User:Cbarlow/sandbox
Context of state-level endangered species programs
[edit]Because some of the challenges and controversies arising from implementation of the federal Act entail interactions with various state governmental priorities and programs, it is important to establish the background of state jurisdiction. To begin, elected officials at both federal and state levels sometimes escalate calls for outright devolving endangered species management to the states.[1] An overall federal policy for collaboration, however, is not achievable because the kinds and scale of species-protective laws, regulations, and implementation priorities vary enormously among the states.[1][2]
_growing_in_Lost_Horse_Valley_(31979642502).jpg)
Examples of state-level diversity are that (1) only 18 of the 50 states automatically include in their own lists all animals and plants listed by the federal Act that are present in their state; (2) 17 states offer no protection for any plants; and (3) West Virginia and Wyoming have no statutory support for protecting even animals threatened with extinction. As well, only California and Oregon authorize citizens to petition for state-level listings, and distinctions prevail in matters concerning critical habitat designations and the degree to which species protections can impinge on land use choices by private owners.[1]
Nothing prevents a state from issuing stricter regulations for a federal listed species within its boundaries. A 2018 survey of state laws found that Illinois, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin "even go beyond the ESA in their protective measures."[2] As well, nothing prevents a state from listing a species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formally decides against. An example of federal-state tensions culminated in California in July 2023. It was then that California enacted its own "Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act." This halted all sales of the western species of Yucca brevifolia, while instituting a permit process for any proposed removal, harm, or trimming of the species on private lands.[3] The legislature itself chose to pass this law after the federal agency had formally decided against listing on two occasions: August 2019 and March 2023. The second decision had been forced by a 2021 court remand of the 2019 decision.[4][5]
There are enormous distinctions in funding as well. A 2017 report calculated that state appropriations account for only 5% of total funding for federally listed species.[1] A 2018 report calculated that federal funds awarded via cooperative agreements for state implementation (in accordance with Section 6 of the Act) likewise entail only about 5% of the total federal appropriations managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressly for endangered species.[2]
- ^ a b c d Camacho, Alejandro E; et al. (October 2017). "Assessing State Laws and Resources for Endangered Species Protection" (PDF). Environmental Law Report News and Analysis.
- ^ a b c Fischman, Robert L; et al. (2018). "State Imperiled Species Legislation". Maurer School of Law. 48: 81–124.
- ^ "Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act". California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Retrieved 1 December 2024.
- ^ Miller, David. "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Again Finds Listing of Joshua Trees Not Warranted (March 2023)". Endangered Species Land and Policy. Nossaman. Retrieved 1 December 2024.
- ^ "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Joshua Tree (2023)" (PDF). fws.gov. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.