Overview
Title
To reform the process for listing a species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to change how animals are protected from becoming extinct by having a special team of experts check if they really need protection. It also tries to make sure everyone knows what's happening and helps landowners protect animals on their property if they want to.
Summary AI
H.R. 9283, titled the “21st Century Wildlife Enhancement and Partnership Act,” aims to reform the process for listing species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It introduces a system for independent review of proposed listings by third-party evaluator teams. These teams, composed of experts in science, economics, and conservation, will assess the proposed listings and have the authority to make binding decisions. The bill also emphasizes transparency in the species status assessment process and supports voluntary conservation agreements with private landowners.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill titled "21st Century Wildlife Enhancement and Partnership Act" seeks to reform the process for listing species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The bill introduces mechanisms for independent review of proposed species listings and emphasizes partnerships for wildlife conservation. It lays out procedures for third-party evaluations of listing disputes, aims to enhance transparency in the Species Status Assessments, and codifies existing conservation agreements. Furthermore, the bill allows more flexibility for non-Federal property owners in engaging with different types of conservation agreements and enacts existing rules on critical habitat into law.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several notable issues arise from the proposed legislation.
Firstly, the bill gives the Secretary of the Interior significant power to determine the framework of the independent third-party evaluator team, raising concerns about potential biases or conflicts of interest. By excluding current or former employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from this team, the bill may also limit the available expertise needed for informed decision-making.
Another concern is the lack of clarity in the language regarding "voluntary conservation partnerships" and other essential terms, which might result in inconsistent applications of the bill's provisions. Similarly, the criteria used for selecting peer review teams in Species Status Assessments are not well-defined, potentially leading to biases or a lack of transparency.
The overarching impact of the bill's enaction into law of 2019 regulations concerning critical habitat designation is also questioned, as the bill does not provide a comprehensive assessment of potential environmental, economic, or administrative repercussions.
Potential Impact on the Public
The broader public could experience mixed outcomes from this bill. On one hand, the increased transparency in the species listing process might build public trust in governmental decisions related to conservation, as citizens would have more insight into how species assessments are conducted and who is involved. The use of third-party evaluators could also bring more objectivity and credibility to listing decisions.
On the downside, the ambiguous language and the heavy involvement of the Secretary may lead to challenges in consistent implementation, potentially causing delays or unfavorable decisions for some communities. The empowerment of non-Federal property owners to choose conservation agreements could either enhance conservation efforts or lead to fragmented wildlife protection strategies, depending on how well these agreements are managed.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Conservation Organizations: They may find new opportunities to engage with government agencies and private landowners but could also contend with the unpredictable nature of third-party evaluator outcomes influenced by the Secretary's discretion.
Property Owners: The bill could empower property owners by allowing them discretion over conservation agreements, potentially benefiting those interested in shaping conservation efforts on their land. However, this autonomy could lead to inconsistent conservation across different regions.
Small Businesses and Industries: Those operating in natural resource sectors might welcome the bill's requirement for economic analysis in listing decisions, as it acknowledges the potential economic impact. However, they might face increased obligations and scrutiny under the enhanced transparency requirements.
Environmental Advocates: While the bill promotes transparency and conservation partnerships, advocates might be concerned about the potential for bias in decision-making and the varied effectiveness of conservation agreements due to the discretion granted to landowners.
In summary, the "21st Century Wildlife Enhancement and Partnership Act" proposes valuable reforms but also introduces complexities that need to be carefully addressed to ensure beneficial outcomes for conservation efforts and affected stakeholders alike.
Issues
The role of the Secretary in determining the structure and membership of the third-party evaluator team may result in potential biases or conflicts of interest (Section 3). It allows significant latitude for discretion without clearly defined checks or balances, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
The exclusion of current or former employees of the Service from the third-party evaluator team could limit the involvement of individuals with relevant expertise and experience (Section 3).
The process and authority given to the third-party evaluator team in making binding decisions on species listings create substantial power without clear appeal processes (Section 3), which could affect accountability and oversight.
The language regarding 'voluntary conservation partnerships' and 'natural resource-related industries' lacks definition and clarity, which may lead to inconsistent applications or understanding of the bill's provisions (Section 3).
The lack of clarity around the criteria for determining the membership and selection process for peer review teams could lead to potential biases or lack of transparency (Section 4).
The final enaction into law of the 2019 rule on Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat without additional context or impact assessment could have wide-ranging environmental and economic consequences (Section 7).
The compensation structure and potential costs associated with the third-party evaluator team could lead to excessive spending, especially if prolonged evaluations are required (Section 3).
The process described for objecting to a proposed species listing, coupled with the requirement for subsequent steps and deadlines, may be onerous, potentially leading to procedural errors or missed deadlines (Section 3).
The requirement for detailed biographies of peer reviewers could raise privacy concerns, and the lack of guidelines may lead to inconsistencies in documentation (Section 4).
The decision to allow non-Federal property owners full discretion in entering conservation agreements could lead to inconsistent conservation efforts and lack of oversight (Section 6).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act states that it will be called the “21st Century Wildlife Enhancement and Partnership Act”.
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides definitions of key terms used in the bill, including agreements and entities related to the conservation of species, such as "Candidate Conservation Agreement" and "Conservation Benefit Agreement." It also defines roles like "Secretary" and "Service" and specifies that "species" refers to the definition in the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
3. Independent review of proposed listings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section describes a process where a group, called a third-party evaluator team, is set up to review objections to listing a species as endangered or threatened. This team, which includes experts in various fields and is not made up of government employees, reviews data and makes a final decision on whether the listing should proceed, stop, or be sent back for more action, with their decision being the final say.
4. Enhancing the transparency of the listing process Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the process for conducting a Species Status Assessment is outlined, requiring transparency through public notice and comment. It specifies that the assessment must provide detailed information about the peer reviewers, their work, and the research they considered and included or excluded, with explanations for each decision.
5. Codification of Partnerships Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section codifies existing agreements for conservation, ensuring they remain legally effective until parties decide not to renew them. It also authorizes the Secretary to create partnerships with private landowners to improve wildlife conditions, providing them with technical and financial help for habitat restoration projects.
6. Conservation partnership options Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A non-Federal property owner has the freedom to choose from different types of conservation agreements to help protect a species, including a Conservation Benefit Agreement, a Candidate Conservation Agreement, or a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances.
7. Ensuring true critical habitat Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section makes the rules set by the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service about endangered species and their critical habitats into law, as stated in the final rule from August 27, 2019.