TESTIMONY
OF GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
ENDANGERED
SPECIES, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT
OF
THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT
AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FISHERIES,
WILDLIFE, AND WATER ON LISTING AND DELISTING
PROCESSES
OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
May
9, 2001
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity
to discuss how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service carries out its duties
related to listing and delisting species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA
or Act). Our procedures, some
prescribed by statute and others by agency regulations or policies, are all
focused upon ensuring that our decisions are objective, based on good science,
and made in the open with peer review and public participation throughout.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or
FWS) is committed to making the Endangered Species Act work in the eyes of the
public, the Congress, and the courts so as to accomplish its purpose of conserving
threatened and endangered species and protecting the ecosystems upon which they
depend. This is a challenging task,
involving precious and irreplaceable natural resources, a complex statute, and
many stakeholders with deeply held and often conflicting interests.
In this environment, the following principles
provide the foundation for the administration of our listing and delisting
activities B ensure that our decisions are based on the
best available science, seek independent peer review of our decisions, provide
for public participation throughout our decision process, and ensure that our
decision process is understandable and transparent.
Science, Peer Review, and Public
Participation in the Listing and Delisting Process
The Endangered Species Act requires listing
determinations to be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available. The careful
evaluation of scientific evidence is fundamental to the assessment of species
for listing or delisting under the ESA.
The Service strives to make the most of scientific advances that improve
our ability to understand nature and its processes. Our joint Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) APolicy on Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act@,
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)
(Attachment 1), provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides
guidance to our field biologists and managers regarding the use of scientific
information in our decision process.
This APolicy on
Information Standards@ requires our biologists and managers to ensure
that the information we use is reliable, credible, and represents the best data
available; to impartially evaluate information that disputes existing positions
or decisions of the Service; to document their evaluation of the available
scientific and commercial data; to use primary and original sources of
information as the basis for recommendations, where consistent with the Act and our obligation to use the best
information available; and to conduct management-level reviews of the documents
developed by staff biologists to verify and assure the quality of the science
used in the decision process.
The ESA, the Administrative Procedures Act,
and the regulations governing our listing and delisting activities ensure that
States, Tribes, other agencies, and the public have ample opportunity to
participate in our listing and delisting actions. These established processes ensure that the public can
participate fully in listing and delisting decisions. In addition, the requirement that the Service maintain and make
available the administrative record in support of its decision making assists
in making the decision process open and transparent.
To further ensure that sound science
underlies our decisions, the Service and NMFS established a joint APolicy for Peer Review in Endangered Species
Act Activities@, published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) (Attachment 2).
This policy works to ensure that independent peer review is incorporated
throughout our listing and recovery programs in a manner that complements, but
does not circumvent or supercede, other established public participation
processes.
In recognition of the unique capability of
State fish and wildlife agencies to assist in implementing all aspects of the
ESA, the Service and NMFS developed a joint APolicy Regarding the Role of State Agencies in Endangered Species Act
Activities@, published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34275) (Attachment 3).
This policy recognizes that States possess broad trustee authorities
over fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within their borders, as
well as scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution
of such wildlife. The policy requires
the Services to solicit State agency expertise and participation in the following
activities, among others: determining which species should be included on the
list of candidate species, conducting population status inventories and
geographical distribution surveys, responding to listing petitions, preparing
proposed and final listing and delisting rules, and designing and implementing
recovery efforts.
The Executive Order 13175 of November 6,
2000, on government-to-government relations with Native American tribal
governments also requires us to consult with the tribes on matters that affect
them. Consistent with this and our
Federal trust responsibility, we consult to the extent possible with Indian
Tribes having tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee lands, or tribal
rights that might be affected by ESA activities.
The Listing Process
Listing under the Endangered Species Act
becomes necessary when a species declines to the point where it is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (an Aendangered species@) or it is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future (a Athreatened
species@).
The Secretary is required to list or reclassify a species if, after
reviewing the species=
status using the best scientific and commercial data available, it is found
that the species is endangered or threatened because of any one or a
combination of the following factors:
C
the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
C
overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
C
disease or
predation;
C
the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
C
other natural
or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
There are two processes to identify species
in need of listing. The first is the
candidate assessment process, which is initiated by the Service. The second is a petition process, which is
available to the public.
Part of the Service=s Candidate Conservation program is the
candidate assessment process, through which the Service searches for species of
fish, wildlife and plants that may be at risk and in need of protection under
the Act. In identifying candidate
species, we rely on our own biological surveys, including status surveys
conducted for the purpose of candidate assessment, information from State
Natural Heritage Programs, other Federal and State agencies, knowledgeable
scientists, and public and private natural resources organizations.
Each year, the Service publishes in the Federal
Register the Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR). The CNOR identifies the species that we believe are candidates
for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
The CNOR lists those species previously identified as candidates,
species for which petitions have resulted in Awarranted but precluded@ findings, as discussed below, during the prior year, and other species
that appear to warrant listing under the ESA.
When we identify a species as a candidate for listing, we have
sufficient scientific information available to support a proposed rule to
evaluate whether the species should be added to the list of threatened and
endangered species. However,
preparation of the proposed rule is precluded by higher-priority listing
actions. We publish the CNOR, make
individual candidate assessment forms available to the public, and solicit
additional information about the status of candidate species, the threats they
face, and conservation actions that are being implemented that may benefit the
species. We accept information from the
public about candidate species at any time.
We use the public=s comments in the preparation of listing rules for the highest priority
candidates, and in revisions to subsequent CNORs. In addition, publication of the list of candidate species
provides important information about potential listings that can be used by
planners and developers.
The CNOR also serves to explain to the public
our long-standing science-based priority system for adding species to the list,
which was published in the Federal Register on September 1, 1983 (48 FR
43098-43105) (Attachment 4). Each
candidate species is assigned a listing priority number (LPN), based on the
immediacy and magnitude of the threats faced by the species and on its taxonomic
distinctiveness. The candidate assessment
forms, which are available to the public upon request, document our reasons for
assigning a particular LPN to each candidate species. We use the LPN to
prioritize listing actions. Species
with lower LPNs are given a higher priority for action.
The second process for identifying species
that may warrant listing is the petition process. Section 4 of the Act allows any interested person to petition the
Secretary of the Interior either to add a species to, or remove a species from,
the lists of threatened and endangered species. The Services ensure consistent and rigorous analysis of petitions
by following the interagency APetition Management Guidance@ issued in July 1996 (Attachment 5).
Upon receipt of a petition, the Service must
respond, within 90 days when practicable, with a finding as to whether the
petition provides substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted.
If the Service determines that the petition did not provide such
substantial information, the 90-day finding concludes the petition review
process. However, if the Service
determines that the petition does provide substantial information, the Service
initiates a status review and issues an additional finding within 12 months of
the receipt of the petition.
There are three possible outcomes of the A12-month finding@: 1) listing is not warranted, and no further
action is taken; 2) listing is warranted, and a listing proposal is promptly
prepared; or 3) listing is warranted, but immediate action is precluded by
higher priority actions. A Awarranted but precluded@ finding is made on the basis of the species= listing priority number and the listing
workload. In such cases, preparation of
a listing proposal is delayed until higher priority actions are completed.
We issue a proposed rule to list species when
we have sufficient information to show that listing is warranted (as result of
either process). If the issuance of the
proposed rule is precluded by work on other higher priority listing actions, we
add the species to our candidate list to be prioritized for a future listing
proposal.
Our listing and delisting actions are
informal rule-makings, published in proposed and final rule form in the Federal
Register, and leading to revisions to Title 50, Part 17 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Once a proposal is
published, the Service must allow for a public comment period on the proposal;
provide actual notice of the proposed regulation to appropriate State, tribal,
and local government agencies; publish a summary of the proposal in a newspaper
of general circulation in areas where the species occurs; and hold a public
hearing, if requested. See 16
U.S.C. ' 1533(b)(5).
The Service=s
implementing regulations require that the public comment period on a listing
proposal be at least 60 days long. See
50 C.F.R. ' 424.16(c)(2). Since public participation is so important to effective
conservation efforts, the Service will often hold multiple public hearings and
extend the comment period beyond the minimum required by the law and
regulation.
We always solicit independent peer review of
our listing proposals, and incorporate comments and recommendations that we
receive. We have found such peer review
to be a valuable element of the decision process. However, it is sometimes difficult to obtain the participation
of experts in this process. Experts in
academia and other agencies have other demands for their time and attention,
and incentives to contribute their expertise to our listing efforts are not
always apparent. We have also found
that species experts may be reluctant to become involved when they view the
listing action as likely to lead to subsequent litigation. The potential demands upon their time and
reputations associated with depositions, cross examination, and other legal
proceedings create a genuine disincentive for some experts. We are continuing, however, to explore ways
to increase participation in and improve the effectiveness of the independent
peer review process.
The Service reviews petitions, adds species
to the list, reclassifies species from threatened to endangered, and designates
critical habitat using funds appropriated specifically to our Listing program
for these purposes. (Delisting and
reclassification from endangered to threatened are part of the recovery process
and are funded through the Recovery program.)
The workload associated with these listing activities has for several
years exceeded the resources available to the Service for listing, and a
substantial backlog of listing actions has accumulated. To manage this backlog within appropriated
resources, the Service, since Fiscal Year 1996, has employed a Listing Priority
Guidance system to assign relative priorities to the listing actions to be
carried out under section 4 of the Act.
The objective of the Listing Priority Guidance is to focus available
resources on those listing actions that have the greatest biological benefit to
species in need of protection under the Act.
Unfortunately, most courts have not afforded
deference to this priority system, and have instead concluded that they have no
discretion but to order us to act as soon as possible on whatever backlogged action
comes before them. As a result, court
ordered actions have consumed essentially all of the listing budget this fiscal
year. The Service does not have any
remaining resources or staff to place new species on the list of threatened and
endangered species or to respond to citizen petitions to list new species. In short, the Service does not currently
have a balanced and effective listing program.
The President is continuing efforts begun by
the last Administration to break this gridlock and get back to the important
business of protecting imperiled species.
We are asking Congress, through the Fiscal Year 2002 budget request, to
help us address our backlog in two ways.
We are seeking increased funding for our listing program so that we can
begin to reduce the backlog of listing actions, and we are asking Congress to
concur that these funds should be spent pursuant to current court orders or
settlement agreements and on those listing actions that provide the greatest
benefit for species at risk of extinction.
This proposal would not change any of the underlying substantive
requirements of the Act, but would allow the Service to use its resources to
protect the species that are in greatest need of listing. The Service hopes to engage the public and
interested groups in the development of a revised listing priority system and
to put the resulting priority system out for public review and comment.
We recognize that this proposal has resulted
in considerable controversy. While the
problem is real and needs to be addressed, we would welcome the opportunity to
work with this Committee and other interested Members to craft a solution that
meets with wide approval.
Distinct Population Segments
In carrying out our listing duties under the
ESA, the Service has proposed and finalized rules to list a number of Adistinct population segments@ (DPS=s) of species. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this
opportunity to explain how the Service decides whether to list a species as a
Adistinct population segment@.
The ESA=s definition of
"species" includes "any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." 16 U.S.C. ' 1532(16); 50 C.F.R. ' 424.10(k).
This definition allows for listing at levels below taxonomically
recognized species or subspecies.
Accordingly, a DPS of vertebrate fish or wildlife may be listed as a Aspecies@ under the ESA.
The Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) have long recognized the importance of interpreting the term Adistinct population segment@ in a clear and consistent fashion. We collaboratively developed a policy to
clarify our interpretation of DPS=s for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying species
under the ESA, and published that draft policy in December 1994 (59 FR
65885). The intent of the policy was to
provide a well conceived analytical framework for considering whether to list,
delist, or reclassify distinct populations segments of vertebrate species. The policy was also developed to ensure that
DPS listing activities are carried out consistently throughout both agencies.
As is the case with the rule-making process
for listing species, we strive to develop our policies in a transparent process
that solicits and incorporates public input and responds to public
concerns. We solicited public review
and comment on the draft DPS policy.
After receiving, analyzing, and responding to public comments, the
Service and NMFS published the final joint DPS policy on February 7, 1996 (61
FR 4722) (Attachment 6).
In the policy, we noted that listing a DPS
would serve to protect and conserve species and the ecosystems upon which they
depend before large‑scale decline occurs that would necessitate listing a
species or subspecies throughout its entire range. This may allow protection and recovery of declining organisms in
a more timely and less costly manner, and on a smaller scale than the more
costly and extensive efforts that might be needed to recover an entire species
or subspecies. The Services' ability to
address local issues (without the need to list, recover, and consult
range-wide) will result in a more effective program.
Under the DPS Policy, the listing of a DPS
involves a three-stage, sequential process.
First, the Service decides whether the population is Adiscrete.@ Second, it determines whether
it is Asignificant.@ If a population is both Adiscrete@ and Asignificant,@ it constitutes a DPS. Third,
the Service applies the listing criteria, 16 U.S.C. ' 1533(a)(1), outlined earlier in this
statement, to determine whether to list the DPS as endangered or threatened.
A population segment may be considered
discrete if it is either (1) markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors, and/or (2) delimited by international governmental
boundaries across which differences in control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
If a population segment is determined to be
discrete under one, or both, of these conditions, its biological and ecological
significance will then be considered in light of Congressional guidance (see
Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) that the authority to list DPS's
be used "sparingly" while encouraging the conservation of genetic
diversity. In making this
"significance" determination, the Services consider the available
scientific evidence of the DPS's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not
limited to, the following: (1) persistence of the discrete population segment
in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that
loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in
the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment
represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more
abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other
populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
The Policy=s guidelines permit the use of agency discretion in evaluating
discreteness and significance. Indeed,
the Policy provides that:
A[b]ecause precise circumstances are likely to
vary considerably from case to case, it is not possible to describe
prospectively all the class of information that might bear on the biological
and ecological importance of a discrete population segment.@ Id.
In responding to public comment on the draft
version of the Policy published in the Federal Register, we
stated Athat the use of international boundaries as a
measure of discreteness may introduce an artificial and non‑biological
element to the recognition of DPS's,@ and that such determination "is sometimes undertaken as a matter
of policy rather than science."
The policy further noted that Ait appears to be reasonable for national
legislation, which has its principal effects on a national scale, to recognize
units delimited by international boundaries when these coincide with
differences in the management, status, or exploitation of a species.@
Moreover, the policy recognizes that the A[r]ecognition of international boundaries in
this way is also consistent with practice under the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora [CITES], which is
implemented in the United States by the Act." Under CITES, species protection may vary from country to country
(e.g., prohibiting commercial trade for a species from one country, but not
from another) depending on their management of the species. When appropriate, the ESA listings for
species included in CITES can be specific to a country in order to reflect
those management differences and support effective implementation of CITES
(e.g., for the salt water crocodile).
The Recovery Process
Recovery of threatened and endangered species
is the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is
arrested or reversed, and the threats to its survival are neutralized, so that
long-term survival in nature can be ensured.
The goal of the recovery process is to restore listed species to a point
where they are secure, self-sustaining components of their ecosystems which do
not require the protections of the ESA, and can be delisted.
For almost all species, a recovery plan is
essential as a road map for the recovery process. A recovery outline, the first step in recovery planning, guides
the development of a recovery plan that identifies Federal, state, tribal, and
private actions needed to achieve recovery.
The Service=s
policy is to complete a recovery outline within 60 days of listing a
species. A recovery outline identifies
the major and most imminent threats to a species, and the actions and partners
needed to immediately begin reducing these threats while a recovery plan is
being developed.
The ESA states that recovery plans shall be
developed for the conservation and survival of threatened and endangered
species unless such a plan will not promote the conservation of the
species. There are very few exceptions
to the need for a recovery plan, and most of these exceptions are for species
that occur under very localized circumstances where other plans, such as a
forest management plan, already contain the actions needed to recover the
listed species.
Therefore, it is the case for most species
that immediately upon listing the Service also begins the recovery planning
process. A first step in the process is
to identify the participants of a recovery team that will work to craft the
recovery plan for a listed species. To
guide our actions during the recovery process, the Service uses our May 1990 APolicy and Guidelines for Planning and
Coordinating Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species@ and the following 1994 joint FWS/NMFS
policies:
C
Policy for Peer
Review of ESA Activities - incorporates independent peer review into recovery
actions, including the writing of recovery plans;
C
Policy on
Information Standards - directs that the best available scientific and
commercial information be used when determining what actions are needed to
recover species; and
C
Policy on
Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272) (Attachment 7) - directs the Service to solicit the
participation of State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, academic institutions, private
individuals, and economic interests when determining the recovery actions
needed to recover species.
The latter policy directed the Service to
diversify the areas of expertise represented on a recovery team, develop
multiple species plans when possible, minimize the social and economic impacts
of implementing recovery actions, and involve representatives of affected
groups and provide stakeholders the opportunity to participate in recovery plan
development.
Because the Service bases our recovery
decisions on sound science, we seek to involve experts in these decisions and
include them on recovery teams.
Therefore, when we initiate the recovery planning process for a listed
species, we endeavor to identify experts on the species and its habitat, as
well as the most knowledgeable individuals on land use and land management
within the range of the species.
The Service must balance the need to have as
many participants as possible on a recovery team, with the need to ensure that
the size of the team does not compromise its efficiency. We often work primarily as the facilitator
on recovery teams, providing guidance for experts on the team from other
Federal agencies, state agencies, Tribes, or the private sector.
In addition, the Service often uses one or
more Arecovery implementation teams@ during the recovery planning process to
allow for broader public participation.
Participation on these teams is usually possible for any concerned
individual that wishes to volunteer. As
a recovery plan is drafted, the proposed, necessary recovery actions identified
by the recovery team are presented to the implementation teams for their
review. The implementation teams, which
are often composed of members of the public and agencies whose interests may be
affected by the recovery needs, provide valuable reviews of the feasibility of
the proposed actions. The proposed
actions may be modified based on the reviews and comments of the implementation
teams.
It is the Service=s intent to complete draft recovery plans for
species within one and one-half years from the time of listing. Once complete, draft recovery plans are
available for public review and comment.
A notice of availability is published and comments are solicited. Today, it is not unusual for the Service to
receive hundreds, sometimes thousands, of comments on a single plan. These comments come from a wide range of
interests: from advocates for the environment to private citizens who are
worried about what effects the recovery of the species may have on their
livelihoods.
The Service uses the recovery team to
consider each comment on a recovery plan, and, where needed, incorporate the
comments into the final recovery plan.
A record of how comments on a recovery plan are considered is kept and
made available for public review. When
a final recovery plan has been completed and approved by the Service=s appropriate Regional Director, it is made
available to all interested parties. A
Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register and
the Service ensures that all of the recognized concerned public is aware of the
completion of the plan. In addition,
notices are often placed in newspapers throughout the range of the species.
A recovery plan must address the threats to
the species, describe the actions needed to recover the species, provide an
implementation schedule of when the actions will be completed, identify the
parties who will have primary responsibility for undertaking the actions, and
assess the estimated costs of implementing the recovery plan. In addition, a recovery plan identifies the
criteria that will be used to determine when a species may be sufficiently
recovered to be downlisted from endangered to threatened, or delisted and
removed from the list of species protected by the ESA.
The Service is increasing its use of
multi-species recovery plans. At least
20 multi-species plans have been finalized since 1998. Addressing the recovery of multiple listed species in a single, multi-species, ecosystem-based
approach is efficient in addressing common habitat needs and shared
threats. This approach is often more
cost effective and efficient than addressing species through single-species
recovery plans.
Recovery plans must be dynamic
documents. New information is
constantly becoming available. As new
information is recognized that may affect a species= recovery, the recovery team for the species
may be reconvened to assess the information and determine if the plan needs to
be revised. At the very minimum, the
Service reviews plans every five years to determine if changes are needed. If significant changes to a plan are needed,
then, following the process already outlined, a new draft plan is prepared,
participation and comment is invited from all interested parties, and a new
final recovery plan may result.
The Service is proud that, as of the
beginning of this year, 88 percent of the species for which a recovery plan is
required and due have approved recovery plans.
Recovery plans are not prepared for some listed species, particularly
international species not found in North America.
Recovery implementation is the undertaking of
the actions needed to accomplish recovery plan tasks in a systematic
manner. Implementation involves
strategic planning and requires the tracking of results to determine if
recovery actions are working and whether a recovery plan=s objectives are being met. Recovery actions are prioritized. Priority 1 actions are those that must be
taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from irreversible
decline. Priority 2 actions are the
actions that are needed to prevent a significant decline in a species= population or habitat, or would prevent some
other significant negative impact.
Finally, priority 3 actions are those actions that must be take to
provide for a full recovery of a species.
In most cases, successful species recovery is
too large a task for any one agency or interest group. Implementation must involve all affected
parties, consider social and economic impacts, and must be scientifically
sound. The Service must engage the
multiple stakeholders throughout the recovery implementation process, and
encourage them to effectively sustain, conserve and ultimately recover
endangered and threatened species so that they may be delisted.
An example of stakeholder involvement in the
recovery process is the multi-species recovery effort in the Southwestern
United States involving the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl and the threatened and
endangered big river fish in the Lower Colorado River. The threats faced by these species include
an increasing loss of both arid and aquatic natural habitat due to rapid
population growth in southern Arizona, Nevada and California. The loss of habitat necessitates working
with diverse and broad groups of stakeholders during recovery implementation to
balance species conservation, economic
viability, and Apeople protection@. In
the Southwest, the efforts of recovery implementation teams include
participation by water, power, and wildlife agencies and municipalities,
ranchers, and cultural and historical entities, all acting for the common
good. Such interaction leads to
enlightened understanding about how
improved land and water quality and habitat cohesiveness assists species
recovery while providing healthy habitats for everyone.
It usually takes many years, often decades,
for a species to decline to the point where it needs the protection of the
ESA. Likewise, recovery of a species is
also a process that usually requires significant time to accomplish. Instances where habitat loss and degradation
constitute the main threats to a species usually makes it more difficult to
recover the species. Often the
participants in the recovery planning and implementation for a species will
change as time passes. The constant is
the Service=s direction of the recovery implementation
process, ensuring that the best scientific and commercial information is used,
that all willing participants are provided the opportunity to comment and
participate, and that the progress towards recovery is monitored and, when
necessary, changed through adaptive management.
The Delisting Process
The same scientific rigor and full public
participation is used in delisting species as was used in the listing of
species. The Service regularly assesses
the criteria listed in the recovery plan that are used to define when a species
has sufficiently recovered to be reclassified as either a threatened species (recovered
from being endangered) or as a fully recovered species and removed from the
list of species protected by the ESA.
Likewise, the most recent scientific and commercial data, after being
subjected to peer review, are used to assess the current status of the
species. Often, the factors used to
determine whether a species has recovered include the species= population size, recruitment, stability of
habitat in terms of habitat quality and quantity, the degree to which habitat
areas are connected to one another, and the control or elimination of the
threats that led to the need to list the species.
The ability to list distinct population
segments may also play an important role in the recovery of listed vertebrate
species. Many species were listed
before the ESA was amended in 1978 to allow the listing of distinct population
segments. Therefore, the Service may
consider that a portion of a listed
species has recovered sufficiently to warrant downlisting or delisting. Of course, this population, and the
populations of the species that may not have reached the recovery goals, must
conform to the same criteria of substantiality and distinction that are used to
list distinct population segments. If
this is the case, then the Service may be able to use a distinct population
segment to delist or downlist a portion of the species. This will provide regulatory relief for the
public within the range of the recovered distinct population segment. As always, the Service uses the best
scientific and commercial data, along with the opinions of experts and the
public, when making these decisions.
As already mentioned during the previous
review of the listing process, the public has the opportunity to petition the
Service to delist a species at any time.
Likewise, as already discussed, the petition will trigger a process
where the petition is first reviewed for presenting substantial information,
and, if it passes that test, within 12 months the action requested in the
petition will be assessed, using the best peer reviewed scientific and
commercial data and the opinions of experts.
If it is judged that the petitioned action is warranted, the Service
will move to propose delisting the species.
Outside of the petition process, as recovery
of a species becomes more imminent, the recovery team is requested to assess
the evidence that the species may have reached the goals identified for its
recovery. Again, only the best peer
reviewed scientific and commercial data are used, along with the opinions of
experts on the species, its habitat, and land management practices. If the status of the species has improved
sufficient
+ly, then a proposal to downlist or delist
the species will be prepared.
As is the case for the process of listing a
species, a proposal to reclassify a species is published in the Federal Register and announced in selected
newspapers throughout the range of the species. The Service schedules public meetings during the comment period
for a reclassification so that all of the concerned public will have the
opportunity to provide comments on the proposed action. All comments are carefully considered and a
record, available to the public, is kept on the decisions made with respect to
the comments.
If, after this process, it is determined that
a species has recovered sufficiently to merit reclassification, then a final decision
is made and published. A decision to
reclassify a species from threatened to endangered likely requires a new
recovery plan be developed, and the process already described will once again
be initiated. A determination that a
species has fully recovered will result in the species being removed from the
list of species protected by the ESA.
As acknowledged earlier, species are usually
listed as a result of factors that
caused their decline over many years, often decades or even centuries. As a result, recovery of listed species
requires time and resources. It is the
goal of the Service to recover species as quickly as possible. Since 1998, the Service has specifically
targeted $1 million each year to listed species that are nearing recovery. This funding provides the extra resources
needed to either downlist or delist the species and ensures that they get this
focused attention.
We have had success. Recently the Service was successful in
taking the peregrine falcon off of the list of species protected by the
ESA. The falcon was primarily
threatened by pesticides and habitat loss, and the efforts of many agencies and
individuals, over more than 30 years, were needed to recover the falcon. Likewise, just this year the Aleutian Canada
goose was delisted. The goose was one
of the first species to be protected under the ESA. Through cooperation with state governments and partnerships with
private landowners, the threats posed by introduced foxes and habitat losses
were reduced and recovery of the goose was accomplished.
Likewise, the bald eagle, our nation=s symbol, is on the verge of complete
recovery. Once the Service has resolved
how the delisting of the bald eagle will be addressed in our implementation of
other wildlife laws, such as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the
Service will be able to proceed with this historic event. In all, as a result of recovery activities,
the Service plans to delist or downlist four more species in FY 2001 and at
least six species in FY 2002.
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to emphasize the
importance the Service places upon having a science based, open decision
process in which the affected public can participate fully. Our listing and delisting decisions are
sometimes difficult and contentious, and not all parties will agree with our
final decision. But it is critical that
the public and the Congress view our work as honest and objective efforts to
reach a decision required of us by the Act.
Our success in implementing the Endangered Species Act is tied to that
trust.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared
testimony. Thank you for your interest
in the Endangered Species Act and the way it is implemented, and for the
opportunity to testify. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you and other members of the Committee
might have.