Federal policy on endangered species, 2017
Trump Administration (first term)  Vice President Mike Pence Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term |
Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity |
| Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration |
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
During the first year of the Trump administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it would remove Yellowstone grizzly bears from the federal list of endangered species and would consider changes to the Obama administration's policies to preserve the sage grouse, a bird species located in the Western United States. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the Obama administration’s decision to remove the gray wolf from the federal list of endangered species, though as of August 15, 2017, the Trump administration had not announced whether it would appeal the decision. In addition, the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing in July 2017 to consider five Republican-led bills to revise portions of the federal Endangered Species Act.
This page tracked major events and policy positions of the Trump administration and the 115th United States Congress on endangered species in 2017. This page was updated through August 2017. Think something is missing? Please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
This page outlines proposed and enacted policies from the Trump administration and Congress related to the Endangered Species Act and federal endangered species policy.
Trump administration 2017 on endangered species
Court ruling on gray wolves delisting (August 2017)
- See also: Delisting a species
On August 1, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the Obama administration’s decision to remove the gray wolf from the federal list of endangered species. In 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the gray wolf (a process known as delisting) in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan from the federally managed list of endangered species, concluding that wolf populations in the region were sufficient to warrant delisting and that threats to the species have been minimized. The court ruled that the agency "failed to reasonably analyze or consider two significant aspects of the [delisting] rule—the impacts of partial delisting and of historical range loss on the already-listed species." As of August 15, 2017, the Trump administration had not announced whether it would appeal the decision.[1]
Senate committee passage of HELP for Wildlife Act (July 2017)
On July 26, 2017, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works passed the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act, which included a provision to delist the gray wolf and prohibit judicial review of the decision. The bill would also prohibit judicial review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2012 decision to delist the gray wolf in Wyoming.[2]
Sage grouse policy (August 2017)
Overview
On June 7, 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced that the task force would consider revisions to the Obama administration's policy for the sage grouse. Zinke said the group would focus on whether sage grouse policies were compatible with state-level policies, the impact of federal policies on local governments and economies, the impact of federal policies on energy production. Zinke said, "There’s a lot of mistrust and anger out there about how the federal government is managing the lands and that we’re not listening to the states and the local communities." The Obama administration adopted land use plans in 2015 for areas managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to preserve sage grouse habitat by removing invasive plant species and further preventing wildfires.[3]
Task Force recommendations (August 2017)
On August 7, 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke released a report from a federal task force that recommended changes to federal conservation policies for the sage grouse, a bird species whose populations span 11 states and roughly 165 million acres in the Western United States. Zinke also announced that the U.S. Department of the Interior would implement the report's recommendations. The recommendations included re-evaluating certain habitat protection measures on federal land, permitting state governments to set sage grouse population targets, giving federal agencies greater flexibility in management decisions, and creating captive breeding and predator control programs to manage bird populations.[4]
Grizzly bear delisting (June 2017) and lawsuit (August 2017)
On June 22, 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it would remove Yellowstone grizzly bears from the federal list of endangered species—a process known as delisting. The service concluded that federal and private conservation efforts, an increased grizzly population in the region, and state-level policies to conserve bear populations warranted the delisting. U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke (R) said, "This achievement stands as one of America’s great conservation successes; the culmination of decades of hard work and dedication on the part of state, tribal, federal and private partners." The decision pertains to grizzly bears in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana and not to bear populations listed as endangered or threatened in other regions. Opponents of the decision, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that the delisting would reverse progress in recovering bear populations in the Yellowstone region. "The rule removing federal protections for America’s beloved Yellowstone grizzly bears is a political decision that is deeply flawed and will reverse so much of the progress that has been made to recover these bears,” Andrea Santarsiere, a senior attorney for the group, said in a statement.[5]
On August 30, 2017, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to delist the bear. Earthjustice filed the suit on behalf of itself as well as the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the National Parks Conservation Association. A separate lawsuit was filed by WildEarth Guardians. The groups argued that the agency had failed to consider all relevant data regarding threats to grizzly bears in the area. "The best available scientific evidence indicates that such increasing mortality levels have recently pushed the Greater Yellowstone grizzly population into decline," the lawsuit claimed.[6]
Congressional action
House hearing on ESA legislation (July 2017)
On July 19, 2017, the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on five bills to revise the Endangered Species Act:[7]
- The Gray Wolf State Management Act, which would make permanent the 2011 delisting of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region which would transfer wolf management responsibilities to state governments as well as maintain state-level management of gray wolves in Wyoming. In addition, the bill would prohibit judicial review of these decisions, including the delisting.
- The Listing Reform Act, which would allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the economic impacts of listing animals and plants as endangered or threatened species. The bill would also limit litigation requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service's response to outside petitions for adding species to the federal list.
- The State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency Act, which would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to make publicly available all data used to list species as endangered or threatened species.
- The Saving America’s Endangered Species Act, which would prohibit non-native species in the United States from being listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
- The Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act, which would limit attorneys' fees in Endangered Species Act (ESA) cases and would award attorneys' fees only to prevailing parties in ESA lawsuits.
Overview of endangered species policy
- See also: Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act requires the federal government to list and conserve endangered and threatened species. The act's purpose is to prevent the extinction of vulnerable species throughout the United States and to recover a species' population to the point where listing the species as endangered or threatened is no longer necessary. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the law's implementation.[8][9]
The federal government maintains a list of federally protected animal and plant species. As of May 2016, there were 2,389 endangered and threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act in the 50 states. Hawaii contained the most protected species—434 species. Vermont contained the fewest species—five species.[10]
The act prohibits the taking of a member of a listed species without a federal permit. To take a species means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct" with listed species. Federal regulations further define harm to a species as "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering." Harassment of a listed animal species is "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."[11]
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) may designate a species as endangered or threatened based on the following five factors:[11][12][13]
| “ |
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.[14] |
” |
| —Endangered Species Act[13] | ||
Delisting a species is the process of removing federal protection from an endangered or threatened animal or plant species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delists a species if it is recovered or extinct or if it was listed in error. A species is considered recovered if threats to its survival have been eliminated or reduced. The Fish and Wildlife Service works with state and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, scientists from colleges and universities, and others during the delisting process. First, the service looks at whether a listed animal or plant species still requires Endangered Species Act protection. The following five factors are weighed depending on the species to make a delisting determination:[15]
- Whether there is present or potential destruction, curtailment, or modification of a species' habitat or range
- Whether a species is being overused for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes
- Whether existing federal regulations have been adequate in protecting the species and its habitat
- Whether potential or existing diseases or predators are a factor in a species' survival
- Whether there are other natural or human-made factors that affect a species' current existence
Support and opposition
Below are views supporting and opposing revisions to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
- Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said, "In short, the ESA [Endangered Species Act] doesn't work. We have to find a way to reform it so that it actually solves problems, not just continues on the process." Bishop stated further that the ESA's mission "has changed and has been misused to try and control land, to block a host of economic activities, jobs, energy, infrastructure and forest management. It also has proliferated costly litigation, which is actually taking taxpayers’ resources away from actual conservation."[16]
- Ranking Committee Member Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said, "The Endangered Species Act works. Despite years of Republican efforts to pass bills weakening the act and cut funding from agencies that protect and recover imperiled American wildlife, 99 percent of listed species have continued to survive, and 90 percent are on schedule to meet their recovery goals." Grijalva further stated, "And despite an ongoing misinformation campaign by Republicans and their industry allies, designed to turn the public against ESA, 90 percent of American voters support keeping the law intact."[16]
- Greg Sheehan, acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), "The ESA hospital was never intended to keep all patients indefinitely." Sheehan stated further, "There are limited resources to manage the patients, and we need to focus those resources on those that are in the greatest need, not those who are recovered and simply waiting to be released. Success of the ESA will ultimately be defined by the number of patients leaving the hospital, not the number going in."[16]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Donald Trump endangered species. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Federal policy on energy and the environment, 2017-2020
- Federal policy on climate change, 2017
- Federal policy on energy, 2017-2018
Footnotes
- ↑ The Hill, "Court rules against gray wolf Endangered Species Act delisting," August 1, 2017
- ↑ Congress, "S.1514 - HELP for Wildlife Act - 115th Congress (2017-2018)," accessed August 3, 2017
- ↑ The Hill, "Trump officials to reconsider sage grouse protection policies," June 7, 2017
- ↑ Washington Examiner, "Trump team moves to overhaul sage grouse protections," August 7, 2017
- ↑ The Hill, "Trump administration removes protections for Yellowstone grizzly bears," June 22, 2017
- ↑ Earthjustice, "Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and National Parks Conservation Association vs. Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior," accessed August 31, 2017
- ↑ Western Livestock Journal, "ESA bills focus of hearing," July 21, 2017
- ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Improving ESA Implementation," accessed May 15, 2015
- ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "ESA Overview," accessed October 1, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "ESA Basics," accessed September 26, 2014
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedbasics - ↑ National Marine Fisheries Service, "Listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)," accessed August 13, 2014
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Amended through the 108th Congress," accessed August 13, 2014
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Delisting a Species - Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act," accessed August 27, 2015
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 The Hill, "GOP takes aim at reforming Endangered Species Act," July 19, 2017
| |||||||||||||||||||
