Environmental Law & Policy:The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 111th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices
Published: April 18, 2011, 12:00 am
Updated: December 15, 2011, 9:16 am
This article has been reviewed by the following Topic Editor:
C Michael Hogan
Historical context
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 111th Congress extended protections afforded to endangered species in the USA; moreover, protections and provisions of the ESA were enlarged under this Congressional session and executive actions of the George W. Bush White House. In particular enhanced protections for the San Joaquin River in California, for the polar bear, and for chinook salmon in the upper Colorado basin were afforded.
Summary
The Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543) has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. Under ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline. The most common cause of species listing is habitat loss. ESA is considered a primary driver of large-scale ecosystem restoration issues.
The 111th Congress has considered whether to revoke ESA regulations promulgated in the waning days of the George W. Bush Administration that would alter when federal agency consultation is required. In addition, legislation related to global climate change includes provisions that would allocate funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s endangered species program and/or to related funds to assist species adaptation to climate change. Other major issues concerning ESA in recent years have included the role of science in decision-making, critical habitat (CH) designation, protection by and incentives for property owners, and appropriate protection of listed species, among others.
The authorization for spending under ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to implement the administrative provisions of ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. Proposals to reauthorize and extensively amend ESA were last considered in the 109th Congress, but none was enacted. No legislative proposals were introduced in the 110th or 111th Congresses to reauthorize the ESA.
Several measures related to ESA were enacted in the 111th Congress, including P.L. 111-8, containing language authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw or reissue (1) revisions to the ESA Section 7 consultation regulations promulgated by the Bush Administration and (2) a December 2008 special rule that outlined protections afforded polar bears; P.L. 111-11, including provisions (1) authorizing the implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement in California, providing for the reintroduction of Chinook salmon, and (2) amending P.L. 106-392 to extend the authorizations for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery programs through FY2023; P.L. 111-88, appropriating about $281 million for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species and related programs for FY2010 (under the authority of a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-322), ESA funding at FY2010 levels was extended through March 4, 2011); and P.L. 111-241, authorizing the issuance of a Multinational Species Conservation Fund semipostal stamp.
This report discusses oversight issues and legislation introduced in the 111th Congress to address ESA implementation and management of endangered and threatened species.
Note
This summary was taken from the Congressional Research Service Report R40185 by Eugene Buck, M. Lynne Corn, Pervaze A. Sheikh, Robert Meltz, and Kristina Alexander
Are you absolutely sure you want to delete this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.
Yes, Delete This Article
Are you absolutely sure you want to remove this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.
Yes, Remove This Article
Citation
Congressional Research Service (Lead Author);C Michael Hogan (Topic Editor) "The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 111th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices". In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth April 18, 2011; Last revised Date December 15, 2011; Retrieved May 22, 2013 <http://www.eoearth.org/article/The_Endangered_Species_Act_(ESA)_in_the_111th_Congress:_Conflicting_Values_and_Difficult_Choices?topic=49477>
The Author
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. The sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress. All CRS report ... (Full Bio)
Historical context
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 111th Congress extended protections afforded to endangered species in the USA; moreover, protections and provisions of the ESA were enlarged under this Congressional session and executive actions of the George W. Bush White House. In particular enhanced protections for the San Joaquin River in California, for the polar bear, and for chinook salmon in the upper Colorado basin were afforded.
Summary
The Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543) has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. Under ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline. The most common cause of species listing is habitat loss. ESA is considered a primary driver of large-scale ecosystem restoration issues.
The 111th Congress has considered whether to revoke ESA regulations promulgated in the waning days of the George W. Bush Administration that would alter when federal agency consultation is required. In addition, legislation related to global climate change includes provisions that would allocate funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s endangered species program and/or to related funds to assist species adaptation to climate change. Other major issues concerning ESA in recent years have included the role of science in decision-making, critical habitat (CH) designation, protection by and incentives for property owners, and appropriate protection of listed species, among others.
The authorization for spending under ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to implement the administrative provisions of ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. Proposals to reauthorize and extensively amend ESA were last considered in the 109th Congress, but none was enacted. No legislative proposals were introduced in the 110th or 111th Congresses to reauthorize the ESA.
Several measures related to ESA were enacted in the 111th Congress, including P.L. 111-8, containing language authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw or reissue (1) revisions to the ESA Section 7 consultation regulations promulgated by the Bush Administration and (2) a December 2008 special rule that outlined protections afforded polar bears; P.L. 111-11, including provisions (1) authorizing the implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement in California, providing for the reintroduction of Chinook salmon, and (2) amending P.L. 106-392 to extend the authorizations for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery programs through FY2023; P.L. 111-88, appropriating about $281 million for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species and related programs for FY2010 (under the authority of a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-322), ESA funding at FY2010 levels was extended through March 4, 2011); and P.L. 111-241, authorizing the issuance of a Multinational Species Conservation Fund semipostal stamp.
This report discusses oversight issues and legislation introduced in the 111th Congress to address ESA implementation and management of endangered and threatened species.
Note
This summary was taken from the Congressional Research Service Report R40185 by Eugene Buck, M. Lynne Corn, Pervaze A. Sheikh, Robert Meltz, and Kristina Alexander
Are you absolutely sure you want to delete this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.
Yes, Delete This Article
Are you absolutely sure you want to remove this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.
Yes, Remove This Article
0 Comments
Add Comment