Endangered Species Law & Policy

In a notice (PDF) published February 25, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew its proposal to list the Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Distinct Population Segment ("DPS") of coastal cutthroat trout for the second time.

The Service was required to revisit the issue after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision (PDF) ordering the Service to reconsider whether the DPS of the coastal cutthroat trout warranted listing.  After considering the issue for a second time, however, the Service again determined that the ...

As discussed in Bloomberg Business Week, the oil and gas industry, ranchers and others are eagerly anticipating the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision whether to list the greater sage grouse.  In January 2005, the Service made a finding (PDF) that listing the greater sage grouse was not warranted.  The Western Watershed Project sued the Service in federal district in Idaho, and in December 2007, the court reversed (PDF) the Service's listing decision. 

In May 2009, Western Watershed Project and the Service then stipulated (PDF) that the Service would submit a new 12-month finding on ...

The Center for Biological Diversity filed four lawsuits in federal district courts in Washington, D.C.,  Sacramento, California, Portland, Oregon, and Tucson, Arizona over petitions for species listings filed over the past decade.  The lawsuits against the Obama administration are aimed at forcing the Fish and Wildlife Service to make a finding on the listing petitions.

On February 10, 2010, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced its determination that a Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) petition (PDF 6 MB) to list 83 species of stony coral as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act presents substantial information indicating that [listing] might be warranted for 82 of the 83 subject species.  See 90-Day Finding (PDF).

If a threatened listing is warranted, NMFS may use its authority under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act to impose regulatory requirements necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species, including the prohibition of take of any such species without an incidental take permit. 

If any of the species are listed as endangered, they automatically benefit from the Act’s most potent protections: Under Section 7, federal agencies must insure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its designated critical habitat.  Under Section 9, persons are prohibited from taking or harming any endangered coral without first obtaining an incidental take statement under section 7 or an incidental take permit under Section 10.  Furthermore, citizens may bring suit in federal court to enforce the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

Thus, listing of coral could enable environmental groups to sue major emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the theory that their emissions cause the unpermitted take of, or harm to species imperiled by climate change.

Listing of this tiny relative of the rabbit . . . could have been a very big deal . . . . 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 . . . could be required to comply with the stringent regulatory requirements (and attendant litigation risks) of the Endangered Species Act.