia | 69 | 52 | 17 |
| Washington | 48 | 37 | 11 |
| West Virginia | 22 | 16 | 6 |
| Wisconsin | 21 | 14 | 7 |
| Wyoming | 12 | 8 | 4 |
| United States total* | 2,389 | 1,353 | 1,036 |
| *Note: Excludes U.S. territories Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Species listed in each state based on published historic range and population data" | |||
Delisting a species
Delisting is the process of removing a species' endangered or threatened status. Downlisting is a reclassification of a species' status from endangered to threatened. To delist a species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines that the species is no longer threatened. The service looks at a species' population size and growth, the stability of its habitat and the natural or human-made threats to its continued recovery. Species are also delisted if they become extinct. Once a species is delisted, the species is no longer considered a candidate species.[8][9][10]
As of May 2016, 63 species were delisted. Of those species, 34 were delisted due to recovery, 19 species were listed in error (for scientific reasons or because new information about a species was discovered) and 10 species went extinct.[8]
Litigation
The Endangered Species Act allows private individuals and organizations to file citizen suits against the federal government for the following reasons:[11]
- To require the investigation of a federal official or federal agencies that are alleged to have violated provisions of the Endangered Species Act
- To require the U.S. Interior Department (which houses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to apply federal prohibitions against individuals or organizations involved with taking a listed species
- To require the U.S. Interior Department to take certain actions as required by the Endangered Species Act
Individuals or organizations must be adversely affected by violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) before they can file suit. They must also provide a 60-day notice to the potential violators of the Endangered Species Act, such as the Secretary of the Interior Department, before filing a lawsuit. The notices allow the law's potential violators to address and correct any potential violations. Some environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), have filed suit against the Fish and Wildlife Service, arguing that the agency failed to enforce provisions of the ESA. Under federal law, the service must perform certain actions before specific statutory deadlines. If a deadline is missed, an individual or organization can sue the government for its alleged failure to follow the law. For example, if the service does not respond within 90 days to a private organization's petition requesting that a species be listed as endangered or threatened, the organization may sue the service for missing the statutory deadline. Citizen suits may also be filed to reverse specific federal regulations. The 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case Bennett v. Spear upheld this right. For example, individuals can challenge the Fish and Wildlife Service's regulation of an endangered species's habitat. In these cases, litigants must persuade a court that they were harmed economically and that the service failed to consider relevant economic impacts.[11][12]
Passage of the ESA
In a message to Congress on February 8, 1972, President Richard Nixon (R) outlined his environmental policy proposals and requested that Congress pass "a stronger law to protect endangered species of wildlife." Nixon called for legislation to make the taking of an endangered species a federal offense and to allow protective measures for certain species to prevent their extinction. Nixon made the following remarks:[13]
| “ | It has only been in recent years that efforts have been undertaken to list and protect those species of animals whose continued existence is in jeopardy. Starting with our national symbol, the bald eagle, we have expanded our concern over the extinction of these animals to include the present list of over 100. We have already found, however, that even the most recent act to protect endangered species, which dates only from 1969, simply does not provide the kind of management tools needed to act early enough to save a vanishing species.[3] | ” |
| —President Richard Nixon[13] | ||
U.S. Sen. Harrison A. Williams (D) introduced the Endangered Species Act in the U.S. Senate on June 12, 1973. The Senate unanimously approved the bill on July 24, 1973. The U.S. House approved its version of the bill on September 18, 1973, by a 390-12 vote. A joint conference committee was convened to reconcile the Senate and House versions of the bill. The conference committee reported the bill on December 19, 1973. On the same day, the House and Senate approved the legislation.[14]
On July 27, 1973, U.S. Rep. Leonor K. Sullivan (D), who was then-chairwoman of the now defunct House Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, spoke in favor of the bill after the legislation had been referred to the subcommittee following the Senate's approval. Sullivan made the following remarks:[15]
| “ | From the most narrow possible point of view, it is in the best interest of mankind to minimize the losses of genetic variations. The reason is simple: they are potential resources. They are the keys to puzzles which we cannot solve, and may provide answers to questions which we have not yet learned to ask.[15][3] | ” |
| —U.S. Rep. Leonor K. Sullivan (D) in July 1973 | ||
The legislation's authors included legislative attorneys and scientists as well as the first head of the White House Office of Environmental Quality, Russell Train. Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act into law on December 28, 1973.[16]
Federal legislation
The table below lists federal legislation for animal and plant protection from 1872 to 1973.
| Animal and plant protection laws (1872-1973) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name of law | Year passed | Purpose |
| National Park Protective Act | 1894 | Established federal protection for birds and animals in Yellowstone National Park, a policy that was later standardized for all national parks and federally protected areas |
| Lacey Act | 1900 | Outlawed the shipment of certain wildlife or birds that are killed or captured |
| Alaska Game Act | 1902 | Protected certain game animals in the then-territory of Alaska |
| National Park Service Act | 1916 | Created the U.S. National Park Service |
| Migratory Bird Treaty Act | 1918 | Protected all migratory birds flying between the United States and Canada |
| Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act | 1940 | Passed to protect bald and golden eagles and prohibit the taking, possessing, selling, purchasing, bartering, offering to sell, transporting, exporting or importing a living or dead bald or golden eagle |
| Endangered Species Preservation Act | 1966 | Required the listing and preservation of endangered animals and prohibited the taking of listed animal species on all national wildlife refuges |
| Marine Mammal Protection Act | 1972 | Prohibited the taking of all marine mammals, such as whales, dolphins and sea otters within waters of the United States |
| Endangered Species Act | 1973 | Required the listing and conservation of threatened and endangered plant and animal species and prohibited the taking of listed species |
| Source: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "A Century of Conservation" | ||
Budget and finances
Congress passes appropriations (spending) bills that fund federal agencies and departments, including the U.S. Department of the Interior, each fiscal year. The table below lists appropriations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its equivalent of full-time employees for fiscal years 2012 to 2014. Current appropriations refer to funds requiring Congress's approval through spending bills after a federal agency requests funding for a given year. Permanent appropriations are federal funds available to the agency in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. These funds do not require Congress to pass spending bills since the law itself mandates spending for these programs. In fiscal year 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife received $2.79 billion in federal funding.[17]
| FWS appropriations and FTEs for fiscal years 2012-2014 ($ in thousands) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | 2014 (enacted) | 2013 (enacted) | 2012 (enacted) | |||
| Amount appropriated | FTEs | Amount appropriated | FTEs | Amount appropriated | FTEs | |
| Current | $1,427,367 | 7,382 | $1,484,600 | 7,525 | $1,475,571 | 7,608 |
| Permanent | $1,363,046 | 252 | $1,168,740 | 1,942‡ | $953,494 | 1,934‡ |
| Reimbursable and other | $0 | 1,573 | $0 | -- | N/A | -- |
| Total | $2,790,413 | 9,207 | $2,653,340 | 9,386 | $2,429,065 | 7,659 |
| Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, "Fiscal Year 2015: The Interior Budget in Brief" ‡Includes reimbursable and other full-time equivalents for that year | ||||||
Court decisions
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978): In 1967, Congress approved funding for the Tellico Dam, a 30-mile long reservoir on the Little Tennessee River to generate hydroelectricity. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federally owned public corporation, oversaw the dam's construction. In 1973, a scientist from the University of Tennessee found a species known as the snail darter in the waters near the project. In 1975, the Secretary of the Interior listed the snail darter as endangered, arguing that the full completion of the reservoir and dam would result in adverse modification of the species' habitat. Individuals filed suit against the TVA to prevent the project's final completion. The Tennessee District Court argued that the species would be affected but did not halt the project's completion, arguing that ongoing funding from Congress allowed for an exception to the Tellico Dam. The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed the district court's decision, arguing that the dam's completion violated the Endangered Species Act.[18][19][20]
The U.S. Supreme Court argued in a 6-3 decision that the language of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) required the dam's construction be halted given the snail darter. The court argued that the text of the law was unambiguous. In response, Congress amended the ESA in 1978 to authorize a federal committee to review federally funded projects and to exempt projects from the ESA's requirements if they are economically significant. The dam's construction was halted after the federal committee argued that the project was not economically beneficial. Construction on the Tellico Dam was completed in 1979 after Congress passed a spending bill exempting the project from the ESA's requirements.[19]
Bennett v. Spear (1997): Bennett v. Spear involved whether the Endangered Species Act's citizen suit provision allowed individuals or organizations to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) based on the potential economic harm that could result from the agency's endangered species policy. The suit was brought after the agency argued that the Klamath Irrigation Project in Oregon would jeopardize listed fish species. The FWS required the project to maintain specific minimum water levels in certain reservoirs. The plaintiffs, including ranchers and irrigation districts that received water from the project, brought the suit, arguing that the minimal water requirements for their project violated the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs argued that the act requires that the FWS consider economic impacts in its decisions. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the agency's decision would harm them due to reduced water availability on the Klamath River. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the plaintiffs and any individuals who may experience negative economic impacts from the ESA's enforcement are allowed to bring a lawsuit to reverse the regulations. The court argued that the ESA permits any person to bring civil suit against the government. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that when Congress wrote the ESA, Congress meant to allow any person to challenge the government's endangered species enforcement if the person can prove harm and that any person can potentially recover his or her litigation costs. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's website, "The overall effect of Bennett was to establish the ESA as a tool of both environmentalists and competing users of natural resources to challenge government action."[21][22]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Endangered species United States. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Implementation of the Endangered Species Act
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Endangered Species Act
- Endangered species
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "ESA Overview," accessed October 1, 2014
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "ESA Basics," accessed September 26, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, " Endangered Species Act (ESA) Requirements for Construction Activities," accessed September 26, 2014
- ↑ National Wildlife Service, "Endangered Species Act," accessed January 29, 2015
- ↑ Lieberman & Belcher, "What Constitutes Harassment of an Endangered Species," March 17, 2015
- ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Species listed in each state based on published historic range and population data," accessed July 6, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Delisted Species Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)," accessed May 18, 2015
- ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act," accessed September 26, 2014
- ↑ Regional Perspectives in Marine Biology, "Recruitment in Coral Reef Fish Populations," accessed July 8, 2015
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Enviro-Lawyer.com, "Citizen Suits - Endangered Species Act," accessed August 26, 2015
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "The Endangered Species Act: A Primer," October 9, 2012
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 The American Presidency Project, "Richard Nixon - Special Message to Congress Outlining the 1972 Environmental Program," February 8, 1972
- ↑ The Library of Congress, "Bill Summary and Status - 93rd Congress - S. 1893 - All Congressional Actions with Amendments," accessed August 13, 2014
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 ESWR.com, "Report on Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1973," accessed September 10, 2015
- ↑ Politico, "Nixon signs into law Endangered Species Act, Dec. 28, 1973," December 28, 2012
- ↑ U.S. Department of the Interior, "Fiscal Year 2015: The Interior Budget in Brief," March 2014
- ↑ Justia.com, "Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill 437 U.S. 153 (1978)," accessed August 25, 2015
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 U.S. Department of Justice, "Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)," accessed August 25, 2015
- ↑ Quimbee, "Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, United States Supreme Court 437 U.S. 153 (1978)," accessed August 25, 2015
- ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, "Bennett v. Spear: Broadening the Right to Sue Over ESA Issues," accessed April 2, 2015
- ↑ Oyez.org, "Bennett v. Spear (1997)," accessed August 25, 2015
