Endangered Species Recovery

Contact

Jeff Shoaf
Senior Executive Director
Government & Public Affairs
Associated General Contractors of America
2300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201
USA
Phone: (202) 547-3350
Fax: (703) 837-5407
http://www.agc.org

Support Common-Sense Reforms to the Endangered Species Act to Protect Both Species and Private Property Rights

Background:

  • The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been largely unsuccessful at conserving the species it is meant to protect. Since 1973, less than one percent (10 of about 1,300 listed species) has recovered and only six percent of all listed species are classified as “improving”. Instead of conserving species, implementation of the ESA has resulted in conflict with landowners and local communities, added bureaucracy, and litigation. Compliance with the ESA has also led to lengthy delays in the delivery of important construction projects.

AGC Message:

  • Species Listing And Delisting Should Be Based On Sound Scientific Data. Species listing and delisting should be based on sound scientific data that has been field-tested or peer-reviewed. The process should also include greater input from state and local governments, as well as the public. Defining “best available scientific data” and updating the process for reviewing a project’s impact on a listed species would make significant progress towards reducing unnecessary delays in the delivery of important construction projects.
  • Economic Consequences Should Also Be Taken Into Consideration When Listing A Species. A species is only determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of any one or more of the following factors: 1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 2) overutilization for commercial, recreation, scientific, or educational purposes; 3) disease or predation; 4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or 5) other natural or man-made factors effecting its continued existence. The ESA prohibits regulatory agencies from considering the economic consequences of listing a species. The ESA should be amended to allow regulatory agencies to take economic consequences into consideration when deciding whether to list a species.
  • Landowners Should Be Less Burdened By the “Critical Habitat” Designation Process. Congress should revise the process by which land is designated “critical habitat” to make it less burdensome and more predictable for landowners.
  • Fully Compensate the Value of Any Property Deemed Unusable. Landowners should be fully compensated in an expeditious manner for the value of their property taken or deemed unusable under the ESA. Property owners should receive compensation for the economic loss they suffer by this confiscation of property, and it should come at fair market value. Adopting a provision to ensure just compensation would reverse the ESA's incentive to rid land of habitat and species and instead create an incentive to develop or enhance habitat for endangered species.