As hunters and anglers, endangered species aren’t typically on our minds. Few of the species we target are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), with wolves in the Lower 48 being a notable—and contentious—exception. However, the habitat protections afforded to a slew of other ESA-protected species trickle down to the big game and waterfowl species we like to target as well. A series of newly proposed changes, however, could impact those protections.
On November 19, the Trump Administration announced four proposed revisions that would apply to the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Generally, they narrow the scope of where and how protections are afforded to fish and wildlife species, and introduce economic considerations when weighing new development. Conservation groups have been quick to denounce the changes as a blow to the ESA.
For starters, one revision seeks to remove a so-called “blanket rule,” which allowed the USFWS to employ a standard set of generic protections when listing a new species as “threatened,” rather than making a tailored set of regulations. In short, blanket rules streamline the process and provide broad-bush protections against hunting and commercialization of threatened species.
“Species-specific rulemaking takes time and resources—it’s not a minor undertaking,” says Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. And given that Congress has, for decades, really underfunded both the Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, they’ve never had enough resources to do the jobs that Congress commanded them to do. So that extra rulemaking burden is not insignificant.”
The real kicker, however, is that the rule will not just apply to new listings. It will be retroactive as well, meaning the USFWS will have to create species-specific rules for all species currently receiving blanket protections. In total, that’s about 50% of all threatened fish and wildlife species. That’s a big ask for an already understaffed agency.
Rescinding the blanket rule is the only proposed change that would be effective retroactively. The remainder of the rules pertain to habitat and the process for making future decisions involving ESA-listed species.
One proposed rule would create a greater distinction between “occupied” and “unoccupied” habitat when considering future development. On the positive side, the distinction could reduce the time-sucking regulatory burden placed on wildlife biologists at agencies like the Forest Service and BLM, but on the flip side, it could result in increased habitat loss.
Take the Canada lynx, for instance. The historical range of the lynx includes 14 states from California all the way to Michigan and Vermont. Currently, though, the species is only present in a handful of watersheds, mostly in Montana and Wyoming. Still, when a federal agency like the Forest Service is considering a timber sale in an area where lynx historically existed, they’ve had to act as though a lynx could be lurking behind every tree. Under the proposed changes, that unoccupied habitat will only be considered important if a species would blink out without it.
On a similar note, two proposed regulations would change how agencies can weigh economic impacts when evaluating new development in endangered species habitat. One of the regulations applies broadly when the USFWS considers which habitat to designate as “critical” (a designation that affords maximum protections), and the other regulation applies when weighing exclusionary zones for new development. However, not *all *economic impacts can be considered.
“Hunting and fishing and trapping play a tremendous role in the U.S. economy. And the same is true for bird-watching and species-watching in general. They generate a huge amount of money with your Airbnb, your hotel, your restaurant, etc.,” Davenport said. “But that’s not the kind of economic benefits that would be considered,” when weighing a new proposal or development.
Rather, agencies could only consider ranchers and timber contractors with federal land leases, along with other entities such as mining or oil and gas development, which have similar economic stakes in federal lands. Or as the USFWS puts it, “The revised framework provides transparency and predictability for landowners and project proponents.”
“It’s a really narrow, one-eyed view of the world that privileges extractive interests, whether that’s logging, grazing, mining, or oil and gas drilling. It privileges the economic interests of the few, over the wider, broader interests of the public at large,” Davenport said.
Finally, lumped in with the habitat changes, is a statute that would—again, in the words of the USFWS, “restore clarity to the definition of ‘foreseeable future’” and reinstate flexibility when designating protected habitat.
The new definition, in essence, would force agencies to ignore the downstream impacts of their decisions. For example, if there’s a proposal to expand a federal highway bisecting grizzly bear habitat from two lanes to four lanes, the only impact that can be considered is the direct habitat loss from the new lanes. Future development as a result of the expansion—shopping malls, subdivisions, etc.—could not be included.
In sum, the new interpretations of the ESA are a mixed bag. Since 1974, the law has protected hundreds of thousands of habitat acres and prevented dozens of species from blinking out of existence, but it’s also been heavily criticized for maintaining overly restrictive protections long after a species has recovered. The new changes could help address that issue, but they come at the expense of short-sighted thinking.
Development is unlikely to slow down in the coming decades, so it’s worth being careful in the present so future generations have wild game to hunt and fish to catch. The Endangered Species Act is a crucial piece of that puzzle, and changes to its interpretation have real, tangible impacts on hunters and anglers.
A public comment period is open on all four proposed changes until December 22. You can submit your comment here, and for helpful information on which regulation changes to comment on, you can check out this USFWS page.
Read the full article here