Endangered Species Law and Policy : Environmental and Natural Resources Attorneys from Nossaman

As previously blogged about here, on December 9, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (PDF) in the Federal Register that will, if adopted, change the Services' standards for listing and delisting species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by re-interpreting the definitions of "threatened" and "endangered" species in the ESA.

In a letter to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (PDF) dated January 26, 2012, Congressman Markey, the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Natural Resources, expresses his "concerns that this policy has the potential to undermine several key provisions of the ESA by setting the bar for listing declining species at much too high a threshold."  So high, he argues, that "the bald eagle never would have been listed as an endangered species in the lower 48 States" because healthy populations of the bald eagle lived in Alaska "[e]ven during the worst era of DDT pesticide usage . . . ."

Markey also criticized the draft policy for ignoring "Congress' intent regarding the purpose of the ESA by refusing to consider the historic distribution of a species when making listing decisions about whether a species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range."

Had such a policy been in place in the 1970s, Markey claims, "Americans would have had to travel to the most remote parts of Alaska to view species like the bald eagle, grizzly bear, or the gray wolf."  According to Markey, in passing the ESA, Congress did not sanction such a "living museum approach" to protect imperiled wildlife, but instead sought to protect ecosystems and restore species to their historic ranges.

The key provisions in the ESA provide that "'endangered species' means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range . . . [,]" and "'threatened species' means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

But the ESA itself does not include a definition of "significant portion" of a plant or animal's range.

Under the draft policy, when making listing decisions the Services would:

1.  Deem a portion of a species' range to be "significant" if its contribution to the viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction;

2.  Limit consideration of a species' status to the range used by a species at the time the listing decision is being made; and

3.  Extend a listing decision made on the basis of a threat to the species' viability throughout only a "significant portion of its range" to the entire species, throughout its entire range.

According to Markey, under the first aspect of the draft policy, "the FWS would only protect an imperiled animal or plant species when the decline within a significant portion of that species' geographic range implicates the 'viability' of the species as a whole.  In other words, the only parts of a species' range which matter are those portions that, if lost, would lead to the global extinction of that species."

With respect to the second aspect of the draft policy, Markey claims it "could make it even more tempting for future political appointees within the Department of Interior, as well as some members of Congress, to meddle with or defund the listing process because any delay in listing would invariably shrink the geographic range that a declining species currently occupies."

Markey argues that to be consistent with the ESA, Congressional intent, and the legislative history of the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service must instead develop and use "a precautionary, science-based standard for deciding when it is appropriate to protect a species under the ESA[,] [a]nd . . . must also devise a balanced, science-based approach for considering the historic range of declining species when making listing decisions as opposed to its [proposed] categorical approach where the historic range of any . . . species is always ignored."

Currently the 60-day comment period on the draft policy ends on February 7, 2012. 

Several environmental organizations have requested that the comment period be extended, but with the deadline to comment just days away, the Services have not indicated that they will issue an extension.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (PDF) in the Federal Register that will, if adopted, change the Services' standards for listing and delisting species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  See Draft Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened Species.’’ 76 Fed. Reg. 76,987 (Dec. 9, 2011). 

Under the draft policy, when making listing decisions the Services would:

1.  Deem a portion of a species' range to be "significant" if its contribution to the viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction;

2.  Limit the "range" to the range currently used by a species during any of its life stages; and

3.  Extend a listing decision made on the basis of a threat to the species' viability throughout only a "significant portion of its range" to the entire species, throughout its entire range.

The draft policy interpretation has already drawn harsh criticism from the Center for Biological Diversity, which calls the proposal a "recipe for extinction."  By defining significance of a portion of a species' range in terms of a threat to the entire species, not just to the species found in the limited portion of its range, the Services may list fewer species and delist more than they would if "significant" was defined without reference to the entire species.  And by limiting "range" to the current range, a species that has suffered severe declines in historic range, but which is flourishing in its current range, may not qualify for listing and protection under the ESA.

In a Questions and Answers (PDF), the Services explain that while a species will not be listed solely on the basis of lost historical range, "the causes and consequences of loss of historical range on the current and future viability of the species must be considered and are an important component of determining whether a species is currently threatened or endangered."  But this has not mollified critics.

In contrast, landowners may find cause for concern because, under the draft policy, if a species is found to be endangered or threatened only within a significant portion of its range, then under the proposed interpretation the entire species would be listed, and the ESA's corresponding protections would apply throughout the species' entire range.  Thus, a species may be listed in areas where it is currently thriving, resulting in unnecessary and costly over regulation in some areas.

Although styled as a "draft policy," it is essentially a proposed rulemaking because it is the Services' "intent to publish a final policy . . . that will be accorded deference by the federal courts."  Clearly, the Services hope the new policy interpretation will eventually end claims brought in litigation over listing decisions based on past interpretations of "significant portion of its range" in the ESA's definitions of "endangered species" and "threatened species."  However, by defining "significant portion of its range" with reference to the range's importance to the species, not the geographic extent of the range, the draft policy interpretation would appear to be at odds with the plain meaning of the statutory text.

Indeed, in response to litigation over the meaning of the phrase, on March 16, 2007, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued a formal opinion on the meaning of "significant portion of its range" (the so-called M-Opinion).  However, the courts have since rejected aspects of the interpretation in the M-Opinion as applied by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the DOI withdrew it on May 4, 2011.

The comment period is open for 60 days.  Until the policy is formally adopted, the Services intend to use the draft policy as guidance in their respective listing decisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a closely watched and hotly contested challenge to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to list the Polar Bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the final listing rule at 73 Fed. Reg. 28,212 (May 15, 2008) (pdf), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a 116-page opinion (pdf) in which it upheld both the decision to list the bear as threatened, not endangered, and the Service's interpretation of "endangered species" as a species that is "on the brink of extinction."

As previously reported here, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) argued that "on the brink of extinction" or "in imminent danger of extinction" sets the bar for an endangered listing higher than the language, purpose, and legislative history of the ESA allows.  According to CBD, the Service should have determined that the polar bear is endangered because the best available science shows that the bear meets the "in-danger-of-extinction" standard in the ESA.  But the court held that "the Service's definition of an endangered species, as applied to the polar bear, represents a permissible construction of the ESA and must be upheld . . ." under the deferential standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

In addition, the court held that "[a]lthough the evidence emphasized by CBD is very troubling, the Court finds that the agency acted well within its discretion to weigh the available facts and scientific information before it in reaching its conclusion that the polar bear was not endangered at the time of listing."  In a footnote, the court further explained that "where global warming has been identified as the primary threat to the polar bear's sea ice habitat and the agency has acknowledged that the global warming trend is unlikely to reverse itself, a conclusion that the species is, in some sense, "in danger of extinction" has undeniable appeal.  The [United States Geological Service] population models, which predict a trend of extinction across three of the four polar bear ecoregions in as little as 75 years, particularly give the court pause."

Nevertheless, the court emphasized that under controlling Supreme Court precedent, "this Court is bound to uphold the agency's determination that the polar bear is a threatened species as long as it is reasonable, regardless of whether there may be other reasonable, or even more reasonable views."  Indeed, "[t]hat is particularly true where, as here, the agency is operating at the frontiers of science."  Thus, the court concluded that "[w]hile CBD would have weighed the facts differently, the Court is persuaded that FWS carefully considered all of the available scientific information before it, and its reasoned judgment is entitled to deference."

Notably, the court also rejected the claim, advanced by a host of other plaintiffs, that the polar bear should not have been listed at all.  Among other things, opponents of the listing decision argued that the science of climate change is too uncertain, and that the Service (1) failed to show that the polar bear is sufficiently likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, (2) failed to rely on the best available science, (3) failed to take into account foreign conservation efforts, and (3) failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures.

Although the court limited its deference to the Service's interpretation of "endangered species" as applied to the polar bear, and not as a regulatory interpretation that may apply in any listing decision, this aspect of the opinion is significant because the Service is likely to apply the same "on the brink of extinction" standard in other listing decisions, which could result in fewer species qualifying for full protection under the ESA.

While the court's ruling disposes of several cross-motions for summary judgment, it has yet to reach a related challenge to the special 4(d) Rule that the Service issued after listing the polar bear as threatened.  See Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation, No. 1:08-mc-00764-EGS (D.D.C. filed Dec. 4, 2008).  As previously reported here, environmentalists had hoped that listing the polar bear as threatened due to the impacts of climate change would force the federal government to use its considerable regulatory authority under the ESA to impose strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).  But a controversial rule issued by the Department of the Interior under section 4(d) of the ESA placed strict geographic limits on the authority of federal agencies to require projects in Alaska to curb or mitigate their GHG emissions.  As previously reported here, much to the dismay of environmentalists, the Department of the Interior under the Obama Administration chose not to overturn the polar bear rule.  Instead, the Obama Administration has called for new legislation to address GHG emissions, and EPA may assert its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 8, 2011, Senator Inhofe (R-OK) filed an amendment (SA 429 (pdf)) to S. 782, the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011, that would amend section 4 of the Endangered Species Act to exempt the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) from protection under the Act.  According to Inhofe, if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were to list the lesser prairie-chicken, it would greatly restrict the development of wind energy in Oklahoma.

Senator Inhofe's proposed amendment comes on the heels of Senator Cornyn's proposed amendment (SA 396 (pdf)) to S. 782 that would exempt the dunes sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus) from the Endangered Species Act, as previously discussed here. 

In 1998, the Service issued a 12-Month Finding (pdf) in which it determined that listing the lesser prairie-chicken as threatened is "warranted but precluded" by other higher priority listing actions.  Most recently, in a Candidate Notice of Review (pdf) published on November 10, 2010, the Service announced that it has retained the second-highest Listing Priority Number, LPN 2, for the prairie-chicken because it continues to face significant and imminent threats throughout its range from agricultural activities and wind, oil, and gas development.

As explained in a prior entry, House Republicans Steve Pearce (R-NM) and Mike Conway (R-TX) and the Permian Basin Petroleum Association adamantly oppose listing the dunes sagebrush lizard and the lesser prairie-chicken for fear that doing so would halt oil and gas production and cost jobs in southeastern New Mexico and west Texas.  Opponents to listing these species add that both species are currently protected under voluntary Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs) and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs).  However, both amendments would "exempt" these species from the Act, thus nullifying the primary incentive for private landowners and developers to enter into such CCAs or CCAAs with the Service.

Proponents of the listings such a Wild Earth Guardians argue that failure to list these species could result in their extinction, and that attempts to amend the Endangered Species Act to exempt species from its protection undermines the Act and increases the cost to protect and allow for the recovery of endangered species.

At this time, neither amendment has been taken up for a vote.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Senator Cornyn (R-Texas) has filed an amendment to S. 782 (pdf), a bill entitled the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011, that would block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the dunes sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus) as endangered.

The amendment would make good on half of the proposal of House Republicans from West Texas and southeastern New Mexico earlier this Spring (blogged about here) to use legislation to exempt the lizard and the lesser prarie chicken from the Endangered Species Act.

Opponents of the proposed rule (pdf) to list the lizard as endangered claim that there is insufficient scientific information to support the listing, and that the Service failed to accurately estimate the economic impact of the listing decision, claiming it would halt oil and gas production in the Permian Basin, which supplies nearly half the oil produced in Texas.

The Service believes that the science supports the listing, and that oil and gas wells, pads, access roads, and other associated infrastructure have destroyed and fragmented the imperiled shinnery oak and dune habitat that the lizard needs to survive, and poses a significant threat to the
species throughout its range.

The comment period on the proposal to list the dunes sagebrush lizard closed on May 9, 2011, and the earliest the Fish and Wildlife Service expects to issue a final rule is this coming December.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a decision that could have profound implications for listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act, on November 4, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remanded (PDF) the Polar Bear Listing Rule to the Fish & Wildlife Service for "additional explanation for the legal basis of its listing determination" that the Polar bear is a "threatened" not "endangered" species.

In essence, the court has asked the Fish & Wildlife Service to provide the court with its agency interpretation of "endangered species."  As previously discussed here, the Fish & Wildlife Service took the position in the Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation that "endangered species" means "in imminent danger of extinction," and argued that although the word "imminent" does not appear in the statutory definition, the structure and language in the statute compels such an interpretation.

In a 26-page Memorandum Opinion (PDF), the court concluded that "the statute is either silent or ambiguous with respect to the precise question at issue . . . ," and, contrary to the Fish & Wildlife Service's claim, "[t]he definition of an "endangered species" is . . . inherently ambiguous."  The court also rejected the argument that the legislative history supports the Fish & Wildlife Service's interpretation.

The court therefore remanded the Polar Bear Listing Rule to the Fish & Wildlife Service to provide its agency interpretation, and indicated that if that interpretation is reasonable, the court will be bound to defer to it under the Chevron doctrine.  However, the court cautioned that "should the agency determine upon review that no reasonable interpretation of the statute supports its existing 'threatened' designation for the polar bear, new rulemaking procedures may be warranted."

If the agency determines that to qualify for listing as an endangered species, a species must be in danger of imminent extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, it will set a high bar for species to qualify for full protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The Fish & Wildlife Service has until December 23, 2010 to submit the agency's supplemental explanation and supporting materials, if any, and the court set February 23, 2011 as the new hearing date on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment.  In the meantime, the current listing rule and Section 4(d) rule remain in effect.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 20, 2010, at a hearing on a motion for summary judgment filed by Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Biological Diversity, a federal judge indicated that he intends to remand to the Fish & Wildlife Service its controversial decision to list the Polar bear as a threatened species rather than an endangered species.   See Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation, No. 1:08-mc-00764-EGS (D.D.C. filed Dec. 4, 2008).

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service made history two years ago when it listed the Polar bear as a threatened species because it identified the devastating impacts of climate change on the bear's habitat as a major factor in the species' alarming decline.  In addition, the Polar Bear is the first, and so far, only mammal to be listed specifically due to climate change impacts.

Environmentalists had hoped that the listing would force the federal government to use its considerable regulatory authority under the Endangered Species Act to impose strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).  But a controversial rule issued by the Department of the Interior under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act placed strict geographic limits on the authority of federal agencies to require projects in Alaska to curb or mitigate their GHG emissions.  As previously reported here, much to the dismay of environmentalists, the Department of the Interior under the Obama Administration chose not to overturn the polar bear rule.  Instead, the Obama Administration has called for new legislation to address GHG emissions, and the EPA may use its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs.

Environmentalists immediately challenged the Polar Bear Listing Rule, arguing that the species should be listed as endangered, not threatened.  If they prevail on that issue, and the bear attains endangered status, then the Department of the Interior will no longer have the power to issue a 4(d) rule for the Polar bear.  Without the limits in the existing 4(d) rule, the wildlife agencies could, in theory, impose limits on GHG emissions from facilities and projects that receive discretionary federal funding or approvals anywhere in the country based on their impacts on climate change, which impacts the Polar bear.

The environmental plaintiffs have also challenged the validity of the 4(d) rule itself.  Thus, if the Polar Bear Listing Rule is ultimately upheld, their challenge to 4(d) rule will remain to be decided in subsequent proceedings.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 19, 2010 the San Francisco Superior Court issued an order requiring the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to reconsider its determination that the American pika is not threatened with extinction.  Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish & Game Comm'n, No. CPF-090509927 (San Francisco Superior Court).

In 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a petition to list the pika as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).  CBD argues that the pika is threatened with extinction because climate change in the form of increasing average temperatures in California's eastern Sierra Nevada mountain range has reduced the pika's alpine habitat by driving the pika, a species especially sensitive to ambient temperatures, to move to higher, cooler elevations.  As its habitat has shrunk, its population has declined.

The petition is part of CBD's and other environmental organizations' ongoing effort, previously blogged about here, to convince state and federal wildlife agencies to list species as threatened or endangered due to climate change.  Listing of this tiny relative of the rabbit that primarily inhabits mountain ranges in the American West could have been a very big deal – and not just for industries and proposed actions located with the pika’s range. If a species is listed as threatened or endangered specifically due to climate change, then any private industry or federal government action that may affect climate change – think any industry that emits greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and any private, state, or federal project that may increase GHG emissions – could be required to comply with the stringent regulatory requirements (and attendant litigation risks) of the Endangered Species Act because GHG emissions anywhere could impact threatened or endangered species everywhere.

Thus, any refinery in California, e.g., could become subject to CESA regulations protecting pika hundreds of miles away. See Activists Propose Drastic Expansion of [Endangered] Species Act to Regulate Air Emissions (PDF).

As blogged about here, the Fish & Wildlife Service recently determined that listing of the pika under the federal Endangered Species Act is not warranted, despite predicted increases in the average ambient temperatures in the pika's range.  In determining that listing of the Mohave ground squirrel may be warranted, it did not agree with the petitioners there that climate change can be identified as a significant factor because it does not believe that current climate change models are "capable of making meaningful predictions of climate change for specific, local areas such as the range of the Mohave ground squirrel."

However, the Fish & Wildlife Service has recently listed the African penguin as endangered, due, in part, to climate change.  It is also in the process of determining whether listing is warranted for Whitebark pine, and the National Marine Fisheries Service is considering the impacts of climate change and other factors on 82 species of stony coral.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In compliance with a settlement agreement previously blogged about here, the Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule (PDF) effective October 28, 2010 listing the African Penguin as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act.  Unlike its prior listing decision for five other species of penguins, in this instance, the Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that climate change contributes to the threats facing the species "through rising sea levels, increasing sea surface temperatures, declines in upwelling intensities, predicted increases in frequency and intensity of El Niño events in the Benguela marine ecosystem, and predicted increases in sulphide eruptions."

Because the species is not native to the United States, no critical habitat will be designated for the African Penguin.  Nevertheless, the listing triggers the requirement that federal agencies evaluate actions they take within the United States or on the high seas for their potential impacts on African penguins.  This requirement is especially significant where, as here, the Service finds that climate change is contributing to a listed species' decline.  Because greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions anywhere may contribute to global climate change, it can be argued, for example, that the Environmental Protection Agency must consult with the Service when promulgating regulations under the Clean Air Act, or even when issuing individual Clean Air Act permits that may result in substantial increases in GHG emissions.

The listing also enables the Secretary of the Interior to authorize financial assistance, personnel, and the training of personnel for management and conservation programs for the penguins.  Finally, listing results in the prohibition of the import or export of any of the species, or their parts or products, as well as their sale in interstate or foreign commerce.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Service must issue a final rule regarding listing of a distinct population segment of the northern rockhopper penguin by January 28, 2011.  Notably, the Service previously determined that listing is not warranted for two species of penguin.  In a recent press release regarding the African penguin final rule, the Center for Biological Diversity states that "The Center and TIRN [the Turtle Island Restoration Network] plan to file suit against [the Department of the] Interior for denying listing to emperor and northern rockhopper penguins despite scientific evidence that they are jeopardized by climate change and commercial fisheries."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday, September 27, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued its determination that the Gunnison sage-grouse warrants listing under the Endangered Species Act, but that proposing that it be listed as threatened or endangered be postponed while the Service addresses the needs of higher priority species.

Historically, the Gunnison sage-grouse occupied southwestern Colorado, southeastern Utah, northwestern New Mexico, and northeastern Arizona.  But according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, its range has been reduced to seven separate populations in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah (pdf).  Of the approximately 4,500 breeding Gunnison sage-grouse, some 3,900 inhabit the Gunnison Basin in Colorado.

In 2006, the Service determined that listing was not warranted.  An ensuing legal challenge resulted in a consent decree in which the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to undertake a 12-month status review.  The September 27, 2010 "warranted-but-precluded" finding is the outcome of that 12-month status review.

Now that the Gunnison sage-grouse has been added to the list of candidate species, the Fish and Wildlife Service must review its status annually.  Currently, landowners in Colorado may voluntarily undertake conservation measures under the terms of a "Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances" (CCAA) issued to the Colorado Department of Wildlife by the Fish and Wildlife Service.  Under the terms of the CCAA, landowners who undertake specified conservation measures receive assurances that if and when the species is formally listed, the federal government will not place additional new restrictions on the use of their property for the protection of the sage-grouse.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In compliance with a settlement agreement previously blogged about here, the Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule on August 3, 2010 listing five species of penguins as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.  Specifically, the Service determined that the yellow-eyed, white-flippered, Fiordland crested, Humboldt, and erect-crested penguins are likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future.

None of the five species is native to the United States, and therefore no critical habitat is designated for the listed species.  Nevertheless, the listing triggers the requirement that federal agencies evaluate actions they take within the United States or on the high seas for their potential impacts on listed penguins.  The listing also enables the Secretary of the Interior to authorize financial assistance, personnel, and the training of personnel for management and conservation programs for the penguins.

Some contend that anthropogenic climate change is a major threat to the survival of the penguins.  While the Service acknowledged that the evidence of warming of the climate system is unequivocal, it concluded that the best available information does not indicate how increased sea level rise, ocean warming, or ocean acidification may affect the five penguin species.   Instead, the Service determined that other threats such as predation by introduced species, habitat loss, overfishing, unregulated ecotourism, and El Niño events were responsible for the population declines.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Service must issue final rules regarding listing of the African penguin by September 30, 2010, and listing of a distinct population segment of the northern rockhopper penguin by January 28, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an article published in Yale Environment 360 on July 22, 2010, Todd Woody chronicles the ongoing campaign by various environmental organizations to use the Endangered Species Act to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The article, Enlisting Endangered Species As a Tool to Combat Warming, recounts the perils facing the American Pika, previously blogged about here,  to illustrate the broader strategy aimed at forcing the Services to regulate GHG emissions.

As noted in our blog post, Fish and Wildlife Service's to Review Prospect of Listing Whitebark Pine Due to Climate Change, the Service recently announced a 90-day finding that listing the whitebark pine as endangered or threatened due to climate change may be warranted.  In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service may adopt rules listing several species of penguins due to climate change.  The National Marine Fisheries Service previously determined that a petition to list 83 species of coral due to climate change presented substantial information indicating that listing might be warranted for 82 of the species.  But the Fish and Wildlife Service declined to list the American pika as endangered or threatened due to climate change.

As Mr. Woody notes in his article, these listing decisions have been spurred by petitions and lawsuits filed by several environmental organizations with the aim of not only protecting the species from extinction, but utlimately requiring the Services to require emitters of GHG to reduce or mitigate their emissions.  But, so far, the utimate aim has been frustrated by resistance from both the Bush and Obama Administrations and doubts about the validity of the legal theory underlying the overarching strategy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link