17.32 Endangered Species Act 1Protecting BiodiversityThe Endangered Species Act17.32 Endangered Species Act 2The “Problem”Expanding extinction of domestic and foreign plants and animalsEconomic Development & Population GrowthLack of ConcernIs this a problem?Extinction is naturalAdaptaiton/natural selection Î more species that get along with humansHow much lifestyle/economic development should we sacrifice for other species?17.32 Endangered Species Act 3Policy Background1900 Lacy ActMigratory Bird Act 19181920s-1960sWildlife management controlled by statesConservationists• Wildlife as resource• Support state managementPreservationists• Want federal laws protecting wildlifeMigratory Bird Treaty17.32 Endangered Species Act 4Committee on Rare & Endangered Wildlife -- 1964Professionals from BSF&WInformal working groupIssue “RedBook”63 vertebrate speciesInformal collegial survey17.32 Endangered Species Act 5Endangered Species Preservation Act - 1966Lobbying by CREW & other BSFW managersSec. Of Interior wants bill for money to buy landDOI drafts bill for Congress (1965)Debate on states rights17.32 Endangered Species Act 6Endangered Species Preservation Act - 1966Only animals living in federal wildlife refuges protectedFederal government prohibited from regulating hunting/fishing off refugesListed species not protected if they leave the refugeVoluntary protection by other federal agenciesAll ignore the lawNo public process17.32 Endangered Species Act 7Endangered Species Conservation Act -- 1969Amends 1966 ESPABSF&W drafts bill for House & SenateProvisionsOnly species threatened with worldwide extinction coveredBans interstate transport of listed speciesAdds mollusks and crustaceans17.32 Endangered Species Act 8Endangered Species Act -1973Nixon prods Congress to revise ESCA 1969 to improve protectionPressure from BSF&WGoal: to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.17.32 Endangered Species Act 9ESA – ProvisionsRepeals ESCA 1969Protection for all threatened species, subspecies, & populationVertebrates, invertebrates, & plants• BSF&W opposes plant listingDrops “global” risk requirement“Takings” of listed species prohibited• “…to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”• Including intra-state species•On any property17.32 Endangered Species Act 10ESA 1973 -ProvisionsDOI & DOC joint jurisdictionDOC protects marine speciesListing based on best scientific & commercial data available17.32 Endangered Species Act 11ESA 1973 -ProvisionsAll federal agencies must coordinate actions to protect listed speciesPublic role expandedpublic commentspublication in Federal Register prior to listingpubic can request a public hearing on a listing • BSF&W opposes17.32 Endangered Species Act 12ESA 1973 -PoliticsNo commercial interests testify against billNixon administration submits alternate billRemoving plants & invertebratesStronger Dingell ESA Bill PassesHouse 390-12Senate 92-0Conference version changes some provisionsHouse approves 355-4Senate: voice vote17.32 Endangered Species Act 13The Snail Darter & the Dam17.32 Endangered Species Act 14Snail Darter v. Tellico Dam -- ITVA begins Tellico dam in 1967$50 million spent & 70% completed by 19751975 USF&W receives emergency listing petitionUniversity of Tennessee professor• Long-time opponent of Tellico Dam project•Discovers snail darter in search for a listable species 1973TVA dam at Tellico will inundate entire habitat of speciesUSF&W responds quickly to list speciesFirst such action; wants to set precedentAsks TVA to reassess project17.32 Endangered Species Act 15Snail Darter v. Tellico Dam -- I1976 Federal Court suit to stop constructiona citizens group: farmers, sportsmen, archaeologists, and representatives of the Cherokee Nation District Court rules for TVAUS Court of Appeals reverses lower court• Orders project halted17.32 Endangered Species Act 16Snail Darter v. Tellico Dam -- I1978 TVA v. Hill (Supreme Court)"One would be hard pressed to find a statutory provision whose terms were any plainer than those in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Its very words affirmatively command all federal agencies ‘to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence’ of an endangered species or ‘result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species’. This language admits of no exceptions." "It may seem curious to some that the survival of a relatively small number of three-inch fish among all the countless millions of species [that exist] would require the permanent halting of a virtually completed dam for which Congress has expended more than $100 million. The paradox is not minimized by the fact that Congress continued to appropriate large sums of public money for the project, even after ... [it knew about the dam's ] ... impact upon the survival of the snail darter Chief Justice Warren Burger17.32 Endangered Species Act 171978 AmendmentsSets up “appeal” process – God SquadChiefs of•Council of Economic Advisor•EPA•NOAARepresentatives of agencies from affected statesSecretaries of •Interior•Commerce•Army•Agriculture17.32 Endangered Species Act 181978 AmendmentsRequires Critical Habitat designation at time of listingCost-benefit analysis allowed for habitat designationMore public access for listing decisionsNoticecomments17.32 Endangered Species Act 19Snail Darter v. Tellico Dam -- IIGod Squad rules Tellico Dam does not warrant a waiver on economic grounds1979: Energy and Water Development Appropriation BillRider exempting Tellico Dam from any other laws that might prohibit it• Sponsored by Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.)• Signed by President Carter17.32 Endangered Species Act 20Snail Darter v. Tellico Dam -- IISequoyah v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 620 F.2d 1159 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 953 (1980).Cherokee Nation files suit to stop projectTellico Dam will flood sacred landsViolates Nat’l Historic Preservation ActCourt dismisses case based on blanket exemption of NWDA 1979Nov. 1979: Dam Completed17.32 Endangered