NESARC -- National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition -- What NESARC Is Fighting For

"Working to Improve
and Update the ESA"

Learn About the ESA

. What NESARC Is Fighting For

. Local Participation
Private citizens, businesses and communities, especially those directly affected by conservation decisions, should have a prominent role in the ESA decision making processes. The Act should provide for earlier and more meaningful opportunities for citizens to participate, more citizen involvement in recovery plans, and a more prominent role in the consultation process for applicants for federal licenses and permits.
Incentives to Conserve Habitat
ESA restrictions apply when land or water serves as habitat for threatened or endangered species. To avoid ESA regulation, some property owners have destroyed habitat to discourage the entry of protected species. The Act should be amended to provide incentives for property owners to conserve, rather than destroy, habitat and to provide regulatory certainty to property owners who voluntarily participate in conservation plans.
Fairness to Property Owners
Some ESA mandates have severely restricted the use and value of privately owned property. When severe restrictions occur without compensation by the federal government, the Act shifts costs and burdens to individual businesses and citizens that should be shared by all citizens. The ESA must be modified to prevent these inequities and encourage landowners to welcome protected species on their property. Specifically, when private property is preserved in a habitat conservation plan, the landowner must be compensated in a timely fashion.
Good Science
The law requires that every ESA action must be based on scientific information on a species or its habitat. To ensure fair and sensible decision making, this information must be as accurate and thorough as possible. Scientific information can be improved by requiring minimum scientific standards and fair and impartial scientific peer review.
Shared Burdens
The ESA itself calls for "encouraging" states and private parties through a system of incentives to implement a program to conserve fish, wildlife and plants "for the benefit of all citizens." Contrary to this statement, however, ESA implementation often has been heavy-handed and inflexible, and the burdens of conservation have been placed disproportionately on private land owners, small and rural communities, and the employees of resource-based industries. If all citizens benefit from species conservation, then all citizens should bear the costs even handedly.
Cost Effective Recovery Plans
Recovery plans are expensive to implement. Many of the costs are the direct expenses and lost opportunities of private parties and state and local governments. Costs to non-federal parties should be minimized by requiring implementation of the least costly recovery plan that would achieve the recovery of the species.

.

.	What NESARC Is Fighting For
.	Local Participation Private citizens, businesses and communities, especially those directly affected by conservation decisions, should have a prominent role in the ESA decision making processes. The Act should provide for earlier and more meaningful opportunities for citizens to participate, more citizen involvement in recovery plans, and a more prominent role in the consultation process for applicants for federal licenses and permits. Incentives to Conserve Habitat ESA restrictions apply when land or water serves as habitat for threatened or endangered species. To avoid ESA regulation, some property owners have destroyed habitat to discourage the entry of protected species. The Act should be amended to provide incentives for property owners to conserve, rather than destroy, habitat and to provide regulatory certainty to property owners who voluntarily participate in conservation plans. Fairness to Property Owners Some ESA mandates have severely restricted the use and value of privately owned property. When severe restrictions occur without compensation by the federal government, the Act shifts costs and burdens to individual businesses and citizens that should be shared by all citizens. The ESA must be modified to prevent these inequities and encourage landowners to welcome protected species on their property. Specifically, when private property is preserved in a habitat conservation plan, the landowner must be compensated in a timely fashion. Good Science The law requires that every ESA action must be based on scientific information on a species or its habitat. To ensure fair and sensible decision making, this information must be as accurate and thorough as possible. Scientific information can be improved by requiring minimum scientific standards and fair and impartial scientific peer review. Shared Burdens The ESA itself calls for "encouraging" states and private parties through a system of incentives to implement a program to conserve fish, wildlife and plants "for the benefit of all citizens." Contrary to this statement, however, ESA implementation often has been heavy-handed and inflexible, and the burdens of conservation have been placed disproportionately on private land owners, small and rural communities, and the employees of resource-based industries. If all citizens benefit from species conservation, then all citizens should bear the costs even handedly. Cost Effective Recovery Plans Recovery plans are expensive to implement. Many of the costs are the direct expenses and lost opportunities of private parties and state and local governments. Costs to non-federal parties should be minimized by requiring implementation of the least costly recovery plan that would achieve the recovery of the species.
.