Order Code RL33779
The Endangered Species Act (ESA)
in the 110th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices
Updated January 26, 2007
Eugene H. Buck and M. Lynne Corn
Specialists in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Pervaze A. Sheikh
Analyst in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Robert Meltz
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

---

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the
110th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices
Summary
The 110th Congress is likely to oversee implementation and funding of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543) and to consider
proposals to amend the act. Major issues in recent years have included the role of
science in decision-making, critical habitat (CH) designation and procedures,
protection by and incentives for property owners, and appropriate protection of listed
species, among others. In addition, many have advocated enacting as law some ESA
regulations promulgated during the Clinton Administration.
ESA has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem
from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and
nonfederal lands and resources. Under ESA, species of plants and animals (both
vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to
assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools
are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. ESA may also be
controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem
decline: the most common cause of species listing is habitat loss.
The authorization for spending under ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The
prohibitions and requirements of ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an
authorization, and funds have been appropriated to implement the administrative
provisions of ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. In the 109th Congress, several
proposals would have reauthorized and extensively amended ESA, but none were
enacted. Proponents of modifying ESA argued that their proposed changes would
have made ESA more effective by redefining the relationship between private and
public property uses and species protection, implementing new incentives for species
conservation, and removing what some see as undue land use restrictions. However,
critics argued that the proposed changes would have created gaps in the ESA safety
net of protections and prohibitions.
This report will identify and discuss oversight issues and legislation introduced
in the 110th Congress to address specific concerns related to how ESA is
implemented and how endangered species are managed, and will be updated
periodically to reflect legislative action.

---

Contents
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Critical Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Prohibitions and Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Permits and Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Emergencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Land Acquisition and Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Issues in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Critical Habitat Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
“Sound Science” and ESA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Information Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Court Cases on ESA and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Regional Resource Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Klamath River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Pacific Salmon Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Counterpart Regulations: Pesticides and Fire Management Projects . . . . . 13
Private Property and Fifth Amendment Takings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Making ESA More User-Friendly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Additional Legislative Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Table 1. Percent Recovery Achieved Versus Time Listed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. Funding for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

---

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the
110th Congress: Conflicting Values and
Difficult Choices
Increasing numbers of animal and plant species face possible extinction.
Endangered and threatened species — and the law that protects them, the 1973
Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§1531, et seq.) — are controversial, in
part, because dwindling species are often harbingers of resource scarcity. The most
common cause of species’ decline is habitat loss or alteration. Habitat loss occurs
due to development, changes in land management practices, competition from
invasive species, and other factors, nearly all related to economic, political, or social
interests.1 ESA has been among the most contentious environmental laws, because
of its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and non-
federal lands and resources. Congress faces the issue of how to balance these
interests (which may fall on various sides of any given species controversy) with the
protection of endangered and threatened species and, as stated in ESA, “the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend.” Because
of strong support and strong opposition to the ESA, comprehensive endangered
species legislation has not been reauthorized since the last ESA authorization expired
in 1992. Instead, congressional efforts have focused on addressing some controversial
features of ESA. There were several attempts to enact comprehensive legislation that
would have reauthorized the ESA in the 109th Congress.2 These attempts are less
likely in the 110th Congress. Congress may shift to considering issues for oversight
such as the science used for making decisions and designation of critical habitat.
Further, Congress may also address issues related to the implementation and funding
of the ESA.
Background and Analysis
Overview
The 1973 ESA (P.L. 93-205, as amended; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543) was a
comprehensive attempt to protect species at risk of extinction and to consider habitat
protection as an integral part of that effort. A stated purpose of ESA is to protect the
ecosystems of which listed species are a part. Under ESA, species of plants and
1 For example, see CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds, by Jim
Monke and M. Lynne Corn.
2 For a review of action by the 109th Congress on ESA, see CRS Report RL33468, The
Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult
Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Robert Meltz.

---

CRS-2
animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) may be listed as either endangered or
threatened according to assessments of the risk of their extinction. More flexible
management can be provided for species listed as threatened. Distinct population
segments of vertebrate species may also be listed as threatened or endangered.
Consequently, some populations of chinook, coho, chum, and sockeye salmon in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California have been listed under ESA, even as
other healthy populations of these same species in Alaska are not listed and may be
commercially harvested. More limited protection is available for plant species under
ESA. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools, including penalties and citizen
suits, are available to aid species recovery and protect habitat. Use of these tools, or
the failure to use them, has led to conflict.3
ESA is administered by the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for terrestrial and freshwater species and some marine mammals, and
by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS; also popularly referred to as
NOAA Fisheries) in the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration for the remaining marine and anadromous species.4 The
U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division conducts research on
species for which FWS has management authority; NMFS conducts research on the
species for which it is responsible.
Currently, a total of 1,132 species of animals and 747 species of plants are listed
as either endangered or threatened, of which the majority (567 species of animals and
744 species of plants) occur in the United States and its territories and the remainder
only in other countries. Of the 1,311 U.S. species, 1,081 are covered in recovery
plans.5 Of the U.S. species, 479 (37%) have designated critical habitat (CH) in some
portion of their range.6
At times, efforts to protect and recover listed species are controversial; declining
species often function like the proverbial canary in the coal mine, by flagging larger
issues of resource scarcity and altered ecosystems. Past resource debates in which
ESA-listed species were part of larger issues include Tennessee’s Tellico Dam (water
storage and construction jobs versus farmland protection and tribal graves, as well
as snail darters); Pacific Northwest timber harvest (protection of logging jobs and
communities versus commercial and sport fishing, recreation, and ecosystem
protection, including salmon and spotted owls); and Texas’s Edwards Aquifer
(allocation of water among various users with differing short- and long-term
interests, as well as several spring-dependent species).
3 For additional background, see CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species Act: A
Primer, by M. Lynne Corn, Eugene H. Buck, and Pamela Baldwin.
4 For background on ESA programs of the two administering agencies, see FWS programs
at [http://www.fws.gov/endangered/] and NMFS programs at [http://www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/pr/species/].
5 Daily updated statistics are available at [http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/Boxscore.do].
6 A list of species with designated CH is available at [http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/
CriticalHabitat.do?listings=0&nmfs=1].

---

CRS-3
Major Provisions of Domestic Law
Listing. Species may be listed on the initiative of the appropriate Secretary or
by petition from an individual, group, or state agency. The Secretary must decide
whether to list the species based only on the best available scientific and commercial
information, after an extensive series of procedural steps to ensure public
participation and the collection of scientific information.7 In deciding whether a
species warrants the protections of ESA, the Secretary may not take into account the
economic effects that listing may have; economic and other considerations are taken
into account in structuring alternatives for assisting the species after listing.8
In addition, FWS and NMFS may identify selected species by adding them to
a list of candidate species that are believed to be at sufficient risk to warrant
protection, but whose protection is precluded by work to protect listed species.
Currently, there are 278 species on the list of candidate species.9
Critical Habitat. With certain exceptions, if a species is listed, the Secretary
must designate critical habitat (CH) in areas where the species is currently found or
which might provide additional habitat for the species’ recovery.10 However, if the
publication of this information is not prudent (e.g., might encourage vandals or
collectors), the Secretary may decide not to designate CH. The Secretary may
postpone designation for up to one year after listing, if the information is not
determinable (16 U.S.C. §1533). Currently, FWS has designated CH for 37% of
listed domestic species.
As a practical matter, CH has not been designated for most listed species largely
because FWS prefers to allocate its limited resources to listing new species, based on
its regulation (50 C.F.R. §402.02) that takes away much of the legal value of
designating CH to the recovery of the species. Yet FWS consistently loses legal
challenges for failure to designate CH, and several courts have found the regulation
in question to be an erroneous interpretation of the law, because it does not take into
account the duty to avoid adverse modification of CH.11 Others have asserted the
value of CH; for example, scientists with the Center for Biological Diversity
published a study in April 2005 concluding that CH designation enhances species
7 For a more detailed discussion of the listing process, see [http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
listing/listing.pdf] and [http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esb/99/11-12/6-9.pdf].
8 For an analysis of when and how ESA allows consideration of economic factors, see CRS
Report RL30792, The Endangered Species Act: Consideration of Economic Factors, by
Pamela Baldwin.
9 The list of candidate species is available at [http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/Species
Report.do?listingType=C].
10 For additional background on CH, see CRS Report RS20263, Designation of Critical
Habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), by Pamela Baldwin.
11 Sierra Club v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F. 3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001), cited
with approval in New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass’n v. FWS, 248 F. 3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001);
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. USFWS, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 16215 (9th Cir. August 6,
2004).

---

CRS-4
recovery.12 On April 28, 2006, the Keystone Center’s ESA Working Group on
Habitat released a report on habitat protection and ESA.13 One of the conclusions of
participants in this study was that identifying the habitat that species require to
recover is better done in the context of recovery planning, after more rigorous
analysis and deliberation have been completed, rather than at the time of listing.
Although recovery plans are not enforceable, preventing adverse modification of CH
is enforceable.
CH is frequently misunderstood by the public as posing a significant direct
restriction on private landowners’ authority to manage land. While a landowner may
experience some additional procedures and possible restrictions on land management
because of the presence of an ESA-listed species (through ESA’s prohibitions on
taking a listed species), and the presence of CH may shed light on whether “harm”
has occurred, the duty to avoid adverse modification of CH is an express obligation
only for federal agencies and actions, or private (nonfederal) actors in actions with
a federal nexus (i.e., actions that involve any federal funding, permit, or license).
Prohibitions and Penalties. ESA contains prohibitions on the “take” of
endangered species; take means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. §1532;
harassment and harm are further defined in regulation at 50 C.F.R. §17.3). There has
been controversy over the extent to which habitat modification is prohibited. A 1995
Supreme Court decision held that including significant habitat modification was a
reasonable interpretation of the term “harm” in ESA.14 ESA provides civil and
criminal penalties for violations.
Permits and Consultation. Proposed actions that may have adverse impacts
on listed species may be permitted in two ways. First, under §7 of ESA, if federal
agency actions (or actions of a nonfederal party that require an agency’s approval,
permit, or funding) may affect a listed species, the federal agency must ensure that
those actions are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of any endangered
or threatened species, nor to destroy or adversely modify CH. To review the possible
effects of their actions on listed species and CH, federal agencies must consult with
the appropriate Secretary. If the Secretary finds that an action would jeopardize a
listed species or destroy or adversely modify CH, the Secretary must suggest
reasonable and prudent alternatives that would avoid these harms. Pending
completion of the consultation process, agencies may not make irretrievable
commitments of resources that would foreclose any alternatives. The Secretary
issues a written statement, called a biological opinion, that may allow the agency or
the applicant to take individuals of a species incidental to otherwise lawful activities
without triggering ESA’s penalties, subject to terms and conditions specified in the
opinion (16 U.S.C. §1536), or may conclude that jeopardy cannot be avoided, in
12 See [http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/policy/ch/bioscience2005.pdf].
13 Available at [http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/ESA%20Report%20FINAL%204
%2025%2006%20(2).pdf].
14 See CRS Report 95-778, Habitat Modification and the Endangered Species Act: The
Sweet Home Decision, by Pamela Baldwin.

---

CRS-5
which case the agency may seek an exemption for the action from the Endangered
Species Committee.
For actions without a federal nexus (i.e., no federal funding, permit, or license),
the appropriate Secretary may issue permits under §10 of ESA to allow the incidental
take of species during otherwise lawful actions.15 An applicant for a permit must
submit a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that shows the likely impact of the planned
action; steps taken to minimize and mitigate the impact; funding for the mitigation;
alternatives considered and rejected; and any other measures that the Secretary may
require. The use of this section has been vastly expanded, and streamlined
procedures are provided for activities with minimal impacts (50 C.F.R. §17.22).
Exemptions. Proponents of a federal action may apply for an exemption from
the prohibition against jeopardy for that action (not for a species). Under ESA, an
Endangered Species Committee (commonly called the “God Squad”) decides
whether to allow a project to proceed despite likely harm to a species. To date, this
process has been little used and only one exemption (Grayrocks Dam, WY) has been
granted and carried out. The committee is required to accept the President’s
determination (under specified circumstances) on an exemption in declared disaster
areas. The committee must grant an exemption if the Secretary of Defense
determines that an exemption is necessary for national security (16 U.S.C. §1536).
The Department of Defense (DOD) has claimed that requirements under ESA
conflict with its readiness activities, but DOD has not requested any exemptions to
date. Other statutes may provide for waivers of ESA provisions; for example,
§102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(Division C of P.L. 104-208) provides for a waiver of ESA (and NEPA) to the extent
the Attorney General determines is necessary to ensure expeditious construction of
barriers and roads at borders.
Emergencies. 50 C.F.R. §402.05 provides for ESA procedures in case of
emergencies, basically requiring only very informal consultations during an
emergency with more complete consultation after the emergency has passed.
According to FWS, any hurricane-related federal activities in presidentially declared
disaster areas would trigger the emergency consultation provisions of ESA.
Specifically, for the 2005 Gulf of Mexico hurricanes, FWS stated that restoring “any
infrastructure damaged or lost due to the hurricane back into the original footprint
does not require ESA consultation with the Service.”
Recovery Plans. The appropriate Secretary generally must develop a
recovery plan for the survival and conservation (defined in §3(3) of ESA as “to bring
any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary” — i.e., recovery) of a listed
species. These plans are not binding on federal agencies or others, but rather serve
as guidelines. At first, recovery plans tended to cover popular species, like birds or
mammals, but a 1988 amendment forbade the Secretary from favoring particular
taxonomic groups (16 U.S.C. §1533).
15 For additional background on FWS’s permitting program, see [http://www.fws.gov/
endangered/permits/permits.pdf].

---

CRS-6
Land Acquisition and Cooperation. The federal government may acquire
land to conserve or recover listed species, and ESA authorizes money from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition (16 U.S.C. §1534). The
appropriate Secretary must cooperate with the states in conserving protected species
and must enter into cooperative agreements to assist states in their endangered
species programs, if the programs meet certain specified standards. If there is a
cooperative agreement, the states may receive federal funds to implement the
program, but must normally provide a minimum 25% match. Under the 1988
amendments, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund was
authorized to provide state grants. While regular annual deposits to this fund are set
by a formula (16 U.S.C. §1535(i)(1)), spending from the fund requires annual
appropriation.
Miscellaneous. Other provisions specify exemptions for certain captive
raptors and their progeny, regulate subsistence activities by Alaskan Natives, prohibit
interstate transport and sale of listed species and parts, control trade in parts or
products of endangered species owned before ESA went into effect, and specify rules
for establishing experimental populations (16 U.S.C. §1539).
Major Provisions of International Law
ESA is the domestic implementing legislation for the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; TIAS
8249), signed by the United States on March 3, 1973; and the Convention on Nature
Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (the Western
Hemisphere Convention; 50 Stat. 1354; TS 981), signed by the United States on
October 12, 1940. CITES parallels ESA by dividing its listed species into groups,
according to the estimated risk of extinction, but uses three major categories (called
Appendices), rather than two.16 In contrast to ESA, CITES classifies species based
solely on the risk that trade poses to their survival. ESA makes violations of CITES
violations of U.S. law if committed within U.S. jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. §1538). ESA
also regulates import and export of controlled products and provides some
exceptions.17
On August 18, 2003, FWS published a draft policy for enhancement-of-survival
permits for foreign species listed under ESA.18 These permits would allow imports
of endangered species into the United States for scientific research and for enhancing
survival of the species in their range country (i.e., the country where the population
of the species in question naturally exists). The comment period on this draft policy
has closed, but FWS has not yet published its final policy.19
16 For additional information on CITES, see [http://www.cites.org/].
17 For more information on CITES, see CRS Report RL32751, The Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): Background
and Issues, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
18 68 Fed. Reg. 49512.
19 For additional information, see CRS Report RS22420, Enhancement-of-Survival Permits:
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
In addition, FWS’s Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) benefits
tigers, the six species of rhinoceroses, Asian and African elephants, marine turtles,
and great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and the various species
of gibbons). This fund supports conservation efforts benefitting these species, often
in conjunction with efforts under CITES.20
Is Species Protection and Restoration Working?
The answer to this question depends on what is measured. Since a major goal
of ESA is the recovery of species to the point at which ESA protection is no longer
necessary, this seems a good starting point. Since ESA was enacted in 1973, 40 U.S.
and foreign species have been delisted. The reasons cited by FWS are (a) recovery
(17 species); (b) extinction (9 species, but some may have been extinct when listed);
(c) new understanding of the taxonomy of the species, making some ineligible for
listing under current law (7 species); and (d) new information, including a
determination that erroneous data were provided to FWS at the time of listing (7
species). Recovered species include alligators, peregrine falcons (two subspecies),
and three species of kangaroos. Extinct species include the dusky seaside sparrow,
Guam broadbill (a bird), and two small fish living in desert springs. However, it can
be quite difficult to prove whether extraordinarily rare species are simply that or, in
fact, are already extinct. For example, the ivory-billed woodpecker, thought by many
to be extinct, was believed to have been rediscovered in a remote area of Arkansas
a few years ago; it might just as easily have quietly gone extinct without being
rediscovered. Rare species are, by definition, hard to find.
Some have asserted that ESA is a failure since only 17 species have been
delisted as recovered.21 Others note that full recoveries are relatively few because the
two principal causes of extinction — habitat loss and invasive non-native species —
continue to increase. In addition, some scientific studies have demonstrated that
most species are listed only after they become very depleted (e.g., median population
of 407 animals for endangered vertebrates, according to one study), thereby making
recovery difficult. Another measure of “success” might be the number of species that
have stabilized or increased their populations, even if the species are not actually
delisted. If this standard is used, ESA could be considered a success, since a large
number (41%, according to one study) of listed species have improved or stabilized
their population levels after listing. Other species (e.g., red wolves and California
condors) might not exist at all without ESA protection, and this too might be
considered a measure of success, although these species are still rare.22
19 (...continued)
Background and Status of Proposed Policy, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
20 For more information on the MSCF, see CRS Report RS21157, Multinational Species
Conservation Fund, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
21 Delisted species are identified at [http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/DelistingReport.do].
22 See archived CRS Report 98-32, Endangered Species Act List Revisions: A Summary of
Delisting and Downlisting, by Robert J. Noecker, available from [lcorn@crs.loc.gov].

---

CRS-8
On May 17, 2005, the House Committee on Resources released an oversight
report entitled Implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.23 It reviewed
and critiqued various ways that recovery might be measured. One approach is to look
at what proportion of the recovery objectives identified in species recovery plans
have been achieved. Table 1 indicates how recovery has progressed related to the
length of time since species were listed.
Table 1. Percent Recovery Achieved Versus Time Listed
(data as of September 30, 2002)
Recovery Plan
% species listed
% species listed
% species listed
objectives
5 years or less
6-10 years
11+ years
0%-25% recovery
96
94
64
achieved
26%-50% recovery
4
5.5
24
achieved
51%-75% recovery
0
0.25
9
achieved
76%-100% recovery
0
0.25
3
achieved
Source: FWS, Recovery Report to Congress: Fiscal Years 2001-2002, p. 13.
In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined
federal efforts to recover a selected sample of 31 species.24 GAO determined that,
while many factors affected the recovery of species, recovery plans played an
important role in the recovery of all but one of the species examined. Critics claimed
the GAO study was biased by the selection of species examined.
Issues in the 110th Congress
ESA reauthorization has been on the legislative agenda since the funding
authorization expired in 1992, and bills have been introduced in each subsequent
Congress to address various aspects of endangered species protection. Issues for the
110th Congress may include effects of ESA on private and federal land use, how to
better promote species recovery, agency use of scientific information, specific
regional resource conflicts, and other matters. Below are descriptions of some of the
issues that may be considered, either in oversight or legislation.
23 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/ESA_Implementation_
Report5.17.05.pdf].
24 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Endangered Species: Many Factors Affect the
Length of Time to Recover Select Species, GAO-06-730 (Washington, DC: GPO, Sept. 8,
2006). In this report, GAO acknowledged that results from nonprobability (i.e., non-
random) samples cannot be used to make inferences about a population (i.e., all ESA-listed
species). However, review of the selected species provides valuable, case-level insights into
their progress toward recovery and the role that recovery plans have played in that progress.

---

CRS-9
Critical Habitat Designation
With limited exceptions, FWS or NMFS must designate CH at the time a
species is listed. However, some critics argue that CH designation places undue
burdens on landowners or that it has little conservation benefit. Others argue (and
the courts have largely agreed) that FWS and NMFS have misinterpreted and failed
to enforce the current statute. There are also disagreements over the value and timing
of CH designation. (See “Critical Habitat,” above, and “ESA Listing Caps, New and
Old,” below.) For details on how legislation in the 109th Congress sought to address
this issue, see CRS Report RL33468, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th
Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne
Corn, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Robert Meltz.
“Sound Science” and ESA
ESA requires that determinations of species status be made “solely on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial data available ...”25 In several recent situations,
legal, economic, and social disputes have resulted from actions under ESA.
Examples of these controversies include the Canada lynx, Florida panthers, and
Klamath River Basin suckers and coho salmon.26 Critics in some of these disputes
suggest that the science supporting ESA action has been insufficiently rigorous or
mishandled by the agencies.
Many rare and endangered species are little studied because they are hard to find
or because it is difficult to locate enough of them to support scientific research.
There may be little information on many species facing extinction, and only limited
personnel or funds available to conduct studies on many of the less charismatic
species, or those of little known economic import. What should be done in such
instances? Some suggest that considerations other than species conservation should
prevail; others seek to change the current posture of the law by changing the role of
science. These considerations are complicated by the costs and time required to
acquire more complete data, particularly in connection with many lesser-known
species.
ESA does not elaborate on this question, but some assert that, given the
protective purpose of ESA — to save and recover species — and the wording of
“best ... data available,” arguably dwindling species are to be given the benefit of the
doubt and a margin of safety. This is the position taken on page 1-7 of the joint
FWS/NMFS Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, which states that efforts
should be made to develop information, but if a biological opinion must be rendered
promptly, it should be based on the available information, “giving the benefit of the
doubt to the species,” with consultation possibly being reinitiated if additional
25 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A).
26 See CRS Report RL32992, The Endangered Species Act and “Sound Science,” by Eugene
H. Buck, et al.

---

CRS-10
information becomes available.27 This phrase is drawn from H.Rept. 96-697, p. 12
(1979), which states that the “best information available” language was intended to
allow FWS to issue biological opinions even when information was incomplete,
rather than being forced to issue negative opinions. The report also states that if a
biological opinion is rendered on the basis of inadequate information, the federal
agency proposing an action has the duty to show its actions will not jeopardize a
species and a continuing obligation to make a reasonable effort to develop
information, and that the statutory language “continues to give the benefit of the
doubt to the species.”
Information Quality. Section 515 of P.L. 106-554, known as the Information
Quality Act or the Data Quality Act, directs the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines to federal agencies to ensure and
maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated
by federal agencies. OMB published final guidelines on February 22, 2002.28 The
Department of the Interior and FWS have both issued additional guidelines that are
available through their websites,29 and a process is established for interested persons
to seek correction of information. Even before these latest guidelines, FWS had
promulgated guidance on information quality and peer review procedures — issues
that also have been addressed in recent legislation.
FWS and NMFS developed an Interagency Cooperative Policy on Information
Standards Under the Endangered Species Act.30 Under this policy, FWS and NMFS
are to receive and use information from a wide variety of sources, including from
individuals. Submitted information may range from the informal — oral, traditional,
or anecdotal — to peer-reviewed scientific studies, and hence the reliability of the
information can vary widely. Agency biologists are to review and evaluate all
information impartially for purposes of listing, CH designation, consultation,
recovery, and permitting actions, and to ensure that any information used by the
agencies to implement ESA is “reliable, credible, and represents the best scientific
and commercial data available.” Agency biologists are to document their evaluations
of all information and, to the extent consistent with the use of the best scientific and
commercial data available, use primary and original sources of information as the
basis for recommendations. In addition, agency managers are to review the work of
FWS and NMFS biologists to “verify and assure the quality of the science used to
establish official positions, decisions, and actions...”
Additionally, a companion document, the Interagency Cooperative Policy for
Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,31 notes that, in addition to the
public comments received on proposed listing rules and draft recovery plans, the
Services are also to formally solicit expert opinions and peer review to ensure the
27 Available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esa_section7_handbook.pdf].
28 67 Fed. Reg. 8452.
29 For example, see [http://www.fws.gov/stand/standards/process_WWW.html].
30 59 Fed. Reg. 34271, July 1, 1994.
31 59 Fed. Reg. 34270, July 1, 1994.

---

CRS-11
best biological and commercial information. For listing decisions, the agencies are
to solicit the expert opinions of three specialists and summarize these in the record
of final decision. Special independent peer review can also be used when it is likely
to reduce or resolve an unacceptable level of scientific uncertainty.
Court Cases on ESA and Science.32 Courts that have considered the “best
data available” language have held that an agency is not obliged to conduct studies
to obtain missing data,33 but cannot ignore available biological information,34
especially if the ignored information is the most current.35 Nor may an agency treat
one species differently from other similarly situated species,36 nor decline to list a
dwindling species and wait until it is on the brink of extinction in relying on possible
but uncertain future actions of an agency.37 “Best scientific and commercial data
available” is not a standard of absolute certainty, reflecting Congress’s intent that
FWS take conservation measures before a species is conclusively headed for
extinction.38 If FWS does not base its listings on speculation or surmise or disregard
superior data, the imperfections of the studies upon which it relies do not undermine
those studies as the best scientific data available — “ the Service must utilize the best
scientific ... data available, not the best scientific data possible.”39
Judicial review can also help ensure that agency decisions and their use of
scientific data are not arbitrary or capricious and that regulations are rationally related
to the problems causing the decline of a species, especially when other interests are
adversely affected.40 In Arizona Cattle Growers Association v. United States Fish
and Wildlife Service,41 the court stated that the evidentiary bar FWS must clear is
very low, but it must at least clear it. In the context of issuing Incidental Take
Permits under §10(a), this ruling means the agency must demonstrate that a species
is or could be in an area before regulating it, and must establish the causal connection
between the land use being regulated and harm to the species in question. Mere
speculation as to the potential for harm is not sufficient. An agency must consider
32 For more information, see CRS Report RL32992, The Endangered Species Act and
“Sound Science,” by Eugene H. Buck et al.
33 Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F. 3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
34 Connor v. Burford, 848 F. 2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1988).
35 Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 926 F. Supp. 920 (D.C. Ariz. 1996).
36 Id.
37 Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 23 (D. D.C. 1996).
38 Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 958 F. Supp. 670, 679-680 (D. D.C. 1997).
39 Building Industry Ass’n of Sup. Cal. v. Norton, 247 F. 3d 1241, 1246-1267 (D.C. Cir.
2001), cert. denied 2002 U.S. LEXIS 479.
40 See Connor v. Andrus (453 F. Supp. 1037 (W.D. TX. 1978)) striking down regulations
totally banning duck hunting in an area to protect one listed species of duck.
41 273 F. 3d 1229, 9th Cir. 2001.

---

CRS-12
the relevant facts and articulate a rational connection between these facts and the
choices made.42
Regional Resource Conflicts
One express purpose of ESA is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved”
(16 U.S.C. §1531(b)). As open space dwindles and increasing human populations
put pressures on wildlands and natural resources, conserving species and their
habitats may highlight underlying resource crises and economic conflicts. Public
values and affected economic interests may be complex and sometimes at odds. The
situations described below are some of the situations that have been the subject of
recent congressional oversight and legislative interest.
Klamath River Basin. Controversy erupted in 2001 when the Bureau of
Reclamation announced it would not release water from part of its Klamath irrigation
project to approximately 200,000 acres of farm and pasture lands within the roughly
235,000-acre project service area. The operational change sought to make more
water available for three fish species under ESA protection — two endangered sucker
species, and a threatened coho salmon population. The Klamath Project straddles the
Oregon/California border and has been the site of increasingly complex water
management issues involving several tribes, fishermen, farmers, environmentalists,
and recreationists. Upstream farmers point to their contractual rights to water from
the Klamath Project and to hardships for their families if water is cut off. Others
assert that the downstream salmon fishery is more valuable and that farmers could
be provided temporary economic assistance, while salmon extinction would be
permanent. Still others assert that there are ways to serve all interests, or that the
science underlying agency determinations is simply wrong. Specifically at issue is
how to operate the Bureau’s project facilities to meet irrigation contract obligations
without jeopardizing the three listed fish. The Trinity River diversion from the
Klamath basin to central California also has ramifications for the Bureau’s role in the
Central Valley Project. Ten-year and annual operation plans, and associated
biological assessments (by the Bureau) and biological opinions (by FWS and NMFS)
have been variously criticized and defended.43
Pacific Salmon Restoration. Salmon protection in the Pacific Northwest
presents many difficult choices, especially because of recent droughts and the
connection between regional hydropower facilities and fishery management
decisions. NMFS officials have listed a total of 26 distinct population segments
(called evolutionarily significant units or ESUs) of Pacific salmon and steelhead trout
as either threatened or endangered, and are working with state, local, and tribal
officials, as well as the public, to implement recovery measures addressing habitat
restoration and other concerns. Recent controversies and litigation have focused on
three issues: (1) biological opinions on operation of the Federal Columbia River
42 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. v. NMFS, 265 F.3d 1028, 1034
(9th Cir. 2001).
43 For more information, see CRS Report RL31098, Klamath River Basin Issues: An
Overview of Water Use Conflicts, by Betsy A. Cody, et al.

---

CRS-13
Power System (FCRPS) as it relates to retaining (or removing) four dams on the
lower Snake River, and how properly to factor the presence of the dams into
evaluations of jeopardy; (2) whether or not salmon produced in hatcheries should be
included in listed ESUs of Pacific salmon; and (3) the role and extent of CH
designation in the recovery of Pacific salmon. Interim decisions of the federal district
court for Oregon have invalidated NMFS’s approach to evaluating jeopardy to
salmon from dam operations on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, and ordered
increased spills of water to assist transit of juvenile salmon to the sea.44
In the 110th Congress, H.R. 24 and S. 27 would authorize the implementation
of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement providing for the reintroduction of
chinook salmon.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. Efforts to hold back water necessary for the
Rio Grande silvery minnow from competing New Mexico water users (primarily the
city of Albuquerque and irrigators) ignited considerable controversy. At issue is the
operation of two Bureau of Reclamation water projects on the Middle Rio Grande:
the San Juan-Chama Project and the Middle Rio Grande Project. The New Mexico
District Court held that withholding water from irrigators for ESA-related purposes
was permissible under the water contracts at issue.45 Congress halted implementation
and an agreement regarding the minnow has been negotiated.46
Counterpart Regulations:
Pesticides and Fire Management Projects
In 50 C.F.R. §402.04, counterpart regulations are authorized that allow an
action agency to determine unilaterally whether its actions are likely to adversely
affect listed species, thereby avoiding §7 consultation with FWS or NMFS.47
Although the regulation has been on the books for years, it has not been used until
recently, and hence its validity has not yet been tested in the courts. Several new
counterpart regulations have recently been finalized and suits challenging the
regulations have been filed.
44 For details on how legislation in the 109th Congress proposed to address this issue, see
CRS Report RL33468, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, Pervaze A.
Sheikh, and Robert Meltz.
45 Affirmed by the 10th Cir., 333 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2004).
46 For details on how legislation in the 109th Congress proposed to address this issue, see
CRS Report RL33468, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, Pervaze A.
Sheikh, and Robert Meltz.
47 Counterpart regulations are not authorized by ESA, and there is some question whether
they comport with the law or go too far. One could argue that consultation is supposed to
be with FWS; the argument on the other side is that counterpart regulations might constitute
a de minimis procedure for minor actions.

---

CRS-14
New counterpart pesticide regulations were finalized on August 5, 2004,48 for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory actions on pesticides, such
that when EPA is taking action under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; P.L. 80-104; 7 U.S.C. §§136, et seq.), EPA and FWS may
execute an alternative consultation agreement under which EPA will decide whether
a proposed FIFRA action is likely to adversely affect a listed species or critical
habitat. EPA may make this determination without informal consultation with, and
written concurrence from, the FWS Director. If EPA makes such a determination,
no further consultation is required. There is to be FWS oversight of the consistency
of EPA’s determinations with ESA. Under 50 C.F.R. §402.43, EPA may ask FWS
for information on listed species that may be present in an area that might be affected
by the FIFRA action, including the applicable environmental baseline for each
species or habitat, and under new §402.44, EPA may request FWS personnel to assist
in determining effects and must use its “best efforts” to include the FWS
representative in relevant discussions. These two regulations appear to apply with
or without an alternative consultation agreement. Critics note that EPA has a poor
record on consultations,49 and fear that the new self-consultation process will allow
more harm to listed species. Supporters counter that the new process will increase
EPA flexibility and efficiency.
On August 24, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour overturned
EPA counterpart regulations relating to pesticides, ruling that these regulations did
not conform to the plain language or intent of ESA §7 by excusing federal action
agencies from engaging in consultation with FWS or NMFS.50 In addition, he held
that it was illegal for FWS or NMFS to allow EPA to use emergency consultation
procedures for FIFRA §18 actions. Judge Coughenour let stand the process of
“optional formal consultation” in which NMFS or FWS can adopt EPA effects
determinations as their own.
Counterpart regulations also were finalized December 8, 2003,51 among Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park
Service, FWS, and NMFS, to streamline consultation on projects supporting the
National Fire Plan (NFP). The alternative consultation process contained in these
counterpart regulations eliminates the need to conduct informal consultation with
FWS or NMFS, and eliminates the requirement to obtain written concurrence from
FWS or NMFS for those NFP actions that the action agency determines are “not
likely to adversely affect” any listed species or designated CH.
Private Property and Fifth Amendment Takings
The presence of endangered species on private property is sometimes welcomed
by owners. Builders, for example, have been known to market a new residential
48 69 Fed. Reg. 47732; 50 C.F.R. Part 402, Subpart D.
49 See Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA, Civ. No CO1-132C (W.D. Wa. 2002).
50 Washington Toxics Coalition v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 04-1998 (W.D. Wa.
2006); see [http://www.eswr.com/latest/selfconsultationorder.pdf].
51 68 Fed. Reg. 68254; 50 C.F.R. Part 402, Subpart C.

---

CRS-15
development in part on the basis of the wildlife present on undeveloped parts of the
tract. Still, the prohibitions in §9 (private actions) and §7 (federal nexus) at times
frustrate the economic desires of owners of land or other property. This has long
been a rallying cry for ESA’s detractors, who assert that restrictions under ESA
routinely “take” property in the constitutional sense of the term. Conflicts between
ESA and property owners come about despite the existence of ESA mechanisms
intended to soften its impact on property owners.
Under the Fifth Amendment, property cannot be “taken” by the United States
without just compensation. The Supreme Court has long tried, with limited success,
to define which government actions affect private property so severely as to effect
such a “taking.” In briefest outline, government actions usually are deemed a taking
when they cause either a permanent physical occupation of private property or a total
elimination of its economic use. When the government restriction removes only part,
but not all, of the property’s use or value, a three-factor balancing test is used to
determine whether a taking has occurred.52 Although these factors have been little
explicated by the courts, it is clear that for a taking to occur, the property impact must
be severe. Moreover, except for physical takings, the property impact is assessed
with regard to the property as a whole, not just the regulated portion.
More than a dozen court decisions have addressed takings challenges to ESA
restrictions on land or other property, with all but one finding no taking. These cases
have involved restrictions on timber cutting, reductions in water delivery to preserve
instream flows needed by listed species, restrictions on shooting marauding animals
resulting in loss of livestock, and prohibitions on the transport or sale of endangered
species. In several of these cases, the taking claim failed because it was filed in the
wrong court or was not “ripe.” Where taking claims were reached by the court, they
were rejected principally because the economic impact was insufficient as to the
property as a whole, or because of the longstanding principle that the government is
not responsible for the actions of wild animals. In the one decision favoring the
property owner, ESA-related cutbacks in water delivered by a state reclamation
project to water districts were held a taking by the United States of
state-contract-created water rights.53 This decision has been controversial for several
reasons, including the Department of Justice’s settlement of the case (for $16.7
million) despite arguments pressed on it from several quarters that the case was
incorrectly decided.
52 The three factors, announced by the Supreme Court in Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New
York City in 1978 and reaffirmed by the Court many times since, are (1) the economic
impact of the government action on the property owner; (2) the extent to which the
government action interferes with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations;
and (3) the “character” of the government action. These are vague guideposts only; the
Court stresses that every case is to be decided ad hoc. Indeed, many question whether it is
even appropriate to call the three factors a test.
53 Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 313 (2001). See CRS
Report RL31796, The Endangered Species Act and Claims of Property Rights “Takings,”
by Robert Meltz; and CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, The ‘Tulare Lake’
Decision’s Implications for Use of Bureau of Reclamation Project Water, by Pamela
Baldwin and Robert Meltz, available from [rmeltz@crs.loc.gov].

---

CRS-16
ESA critics want ESA amended to afford compensation for a broader range of
property impacts than the Constitution provides — perhaps by specifying a fixed
percentage of ESA-related property value loss, above which compensation must
always be paid. Similar provisions have been included in bills of previous
Congresses. Opponents of an explicit compensation standard counter that ESA
should not be singled out for a more property owner-friendly standard than other
statutes or the Constitution. More fundamentally, they note that property rights have
never been absolute, and that regulation has long been noncompensable as long as
the impact on the property owner is not severe. The likely consequences of a
generous compensation threshold — added federal costs and/or a chill on ESA
implementation — are among the issues slowing action on ESA reauthorization.54
Making ESA More User-Friendly
Former Interior Secretary Babbitt initiated actions to decrease ESA conflicts in
several ways. Joint FWS and NMFS policies streamlined permit procedures for
small landowners, and other initiatives encouraged landowners to increase protection
for populations of listed species on their land. Under safe harbor agreements,
landowners who increased suitable habitat could return to “baseline conditions”
without penalty. No surprises agreements provided landowners with greater certainty
regarding activities that might otherwise trigger penalties — an incentive for
landowners to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), since a landowner
properly implementing such an agreement is assured that there will be no further
costs or restrictions on the use of the property to benefit the species covered by the
HCP, except by mutual consent or in unforeseen circumstances in which changes
may be implemented by the government without costs borne by the landowner.
Modifications to the no surprises rule require revoking an incidental take permit if
the taking would be inconsistent with the survival and recovery of the listed species,
and the inconsistency was not remedied in a timely fashion. These rules were
finalized55 in response to litigation, but may still present issues raised previously.
Federal managers also focused on listing species as threatened rather than
endangered, to allow FWS to take advantage of ESA’s more flexible provisions for
protecting threatened species. While administrative changes have been made within
the framework of existing law, there is great interest among some groups in codifying
many of these changes in an amended ESA. Others are critical of HCP agreements
as difficult to enforce, virtually lacking monitoring, and locking the government into
inflexible long-term positions that sometimes are based on inadequate knowledge.56
54 For details on how legislation in the 109th Congress proposed to address this issue, see
CRS Report RL33468, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, Pervaze A.
Sheikh, and Robert Meltz.
55 69 Fed. Reg. 71723 (Dec. 10, 2004), 50 C.F.R. Part 17.
56 For details on how legislation in the 109th Congress proposed to address this issue, see
CRS Report RL33468, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, Pervaze A.
Sheikh, and Robert Meltz.

---

CRS-17
Additional Legislative Initiatives
In the 109th Congress, several proposals sought to reauthorize and amend ESA.
Proponents of these proposals said that they were designed to make ESA more
effective by redefining the relationship between private and public property uses and
species protection, implementing new incentives for species conservation, and
removing what some see as undue land use restrictions. Thus, these proposals
contained provisions meant to encourage greater voluntary conservation of species
by states and private landowners, a concept that has been supported by many
observers. Further, the proposals would have modified or eliminated certain
procedural or other elements of current ESA that some have viewed as significant
protections and prohibitions, including:
! eliminating or changing the role of CH (which would eliminate one
aspect of the current consultation process);
! making the listing of threatened and endangered species more
difficult or less likely;
! expanding §10 permits allowing incidental take (which could incur
a greater need for agency oversight and enforcement); and
! expanding state rather than federal implementation of ESA programs
(which might make oversight more difficult).
Proponents of these changes argued that tighter listing standards would enable a
better focus on species with the most dire needs, and that other measures would
achieve recovery of more species. Critics argued that proposed changes would create
gaps in the ESA safety net of protections and prohibitions.57
Appropriations
Appropriations play an important role in the ESA debate, providing funds for
listing and recovery activities as well as financing FWS and NMFS consultations that
are necessary for federal projects. In addition, appropriations bills have served as
vehicles for some changes in ESA.
Table 2 shows recent ESA funding. The FY2006 Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-54, provided
$271.9 million for FWS’s ESA activities. Overall, FY2006 FWS funding for ESA
and related programs is $6.5 million less than the President’s request, and $11.8
million more than the FY2005 appropriations level. FY2006 funding for ESA
programs administered by NMFS was provided in the Science, State, Justice,
Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-108. Provisions in
P.L. 109-148 (H.R. 2863, the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic
Influenza Act) rescinded unobligated balances of $2 million from FWS’s Landowner
57 For more details on how 109th Congress legislation proposed to address the issues, see
CRS Report RL33468, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, Pervaze A.
Sheikh, and Robert Meltz.

---

CRS-18
Incentive Program and $1 million from the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund. For FY2007, FWS appropriations are provided in H.R. 5386,
which passed the House (amended) on May 18, 2006; the Senate Committee on
Appropriations reported this bill (amended) on June 29, 2006 (S.Rept. 109-275).
Table 2. Funding for Endangered Species and
Related Programs, FY2006-FY2007

($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Request
Approp.
Request
Hse Passed
Sen Rptd
Endangered Species Program
Candidate
8,252
8,619
8,063
8,163
10,045
Conservation
Listing
18,130
17,630
17,759
17,759
17,859
Consultation
49,484
47,997
49,337
50,018
50,018
Recovery
64,243
73,562
65,879
70,670
74,028
Subtotal
140,109
147,808
141,038
146,610
151,950
Related programs
Landowner Incentive
40,000
21,667
24,400
15,000
10,000
Program
Stewardship Grants
10,000
7,277
9,400
7,000
7,277
Cooperative
Endangered Species
80,000
80,001
80,001
80,507
80,001
Conservation Funda
Multinational Species
Conservation Fundb
8,300
6,404
8,217
6,057
6,800
Neotropical Migratory
Bird Fundb
0
3,941
0
4,000
4,000
Total FWS
278,409
267,098
263,056
259,174
260,028
NMFS
not
not
213,687
181,000
189,000
available
available
Total (to date)
492,096
448,098
452,056
Sources: Annual budget justifications, House and Senate committee and conference reports.
a. For FY2006, the conference agreement derived $62.039 million from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF); for FY2007, the Administration requested all $80.001 million from
LWCF.
b. From FY2002 to FY2007, the President’s budget proposed subsuming the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Fund within the Multinational Species Conservation Fund; to date, Congress has rejected
this proposal.
An April 2005 GAO study found that, although FWS spends almost half of its
recovery funds on highest priority species, factors other than a species’ priority
ranking (e.g., regional office workload, opportunities for partnerships to maximize
scarce recovery funds), in practice, determine how funding is allocated.58 GAO
58 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service
(continued...)

---

CRS-19
found that FWS does not have a process to routinely assess funding decisions to
ensure that they are appropriate.
ESA Listing Caps, New and Old. Beginning in FY1998, Congress enacted
annual limits (caps) on funding FWS could use for its ESA listing function. This
appropriations language limits FWS discretion to transfer funds to finance additional
listings, so that if courts mandate agency action on listing certain species, other
listings may not be able to be funded. FWS supported these limits to assure that
funding for other agency programs could not be diverted to finance additional ESA
listing activities. However, courts have held that budget constraints do not excuse
an agency from compliance, in some circumstances. These limits have been
approved by Congress in succeeding fiscal year appropriations bills. P.L. 109-54, the
FY2006 Interior appropriations, limits listing activities to $18.13 million, of which
no more than $12.852 million could be used for activities related to critical habitat
designation. For FY2007, the Bush Administration proposed limiting listing
activities to $17.759 million, of which no more than $12.581 million could be used
for activities related to critical habitat designation; the House agreed with the
Administration’s request, while the Senate Committee on Appropriations has
reported limiting listing activities to $17.859 million, of which no more than $12.672
million could be used for critical habitat designation.
crsphpgw
58 (...continued)
Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to Periodically
Assess Its Funding Decisions, GAO-05-211 (Apr. 6, 2005). Available at [http://www.gao.
gov/new.items/d05211.pdf].

---