7.10 Threatened and Endangered Species

 

Any federal program to protect threatened and endangered species must also preserve private property rights and allow for a balance between agricultural production and species conservation.  

 

NASDA members and other state agencies are regulators with responsibilities for conservation, environmental protection, and wildlife management and also serve as co-regulators with federal agencies on numerous federal environmental statutes, including the Endangered Species Act.  As regulatory partners, federal agencies should afford state agencies the same kind of involvement, access and consultation that other federal agencies are afforded in situations of overlapping responsibilities.  Moreover, deference must be paid to states in situations where states have regulatory primacy.

 Amendments to the ESA must reaffirm the goal of conserving endangered and threatened species while assuring that the decisions taken to attain this goal truly balance species conservation requirements with the economic and social needs of the human community.  Reauthorization of the ESA must acknowledge the following:

 

  • The definition of the term "species" must clarify the intent of Congress concerning "subspecies" and "population segment" as well as the levels of protection to be afforded to candidate species. Proof of a species being endangered shall be the responsibility of the petitioner or the Department of the Interior and not the general public.
  • The socio-economic impacts of species listing, with reasonable scientific criteria to prevent indiscriminate species listing, must be considered.
  • An open process for delisting must be utilized which will specifically provide an opportunity for the public to petition FWS for delisting within one year of listing of an endangered or threatened species. If FWS does not delist, the Act should give the petitioner the right to a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on all matters pertinent to the issue.
  • Extensive public input into the listing process, recovery plan process and delisting process must be allowed.
  • Consideration should be given to the probable impact to private property rights and society's obligations to pay for the recovery of a species and to compensate individuals whose private property is "taken" or devalued.
  • The role of voluntary incentive-based agreements with landowners for captive propagation, species population support programs, and alternatives to listings must be included.
  • The listing, designation of critical habitat, and implementation of recovery plans should only be affected subsequent to review and concurrence by an independent scientific review team.
  • The definition of "taking" must be more specific, including a listing of those activities which would "harm" or "harass." Any activity not listed should not be subject to criminal penalty and should only be specified as subject to reduced civil penalty.
  • The term "critical habitat" should be limited to the historical area that is essential to recovery and such critical habitat should be identified at the time of listing.
  • Landowners must be afforded opportunities for input and reasonable recourse when their property becomes a "critical habitat."
  • The petition process for exemptions should be enhanced and improved so that it is easily understood and readily accessible to the public.
  • Mandatory controls of predators to enhance recovery of species when necessary should be implemented.
  • A greater role for states in implementing and enforcing the Act. Specifically, there must be a true partnership between the states and the FWS. In this partnership role, states and FWS should concur in identifying species for listing, preparation of recovery plans, identification of recovery areas, and subsequent delisting.
  • The targeting of limited human and financial resources on the protection of species for which there is the greatest probability for successful recovery and to accept a recovery system that is successful even though the gene pool may not be perfect.
  • The definition of successful recovery which recognizes scientifically sound population dynamic measurements.
  • A certainty to landowners that their cooperation in endangered species protection will not result in increasing demands and regulatory prohibitions on their farming or ranching operation. Such certainty is possible by clearly delineating the roles and responsibilities of all parties to an ESA recovery plan. When plans are reviewed and needed changes are required to successfully recover the species, landowners need certainty that financial assistance will be forthcoming that will cover additional operating costs to conform to recovery plan alterations.
  • The need to foster cooperation among landowners by offering voluntary, incentive-based opportunities for species conservation which minimizes prescriptive regulation. The implementation of voluntary agricultural resource management plans (RMPs) should provide compliance with and certainty under the ESA for farmers and ranchers.

 

Endangered Species Act Consultation Process for Pesticide Registration and Use

EPA and the Services must establish a collaborative and transparent consultation process for pesticide registration, including:

  • Consideration of third party mediation to move the consultation process forward,
  • Agreement on criteria defining “best available science” and
  • Agreement on methods and procedures to evaluate the effects of pesticides on listed species.

    •  

     

EPA and the Services must allow increased access to the decision making process for states and other stakeholders to:

 

  • Provide relevant data for consideration (e.g., State Initiated Plans) and
  • Ensure adequate public comment on the development of Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) designed to protect listed species.

 

The Services must include in all biological opinions:

 

  • Quantifiable “targets” to define what constitutes risk or endangerment to allow effective evaluation of proposed RPAs to provide clarity about when mitigation is needed.
  • The most recent data on registration status and environmental exposure
  • Use of current environmental monitoring data to assess if endangerment targets are met in order to ensure that decisions are not solely based on conservative modeling.
  • Assessment of the economic feasibility of the RPAs and Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) on agriculture so that the full cost of proposed mitigation is understood.
  • Clear, reasonable timelines for implementation to allow applicators time to evaluate and transition to alternative pest controls.