8011

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8011
• Author: Hood, L. C., et al.
• Title: Frayed Safety Nets, Conservation Planning Under the Endangered Species Act 1998.
• USFW Year: 1998.
• USFW - Doc Type: Washington D.C.
• Copyright Material: YES

F RAY E 0 S A F E T Y NET S ..........................................................................................................................................................................:

SECTION ONE

Introduction

Endangered Species Act and Private land

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)
is the only major federal law that specifically
seeks both to save all United States wildlife from
extinction and to preserve the ecosystems on
which it depends. With a fiscal year 1997 budget
of less than $89 million designated for the ESA,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for ter-
restrial and freshwater species and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for anadro-
mous and marine species have the responsibility
of implementing all aspects of the ESA - mak-
ing listing determinations, developing recovery
plans and providing consultation to federal agen-
cies. Given the paltry budget for ESA implemen-
tation and the general lack of economic incen-
tives for endangered species conservation, it is
not surprising that more than a third of listed
species continue to decline compared to less than
ten percent whose status is improving (FWS
1994).

For most species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA, recovery depends
largely on whether habitat is conserved and prop-

erly managed. For 88 percent of listed species,
habitat destruction has been a significant factor
in their decline (Wilcove et al. 1996). Half of all
federally listed species do not occur on federal
lands (Stein et al. 1995), and more than half,
including nearly 200 animal species, have at least
81 percent of their habitat on nonfederalland
(U.S. General Accounting Office 1994). Given
these facts, recovery of many species is unlikely
to occur unless private landowners conserve
habitat.
Regulation of private land is probably the
most controversial aspect of the ESA. Section 9
of the ESA makes it unlawful for any person to
kill listed animals or destroy habitat essential to
their survival. The legal term for this is "take,"
and the prohibition against it covers activities
that directly kill or harm listed species as well as
activities that indirectly harm them through "sig-
nificant habitat modification or degradation" (50
CFR ~17.3). Enforcement of this prohibition
can have major financial implications for
landowners, and fear of land-use restrictions has
prompted some landowners to destroy endan-

.