Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:01:28 -0500
Reply-To:     James Corrigan <james@NY.NEAVS.COM>
From:         James Corrigan <james@NY.NEAVS.COM>
Subject:      Endangered Species Act Victory over the U.S. Dept. of Fish and
              Wildlife by the Fund for Animals

After reading the press release from the F&WS regarding this lawsuit,
I felt a little honesty was called for.  Here is the press release
and an analysis of the actual settlement by the Fund for Animals.

James

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 22:57:22 -0500
From: james (James Corrigan)
To: ar-alerts
Subject: Endangered Species Act Victory over the U.S. Dept. of Fish
and Wildlife by the Fund for Animals

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             Contact: Eric R. Glitzenstein
December 15, 1992                          (202) 328-3500
                                           Wayne Pacelle--FFA
                                           (301) 585-2591

   GOVERNMENT TO GRANT SWIFT ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTION
           TO HUNDREDS OF IMPERILED SPECIES IN
        SWEEPING SETTLEMENT OF MAJOR FEDERAL LAWSUIT

    In one of tho most comprehensive settlements ever of a lawsuit
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Bush Administration has
agreed to expedite federal protection for hundreds of animal and
plant species now facing a threat of extinction, and to take steps to
protect more than 900 additional species. In total, more than 1,300
species are affected by this agreement.

    The lawsuit, The Fund for Animals v. Lujan was brought on May 28,
1992 by The Fund for Animals, a national wildlife protection
organization; Defenders of Wildlife, a national environmental group;
and a coalition of environmentalists from around the country. The
defendants in the case are Manuel Lujan, Secretary of the Interior,
and John Turner, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Under the settlement, which was filed today in federal district
court in Washington, D.C, the government must, by September 1996,
propose the "listing" of at least 400 domestic species--the process
that secures federal legal protection for species under the ESA.
Final listing actions must be taken within one year following a
proposal. Since the ESA was enacted in 1973, approximately 750
domestic species--an average of about 40 per year--have been listed.

   According to Jasper Carlton, director of the Biodiversity Legal
Foundation and one of the plaintiffs in the case. "This settlement
will result, in the next few years, in a major increase in the number
of species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. It
represents a desperately needed and long-overdue commitment by the
government to take more seriously its obligation to protect our
nation's dwindling biodiversity."

   Species subject to the 1996 listing deadline include the Florida
black bear, Marianas flying fox, Tarahumara frog, Ponape short-eared
owl, Jemez mountain salamander, Eastern hog-nosed skunk, Southwestern
pond turtle, Montana arctic grayling, Oregon semaphore grass, Texas
ayenia, and Steller's eider.

   Wayne Pacelle, national director of The Fund for Animals,
explained, "The slow pace of placing animals and plants on the
endangered list was leading to a fast slide toward extinction for
hundreds of species. By now securing a place on the endangered list,
these species will gain an array of protections to help them survive
into the 21st century."  For three years, The Fund for Animals has
campaigned to end the hunting of one of the nation's rarest large
mammals, the Florida black bear; the settlement, by compelling the
listing of this subspecies, will translate into an end to this
biologically reckless hunt.

   In addition to the 400 species subject to the September 1996
deadline, over 900 more must be officially assigned listing
"priority" numbers within the next year. Assignment of such numbers
is the first step in the government's administrative process for
listing species.

   Species affected by this aspect of the agreement included the
Spotted frog, Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk, Sherman's fox squirrel,
Appalachian Bewick's wren, Texas amorpha, Saddle Mountain bitter
cress, and Limestone fameflower.

   According to John Fitzgerald, (director of wildlife law for
Defenders of Wildlife, "The government's process for listing species
has during the past decade, been an administrative and scientific
nightmare. Along with expediting protection of hundreds of species,
this settlement will help greatly in the creation of an orderly,
sensible system for all listing decisions in the future."

   The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys Eric Glitzenstein, an
environmental lawyer in Washington, D.C., and Michael Sherwood, with
the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in San Francisco. (The Sierra Club
Legal Defense Fund is a separate organization from the Sierra Club
and is not affiliated with the Sierra Club.)

   Sherwood stated that, "This is the best news for endangered
species in a very long time. The pace of listing has been dangerously
slow. We applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of
the Interior for their cooperation and foresight in settling this
case."

   In addition to The Fund for Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, and
Jasper Carlton, the other plaintiffs in the case were In Defense of
Endangered Species, a conservation organization headquartered in
Ohio, and the following conservationists: Keith Hammer of Montana;
Joanne Duffey of Florida; Edward W. Mudd, Jr. of Alabama: Andrew
Wiesburd of Illinois; David Hogan of California; Julia Fonscca of
Arizona; Mitch Friedman of Washington; and Anne Petermann of Vermont.

                             -30-
---------------------------------------------------------------------


      SUMMARY OF ENDANGERED SPECIES LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT

    On Tuesday. December 15, 1992, The U.S. Department of the
Interior (USDl) officially agreed to an out-of-court settlement of a
lawsuit filed by The Fund For Animals, other conservation
organizations, and individual conservationists in May. In the
lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the USDI was unreasonably
delaying the listing of species as endangered or threatened in
violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Administrative
Procedure Act and that the USDI was unlawfully classifying species as
"warranted but precluded" when it could not demonstrate that they
were making "expeditious progress" in carrying out their listing
responsibilities.

    With an increasing backlog of species in need of federal
protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the federal
agency responsible for the implementation of the ESA, was not making
expeditious progress in listing species.  Such delays, according to a
1990 Inspector General's report, have resulted in the extinction of
species before federal protection can be granted.  By the Service's
own admission, between 1980 and 1990, for example, 34 species
perished while awaiting listing under the ESA.  The Inspector
General's report estimated that there may be as many as 3600 species
in immediate need of ESA protection.

    The settlement agreement, which is summarized below, provides a
time table under which species in need of ESA protection will be
listed or proposed for listing.  The specific time frame under which
individual species will be processed, per the new listing procedures
outlined in the settlement agreement, is contingent upon the species
current designation.

For those 401 species officially listed as C-1 as of 1 September
1992:

A.  Must be proposed for listing by no later than September 30, 1996,
unless:
        1. in the interim the Service publishes notice in the Federal
           Register explaining why a particular C-1 species no longer
           warrants listing and is being removed from the list.

B.  Between September 1, 1992 and September 30, 1996, if new
candidate species are placed on the C-1 list and receive a listing
priority higher than an existing C-1 species, such new C-1 species
can be substituted, on a one-for-one basis, for species with lower
listing priority.

C.  If, as a result of substitutions, by September 30, 1996, all
species categorized as C-1 as of September 1, 1992, have not been
proposed for listing:
    1.  if 20 or fewer species remain, then, by no later than
        September 30, 1997 such species should be proposed for
        listing or a notice should be published in the Federal
        Register explaining why such species do not warrant listing
        and are thus being removed from the C-1 category, or;
    2.  if more than 20 species remain, then, by no later than
        September 30, 1997, either propose for listing or publish
        notice removing from the C-1 list at least 20 such species,
        and, by no later than September 30, 1998, either propose for
        listing or publish notice removing from the C-1 list the
        remaining C-1 species.

D.  For those 112 species officially designated as "warranted but
precluded" as of September 1, 1992, that have not been designated as
C-1 species or not yet assigned a priority number, but for which a
status survey has been completed within one year prior to September
1, 1992, by October 13, 1993, the Service must either:
    1.  propose such species for listing, or;
    2.  officially place such species in the C-1 category and assign
        such species a listing priority number, or;
            a. For such species given a listing priority of 1, 2, or
               3, by September 30, 1996, propose such species for
               listing or publish a notice in the Federal Register

               explaining any not warranted findings.
    3.  publish notice in the Federal Register explaining any not
        warranted findings.

E.  For those 811 species designated as "warranted but precluded" as
of September 1, 1992, that have not been designated as C-1 species or
not yet assigned a priority number, and for which a status survey has
NOT been completed within a year prior to September 1, 1992, by
October 13, 1993, the Service must either:
    1.  publish renewed petition findings in the Federal Register
        that are based on best scientific and commercial information
        available that either:
            a.  find the petitioned actions warranted - followed
                promptly by listing proposals, or;
            b.  officially place any species that remain classified
                as "warranted but precluded" on the C-1 list and
                assign a listing priority number, or;
                    (i)  For such species given a listing priority of
                         1, 2, or 3, by September 30, 1996, propose
                         such species for listing or publish notice
                         in the Federal Register explaining any not
                         warranted findings.
            c.  publish and explain any "not warranted" findings.

F.  For all species designated as "warranted but precluded" after
September 1, 1992, such species will promptly be placed on the C-1
list and be assigned a listing priority number.

G.  When applicable and biologically appropriate, the Service must
use a multi-species, ecosystem approach to their listing
responsibilities under the ESA.  This approach should be used in the
monitoring of candidate and warranted but precluded species, in
proposing species for listing, and in designating critical habitat.

H.  Though the settlement does not directly address C-2 species,
since approximately half of the C-2 species are also designated as
"warranted but precluded" the time frames detailed in points D and E
apply.  The remaining C-2 species may gain listing as a result of the
Service's multi-species, ecosystem approach to listing, or, if new
evidence suggests the species should be redesignated as a C-1 or
listed as threatened or endangered, a repetitioning of the species
for listing may expedite its listing.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU