Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

“Experimental Populations” Final Rule: FWS’ Response to Climate Change Threats

Climate change and invasive species are jeopardizing already endangered and threatened species, prompting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to finalize its 2023 rule allowing experimental populations to be introduced into habitat outside their historical range, as long as the areas are capable of supporting the experimental population.

The ESA at 50

December 2023 marked 50 years since the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into law. The ESA has proven resilient to numerous legal challenges and saved many species from extinction. But its overall success has been debated, as the list of endangered and threatened species continues to grow, and only 54 species have been taken off of the list completely. On October 26, 2023, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts who explored the successes and shortcomings of the statute and discussed what might happen next as climate change increases the risk of extinction.

An Unlikely Climate Hero? Experimental Populations Outside Their Historical Range

Climate change is ravaging the flora and fauna of the United States and contributes to ecosystem damage, including the conversion of Alaskan forests to savannah grasslands, rising sea levels that have destroyed the Key deer’s habitat, and warming regional temperatures that have stifled the growth of crops in the Northeast. What if there were a way for species to thrive away from the sinking coasts and changing landscapes that they have historically inhabited?

Defining Habitat to Promote Conservation Under the ESA

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service raises important questions about the scope of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA’s) protections for critical habitat. Foremost among them is a question one might think was long settled: what is “habitat”? In a short ruling, the Weyerhaeuser Court opined that “critical habitat” must first be “habitat,” but it did not attempt to define exactly what habitat is or how much deference the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should get on what is both a biological and policy question.

Species Protection as a Natural Climate Solution

This Article, adapted from Chapter 16 of What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law?, 2d Edition (ELI Press, forthcoming 2020), explores existing and potential wildlife conservation policies that could play a vital role in mitigating global climate change. It describes how climate change is impacting wildlife and biodiversity around the globe and reviews the history and current state of U.S. policy, including how the federal government currently manages climate change issues under the ESA.

"Significant Portion of Its Range": Statutory Interpretation of the ESA

The Endangered Species Act defines an endangered species as one at risk of extinction “throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has repeatedly defined “significant portion” to mean an area of the range essential to species persistence. This definition is redundant, and various iterations of the definition have been struck down in the past. At the same time, other proposals to list a species only in a portion of its range fail to satisfy the statutory requirements.

2019 Endangered Species Act Regulatory Revisions

The U.S. Department of the Interior and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently finalized comprehensive changes in how the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is implemented. These changes address the species listing process, critical habitat designations, protections for threatened species, and the §7 consultation process.

Ongoing Actions, Ongoing Issues: Trying Again to Free Federal Dams From the ESA

Federal dams have been the focus of major disputes involving application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), especially its §7 prohibitions on federal actions causing jeopardy to protected species. Operating agencies and project beneficiaries have sought to keep the ESA from restricting dam operations, including by arguing that such operations are non-discretionary and thus exempt. In proposing new ESA implementing rules, the Trump Administration suggested, but did not formally propose, that ongoing federal actions should be considered part of the “environmental baseline” for §7 purposes.

Comment on <em>Rethinking the ESA to Reflect Human Dominion Over Nature</em>

Above my desk at work, I keep a button that reads "Save the Ugly Animals Too." It is a reminder that more than just the charismatic megafauna, such as wolves and bald eagles and grizzly bears and whales, are worth conserving. From the standpoint of protecting the web of life, including the ecosystems that benefit us all by providing services such as water purification, flood control, nurseries for our fish and shellfish, and opportunities for outdoor recreation, it is often as important to conserve the lesser known species, the cogs and wheels that drive those ecosystems.

Above All, Try <i>Something</i>: Two Small Steps Forward for Endangered Species

In a recent essay, Katrina Wyman suggests four substantial reforms aimed at improving implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and furthering species recovery: (1) decoupling listing decisions from permanent species protection;3 (2) requiring the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to implement cost-effective species protection measures;5 (3) prioritizing funding for biological hotspots;6 and (4) establishing additional protected areas.