Sonoma County awaits clarity on proposed changes to Endangered Species Act

Jul 27, 2018 at 9:00am

By Hannah Beausang

Federal officials contend the changes to the act — which protects local species like the coho salmon and the California tiger salamander — will streamline and improve it. Local environmentalists have called them a “coordinated attack” on science that could push fragile species into extinction.

The act, passed in 1973 during the Nixon presidency with strong bipartisan support, protects critically imperiled species and their habitats. In Sonoma County, development conflicts have arisen over those species, sometimes requiring costly mitigation measures for projects to advance. But the law has also been a salvation for wildlife on the North Coast, like the gray whale, the bald eagle and osprey, said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael.

A major change would eliminate language instructing officials to ignore economic impacts when determining how wildlife should be protected.

Other reforms include changing limits on the designation of critical habitat — areas with biological or physical features necessary for the conservation of a species. It also seeks to end to the automatic regulatory process that gives threatened plants and animals the same protection as those listed as endangered, and streamlines consultation between agencies when actions from the federal government could jeopardize a species.

Changes proposed July 19 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service wouldn’t be retroactive. There will be a 60-day comment period before they are considered for finalization by the two agencies.

 Now, the act defines a threatened species as one that is on the brink of being severely impacted throughout its natural habitat within the “foreseeable future.” But, the term “foreseeable future” has been open to interpretation. The proposed changes create a definition for it.

The definition would make it clear that the “foreseeable future” would extend only as far as the agencies can “reasonably determine” that future threats and the species’ response to those threats are “probable.” Critics say that makes it more difficult to give species protection, while the agencies contend the changes are meant to provide clarity.

To learn more about the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act, click here to visit their website.