Question: What is an example of a critical habitat consideration that would apply to plant wildlife?

Answer: seed germination and dispersal needs

The provision of the law in Section 4 that establishes critical habitat is a regulatory link between habitat protection and recovery goals, requiring the identification and protection of all lands, water and air necessary to recover endangered species. <hl> To determine what exactly is critical habitat, the needs of open space for individual and population growth, food, water, light or other nutritional requirements, breeding sites, seed germination and dispersal needs , and lack of disturbances are considered. <hl>

The provision of the law in Section 4 that establishes critical habitat is a regulatory link between habitat protection and recovery goals, requiring the identification and protection of all lands, water and air necessary to recover endangered species. To determine what exactly is critical habitat, the needs of open space for individual and population growth, food, water, light or other nutritional requirements, breeding sites, <hl> seed germination and dispersal needs <hl>, and lack of disturbances are considered.

To determine what exactly is critical habitat, the needs of open space for individual and population growth, food, water, light or other nutritional requirements, breeding sites, <hl> seed germination and dispersal needs <hl> , and lack of disturbances are considered.


Question: How are non-federal government activities that might impact critical habitat often subject to the Endangered Species Act?

All federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats (Section 7(a) (2)). While the regulatory aspect of critical habitat does not apply directly to private and other non-federal landowners, large-scale development, logging and mining projects on private and state land typically require a federal permit and thus become subject to critical habitat regulations. Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves.

Answer: require a federal permit

All federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats (Section 7(a) (2)). <hl> While the regulatory aspect of critical habitat does not apply directly to private and other non-federal landowners, large-scale development, logging and mining projects on private and state land typically require a federal permit and thus become subject to critical habitat regulations. <hl> Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves.

All federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats (Section 7(a) (2)). While the regulatory aspect of critical habitat does not apply directly to private and other non-federal landowners, large-scale development, logging and mining projects on private and state land typically <hl> require a federal permit <hl> and thus become subject to critical habitat regulations. Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves.


Question: What are some non-regulation actions that critical habitats encourage?

Answer: land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves

All federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats (Section 7(a) (2)). While the regulatory aspect of critical habitat does not apply directly to private and other non-federal landowners, large-scale development, logging and mining projects on private and state land typically require a federal permit and thus become subject to critical habitat regulations. <hl> Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves . <hl>

All federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats (Section 7(a) (2)). While the regulatory aspect of critical habitat does not apply directly to private and other non-federal landowners, large-scale development, logging and mining projects on private and state land typically require a federal permit and thus become subject to critical habitat regulations. Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as <hl> land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves <hl>.

Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as <hl> land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves <hl> .


Question: What does the Endangered Species Act detail about government action regarding critical habitats?

Answer: federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats

<hl> All federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats (Section 7(a) (2)). <hl> While the regulatory aspect of critical habitat does not apply directly to private and other non-federal landowners, large-scale development, logging and mining projects on private and state land typically require a federal permit and thus become subject to critical habitat regulations. Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves.

All <hl> federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats <hl> (Section 7(a) (2)). While the regulatory aspect of critical habitat does not apply directly to private and other non-federal landowners, large-scale development, logging and mining projects on private and state land typically require a federal permit and thus become subject to critical habitat regulations. Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves.


Question: What is the time limit for designating a species critical habitat after the species has been added to the endangered list?

The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states. Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.

Answer: within one year

<hl> The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. <hl> In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states. Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.

The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or <hl> within one year <hl> of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states. Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.


Question: Which presidential adminstration limited the protective status of critical habitat in 1986?

Answer: the Reagan Administration

The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. <hl> In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. <hl> As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states. Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.

The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 <hl> the Reagan Administration <hl> issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states. Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.


Question: After the limitations placed on critical habitat were lifted by the courts, where were critical habitats established primarily?

Answer: Hawaii, California and other western states

The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. <hl> In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states . <hl> Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.

The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in <hl> Hawaii, California and other western states <hl>. Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in <hl> Hawaii, California and other western states <hl> .


Question: Where have the majority of critical habitats in the Midwest and Eastern states been located geographically?

Answer: primarily on rivers and coastlines

The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states. <hl> Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines . <hl> As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.

The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states. Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, <hl> primarily on rivers and coastlines <hl>. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.

Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, <hl> primarily on rivers and coastlines <hl> .


Question: What four topics are required in an Endangered Species Recovery Plan?

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).

Answer: goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species

<hl> Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). <hl> The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the <hl> goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species <hl> (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).


Question: What is the time limit for completing an Endangered Species Recovery Plan?

Answer: The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). <hl> The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. <hl> The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). <hl> The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. <hl> The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).


Question: What Recovery Plan duration the does Fish and Wildlife Service plan for in their policies?

Answer: completion within three years

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. <hl> The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. <hl> The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying <hl> completion within three years <hl> of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).


Question: What is the average time of completion of an Endangered Species Recovery Plan?

Answer: approximately six years

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. <hl> The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years . <hl> The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is <hl> approximately six years <hl>. The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).

The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is <hl> approximately six years <hl> .


Question: Which president had the most completed Recovery Plans during their administration?

Answer: Clinton (72)

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. <hl> The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72) , but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06). <hl>

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e., increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and <hl> Clinton (72) <hl>, but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).

The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and <hl> Clinton (72) <hl> , but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).


Question: What is the primary consideration for determining if projects may be carried out in areas with endangered species?

The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.

Answer: whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized

<hl> The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized . <hl> If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.

The question to be answered is <hl> whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized <hl>. If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.

The question to be answered is <hl> whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized <hl> .


Question: If a species may be harmed, who holds final say on whether the project may proceed?

Answer: the Endangered Species Committee

The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. <hl> If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee , an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. <hl> Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.

The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from <hl> the Endangered Species Committee <hl>, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.

If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from <hl> the Endangered Species Committee <hl> , an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur.


Question: How many members are on the ad hoc panel that allows project exemptions for cases where a species may harmed?

Answer: seven

The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. <hl> Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species. <hl>

The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. Five of the <hl> seven <hl> committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.


Question: How many votes must be in favor of the exemption in order to award the exemption?

Answer: Five

The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. <hl> Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species. <hl>

The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur. <hl> Five <hl> of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.


Question: What is one specific requirement regarding the make-up of the exmeption panel?

Answer: at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur

The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. <hl> If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur . <hl> Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.

The question to be answered is whether a listed species will be harmed by the action and, if so, how the harm can be minimized. If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and <hl> at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur <hl>. Five of the seven committee members must vote for the exemption to allow taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or significant habitat modification, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species.

If harm cannot be avoided, the project agency can seek an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee, an ad hoc panel composed of members from the executive branch and <hl> at least one appointee from the state where the project is to occur <hl> .


Question: Who reviews exemption considerations before the Endangered Species committee?

Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely. The questions to be answered in these consultations are whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery of the listed species.

Answer: the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS

<hl> Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. <hl> The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely. The questions to be answered in these consultations are whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery of the listed species.

Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, <hl> the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS <hl> will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely. The questions to be answered in these consultations are whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery of the listed species.


Question: During informal consultation, what is the goal?

Answer: to determine if harm may occur

Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. <hl> The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur ; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely. <hl> The questions to be answered in these consultations are whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery of the listed species.

Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. The consultation can be informal, <hl> to determine if harm may occur <hl>; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely. The questions to be answered in these consultations are whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery of the listed species.

The consultation can be informal, <hl> to determine if harm may occur <hl> ; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely.


Question: What prompts the need for formal consultation?

Answer: if the harm is believed to be likely

Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. <hl> The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely . <hl> The questions to be answered in these consultations are whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery of the listed species.

Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur; and then formal <hl> if the harm is believed to be likely <hl>. The questions to be answered in these consultations are whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery of the listed species.

The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur; and then formal <hl> if the harm is believed to be likely <hl> .


Question: What considerations are weighed during the consultations?

Answer: whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery

Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely. <hl> The questions to be answered in these consultations are whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery of the listed species. <hl>

Long before the exemption is considered by the Endangered Species Committee, the Forest Service, and either the FWS or the NMFS will have consulted on the biological implications of the timber harvest. The consultation can be informal, to determine if harm may occur; and then formal if the harm is believed to be likely. The questions to be answered in these consultations are <hl> whether the species will be harmed, whether the habitat will be harmed and if the action will aid or hinder the recovery <hl> of the listed species.


Question: How many times has the exemption process been used, as of 2009?

There have been six instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. Of these six, one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn. Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions, and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy."

Answer: six

<hl> There have been six instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. <hl> Of these six, one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn. Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions, and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy."

There have been <hl> six <hl> instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. Of these six, one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn. Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions, and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy."


Question: What were the results of those exemption petitions?

Answer: one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn

There have been six instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. <hl> Of these six, one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn . <hl> Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions, and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy."

There have been six instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. Of these six, <hl> one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn <hl>. Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions, and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy."

Of these six, <hl> one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn <hl> .


Question: Why is this exemption provision often considered a nonfactor?

Answer: few consultations result in jeopardy opinions

There have been six instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. Of these six, one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn. Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. <hl> A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions , and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy." <hl>

There have been six instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. Of these six, one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn. Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. A major reason, of course, is that so <hl> few consultations result in jeopardy opinions <hl>, and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy."

A major reason, of course, is that so <hl> few consultations result in jeopardy opinions <hl> , and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy."


Question: How can jeopardy opinions be dissuaded?

Answer: in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy.

There have been six instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. Of these six, one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn. Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. <hl> A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions, and those that do almost always result in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy. " <hl>

There have been six instances as of 2009 in which the exemption process was initiated. Of these six, one was granted, one was partially granted, one was denied and three were withdrawn. Donald Baur, in The Endangered Species Act: law, policy, and perspectives, concluded," ... the exemption provision is basically a nonfactor in the administration of the ESA. A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions, and those that do almost always result <hl> in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy. <hl>"

A major reason, of course, is that so few consultations result in jeopardy opinions, and those that do almost always result <hl> in the identification of reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy. <hl> "


Question: Who owns the majority of critical habitat?

More than half of habitat for listed species is on non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations. Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken only for scientific or research purposes. The amendment created a permit process to circumvent the take prohibition called a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP to give incentives to non-federal land managers and private landowners to help protect listed and unlisted species, while allowing economic development that may harm ("take") the species.

Answer: non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations

<hl> More than half of habitat for listed species is on non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations . <hl> Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken only for scientific or research purposes. The amendment created a permit process to circumvent the take prohibition called a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP to give incentives to non-federal land managers and private landowners to help protect listed and unlisted species, while allowing economic development that may harm ("take") the species.

More than half of habitat for listed species is on <hl> non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations <hl>. Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken only for scientific or research purposes. The amendment created a permit process to circumvent the take prohibition called a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP to give incentives to non-federal land managers and private landowners to help protect listed and unlisted species, while allowing economic development that may harm ("take") the species.

More than half of habitat for listed species is on <hl> non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations <hl> .


Question: What program gives incentives to private landowners to protect species on their land?

Answer: Habitat Conservation Plan

More than half of habitat for listed species is on non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations. Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken only for scientific or research purposes. <hl> The amendment created a permit process to circumvent the take prohibition called a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP to give incentives to non-federal land managers and private landowners to help protect listed and unlisted species, while allowing economic development that may harm ("take") the species. <hl>

More than half of habitat for listed species is on non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations. Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken only for scientific or research purposes. The amendment created a permit process to circumvent the take prohibition called a <hl> Habitat Conservation Plan <hl> or HCP to give incentives to non-federal land managers and private landowners to help protect listed and unlisted species, while allowing economic development that may harm ("take") the species.


Question: Before the amendment in 1982, under what situations could a listed species be displaced?

Answer: only for scientific or research purposes

More than half of habitat for listed species is on non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations. <hl> Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken only for scientific or research purposes . <hl> The amendment created a permit process to circumvent the take prohibition called a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP to give incentives to non-federal land managers and private landowners to help protect listed and unlisted species, while allowing economic development that may harm ("take") the species.

More than half of habitat for listed species is on non-federal property, owned by citizens, states, local governments, tribal governments and private organizations. Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken <hl> only for scientific or research purposes <hl>. The amendment created a permit process to circumvent the take prohibition called a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP to give incentives to non-federal land managers and private landowners to help protect listed and unlisted species, while allowing economic development that may harm ("take") the species.

Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken <hl> only for scientific or research purposes <hl> .


Question: An approved HCP results in what being issued for the species?

The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. The permit may be revoked at any time and can allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time. For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days begins.

Answer: an Incidental Take Permit (ITP)

<hl> The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. <hl> The permit may be revoked at any time and can allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time. For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days begins.

The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued <hl> an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) <hl> which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. The permit may be revoked at any time and can allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time. For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days begins.


Question: How long do ITPs last?

Answer: allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time

The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. <hl> The permit may be revoked at any time and can allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time . <hl> For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days begins.

The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. The permit may be revoked at any time and can <hl> allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time <hl>. For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days begins.

The permit may be revoked at any time and can <hl> allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time <hl> .


Question: How is the public made aware of ITP applications?

Answer: A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register

The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. The permit may be revoked at any time and can allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time. For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. <hl> A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days begins. <hl>

The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. The permit may be revoked at any time and can allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time. For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. <hl> A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register <hl> and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days begins.


Question: How long does the public have to comment on ITP applications?

Answer: 30 to 90 days

The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. The permit may be revoked at any time and can allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time. For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. <hl> A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days begins. <hl>

The person or organization submits a HCP and if approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS), will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) which allows a certain number of "takes" of the listed species. The permit may be revoked at any time and can allow incidental takes for varying amounts of time. For instance, the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan/ Incidental Take Permit is good for 30 years and the Wal-Mart store (in Florida) permit expires after one year. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action-which means other federal laws can apply, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. A notice of the permit application action is published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of <hl> 30 to 90 days <hl> begins.


Question: What location held the first HCP?

The US Congress was urged to create the exemption by proponents of a conservation plan on San Bruno Mountain, California that was drafted in the early 1980s and is the first HCP in the nation. In the conference report on the 1982 amendments, Congress specified that it intended the San Bruno plan to act "as a model" for future conservation plans developed under the incidental take exemption provision and that "the adequacy of similar conservation plans should be measured against the San Bruno plan". Congress further noted that the San Bruno plan was based on "an independent exhaustive biological study" and protected at least 87% of the habitat of the listed butterflies that led to the development of the HCP.

Answer: San Bruno Mountain, California

<hl> The US Congress was urged to create the exemption by proponents of a conservation plan on San Bruno Mountain, California that was drafted in the early 1980s and is the first HCP in the nation. <hl> In the conference report on the 1982 amendments, Congress specified that it intended the San Bruno plan to act "as a model" for future conservation plans developed under the incidental take exemption provision and that "the adequacy of similar conservation plans should be measured against the San Bruno plan". Congress further noted that the San Bruno plan was based on "an independent exhaustive biological study" and protected at least 87% of the habitat of the listed butterflies that led to the development of the HCP.

The US Congress was urged to create the exemption by proponents of a conservation plan on <hl> San Bruno Mountain, California <hl> that was drafted in the early 1980s and is the first HCP in the nation. In the conference report on the 1982 amendments, Congress specified that it intended the San Bruno plan to act "as a model" for future conservation plans developed under the incidental take exemption provision and that "the adequacy of similar conservation plans should be measured against the San Bruno plan". Congress further noted that the San Bruno plan was based on "an independent exhaustive biological study" and protected at least 87% of the habitat of the listed butterflies that led to the development of the HCP.


Question: What percentage of the critical habitat was protected for the area that received the first HCP?

Answer: 87%

The US Congress was urged to create the exemption by proponents of a conservation plan on San Bruno Mountain, California that was drafted in the early 1980s and is the first HCP in the nation. In the conference report on the 1982 amendments, Congress specified that it intended the San Bruno plan to act "as a model" for future conservation plans developed under the incidental take exemption provision and that "the adequacy of similar conservation plans should be measured against the San Bruno plan". <hl> Congress further noted that the San Bruno plan was based on "an independent exhaustive biological study" and protected at least 87% of the habitat of the listed butterflies that led to the development of the HCP. <hl>

The US Congress was urged to create the exemption by proponents of a conservation plan on San Bruno Mountain, California that was drafted in the early 1980s and is the first HCP in the nation. In the conference report on the 1982 amendments, Congress specified that it intended the San Bruno plan to act "as a model" for future conservation plans developed under the incidental take exemption provision and that "the adequacy of similar conservation plans should be measured against the San Bruno plan". Congress further noted that the San Bruno plan was based on "an independent exhaustive biological study" and protected at least <hl> 87% <hl> of the habitat of the listed butterflies that led to the development of the HCP.


Question: What type of animal was being protected in the area that received the first HCP?

Answer: butterflies

The US Congress was urged to create the exemption by proponents of a conservation plan on San Bruno Mountain, California that was drafted in the early 1980s and is the first HCP in the nation. In the conference report on the 1982 amendments, Congress specified that it intended the San Bruno plan to act "as a model" for future conservation plans developed under the incidental take exemption provision and that "the adequacy of similar conservation plans should be measured against the San Bruno plan". <hl> Congress further noted that the San Bruno plan was based on "an independent exhaustive biological study" and protected at least 87% of the habitat of the listed butterflies that led to the development of the HCP. <hl>

The US Congress was urged to create the exemption by proponents of a conservation plan on San Bruno Mountain, California that was drafted in the early 1980s and is the first HCP in the nation. In the conference report on the 1982 amendments, Congress specified that it intended the San Bruno plan to act "as a model" for future conservation plans developed under the incidental take exemption provision and that "the adequacy of similar conservation plans should be measured against the San Bruno plan". Congress further noted that the San Bruno plan was based on "an independent exhaustive biological study" and protected at least 87% of the habitat of the listed <hl> butterflies <hl> that led to the development of the HCP.


Question: What 1981 court decision added to the power of HCPs and ITPs for conservation?

Answer: Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources

<hl> Growing scientific recognition of the role of private lands for endangered species recovery and the landmark 1981 court decision in Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources both contributed to making Habitat Conservation Plans/ Incidental Take Permits "a major force for wildlife conservation and a major headache to the development community", wrote Robert D.Thornton in the 1991 Environmental Law article, Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. <hl>

Growing scientific recognition of the role of private lands for endangered species recovery and the landmark 1981 court decision in <hl> Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources <hl> both contributed to making Habitat Conservation Plans/ Incidental Take Permits "a major force for wildlife conservation and a major headache to the development community", wrote Robert D.Thornton in the 1991 Environmental Law article, Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.


Question: Who wrote the article "Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973."

Answer: Robert D.Thornton

<hl> Growing scientific recognition of the role of private lands for endangered species recovery and the landmark 1981 court decision in Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources both contributed to making Habitat Conservation Plans/ Incidental Take Permits "a major force for wildlife conservation and a major headache to the development community", wrote Robert D.Thornton in the 1991 Environmental Law article, Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. <hl>

Growing scientific recognition of the role of private lands for endangered species recovery and the landmark 1981 court decision in Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources both contributed to making Habitat Conservation Plans/ Incidental Take Permits "a major force for wildlife conservation and a major headache to the development community", wrote <hl> Robert D.Thornton <hl> in the 1991 Environmental Law article, Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.


Question: What did Thornton compare the scientific and legal advances to, from the viewpoint of the development community?

Answer: a major headache

<hl> Growing scientific recognition of the role of private lands for endangered species recovery and the landmark 1981 court decision in Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources both contributed to making Habitat Conservation Plans/ Incidental Take Permits "a major force for wildlife conservation and a major headache to the development community", wrote Robert D.Thornton in the 1991 Environmental Law article, Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. <hl>

Growing scientific recognition of the role of private lands for endangered species recovery and the landmark 1981 court decision in Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources both contributed to making Habitat Conservation Plans/ Incidental Take Permits "a major force for wildlife conservation and <hl> a major headache <hl> to the development community", wrote Robert D.Thornton in the 1991 Environmental Law article, Searching for Consensus and Predictability: Habitat Conservation Planning under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.


Question: What is the name of the rule that protects the landowner if their conservation efforts fall short?

The "No Surprises" rule is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money. The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures.

Answer: The "No Surprises" rule

<hl> The "No Surprises" rule is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. <hl> The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money. The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures.

<hl> The "No Surprises" rule <hl> is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money. The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures.


Question: Why is this particular rule so controversial?

Answer: the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient.

The "No Surprises" rule is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. <hl> The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money. <hl> The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures.

The "No Surprises" rule is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, <hl> the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. <hl> The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money. The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures.


Question: If the landowner fails to adequately protect the species, what penalties do they face with the "No Surprises" rule?

Answer: The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money

The "No Surprises" rule is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. <hl> The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money . <hl> The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures.

The "No Surprises" rule is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. <hl> The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money <hl>. The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures.

<hl> The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money <hl> .


Question: Who covers the cost of additional efforts if the ITP holder's efforts fall short?

Answer: The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures

The "No Surprises" rule is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money. <hl> The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures . <hl>

The "No Surprises" rule is meant to protect the landowner if "unforeseen circumstances" occur which make the landowner's efforts to prevent or mitigate harm to the species fall short. The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient. The landowner or permittee would not be required to set aside additional land or pay more in conservation money. <hl> The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures <hl>.

<hl> The federal government would have to pay for additional protection measures <hl> .


Question: What two groups are bound by a "Safe Harbor" agreement?

The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between the private landowner and FWS. The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. The policy was developed by the Clinton Administration in 1999.

Answer: the private landowner and FWS

<hl> The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between the private landowner and FWS . <hl> The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. The policy was developed by the Clinton Administration in 1999.

The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between <hl> the private landowner and FWS <hl>. The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. The policy was developed by the Clinton Administration in 1999.

The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between <hl> the private landowner and FWS <hl> .


Question: In exchange for altering the property to a more beneficial state, what does the landowner gain from the Safe Harbor agreement?

Answer: assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level

The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between the private landowner and FWS. <hl> The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level . <hl> The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. The policy was developed by the Clinton Administration in 1999.

The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between the private landowner and FWS. The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for <hl> assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level <hl>. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. The policy was developed by the Clinton Administration in 1999.

The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for <hl> assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level <hl> .


Question: Which presidential administration developed Safe Harbor policy?

Answer: the Clinton Administration

The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between the private landowner and FWS. The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. <hl> The policy was developed by the Clinton Administration in 1999. <hl>

The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between the private landowner and FWS. The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. The policy was developed by <hl> the Clinton Administration <hl> in 1999.


Question: Are Safe Harbor agreements and ITPs mutually exclusive?

Answer: A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both.

The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between the private landowner and FWS. The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). <hl> A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. The policy was developed by the Clinton Administration in 1999. <hl>

The "Safe Harbor" agreement is a voluntary agreement between the private landowner and FWS. The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future "takes" above a pre-determined level. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). <hl> A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an Incidental Take Permit, or both. <hl> The policy was developed by the Clinton Administration in 1999.


Question: How do Candidate Conservation Agreements differ from Safe Harbor agreements?

The Candidate Conservation Agreement is closely related to the "Safe Harbor" agreement, the main difference is that the Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species by providing incentives to private landowners and land managing agencies to restore, enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered if critical habitat is not protected. The FWS will then assure that if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA.

Answer: Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species

<hl> The Candidate Conservation Agreement is closely related to the "Safe Harbor" agreement, the main difference is that the Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species by providing incentives to private landowners and land managing agencies to restore, enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered if critical habitat is not protected. <hl> The FWS will then assure that if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA.

The Candidate Conservation Agreement is closely related to the "Safe Harbor" agreement, the main difference is that the <hl> Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species <hl> by providing incentives to private landowners and land managing agencies to restore, enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered if critical habitat is not protected. The FWS will then assure that if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA.


Question: How does a CCA help protect a private landowner?

Answer: if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA.

The Candidate Conservation Agreement is closely related to the "Safe Harbor" agreement, the main difference is that the Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species by providing incentives to private landowners and land managing agencies to restore, enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered if critical habitat is not protected. <hl> The FWS will then assure that if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA. <hl>

The Candidate Conservation Agreement is closely related to the "Safe Harbor" agreement, the main difference is that the Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species by providing incentives to private landowners and land managing agencies to restore, enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered if critical habitat is not protected. The FWS will then assure that <hl> if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA. <hl>


Question: How does a CCA impact unlisted species?

Answer: enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered

<hl> The Candidate Conservation Agreement is closely related to the "Safe Harbor" agreement, the main difference is that the Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species by providing incentives to private landowners and land managing agencies to restore, enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered if critical habitat is not protected. <hl> The FWS will then assure that if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA.

The Candidate Conservation Agreement is closely related to the "Safe Harbor" agreement, the main difference is that the Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances(CCA) are meant to protect unlisted species by providing incentives to private landowners and land managing agencies to restore, <hl> enhance or maintain habitat of unlisted species which are declining and have the potential to become threatened or endangered <hl> if critical habitat is not protected. The FWS will then assure that if, in the future the unlisted species becomes listed, the landowner will not be required to do more than already agreed upon in the CCA.


Question: What animal species was delisted in August 2008?

Two examples of animal species recently delisted are: the Virginia northern flying squirrel (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been listed since 1985, and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS). On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS.

Answer: the Virginia northern flying squirrel

<hl> Two examples of animal species recently delisted are: the Virginia northern flying squirrel (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been listed since 1985, and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS). <hl> On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS.

Two examples of animal species recently delisted are: <hl> the Virginia northern flying squirrel <hl> (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been listed since 1985, and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS). On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS.


Question: How long had the squirrel been listed as endangered?

Answer: listed since 1985

<hl> Two examples of animal species recently delisted are: the Virginia northern flying squirrel (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been listed since 1985 , and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS). <hl> On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS.

Two examples of animal species recently delisted are: the Virginia northern flying squirrel (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been <hl> listed since 1985 <hl>, and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS). On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS.

Two examples of animal species recently delisted are: the Virginia northern flying squirrel (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been <hl> listed since 1985 <hl> , and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS).


Question: Which president signed an Act directing the delisting of the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf?

Answer: President Obama

Two examples of animal species recently delisted are: the Virginia northern flying squirrel (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been listed since 1985, and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS). <hl> On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. <hl> A section of that Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS.

Two examples of animal species recently delisted are: the Virginia northern flying squirrel (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been listed since 1985, and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS). On April 15, 2011, <hl> President Obama <hl> signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS.


Question: As of September 2012, how many species had been delisted due to recovery?

As of September 2012, fifty-six species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction (seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. Twenty-five others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status.

Answer: twenty-eight

<hl> As of September 2012, fifty-six species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction (seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. <hl> Twenty-five others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status.

As of September 2012, fifty-six species have been delisted; <hl> twenty-eight <hl> due to recovery, ten due to extinction (seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. Twenty-five others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status.


Question: Of the ten species removed due to extinction, how many are believe to have already been extinct when listed?

Answer: seven

<hl> As of September 2012, fifty-six species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction ( seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. <hl> Twenty-five others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status.

As of September 2012, fifty-six species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction (<hl> seven <hl> of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. Twenty-five others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status.

As of September 2012, fifty-six species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction ( <hl> seven <hl> of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting.


Question: How many species have been downgraded from endangered to threatened status?

Answer: Twenty-five

As of September 2012, fifty-six species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction (seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. <hl> Twenty-five others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status. <hl>

As of September 2012, fifty-six species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction (seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. <hl> Twenty-five <hl> others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status.


Question: How many species were delisted due to discoveries of new populations?

Answer: six

<hl> As of September 2012, fifty- six species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction (seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. <hl> Twenty-five others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status.

As of September 2012, fifty-<hl> six <hl> species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction (seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. Twenty-five others have been down listed from "endangered" to "threatened" status.

As of September 2012, fifty- <hl> six <hl> species have been delisted; twenty-eight due to recovery, ten due to extinction (seven of which are believed to have been extinct prior to being listed), ten due to changes in taxonomic classification practices, six due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting.