# Presentation: 027765

## Endangered Species Act 

- So What’s New?
- June 15, 2005

**Notes:**
The name of my brief presentation is “ESA...So ‘What’s New?”

How many folks in the room have seen or had a chance to read, the NRCS Endangered or Threatened Species policy?  I’ve had some recent conversations with several NRCS folks who didn’t know the revised policy existed which concerned me, so I thought we better touch on pieces of the policy that are relevant to this presentation. 

## NRCS Declining Species Conservation Policy

- This is not new!
- NRCS Policy: Endangered and Threatened Species of Plants and Animals and State Species of Concern (Declining Species Conservation Policy)
- Title 190-GM 410.22
- Issued December, 2003

**Notes:**
The NRCS policy is not new!  NRCS Policy: Endangered and Threatened Species of Plants and Animals and State Species of Concern  Title 190-GM 410.22  (Revised) You may see it referred to as the NRCS Declining Species Conservation Policy.   Finalized December 2003  Again, this NRCS policy is not new. Although with having the Regional Associate Chiefs on board we may  need to revisit the policy to address their roles. 

## Declining Species Conservation Policy

- NRCS Policy
*Endangered and Threatened Species*
*Species of Concern*
*Avoid adverse effects*
*Benefit species*
*NRCS Responsibilities*
***Look for Opportunities**** *

**Notes:**
NRCS policy was developed for NRCS staff to follow to ensure that NRCS has the guidance to comply with the ESA and did so in a fairly consistent manner.  We aren’t going to go into the policy in depth today except to say that it addresses all of the issues identified on the slide as well as Section 7 Consultation and agency line and staff responsibilities.

What we haven’t talked about much in the past was...

(EXTRA...
NRCS policy highlights Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA which requires action agencies to consult when the implementation of an activity has an effect on listed or proposed species (or plants) or designated or proposed critical habitats.  

For benefiting species the NRCS policy reflects Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA which states that NRCS action agencies (NRCS) will utilize its authorities in furthering the purposes of ESA  by carrying out programs that include benefiting the conservation of listed species.) 

As of last Tuesday  there were 1,857 listed species in the world,  1,292 are  in the United States.  This number includes everything from  Mammals including whales,  to spiders and lichens

Proposed Species Count – 24

Candidate Species Count – 286 

Since 1963  there have only been 40 species de-listed. 9 of those species were de-listed because they went extinct.

## Declining Species Conservation Policy

- NRCS Policy
***Look for Opportunities**** *

**Notes:**
Looking for opportunities. Opportunities to partner, opportunities to streamline consultations and opportunities to facilitate cooperative conservation.

Among the many statements within the NRCS policy document one in particular reads,” NRCS...will identify opportunities and procedures, such as programmatic consultations, to implement conservation measures and practices on a more efficient and timely basis”.

How many folks in the room have seen or knew that this statement was in the policy?

## Executive Order 13352“Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation”

- Fairly new
- Signed August 26, 2004
- Supports the NRCS policy

**Notes:**
Well, it just so happens that President Bush signed an Executive Order in August of 2004, which makes this piece of legislation fairly new.  This EO completely supports the intent of that part of our policy to look for opportunities. 
In fact...the purpose of the Executive Order goes way beyond that...

## Executive Order 13352

- Section 1. Purpose. “...to ensure that the DoI, DoA, DoC, and DoD and EPA implement laws relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes cooperative conservation with an emphasis on appropriate inclusion of local participation in Federal decision-making, in accordance with their respective agency missions policies and regulations.”

**Notes:**
Among other items, the EO charges the Secretaries of these agencies and the Administrator of EPA, to the extent permitted by law and available resources, to work together to facilitate cooperative conservation and properly accommodate local participation in Federal decision–making.

I personally, don’t see this charge as being something brand new to NRCS.  

## Chief Knight:

-  Increase cooperative conservation to:
- Avoid duplicative efforts
- Share information / technology
- Utilize Safe Harbor Agreements and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances

**Notes:**
Chief Knight feels very strongly about increasing our cooperative conservation efforts and streamlining consultations in order to put good conservation on the ground to protect listed species and keep candidate species from becoming threatened or endangered. 

## Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)

**Notes:**
MOU.  

Between the NRCS policy, the President’s EO and Chief Knight’s vision, as well as recognizing that state and field office staff had questions about how engaged to become in this effort, developing a MOU between NRCS, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Associations was the logical next step

## Memorandum of Understanding 

- Memorandum of Understanding
- (MOU)
- Currently have a working draft MOU between NRCS, US FWS  & the
- International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA)
- This is very new!

**Notes:**

So that’s where we are today.  We currently have a draft MOU that is in a review, modify and review-again, loop that we hope to get finished up relatively soon. 
Its important to get this done because as we speak there are 1,857 listed species in the world,  1,292 listed species are  in the United States.  This number includes everything from  Mammals including whales,  to spiders and lichens. There are 24 proposed species and 286 candidate species. 
If we are to maximize our collective efforts and work together to keep candidate species from becoming listed or worse, extinct, we need to move quickly! Since 1963  there have only been 40 species de-listed. 9 of those species were de-listed because they went extinct.

NRCS has been looking for opportunities that would allow us to streamline the time frame for implementing conservation practices, for finding more efficient ways to apply conservation that protects habitat and ways to collaborate in cooperative conservation activities. For the past several months we have been working on a National MOU between NRCS, FWS and IAFWA that, once signed by our leadership and the other agency heads will demonstrate a show of support for this framework of cooperation at all levels within our agency, FWS and IAFWA. 

Why an MOU?  There’s some hesitancy on the part of all agencies about leadership’s support for making these kinds of investments.  The MOU will make it clear that leadership not only supports these efforts, but wants them to be a priority.

Initially with FWS, maybe later with NOAA Fisheries since there seem to be more challenging issues
SHAA/CCAA:  educate landowners, identify conservation practices providing net benefit, someone else holds umbrella permit and administers

## Purpose of the MOU:

- To provide support from National leadership for Collaborative Conservation Efforts at the National, Regional, State and local levels

**Notes:**
The MOU will first, provide support from NRCS leadership to all levels of NRCS. This MOU should satisfy any concerns on whether or not we should partner on such sensitive issues as threatened and endangered species on private lands. Folks, the time is now for us to make a difference.  When our collective conservation programs and our collective technical skills can make a difference on whether a species can survive extinction and can return to sustainable levels then we can’t turn our eyes from the problem.  

## Purpose of the MOU:

- To establish and maintain a framework of cooperation between NRCS, FWS, and IAFWA in proactively addressing issues related to listed species, candidates for listing and State listed species.

**Notes:**
And 2) to engage FWS and IAFWA in proactively addressing issues related to listed and at-risk plants and animals and to create more opportunities for conservation that will reduce the need for listing plant and animal species under the ESA as well as foster the recovery already listed fish, wildlife, and plant species.  Folks, the time is now for us to make a difference.  When our collective conservation programs and our collective technical skills can make a difference on whether a species can survive extinction and can return to sustainable levels then we can’t turn our eyes from the problem.  
If there were any doubts before as to whether we should engage with these other agencies then this MOU should answer those questions.

## Range of Listings  June 12, 2005

- Alaska has  7 listed species
- 			(6 animals, 1 plant)
- Hawaii has 317 listings
- 			(44 animals, 273 plants)

**Notes:**
I mentioned earlier 1,292 listed species  in the United States. We have quite a range of listings within states
Alaska has the least number - 7 listed species 
HI has the highest number -  317 species.

## Range of Candidate Species

- NE, NH, VT, (several others) - 0
- Hawaii – 105

**Notes:**
And as you can see the range of candidate species between states is also quite wide.
What this particular statistic tells me is that Terrell has lots of opportunities that New Hampshire doesn’t have.
In any event, I’m showing you these disparate listed and candidate species numbers between states to let you know that this is the reason we are developing the MOU with fairly broad sideboards. Some states will be able to engage much more than other states in various issues that are addressed in the MOU.  And we will ensure that you have the support for that flexibility so that you are not asked to do things that are inefficient, unreasonable, or simply will not effect a positive change. 

## Opportunities

- MOU with FWS & IAFWA to pursue opportunities for:

**Notes:**
So, what types of opportunities exist?

## Opportunities

- MOU with FWS & IAFWA to pursue opportunities for:
- Programmatic consultation

**Notes:**
So, what types of opportunities exist?
Identifying more efficient processes for completing Section 7 consultation procedures at state and regional levels. These types of collaborations are taking place in several states such as Oregon, Hawaii, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas, California and others but we need to be even more innovative.  We are hoping that this MOU will help break down barriers that  often are not procedural in order to allow the implementation of conservation practices in a more streamlined fashion. 

## Programmatic Consultation

- NRCS – ESA policy states that “NRCS through negotiations and concurrence from the Services, will identify opportunities and procedures, such as programmatic consultations, to implement conservation measures and practices on a more efficient and timely basis.”

**Notes:**
Our current NRCS declining species policy related to programmatic consultations can be found within the text of the draft MOU.  (The MOU currently states that NRCS will work with FWS to identify opportunities to engage in more efficient process for completing Section 7 consultation procedures at state or regional levels.)

## Opportunities

- Collaborate with FWS & IAFWA to identify and pursue opportunities for:
- Training
- National initiatives
- State initiatives

**Notes:**
The second opportunity discussed in the MOU pertains to training. Through training and other mechanisms the federal and state agencies need to share information on issues pertaining to Federal and State conservation programs, conservation practices, recovery programs, voluntary incentives and assurances and State wildlife conservation programs. 

## Opportunities

- Collaborate with FWS & IAFWA to identify and pursue opportunities for:
- 	- Voluntary Safe Harbor Agreements and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances

**Notes:**
The third opportunity is for Federal and state agencies to collaboratively explore new ways to market “Assurance-type” programs in  ways that benefit landowners and species across the landscape while continuing to reduce barriers to implementation.
With Safe Harbor Agreements and CCAAs there is also a tremendous need to educate NRCS, FWS and State fish and game agency staffs as well private landowners to 1) understand how these agreements work and to 2) identify conservation practices providing net benefit, in order to promote these assurances. 

## Safe Harbor Agreements

	SHAs are voluntary agreements between non-federal landowners and the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries.

	The SHA must provide a net benefit to the species.

   SHAs provide landowners with assurances against additional restrictions

- 	SHAs are voluntary agreements between non-federal landowners and the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries.
- 	The SHA must provide a net benefit to the species.
-    SHAs provide landowners with assurances against additional restrictions

**Notes:**
Just a quick teaching moment but we have with us Nancy Green (U.S.FWS) to discuss “assurances” in detail after lunch. 
An agreed-to Safe Harbor Agreement will provide non-federal landowners with an “enhancement of survival” permit to authorize any necessary future incidental take to provide participating landowners with assurances that no additional restrictions will be imposed as a result of their conservation actions. 

 For example a SHA could be obtained by a landowner placing land into an easement program.  At the end of the easement program the landowner may wish to put the land back to its original land use.  If T&E species inhabit the area during the period the SHA is in effect, then  the listed species could be removed (not to exceed the baseline conditions) at the end of the contract period without any fear of penalties.   
Permit applications for SHAs are subject to public review.

## Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAAs)

  CCAAs are formal agreements between the FWS and one or more parties to address the conservation needs of proposed or candidate species or species likely to become candidates before they become listed.

-   CCAAs are formal agreements between the FWS and one or more parties to address the conservation needs of proposed or candidate species or species likely to become candidates before they become listed.

**Notes:**
Voluntary agreements
Contribute to stabilizing or restoring species so listing is no longer necessary. 
The Service has entered into many CCAAs with other Federal agencies, State and local agencies and conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy.

## Opportunities

- MOU with FWS & IAFWA to pursue opportunities for:
- Participation on State Technical Committees

**Notes:**
The last key opportunity that the draft MOU identifies is the participation of the FWS and State Fish and Game Agencies on the State Technical Committees. 

## State Technical Committees

- NRCS can meet its 7(a)(1) responsibilities
- Need to get state partners involved

**Notes:**
Having FWS and State agencies participating on STC can assist  NRCS in meeting its Section 7(a)(1) responsibilities by identifying opportunities that NRCS staff may not have recognized in order to utilize its authorities to carry out Farm Bill programs for the conservation of listed species. Just as important, by having state and other federal partners at the table there can be much better coordination of all agencies’ technical and financial resources.

## State Wildlife Funding Legislation

- State Wildlife Conservation Strategies are required in order to receive funding under the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the the State Wildlife Grants Program.

**Notes:**
IN 2001 Congress developed new conservation funding legislation, the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grants Program.  The funding was intended to supplement existing state fish and wildlife programs and to target species in greatest need of conservation as well as  species with low and declining populations. These types of programs in coordination with Federal programs can go a long way in conserving wildlife habitat.

## Opportunities

- MOU with FWS & IAFWA to pursue opportunities for:
- --  Programmatic consultation
- Two-way training
- Safe harbor/candidate conservation agreements
- Participation on State Technical Committees

## Thank You

**Notes:**
As soon as the MOU is completed and signed we will let you know.  In the meantime, as many of you already know,  you really don’t have to wait for the MOU in order to become proactive in addressing species conservation issues.

Thank you.