KDM we have a couple endangered species of butterfly here in ND the Dakota Skipper and the Powesheik skipperling. There have been a couple meetings here in ND about the designation of these species and the acres involved in the critical habitat designation. One was held in Minot which I attended.
It was an informative meeting in which the Federal biologists with the USF&WS assured the attendees of the very things you mention to ease those concerns of the ranchers whose lands where under this critical habitat designation. Right up until a couple questions were asked.
1. What if I have easements with Federal agencies on my private lands.
2. What if one of my cows is determined to have been the cause of a
"take" of one of these endangered species on private lands.
The answers provided by the Federal biologists at that meeting were roughly as follows.
1. Dependant on the determinations of what is necessary for the protection of these endangered species under a critical habitat designation, activites MAY be restricted if it is determined they may have been directly involved in a "take" of an endangered species.
2. Dependant on the determinations of what is necessary for the protection of these endangered species under a critical habitat designation activites MAY be restricted if it is determined they may have been directly involved in a "take" of an endangered species and the possibility of substantial fines does exist.
https://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/factsheets/ESA Landowner Fact Sheet_080713.pdf
What are the impacts of a Federal
listing to private landowners and private
property?
The Endangered Species Act
(ESA) protects endangered and
threatened species and their
habitats by prohibiting the “take”
of listed animals and the interstate
or international trade in listed
plants and animals, including
their parts and products, except
under Federal permit. Such
permits generally are available for
conservation and scientific purposes.
In addition, section 7 of the ESA
requires that other Federal agencies
“consult” with the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to ensure that their
actions are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a listed
species or adversely modify its
habitat.
Thus, Federal agencies
must consult with the FWS about an
endangered or threatened species
for an activity that occurs on private
land where a Federal agency funds,
authorizes or carries out an activity.
Private landowners who rely on
Federal lands for activities such
as grazing, energy development or
recreation could also be affected.
What is “Take”?
The ESA makes it unlawful for
a person to take a listed animal
without a permit. Take is defined
as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect or attempt to engage in any
such conduct.”
The take prohibition
encompasses significant habitat
modification or degradation that
results in the direct killing or injury
to listed animal species. Listed plants
are not protected from take, although
it is illegal to collect or maliciously
harm them on Federal land.
Protection from commercial trade
and the effects of Federal actions do
apply for plants. In addition, States
may have their own laws restricting
activity involving listed species
We are talking about the impacts these perpetual easements with Federal agencies within the govt have on the land owner correct?
Any lands with an easement with a Federal agency can indeed be impacted as what is allowed under that easement,
which the govt retains the right to modify, under a critical habitat designation.
When asked to put it in simple terms the Federal biologist at that meeting said that if it was determined cattle grazing was directly involved in the "take" of one of these butterfly species on private lands, (significant habitat modification or degradation) activities that led to the "take" of an endangered species could be limited thru the courts EVEN ON PRIVATE LANDS WITH NO FEDERAL EASEMENTS.
Those in attendance were also told that a private land owner whose private lands fell under a critical habitat designations could not stop a Federal employee investigating a "take" of an endangered species from entering into their private lands.
kdm, remember the spotted owl?
http://www.americanbar.org/content/...rea_e_newsletter_home/realestate_ferrell.html
Logging on Private Land and the Endangered Species Act
By Jessica K. FerrellWhen clearing timber or developing their property, private landowners must comply with state forest practices laws and, if protected species or habitat are present, the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). If a plaintiff can show that there is a reasonable likelihood of future habitat modification that is reasonably certain to injure the protected species by impairing their essential behavioral patterns, for example, he may be able to obtain a preliminary injunction under the ESA to stop logging. Accordingly, the logging or developer client should be cognizant of multiple state and federal laws and regulations, including the ESA, and understand that even if regulatory bodies acquiesce or approve of the landowner’s plans, development and clearing practices could still be subject to a challenge and injunction.In the Pacific Northwest, for instance, courts have enjoined public and private land clearing to protect the Northern Spotted Owl (“spotted owl”). Most recently, a federal district court in Washington issued a preliminary injunction under the ESA barring the Weyerhaeuser Company from logging its own land in Southwest Washington. Seattle Audubon Society v. Sutherland, No. 06-1608, 2007 WL 2220256 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 1, 2007) appears to be thesecond ESA case to halt logging on private land on account of the spotted owl.[SUP]1 [/SUP]The lawsuit is part of a larger controversy regarding endangered species and forest practice regulation, involving federal and state regulators, the timber industry, private landowners, and conservation groups.
I believe there has been 34 cases where this has happened under the ESA.
Kdm what do you suppose the response would be to a sportsman pulling onto a logging companies office to ask permission to hunt when the logging company owner sees a Seattle Audubon Society sticker in his window?
Additionally IMO those sportsmen that are advocating for and supporting orgs that are pushing for further expansion of these critical habitat designations under the ESA are indeed accountable to learn what the impacts are of what they are supporting and advocating for.
If a sportsmen supports by giving monies to an org that pushes thru the courts to expand these endangered species listings and then says they can not figure out why land owners such as farmers and and ranchers are upset when they pull into their yard to seek permission to hunt with a Center for Biological Diversity or Save the Greater Sage Grouse sticker on their pickup how is that not THEIR responsibility?
The same can be said of those sportsmen that support those orgs pushing for the expansion and use of perpetual easements to control habitat given the facts of the correlating actions that this can lead to .
- - - Updated - - -
Pretty good information about how some groups use this Act and the courts to ultimately impact private land usage.
"Environmental groups supporting the current Endangered Species Act (ESA) do not view private property rights as one of their policy goals. Many of these groups support the current version of the ESA and its regulatory requirements concerning the protection of species' habitats on private land, such as the federal prohibition against modifying habitats and taking species."
https://ballotpedia.org/Private_property_and_the_Endangered_Species_Act
ESA and private property
Current endangered species policy widely prohibits human activity around a listed animal species, especially harmful contact. Federal law makes the taking of an animal species on the endangered or threatened species list illegal. The Fish and Wildlife Service defines "harm" to a listed species as "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife," as well as any significant modifications to a species' habitat. This second provision is relevant for private property use. Private landowners are prohibited from making significant modifications to their land if their proposed modification ends up changing a listed species' habitat. This prohibition can be extended to include private land that could potentially house nearby populations of a listed species, even if the land is not currently inhabited by that species. Private landowners can face up to $25,000 in federal fines if they knowingly "take" a listed animal (taking also includes significant land modification on or near a listed species' habitat). Landowners can be fined up to $500 for each violation if they "take" a listed animal species unknowingly.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP]
Private landowners who wish to comply with the law, but still modify their land, must receive an "incidental take permit," which is a federal permit authorizing the incidental taking of a listed species, even if that species is potentially harmed. Before a permit is granted, property owners must submit a "habitat conservation plan," which must contain information on the relevant and predicted effects of the landowner's taking of an animal species, how those effects will be "minimized" and/or "mitigated," and how the plan will be financed. Landowners must also demonstrate that they have considered all possible protective actions for the listed animal species before deciding upon a final habitat conservation plan
- - - Updated - - -
Note the red statement in the above information.
Even if the species in not on land currently, if there exists a potential for them to be that land can fall under restriction limitations.
Hard to share factual info in a short summary. Hope this helps.
