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 the way animals are protected from going extinct by checking more carefully if they need help, using special teams to decide. It also helps people who own land to work together with others to take care of animals better.
Summary AI
The bill, titled the “21st Century Wildlife Enhancement and Partnership Act,” aims to change how species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It introduces an independent review process using third-party evaluator teams to assess proposals for listing species, enhancing transparency and ensuring that various factors, including economic impacts, are considered. The bill also formalizes existing conservation agreements and partnerships between private landowners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for improved wildlife management.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The bill titled "21st Century Wildlife Enhancement and Partnership Act" aims to reform how species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Introduced in the Senate, the legislation was designed to enhance the transparency and efficiency of the listing process while providing flexibility and options for conservation partnerships, especially with non-Federal property owners. The bill outlines a comprehensive process involving third-party evaluators to assess objections to species listings and codifies existing conservation agreements. It emphasizes transparency, requiring detailed information about assessments and partnerships to be publicly available.
Significant Issues
One primary concern is the role of the Secretary of the Interior in forming third-party evaluator teams, which are responsible for reviewing objections to proposed species listings. The Secretary has substantial authority in choosing the team and setting its parameters, possibly leading to biases or conflicts of interest without sufficient checks and balances. While the Secretary is required to consult with Congress, this step might result in political influences and delays.
Additionally, the compensation and role restrictions for these evaluator teams raise concerns. Excluding current or former Service employees from participating may limit the expertise necessary for informed evaluations, and the costs associated with compensating these team members could be excessive if not managed carefully.
The bill’s provision for transparency in the listing process is vital but lacks specifics on how objectivity will be maintained in selecting and presenting scientific evidence. This lack of detail leaves room for subjectivity or arbitrary decisions.
Public Impact
For the general public, this bill could streamline the conservation efforts and species protection processes, ideally leading to a more balanced approach that considers both ecological needs and economic impacts. By requiring transparency in the listing processes and making conservation agreements codified law, the bill could enhance public trust and participation in environmental stewardship.
However, the complexity and potential political influences in forming third-party evaluation teams might lead to delays or unequal representation of interests, which could undermine public confidence. Furthermore, the ability of private property owners to choose conservation agreements could result in inconsistencies in species protection efforts.
Impact on Stakeholders
The bill provides distinct advantages for private landowners by giving them discretion in selecting conservation agreements. However, this could also lead to varied conservation outcomes, as some agreements may not be as effective as others, possibly compromising species protection in some areas.
Environmental groups and conservationists might view the bill as a mixed bag; it offers increased transparency and partnerships, but the potential political influences in the team formations could deter its effectiveness. Commercial industries, particularly those involved in natural resources, might appreciate the bill since it mandates considerations of economic impacts before listing species, potentially reducing restrictions on their operations.
On the flip side, the exclusions of Service employees from evaluator teams might concern those who prioritize expertise and scientific rigor in species protection decisions, potentially compromising evaluation quality in favor of non-specialized viewpoints.
Overall, while the bill aims to modernize and enhance wildlife conservation efforts, its success and fairness largely depend on the careful implementation of its provisions and the actual practices surrounding team formations and transparency measures.
Issues
The role of the Secretary in empaneling the third-party evaluator team in Section 3 might lead to potential biases or conflicts of interest, as the Secretary has the final determination on the structure, membership, and scope of review, without clear checks or balances.
The requirement for the Secretary to consult with Congress on the structure and membership of the evaluator team in Section 3 could lead to delays and political influences in the process, affecting the timely listing of endangered species.
The compensation details for third-party evaluator team members in Section 3 could result in excessive costs, particularly if evaluations extend over long periods or require significant travel, raising concerns about financial waste.
The final decision and report being binding in Section 3 implies significant authority given to the evaluator team without a clear explanation of appeal processes or oversight, potentially leading to accountability issues.
The exclusion of current or former employees of the Service from serving on the evaluator team in Section 3 could limit the availability of experts with specific relevant experience, possibly impacting the quality of evaluations.
The provision allowing the third-party evaluator team to request information from outside parties in Section 3 could lead to delays in decision-making if responses are not timely, affecting the effectiveness of species protection efforts.
The process described in Section 3 for objecting to a proposed listing includes multiple steps and deadlines, which might be challenging to track and could result in procedural errors or missed deadlines, leading to potential legal challenges.
The references to specific federal rules in Sections 2 and 7 could lead to confusion and issues with accessibility or changes in those rules, impacting stakeholders' understanding and ability to comply.
The lack of clarity in terms such as 'voluntary conservation partnerships' and 'natural resource-related industries' in Sections 3 and 6 might lead to inconsistent application or understanding, affecting enforcement and consistency of conservation efforts.
The section on transparency of the listing process in Section 4 lacks clarity on how the inclusion and exclusion of reports, papers, and materials in the Species Status Assessment will be objectively determined, potentially leading to bias or arbitrary decision-making.
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 definitions section of this act explains key terms used in the law, including what Candidate Conservation Agreements are and how they work, the meaning of candidate species, and what a Conservation Benefit Agreement entails. It also defines terms like the established consortium, the Secretary (referring to the Secretary of the Interior), the Service (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), species (as per the Endangered Species Act of 1973), and third-party evaluator team, which is an independent evaluation group.
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 law puts into effect a rule from the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service about listing endangered species and designating critical habitats, as published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2019.