If there is evidence that any of the above factors exist, one may send a petition to the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serice (FWS), thoroughly describing the species and its problem(s).

If there are questions regarding the status of the species, the service may publish a notice of review in the Federal Register (the newspaper that describes action on Federal rules and regulations), asking for public comment.

If, after review and examination, the director agrees that there is a threat, he or she will publish in the Federal Register a proposal to list the species as either threatened or endangered.

At least 60 days are then allowed for any interested party to comment on the proposal. During the review time, public meetings may be held so that the public can discuss the proposal with FWS representatives.

After the review period, if information obtained supports the original proposal, the director publishes a final rulemaking in the Federal Regisier. The species is added to the Federal list and becomes eligible for protection and management offered by the Endangered Species Act.

Developing recovery plans. Because the reasons that a species is in jeopardy are usually complex, the solution is also complex. It requires the gathering of considerable basic information and the meshing of numerous projects, often performed by several agendes and organizations.

The basic method of achieving this meshing is through the developing of recovery plans. Recovery teams are sometimes appointed to aid in identifying solutions and in developing the recovery plans.

A recovery team consists of individuals most knowledgeable about a species and its needs. A team may include persons from government, universities, conservation organizations, or private business.

One recovery team may be involved with more than one species if the species needs are similar or if they occupy the same habitat. The team prepares a recovery plan for the species and highlights what is necessary for it to survive and recover a nonthreatened status.

Included are specific recommendations for further study, land preservation, law enforcement. special land management, education -- and anything else important to the species.

Although the planning process is sponsored by the FWS, a number of agencies and organizations may be involved in the preparation and carrying out of the plan.

As of April 1981, there were 68 recovery teams in operation, 37 in thc Western states.

So far, 41 recovery plans have been approved, 26 of them affecting Western species.

Protecting listed species. The Endangered Species Act makes it unlawful to take (kill, harass, harm, or catch) or possess endangered or threatened species, or to import or export them without appropriate permits. (Import and export restrictions apply to endangered and threatened plants as well, but taking and possessing plants is not regulated by the act.)

Species on the Federal threatened and endangered list are provided strict protection, but permits may sometimes be issued for activities that would otherwise not be allowed.

For example, a state game agency might be granted a permit to capture limited numbers of an edaangered species for study if it appeared that this study might help the species survive.

Because threatened species are not in as critical condition as endangered ones, permit requirements are less rigid. For example, a person might obtain a permit to keep a threatened species in captivity for educational pursoses only, something that would not be allowed with an endangered species.

The Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to be sure that activities they fund, license, or carry out are not likely to cause further harm to endangered or threatened species. Agencies consult with the FWS to determine the probable outcome of proposed actions.

If the FWS concludes that a project might be harmful, it orders the project modified to reduce impact or -- in rare instances in which no modifications are possible -- stopped altogether.

In some cases, a species listed as endangered or threatened may also have its critical habitat described. Designating critical habitat does not necessarily make any changes in the uses allowed in an area. It is merely one method of drawing the attention of state and Federal agencies to areas that are especially important to certain species.

Whether or not critical habitat has been described, consultation with the FWS is necessary whenever an endangered or threatened species is involved.

The above restrictions apply only to Federal activities conducted on public lands. Private individuals or organizations are not affected unless their work is financed by the Federal Government or unless they require a Federal permit or license to accomplish the work. Here are three examples that show how consultation and critical habitat designation might affect certam activities:

A Federal agency plans a new hiking trail. lf the area is designated as critical habitat for some species, and if it appears that the building of the hiking trail might influence that species, then the agency must consult with the FWS.

If no critical habitat is designated, it must first be determined whether there are any listed species in the area. If there are, then the process becomes the same as with critical habitat.

Suppose the trail passes near a bald eagle nest, and the FWS concludes that building the proposed trail would be harmful to the eagles. The agency should not carry through with its plan. However, there may be ways the trail could be built without disturbing the eagles.

If the problem is noise associated with trail building, then the trail could be built without the use of power tools or at a time of year when the eagles are not present. If use of the trail would be disturbing to the nesting eagles, use of the trail could be allowed only outside the breeding season.

A private shipping company requests permission to dredge a boat basin in a tidal area used by the endangered California least tern. The proposed dredging requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, even though the actual work is done by private business. If an impact on the tern is possible, the corps would consult with the FWS.

If the FWS opinion was that the dredging would harm the tern, the corps would not grant the permit as proposed. It might be possible to change the proposal so that the effects on the tern would not be as great; then the permit could be issued.

A private landowner wants to plow some private land on which an endangered plant grows. If the landowner does not need any Federal money to do the plowing, then he or she is not required to consult with the FWS or to consider critical habitat.

Of course, attempts might be made to avoid destruction of this endangered plant on private land by convincing the landowner to change his or her plans, or by entering into some type of land use agreement. Purchasing the land or development rights in question is a last resort.

There has been concern that requirements of the act would result in many conflicts between endangered species and desirable development and management programs. Actually, there have been very few. Usually, the consultation process reveals that a proposal can be changed in some way so that the species in question will not be adversely affected.

Land acquisition. As noted before, loss or change of a species' habitat is usually at least partly to blame for a species being listed as endangered or threatened. The Endangered Species Act authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to acquire property for endangered and threatened species.

Funds for habitat purchase are available from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is supported by monies collected as user fees on Federal property, Federal tax on motorboat fuels, revenue from the sale of surplus Federal properties, and a percentage of revenue obtained from offshore oil drilling leases.

Important purchases have been made for such endangered species as the bald eagle, Lange's metalmark butterfly, Contra Costa wallflower, Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, and Columbian white-tailed deer.

Cooperation with the states. The Endangered Species Act most directly affects Federal involvement in endangered species preservation, but authors of the act recognized that the states can and do play an important part.

The Federal Government is authorized by

the act to enter into management agreements and cooperative agreements with those states that want to conduct their own endangered species programs.

States with cooperative agreements are eligible to receive two-thirds Federal funding for approved endangered species projects. These funds may be used for surveys, research, law enforcement, or other activities designed to benefit the species in question.

Since 1977, when 16 states first entered into cooperative agreements, $23.6 million have been spent in the program. As of June 1, 1981, 38 states had entered into cooperative agreements with the FWS. In 1981, $5.4 million were allocated to these states for endangered species programs.

Recovery in action

The Aleutian Canada goose is a small version of the well-known "honker" found in much of the U.S. However, the Aleutian goose nests only on one small island in Alaska. It formerly nested on other Aleutian islands, but foxes introduced into the Aleutians in the 1800's destroyed all other populations.

Recovery for the Aleutian Canada goose involved increasing the population by captive breeding and reintroducing them on additional islands after foxes were removed. It also included protecting the birds in areas where legal hunting of other geese occurs, and acquiring vital lands along the migration route.

Implementation of the plan required continuing, close cooperation between the FWS and the Alaska and California Department of Fish and Game. As a result of these efforts, the total population increased to approximately 2,000 birds.

The sand dunes at Antioch, California, are the home of the Lange's metalmark butterfly and two plants, the Antioch Dunes evening primrose and the Contra Costa wallflower. These species are found nowhere else, and their living space has been reduced by agricultural and industrial development from approximately 500 acres to 80 acres.

A major step toward the protection of these species occurred in 1980 when the FWS bought 55 acres of the most important habitat. Future activities will include controlling public use of the dunes area so that no further harm is done to the plants.

Additional studies of the butterfly and plants will be conducted to see if removal of exotic weeds or other management practices might help them to survive and increase.

The outlook

Reversing the trend for an endangered or threatened species is seldom easy. It may be that some species will become extinct regardless of what is done, either because recovery efforts started too late or because our understanding is not sufficient to solve the problems.

In rare cases, it may even be that the extinction of a species is unavoidable if we are to meet essential human needs. However, this should be a truly rare circumstance.

There are few cases where a species must be completely separated from civilization, or where there is an unresolvable conflict between the needs of a plant or animal and human needs. What will become more and more necessary is a greater planning effort in the use of the environment.

Meshing recovery plans with other planning efforts, and clarifying both long term and short term objectives for growth and land use (both nationally and locally), are vital needs.

There is cause for optimism. Important conservation measures have resulted from passage of the Endangered Species Act. States and communities are paying more attention to the needs of unique wildlife, plants, and habitats.

Private organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and National Audubon Society are active in education, research, and land acquisition roles.

Some recovery efforts, such as those for the whooping crane and peregrine falcon, are far enough along that real signs of recovery of these species are evident.

The next few years, however, will be critical for many plants and animals. The need for increased conservation activity and cooperation has never been more urgent.

For more information

You can obtain details of the endangered-species listing process and current instructions for submitting listing petitions from the Director (OES), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 20240. For information on permits for Endangered and Threatened species, write the director (WPO) at the same address.

The Oregon State University Extension Service provides education and information based on timely research to help Oregonians solve problems aid develop skills related to youth, family, community, farm, forest, energy, and marine resources.

Extension's agricultural program provides education, training, and technical assistance to people with agriculturally related needs and interests. Major program emphasis is on food and fiber production, farm business management, marketing and processing of agricultural products, and resource use and conservation.

This publication was prepared by Sanford L Wilbur, chief, Division of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Portland, Oregon, Regional Office; and Peter A. Stine, wildlife biologist, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oahu, Hawaii.

Extension Service, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Henry A. Wadsworth, director. This publication was produced and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Extension work is a cooperative program of Oregon State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Oregon counties.

Oregon State Univerity Extension Serice offers educational programs, activities, and materials without regard to race, color, national origin, or sex as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Oregon State University Extension Service is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Back to Report 19