Opposition to Native Species Protection Act
SUMMARY
The Animal Law Committee opposes the Native Species Protection Act, which would remove “intrastate species” from the scope of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) of 1973, or any other provision of law under which regulatory authority is based on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. The Bill defines an “intrastate species” as any species of plant or fish or wildlife that is found entirely within the borders of a single state and that is not part of a national market for any commodity. Despite its name, the law would not protect native species but, rather, remove roughly 50 animal species that exist only in one state from protection under the ESA. The report discusses why the bill should not be enacted into law, including that it undermines the goals of the ESA, would deprive states of potential federal support and disproportionately affect states like Alabama, Florida, and Texas, would imperil the survival of endangered and threatened species in states where current laws do not effectively protect those species, and would frustrate the United States’ obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES).
Originally issued May 2018; Reissued February 2022
BILL INFORMATION
S.2070 (Sen. Lee) – prohibits an intrastate species from being subject to (1) regulation governing the protection of endangered or threatened species, or (2) provisions of law under which regulatory authority is based on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (117th Congress); S.1863 (115th Congress)
REPORT
REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE
S.2070 (Sen. Lee)
A BILL to clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within the borders of a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to regulation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or any other provision of law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Native Species Protection Act
THIS LEGISLATION IS OPPOSED
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LAW
Senate Bill No. 2070, the Native Species Protection Act (the “Bill”), would remove “intrastate species” from the scope of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) of 1973, or any other provision of law under which regulatory authority is based on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. The Bill would also provide that an intrastate species shall not be considered to be in interstate commerce. The Bill defines an “intrastate species” as any species of plant or fish or wildlife that is “found entirely within the borders of a single State”[1] and that is “not part of a national market for any commodity.”[2]
Despite its name, the Native Species Protection Act does not protect native species; instead, by undermining the protections of the ESA, it puts intrastate species at risk and may have a devastating effect on biodiversity, thus impacting interstate species.[3] If the Bill passes, roughly 350 animal species that exist purely within one state,[4] such as the Nashville crayfish and the Utah prairie dog,[5] will no longer be protected by the ESA.
This report discusses the reasons why the Bill should not be enacted into law: (i) the Bill undermines the goals of the ESA; (ii) its reach is vaguely stated and it is unclear which species it would cover; (iii) it would frustrate the United States’ obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES); (iv) it would deprive states of potential federal support, disproportionately affecting states including Alabama, Florida, and Texas; and (v) it would imperil the survival of endangered and threatened species because many states’ current laws do not effectively protect those species.
II. JUSTIFICATION
A. The Bill Undermines the Goals of the Endangered Species Act.
The ESA was enacted almost fifty years ago with the goal of conserving plant and animal species that may become extinct without government protection.[6] It establishes a broad federal regulatory scheme that protects these species and, significantly, does so without distinguishing between species that cross state borders and species that do not.[7] Such species include those whose natural distribution is within only one state, those that are distributed in multiple states and/or foreign countries, those that live in oceans, and those whose natural distribution is only in foreign countries.[8] That lack of distinction makes sense: if the purpose of the ESA is to conserve endangered or threatened species, it should not matter where the species may be found.
The ESA’s protections of endangered or threatened species consist in bans of their (i) “take”;[9] (ii) sale, possession, delivery, carrying, transport, or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce;[10] (iii) export from the United States;[11] (iv) delivery, receipt, carry, transport, or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity;[12] and (v) sale or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.[13] The ESA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make exceptions to these prohibitions.[14] The Secretary may, for example, issue a permit authorizing the incidental “take” of an endangered or threatened animal in connection with an otherwise lawful activity,[15] such as the erection of a bridge or a real estate development.[16] The ESA also provides federal funding to states to help them protect endangered and threatened species.[17] The ESA’s protections have been effective at protecting at-risk species. The ESA has saved several animal species from the brink of extinction, including the bald eagle, the American alligator, the peregrine falcon, and the brown pelican.[18] Scientists believe that without the ESA’s protections, 291 species would have gone extinct.[19]
Stating that the purpose of the bill is “to clarify” suggests there is ambiguity as to whether noncommercial, intrastate species are protected under the ESA. This is a misleading suggestion. The application of the ESA to intrastate species is a valid exercise of federal legislative authority under the Commerce Clause—this has been the conclusion of every federal appeals court that has faced the issue.[20] In Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Kempthorne, for instance, the Eleventh Circuit found that the ESA applied to the Alabama sturgeon—an entirely intrastate species with little commercial value—because “a species’ scientific or other commercial value is not dependent on whether its habitat straddles a state line.”[21] Similarly, in GDF Realty Investments, Ltd. v. Norton, the Fifth Circuit held that applying the ESA to species found in only two Texas counties was constitutionally sound, as the intrastate regulation was an “essential part” of ESA’s broader economic regulatory scheme.[22] The Fourth Circuit reached a similar conclusion with respect to the North Carolina red wolf,[23] noting further that finding otherwise “would place in peril the entire federal regulatory scheme for wildlife and natural resource.”[24]
That is precisely what this Bill does: it compromises the ESA’s broader regulatory scheme by stripping legal protections from a large number of the species currently protected by the ESA, which in turn undermines the ESA’s goal of conserving endangered and threatened species.[25] Not surprisingly, several organizations oppose the Bill, including the Humane Society of the U.S.,[26] Defenders of Wildlife,[27] Union of Concerned Scientists[28] and the Center for Biological Diversity.[29]
B. The Bill’s Reach Is Vaguely Stated and It Is Unclear What Species It Would Cover.
The Bill defines an “intrastate species” as any species of plant or fish or wildlife that meets these two criteria: (i) it is found entirely within the borders of a single state[30] and (ii) it is not part of a national market for any commodity.[31]
While the first criterion may be straightforward, the second criterion is vague. At present, all species found entirely within the borders of a single state would meet the second criterion—that is, they would not be part of a national market for any commodity—because the ESA bans all trade in endangered and threatened species.[32] If the Bill became law, however, it is not clear how the law would be applied or how much interstate trade would be required before a species is considered to be “part of a national market for any commodity.” Indeed, it is not obvious what “part of a national market” means or what a “commodity” would be in this context. For example, some species of crayfish are sold to restaurants located throughout the United States. Is this enough to bring the four species of endangered crayfish under the purview of this second criterion? Is the fact that turtles are sold in the national pet trade enough to cover all endangered and threatened reptiles in their order?[33] Is the fact that fish are sold as food to restaurants enough to cover all endangered and threatened species within the fish phylum?[34] These are just some questions raised by the Bill.
Another area of confusion is whether a “national market” under the Bill includes illegal trade.[35] For example, the population of the endangered Puerto Rican parrot (which was nearly wiped out after Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017) had been driven close to extinction in the 1970s in part due to the illegal pet trade.
Yet another issue is how much trade would be required to render a species part of a “national market”—whether a few interstate trades would qualify or if more significant trade would be required. Notably, the species listed under the ESA are so listed because their populations are threatened, and in some cases, very small in number. If a substantial amount of interstate trade in a species is required before the species may be covered by the ESA, the species might be practically foreclosed from such protection—or it may well be too late to save the species.
Also, we note that the Bill’s definition does not mention international trade. So, perversely, while there may be an international market for the sales of an intrastate species, this species might still not qualify for protection under the ESA because a “national” market does not exist. See the discussion of CITES that follows.
C. The Bill Would Frustrate the United States’ Obligations Under CITES.
Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES), the federal government has an obligation to the international community to protect certain endangered or threatened species. Yet if the federal government were to lack jurisdiction over the CITES-covered species that exist purely within one state’s borders—as would be the case under the Bill—the Unites States’ efforts to comply with CITES would be frustrated.
CITES[36] is an international agreement between 183 member nations—including the United States—that protects endangered nonnative species from international wildlife trafficking. Significantly, CITES covers some species that would be covered by the Bill’s definition of “intrastate species”—for example, the Puerto Rican parrot, the Hawaiian monk seal, the Hawaiian Laysan duck, and Oahu tree snail (all listed in CITES Appendix I),[37] as well as the Attwater’s greater prairie-chicken (listed in CITES Appendix II).[38]
Article IX of CITES requires that each member nation designate a national Management Authority and a national Scientific Authority—in the United States, the Secretary of the Interior.[39] Management Authorities and Scientific Authorities have several duties under CITES. As one example, when the CITES Secretariat notifies a member nation (through its Management Authority) that a species listed in a CITES Appendix is adversely affected by trade or that the nation is not effectively implementing the Convention, the Management Authority must propose a remedial plan.[40] If the federal government were to lack jurisdiction over some of the species protected by CITES, however, it is unclear how the United States could meet this duty under CITES.
D. The Bill Would Deprive States of Potential Federal Support, Disproportionately Affecting States including Alabama, Florida, and Texas.
If the federal government cut funding to protect endangered and threatened intrastate species—which would effectively happen as a result of the Bill—then most states would lack financial resources to protect those species.[41]
The ESA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide federal funds and other support to states to help them protect endangered and threatened species listed under the ESA regulations.[42] Much innovative environmental activity by states has been partly funded by federal grants. Indeed, federal grants generally provide a quarter to a third of funding for state environmental programs (and up to 70% at the highest level).[43] Yet under the Bill such funding would no longer be available to assist in development of programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened intrastate species. Nor would funding be on hand to assist in monitoring the status of those intrastate species that are candidates for protection under the ESA.
Moreover, this loss of federal funding would unevenly affect states. New York State, for example, would likely feel little impact because it has only one endangered or threatened animal species located solely within its borders: the Chittenango ovate amber snail. New York has received support from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to protect these snails, which number fewer than 100 in the wild.[44] The remaining 14 ESA protected endangered or threatened animal species in New York State also live in other states, and so New York could continue to receive federal support to aid in the conservation of such “interstate” species.
But certain states—including Alabama, Florida, Texas, California, and Hawaii (which have, respectively, 23, 26, 41, 64, and 74 endangered or threatened animal species strictly within their state borders—would lose the potential to receive federal funding to support these species. This would particularly harm Alabama, which has relatively low state spending on endangered species[45] and has lost more species to extinction than any other state except Hawaii,[46] and receives significant federal funding.[47] (For example, in 2020, the Fish and Wildlife Service awarded a grant of $9 million to Alabama to advance the recovery of the Red Hills salamander.[48]) And it would similarly hurt Puerto Rico, which has 15 such species and is currently in bankruptcy and struggles to balance its budget each year.[49] Without federal funds, these states and territory would have to divert more of their taxes from other programs to ensure the survival of their intrastate species.
In addition to losing grant funds and other federal support resources, states would unevenly be affected by the lack of federal law enforcement resources. The ESA is enforced by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which has the authority to investigate wildlife crimes and to refer violations of the law to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution. By removing species found within a single state from the ESA’s purview, states would no longer benefit from the federal government’s robust law enforcement resources with respect to those species.
E. The Survival of Endangered and Threatened Species Would Be Imperiled Because Many States’ Current Laws Do Not Effectively Protect Those Species.
The Bill opens the door to a wave of commercial activity flowing to states with lax environmental and endangered species laws.[50] Indeed, the D.C. Circuit noted as much in upholding the ESA’s application to an insect found solely in California: “Congress passed the [ESA] in part to prevent states from gaining a competitive advantage by enacting lower regulatory standards than other states.”[51]
State laws that protect endangered and threatened animal species vary widely,[52] with most states’ laws and state-level experience inadequate to protect such species.[53] For instance, Utah,[54] West Virginia,[55] and Wyoming[56] have no state endangered species acts and rely on the federal ESA or nongame conservation programs to protect endangered or threatened species.[57] Alabama[58] and Arkansas[59] have regulations listing endangered and protected species, but have no programs of protection except for their nongame programs.[60] Thirty-eight states provide no legal authority to protect the habitats where endangered or threatened species live (known as “critical habitats” or “essential habitats”).[61]
The costs to these states to pass new laws to protect their intrastate endangered and threatened species are significant. They include (i) developing, drafting, and passing legislation; (ii) creating new policy programs; (iii) drafting, and implementing regulations; (iv) defending the new statutes and regulations from legal challenges; (v) educating the public; and (vi) monitoring, and enforcing regulatory compliance, to name a few.[62] As noted above, these costs would divert state resources from programs currently in place.[63] These significant costs could stymie any new efforts to protect intrastate species that would lose ESA protection under the Bill.
In addition, the federal government has the ability and resources to create comprehensive species recovery plans. Most states are unfamiliar with creating these plans themselves and currently lack the ability to do so.[64]
III. OPPOSING ARGUMENTS
Proponents of the Bill claim it simply seeks to limit “federal mismanagement of numerous species,” instead “authoriz[ing] state wildlife management authorities, in cooperation with local communities, to develop balanced conservation plans that meet the needs of state-specific species and affected areas.”[65]
We agree that states have an enormous and critical wealth of local knowledge about the species within their state borders and their habitat and that they therefore should be involved in conservation plans.[66] But for the reasons explained above, states need complementary federal resources to effectively protect endangered and threatened species within their borders. Although we disagree that there is significant “federal mismanagement” in protecting species, we do think that certain improvements in the actual administration of the law could be made. For instance, Congress could be more helpful by better funding federal efforts to implement the ESA, as such efforts have been underfunded for decades.[67] But by altogether withdrawing federal law and resources through this Bill, Congress would only further imperil intrastate species that are already on the brink of extinction.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Committee opposes the proposed legislation.
Animal Law Committee
Robyn S. Hederman, Co-Chair
Rebecca Seltzer, Co-Chair
Updated and Reissued February 2022*
* This report was first issued by the Animal Law Committee in May 2018, during the term of chair Lori Barrett-Peterson.
EXHIBIT A
The following is a list of the animal species that would meet the first criterion in the Bill’s definition of an “intrastate species” because they are found “entirely within the borders of a single State.” We assume that all such animal species currently meet the definition’s second criterion that they not be “part of a national market for any commodity” because the ESA prohibits trade in endangered and threatened species.[68]
|
1. |
Enhydra lutris kenyoni |
Northern Sea Otter |
AK; Coastal waters and shoreline from west side of Cook Inlet west throughout the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, north to Egegik Bay; Southwest Alaska, from Attu Island to Western Cook Inlet, including Bristol Bay, the Kodiak Archipelago, and the Barren Islands |
Threatened |
|
2. |
Cambarus cracens |
Slenderclaw crayfish |
AL |
Endangered |
|
3. |
Elassoma alabamae |
Spring pygmy sunfish |
AL |
Threatened |
|
4. |
Necturus alabamensis |
Black warrior (=Sipsey Fork) Waterdog |
AL |
Endangered |
|
5. |
Sternotherus depressus |
Flattened musk turtle |
AL; Black Warrior R. system upstream from Bankhead Dam |
Threatened |
|
6. |
Campeloma decampi |
Slender campeloma |
AL |
Endangered |
|
7. |
Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus) |
Pygmy Sculpin |
AL |
Threatened |
|
8. |
Elimia crenatella |
Lacy elimia (snail) |
AL |
Threatened |
|
9. |
Etheostoma chermocki |
Vermilion darter |
AL |
Endangered |
|
10. |
Etheostoma nuchale |
Watercress darter |
AL |
Endangered |
|
11. |
Etheostoma phytophilum |
Rush Darter |
AL |
Endangered |
|
12. |
Leptoxis ampla |
Round rocksnail |
AL |
Threatened |
|
13. |
Leptoxis plicata |
Plicate rocksnail |
AL |
Endangered |
|
14. |
Leptoxis taeniata |
Painted rocksnail |
AL |
Threatened |
|
15. |
Lepyrium showalteri |
Flat pebblesnail |
AL |
Endangered |
|
16. |
Margaritifera marrianae |
Alabama pearlshell |
AL |
Endangered |
|
17. |
Notropis cahabae |
Cahaba shiner |
AL |
Endangered |
|
18. |
Palaemonias alabamae |
Alabama cave shrimp |
AL |
Endangered |
|
19. |
Phaeognathus hubrichti |
Red Hills salamander |
AL |
Threatened |
|
20. |
Pleurobema furvum |
Dark pigtoe |
AL |
Endangered |
|
21. |
Pleurocera foremani |
Rough hornsnail |
AL |
Endangered |
|
22. |
Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta |
Armored snail |
AL |
Endangered |
|
23. |
Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni |
Alabama cavefish |
AL |
Endangered |
|
24. |
Tulotoma magnifica |
Tulotoma snail |
AL |
Threatened |
|
25. |
Peromyscus polionotus ammobates |
Alabama beach mouse |
AL |
Endangered |
|
26. |
Lampsilis streckeri |
Speckled pocketbook |
AR; Little Red River watershed, Arkansas; U.S.A. (AR) Endemic to Little Red River system in Boston Mountain region of north central Arkansas. Extant populations are known from the South, Archey, Middle, Beech, and Devils Forks of the Little Red River and Turkey Creek and Big Creek. |
Endangered |
|
27. |
Cambarus zophonastes |
Hell Creek Cave crayfish |
AR |
Endangered |
|
28. |
Etheostoma moorei |
Yellowcheek Darter |
AR |
Endangered |
|
29. |
Lampsilis powellii |
Arkansas fatmucket |
AR |
Threatened |
|
30. |
Eua zebrina |
Snail [no common name] |
AS |
Endangered |
|
31. |
Ostodes strigatus |
Snail [no common name] |
AS |
Endangered |
|
32. |
Gallicolumba stairi |
Friendly Ground-Dove |
AS |
Endangered |
|
33. |
Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale |
Sonoyta mud turtle |
AZ |
Endangered |
|
34. |
Lepidomeda vittata |
Little Colorado spinedace |
AZ |
Threatened |
|
35. |
Oncorhynchus apache |
Apache trout |
AZ |
Threatened |
|
36. |
Pyrgulopsis trivialis |
Three Forks Springsnail |
AZ |
Endangered |
|
37. |
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis |
Mount Graham red squirrel |
AZ |
Endangered |
|
38. |
Pipilo crissalis eremophilus |
Inyo California towhee |
CA |
Threatened |
|
39. |
Rana muscosa |
Mountain yellow-legged frog |
CA |
Endangered |
|
40. |
Hypomesus transpacificus |
Delta smelt |
CA; Delta smelt are found within the defined “legal” delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and the waterways of the Suisun Marsh Complex. Their range extends east of the Carquinez Bridge near Vallejo, south of the I Street Bridge in Sacramento and north of the convergence of the Stanislaus and San Joaquin Rivers |
Threatened |
|
41. |
Urocyon littoralis catalinae |
Santa Catalina Island Fox |
CA |
Threatened |
|
42. |
Ambystoma californiense |
California tiger Salamander |
CA |
Endangered/Threatened |
|
43. |
Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum |
Santa Cruz long-toed salamander |
CA |
Endangered |
|
44. |
Amphispiza belli clementeae |
San Clemente sage sparrow |
CA |
Threatened |
|
45. |
Apodemia mormo langei |
Lange’s metalmark butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
46. |
Batrachoseps aridus |
Desert slender salamander |
CA |
Endangered |
|
47. |
Branchinecta conservatio |
Conservancy fairy shrimp |
CA |
Endangered |
|
48. |
Branchinecta longiantenna |
Longhorn fairy shrimp |
CA |
Endangered |
|
49. |
Branchinecta sandiegonensis |
San Diego fairy shrimp |
CA |
Endangered |
|
50. |
Callophrys mossii bayensis |
San Bruno elfin butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
51. |
Catostomus santaanae
|
Santa Ana sucker |
CA |
Threatened |
|
52. |
Cicindela ohlone |
Ohlone tiger beetle |
CA |
Endangered |
|
53. |
Cyprinodon radiosus |
Owens pupfish |
CA |
Endangered |
|
54. |
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus |
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle |
CA |
Threatened |
|
55. |
Dinacoma caseyi |
Casey’s June Beetle |
CA |
Endangered |
|
56. |
Elaphrus viridis |
Delta green ground beetle |
CA |
Threatened |
|
57. |
Euphilotes battoides allyni |
El Segundo blue butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
58. |
Euphilotes enoptes smithi |
Smith’s blue butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
59. |
Euphydryas editha bayensis |
Bay checkerspot butterfly |
CA |
Threatened |
|
60. |
Euproserpinus euterpe |
Kern primrose sphinx moth |
CA |
Threatened |
|
61. |
Gambelia silus |
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard |
CA |
Endangered |
|
62. |
Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni |
Unarmored threespine stickleback |
CA |
Endangered |
|
63. |
Gila bicolor ssp. mohavensis |
Mohave tui chub |
CA |
Endangered |
|
64. |
Gila bicolor ssp. snyderi |
Owens Tui Chub |
CA |
Endangered |
|
65. |
Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis |
Palos Verdes blue butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
66. |
Helminthoglypta walkeriana |
Morro shoulderband (=Banded dune) snail |
CA |
Endangered |
|
67. |
Icaricia icarioides missionensis |
Mission blue butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
68. |
Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi |
San Clemente loggerhead shrike |
CA |
Endangered |
|
69. |
Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis |
Lotis blue butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
70. |
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus |
Alameda whipsnake (=striped racer) |
CA |
Threatened |
|
71. |
Microtus californicus scirpensis |
Amargosa vole |
CA |
Endangered |
|
72. |
Neotoma fuscipes riparia |
Riparian woodrat (=San Joaquin Valley) |
CA |
Endangered |
|
73. |
Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei |
Little Kern golden trout |
CA |
Threatened |
|
74. |
Oncorhynchus clarkii seleniris |
Paiute cutthroat trout |
CA |
Threatened |
|
75. |
Pacifastacus fortis |
Shasta crayfish |
CA |
Endangered |
|
76. |
Polyphylla barbata |
Mount Hermon June beetle |
CA |
Endangered |
|
77. |
Pyrgus ruralis lagunae |
Laguna Mountains skipper |
CA |
Endangered |
|
78. |
Rallus longirostris obsoletus |
California clapper rail |
CA |
Endangered |
|
79. |
Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis |
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
80. |
Sorex ornatus relictus |
Buena Vista Lake ornate Shrew |
CA |
Endangered |
|
81. |
Speyeria callippe callippe |
Callippe silverspot butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
82. |
Speyeria zerene behrensii |
Behren’s silverspot butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
83. |
Speyeria zerene myrtleae |
Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly |
CA |
Endangered |
|
84. |
Streptocephalus woottoni |
Riverside fairy shrimp |
CA |
Endangered |
|
85. |
Sylvilagus bachmani riparius |
Riparian brush rabbit |
CA |
Endangered |
|
86. |
Syncaris pacifica |
California freshwater shrimp |
CA |
Endangered |
|
87. |
Thamnophis gigas |
Giant garter snake |
CA |
Threatened |
|
88. |
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia |
San Francisco garter snake |
CA |
Endangered |
|
89. |
Trimerotropis infantilis |
Zayante band-winged grasshopper |
CA |
Endangered |
|
90. |
Uma inornata |
Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard |
CA |
Threatened |
|
91. |
Ovis canadensis nelsoni |
Peninsular bighorn sheep |
CA |
Endangered |
|
92. |
Ovis canadensis sierrae |
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep |
CA |
Endangered |
|
93. |
Aplodontia rufa nigra |
Point Arena mountain beaver |
CA |
Endangered |
|
94. |
Dipodomys heermanni morroensis |
Morro Bay kangaroo rat |
CA |
Endangered |
|
95. |
Dipodomys ingens |
Giant kangaroo rat |
CA |
Endangered |
|
96. |
Dipodomys merriami parvus |
San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat |
CA |
Endangered |
|
97. |
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis |
Fresno kangaroo rat |
CA |
Endangered |
|
98. |
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides |
Tipton kangaroo rat |
CA |
Endangered |
|
99. |
Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus) |
Stephens’ kangaroo rat |
CA |
Endangered |
|
100. |
Perognathus longimembris pacificus |
Pacific pocket mouse |
CA |
Endangered |
|
101. |
Reithrodontomys raviventris |
Salt marsh harvest mouse |
CA |
Endangered |
|
102. |
Vulpes macrotis mutica |
San Joaquin kit fox |
CA |
Endangered |
|
103. |
Boloria acrocnema |
Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly |
CO |
Endangered |
|
104. |
Hesperia leonardus montana |
Pawnee montane skipper |
CO |
Threatened |
|
105. |
Anaea troglodyta floridalis |
Florida leafwing Butterfly |
FL |
Endangered |
|
106. |
Cicindelidia floridana |
Miami tiger beetle |
FL |
Endangered |
|
107. |
Odocoileus virginianus clavium |
Key deer |
FL; Entire |
Endangered |
|
108. |
Strymon acis bartrami |
Bartram’s hairstreak Butterfly |
FL |
Endangered |
|
109. |
Procambarus econfinae |
Panama City crayfish |
FL |
Threatened |
|
110. |
Polyborus plancus audubonii |
Audubon’s crested caracara |
FL |
Threatened |
|
111. |
Eumops floridanus |
Florida bonneted bat |
FL; Includes all of Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Highlands, Lee, and Miami-Dade Counties, and portions of Broward, De Soto, Hardee, Hendry, Okeechobee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Polk, Sarasota, and Monroe Counties. |
Endangered |
|
112. |
Canis rufus |
Red wolf |
FL; Presumed extinct in wild except experimental populations in NC & TN |
Endangered |
|
113. |
Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris |
Southeastern beach mouse |
FL; Range includes the beach and coastal scrub found in Brevard, Indian River, and Volusia Counties in Florida. |
Threatened |
|
114. |
Peromyscus polionotus phasma |
Anastasia Island beach mouse |
FL; Range includes the coastal areas in St. Johns County, Florida. Mainly found at Anastasia State Park and Ft. Matanzas National Monument. |
Endangered |
|
115. |
Nerodia clarkii taeniata |
Atlantic salt marsh snake |
FL; The Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake Recovery Plan (1993) and the South Florida Multi Species Recovery Plan (1999) indicate the Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake’s range may be more restricted than thought at the time of listing (1977). The zone of intergradation appears to coincide with the increasing dominance of mangroves swamps in Brevard County. Thus, the brackish, coastal marshes of Volusia County, from the Halifax River south to the northern portions of the Indian River are where the ASMS likely occurs (Service 1993 and 1999). |
Threatened |
|
116. |
Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli |
Florida salt marsh vole |
FL; The Florida Salt Marsh Vole is an endemic to the coastal salt marsh of the central Gulf coast of Florida. Until 2004, it was known to occur only from the type locality along the shore of Waccasassa Bay, east of Cedar Key, Levy County, Florida. In 2004, Lower Suwannee NWR staff documented the presence of the Florida Salt Marsh Vole five miles northwest of the type locality on the southern section of the refuge. |
Endangered |
|
117. |
Etheostoma okaloosae |
Okaloosa darter |
FL; The Okaloosa darter is known only from six small basins (467 km2 total area) that drain into Boggy Bayou and Rocky Bayou of Choctawhatchee Bay: Toms, Turkey, Mill, Swift, East Turkey, and Rocky creeks. |
Threatened |
|
118. |
Palaemonetes cummingi |
Squirrel Chimney Cave shrimp |
FL; The Squirrel Chimney Cave Shrimp is only known from the Squirrel Chimney near Haile, Alachua County, Florida. This small, deep sinkhole that leads to a flooded cave system formed within the Crystal River Formation of the Ocala Group limestone. This formation underlies the Newberry Limestone Plain and is characteristic of karst topography. This relatively flat karst plain has numerous sinks and caves and connections between underground features do occur. Caves in this area support a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Several of the sink and cave systems within 5 miles are ecologically similar to Squirrel Chimney. There are similar assemblages of cavern dwelling species in these nearby underground sites, but no Squirrel Chimney Cave Shrimp have been documented. |
Threatened |
|
119. |
Aphelocoma coerulescens |
Florida scrub-jay |
FL; treeless or nearly treeless xeric vegetative communities throughout peninsular Florida. |
Threatened |
|
120. |
Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis |
Cape Sable seaside sparrow |
FL |
Endangered |
|
121. |
Ammodramus savannarum floridanus |
Florida grasshopper sparrow |
FL |
Endangered |
|
122. |
Eumeces egregius lividus |
Bluetail mole skink |
FL |
Threatened |
|
123. |
Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus |
Schaus swallowtail butterfly |
FL |
Endangered |
|
124. |
Neoseps reynoldsi |
Sand skink |
FL |
Threatened |
|
125. |
Neotoma floridana smalli |
Key Largo woodrat |
FL |
Endangered |
|
126. |
Orthalicus reses (not incl. nesodryas) |
Stock Island tree snail |
FL |
Threatened |
|
127. |
Oryzomys palustris natator |
Silver rice rat |
FL |
Endangered |
|
128. |
Sylvilagus palustris hefneri |
Lower Keys marsh rabbit |
FL |
Endangered |
|
129. |
Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola |
Key Largo cotton mouse |
FL |
Endangered |
|
130. |
Peromyscus polionotus allophrys |
Choctawhatchee beach mouse |
FL |
Endangered |
|
131. |
Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis |
St. Andrew beach mouse |
FL |
Endangered |
|
132. |
Elliptio spinosa |
Altamaha Spinymussel |
GA |
Endangered |
|
133. |
Etheostoma etowahae |
Etowah darter |
GA |
Endangered |
|
134. |
Etheostoma scotti |
Cherokee darter |
GA |
Threatened |
|
135. |
Partula radiolata |
Guam tree snail |
GU |
Endangered |
|
136. |
Pteropus tokudae |
Little Mariana fruit Bat |
GU; Entire; Possibly extinct, not reported since 1968 |
Endangered |
|
137. |
Rallus owstoni |
Guam rail |
GU; Western Pacific Ocean-U.S.A. (Guam) |
Endangered |
|
138. |
Drepanis coccinea |
`I`iwi |
HI |
Threatened |
|
139. |
Drosophila digressa |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
140. |
Hemignathus affinis |
Maui nukupuu |
HI |
Endangered |
|
141. |
Himantopus mexicanus knudseni |
Hawaiian stilt |
HI |
Endangered |
|
142. |
Hylaeus kuakea |
Hawaiian yellow-faced bee |
HI |
Endangered |
|
143. |
Hylaeus mana |
Hawaiian yellow-faced bee |
HI |
Endangered |
|
144. |
Megalagrion xanthomelas |
Orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
145. |
Myadestes lanaiensis rutha |
Molokai thrush |
HI |
Endangered |
|
146. |
Myadestes myadestinus |
Large Kauai (=kamao) Thrush |
HI |
Endangered |
|
147. |
Myadestes palmeri |
Small Kauai (=puaiohi) Thrush |
HI |
Endangered |
|
148. |
Newcombia cumingi |
Newcomb’s Tree snail |
HI |
Endangered |
|
149. |
Partulina semicarinata |
Lanai tree snail |
HI |
Endangered |
|
150. |
Partulina variabilis |
Lanai tree snail |
HI |
Endangered |
|
151. |
Vetericaris chaceorum |
Anchialine pool shrimp |
HI |
Endangered |
|
152. |
Procaris hawaiana |
Anchialine pool Shrimp |
HI; Currently in the state of Hawaii, there are estimated to be over 650 anchialine pools, approximately 90 percent of which occur on the island of Hawaii (Brock 2004, p. i). Of the approximately 585 anchialine pools found on the island of Hawaii, only 15 pools are known to contain Procaris hawaiiana. There are 12 pools at Manuka NAR (T. Sakihara, Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR), in litt., 2010) and 1 located at Lua o Palahemo, where P. hawaiiana co-occurs with Vetericaris chaceorum (Holthuis 1973, pp. 12-19; Maciolek 1983, pp. 607-614; Brock 2004, pp. 30-57), another candidate species. On Maui, Procaris hawaiana occurs in two pools at Ahihi-Kinau NAR (Holthuis 1973, pp. 12-19; Maciolek 1983, pp. 607-614; Brock 2004, pp. 30-57). |
Endangered |
|
153. |
Akialoa stejnegeri |
Kauai akialoa (honeycreeper) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
154. |
Puffinus auricularis newelli |
Newell’s Townsend’s shearwater |
HI |
Threatened |
|
155. |
Oceanodroma castro |
Band-rumped storm-petrel |
HI |
Endangered |
|
156. |
Hylaeus hilaris |
Hilaris yellow-faced bee |
HI; Believed to be extinct; Believed to be extinct. |
Endangered |
|
157. |
Adelocosa anops |
Kauai cave wolf or pe’e pe’e maka ‘ole spider |
HI; Entire |
Endangered |
|
158. |
Lasiurus cinereus semotus |
Hawaiian hoary bat |
HI; Entire |
Endangered |
|
159. |
Hylaeus assimulans |
Assimulans yellow-faced bee |
HI; Possibly extinct, not reported since 1965.; Possibly extinct,not reported since 1965 |
Endangered |
|
160. |
Hylaeus facilis |
Easy yellow-faced bee |
HI; Possibly extinct, not reported since 1965.; Possibly extinct,not reported since 1965 |
Endangered |
|
161. |
Hylaeus longiceps |
Hawaiian yellow-faced bee |
HI; Possibly extinct, not reported since 1965.; Possibly extinct,not reported since 1965 |
Endangered |
|
162. |
Hylaeus anthracinus |
Anthricinan yellow-faced bee |
HI; Possibly extinct, not reported since 1965; Possibly extinct, not reported since 1965.; Possibly extinct,not reported since 1965 |
Endangered |
|
163. |
Achatinella spp. |
Oahu tree snails |
HI |
Endangered |
|
164. |
Acrocephalus familiaris kingi |
Nihoa millerbird (old world warbler) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
165. |
Anas laysanensis |
Laysan duck |
HI |
Endangered |
|
166. |
Anas wyvilliana |
Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck |
HI |
Endangered |
|
167. |
Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis |
Hawaiian goose |
HI |
Endangered |
|
168. |
Buteo solitarius |
Hawaiian (=‘lo) Hawk |
HI |
Endangered |
|
169. |
Chasiempis ibidis |
Oahu elepaio |
HI |
Endangered |
|
170. |
Corvus hawaiiensis |
Hawaiian (=‘alala) Crow |
HI |
Endangered |
|
171. |
Drosophila aglaia |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
172. |
Drosophila differens |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
173. |
Drosophila hemipeza |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
174. |
Drosophila heteroneura |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
175. |
Drosophila montgomeryi |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
176. |
Drosophila mulli |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Threatened |
|
177. |
Drosophila musaphilia |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
178. |
Drosophila neoclavisetae |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
179. |
Drosophila obatai |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
180. |
Drosophila ochrobasis |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
181. |
Drosophila sharpi |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
182. |
Drosophila substenoptera |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
183. |
Drosophila tarphytrichia |
Hawaiian picture-wing fly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
184. |
Erinna newcombi |
Newcomb’s snail |
HI |
Threatened |
|
185. |
Fulica americana alai |
Hawaiian coot |
HI |
Endangered |
|
186. |
Gallinula galeata sandvicensis |
Hawaiian common gallinule |
HI |
Endangered |
|
187. |
Hemignathus hanapepe |
Kauai nukupuu |
HI |
Endangered |
|
188. |
Hemignathus wilsoni |
akiapolaau |
HI |
Endangered |
|
189. |
Loxioides bailleui |
Palila (honeycreeper) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
190. |
Loxops caeruleirostris |
Akekee |
HI |
Endangered |
|
191. |
Loxops coccineus |
Hawaii akepa |
HI |
Endangered |
|
192. |
Loxops ochraceus |
Maui akepa |
HI |
Endangered |
|
193. |
Manduca blackburni |
Blackburn’s sphinx moth |
HI |
Endangered |
|
194. |
Megalagrion leptodemas |
Crimson Hawaiian damselfly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
195. |
Megalagrion nesiotes |
Flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
196. |
Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrolineatum |
Blackline Hawaiian damselfly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
197. |
Megalagrion oceanicum |
Oceanic Hawaiian damselfly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
198. |
Megalagrion pacificum |
Pacific Hawaiian damselfly |
HI |
Endangered |
|
199. |
Melamprosops phaeosoma |
Po`ouli (honeycreeper) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
200. |
Moho braccatus |
Kauai `o`o (honeyeater) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
201. |
Monachus schauinslandi |
Hawaiian monk seal |
HI |
Endangered |
|
202. |
Oreomystis bairdi |
Akikiki |
HI |
Endangered |
|
203. |
Oreomystis mana |
Hawaii creeper |
HI |
Endangered |
|
204. |
Palmeria dolei |
crested honeycreeper (Akohekohe) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
205. |
Paroreomyza flammea |
Molokai creeper |
HI |
Endangered |
|
206. |
Paroreomyza maculata |
Oahu creeper |
HI |
Endangered |
|
207. |
Pseudonestor xanthophrys |
Maui parrotbill (Kiwikiu) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
208. |
Psittirostra psittacea |
`O`u (honeycreeper) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
209. |
Pterodroma sandwichensis |
Hawaiian petrel |
HI |
Endangered |
|
210. |
Spelaeorchestia koloana |
Kauai cave amphipod |
HI |
Endangered |
|
211. |
Telespyza cantans |
Laysan finch (honeycreeper) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
212. |
Telespyza ultima |
Nihoa finch (honeycreeper) |
HI |
Endangered |
|
213. |
Lanx sp. |
Banbury Springs limpet |
ID |
Endangered |
|
214. |
Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis |
Bruneau Hot springsnail |
ID |
Endangered |
|
215. |
Taylorconcha serpenticola |
Bliss Rapids snail |
ID |
Threatened |
|
216. |
Urocitellus brunneus |
Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel |
ID |
Threatened |
|
217. |
Gammarus acherondytes |
Gammarus acherondytes |
IL |
Endangered |
|
218. |
Etheostoma spilotum |
Kentucky arrow darter |
KY |
Threatened |
|
219. |
Palaemonias ganteri |
Kentucky cave shrimp |
KY |
Endangered |
|
220. |
Etheostoma chienense |
Relict darter |
KY; Upper Bayou du Chien system in western Kentucky |
Endangered |
|
221. |
Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi |
Plymouth Redbelly Turtle |
MA |
Endangered |
|
222. |
Etheostoma sellare |
Maryland darter |
MD; Possibly extinct |
Endangered |
|
223. |
Cottus specus |
Grotto Sculpin |
MO |
Endangered |
|
224. |
Antrobia culveri |
Tumbling Creek cavesnail |
MO |
Endangered |
|
225. |
Etheostoma nianguae |
Niangua darter |
MO |
Threatened |
|
226. |
Emballonura semicaudata rotensis |
Pacific sheath-tailed Bat |
MP |
Endangered |
|
227. |
Ischnura luta |
Rota blue damselfly |
MP |
Endangered |
|
228. |
Partula langfordi |
Langford’s tree snail |
MP |
Endangered |
|
229. |
Percina aurora |
Pearl darter |
MS; |
Threatened |
|
230. |
Etheostoma rubrum |
Bayou darter |
MS |
Threatened |
|
231. |
Graptemys flavimaculata |
Yellow-blotched map turtle |
MS |
Threatened |
|
232. |
Neonympha mitchellii francisci |
Saint Francis’ satyr butterfly |
NC |
Endangered |
|
233. |
Necturus lewisi |
Neuse River waterdog |
NC |
Threatened |
|
234. |
Elliptio steinstansana |
Tar River spinymussel |
NC |
Endangered |
|
235. |
Menidia extensa |
Waccamaw silverside |
NC |
Threatened |
|
236. |
Mesodon clarki nantahala |
noonday snail |
NC |
Threatened |
|
237. |
Notropis mekistocholas |
Cape Fear shiner |
NC |
Endangered |
|
238. |
Cicindela nevadica lincolniana |
Salt Creek Tiger beetle |
NE |
Endangered |
|
239. |
Plethodon neomexicanus |
Jemez Mountains salamander |
NM |
Endangered |
|
240. |
Gammarus desperatus |
Noel’s Amphipod |
NM |
Endangered |
|
241. |
Juturnia kosteri |
Koster’s springsnail |
NM |
Endangered |
|
242. |
Notropis simus pecosensis |
Pecos bluntnose shiner |
NM |
Threatened |
|
243. |
Pyrgulopsis chupaderae |
Chupadera springsnail |
NM |
Endangered |
|
244. |
Pyrgulopsis neomexicana |
Socorro springsnail |
NM |
Endangered |
|
245. |
Pyrgulopsis roswellensis |
Roswell springsnail |
NM |
Endangered |
|
246. |
Thermosphaeroma thermophilus |
Socorro isopod |
NM |
Endangered |
|
247. |
Tryonia alamosae |
Alamosa springsnail |
NM |
Endangered |
|
248. |
Icaricia (Plebejus) shasta charlestonensis |
Mount Charleston blue butterfly |
NV |
Endangered |
|
249. |
Ambrysus amargosus |
Ash Meadows naucorid |
NV |
Threatened |
|
250. |
Crenichthys baileyi baileyi |
White River springfish |
NV |
Endangered |
|
251. |
Crenichthys baileyi grandis |
Hiko White River springfish |
NV |
Endangered |
|
252. |
Crenichthys nevadae |
Railroad Valley springfish |
NV |
Threatened |
|
253. |
Cyprinodon diabolis |
Devils Hole pupfish |
NV |
Endangered |
|
254. |
Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes |
Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish |
NV |
Endangered |
|
255. |
Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis |
Warm Springs pupfish |
NV |
Endangered |
|
256. |
Empetrichthys latos |
Pahrump poolfish |
NV |
Endangered |
|
257. |
Eremichthys acros |
Desert dace |
NV |
Threatened |
|
258. |
Gila robusta jordani |
Pahranagat roundtail chub |
NV |
Endangered |
|
259. |
Lepidomeda albivallis |
White River spinedace |
NV |
Endangered |
|
260. |
Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis |
Big Spring spinedace |
NV |
Threatened |
|
261. |
Moapa coriacea |
Moapa dace |
NV |
Endangered |
|
262. |
Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus |
Independence Valley speckled dace |
NV |
Endangered |
|
263. |
Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis |
Ash Meadows speckled dace |
NV |
Endangered |
|
264. |
Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus |
Clover Valley speckled dace |
NV |
Endangered |
|
265. |
Succinea chittenangoensis |
Chittenango ovate amber snail |
NY; Chittenango Falls State Park; U.S.A. (NY) |
Threatened |
|
266. |
Noturus trautmani |
Scioto madtom |
OH; Possibly extinct; U.S.A. (OH) |
Endangered (delisting proposed) |
|
267. |
Gila bicolor ssp. |
Hutton tui chub |
OR |
Threatened |
|
268. |
Icaricia icarioides fenderi |
Fender’s blue butterfly |
OR |
Endangered |
|
269. |
Setophaga angelae |
Elfin-woods warbler |
PR; |
Threatened |
|
270. |
Anolis roosevelti |
Culebra Island giant anole |
PR |
Endangered |
|
271. |
Buteo platypterus brunnescens |
Puerto Rican broad-winged hawk |
PR |
Endangered |
|
272. |
Caprimulgus noctitherus |
Puerto Rican nightjar |
PR |
Endangered |
|
273. |
Columba inornata wetmorei |
Puerto Rican plain Pigeon |
PR |
Endangered |
|
274. |
Amazona vittata |
Puerto Rican parrot |
PR; Canovanas, Ceiba, Fajardo, Juncos, Las Piedras, Luquillo, Naguabo, Rio Grande, Utuado, Adjuntas, and Arecibo |
Endangered |
|
275. |
Epicrates monensis monensis |
Mona boa |
PR; Endemic to Mona Island |
Threatened |
|
276. |
Cyclura stejnegeri |
Mona ground |
PR; Endemic to Mona Island; U.S.A. (PR-Mona Island) |
Threatened |
|
277. |
Accipiter striatus venator |
Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk |
PR; Endemic to Puerto Rico |
Endangered |
|
278. |
Agelaius xanthomus |
Yellow-shouldered blackbird |
PR; Endemic to Puerto Rico |
Endangered |
|
279. |
Eleutherodactylus cooki |
Guajon |
PR; Endemic to Puerto Rico |
Threatened |
|
280. |
Eleutherodactylus jasperi |
Golden coqui |
PR; Endemic to Puerto Rico |
Threatened |
|
281. |
Epicrates inornatus |
Puerto Rican boa |
PR; Endemic to Puerto Rico |
Endangered |
|
282. |
Peltophryne lemur |
Puerto Rican crested toad |
PR; Puerto Rico and Virgin Gorda; The Puerto Rican crested toad is now exclusively found in (endemic to ) Puerto Rico since the species has been never collected from US Virgin Islands and is considered extirpated from the British Virgin Islands. |
Threatened |
|
283. |
Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi |
Llanero Coqui |
PR |
Endangered |
|
284. |
Anolis roosevelti |
Culebra Island giant anole |
PR; U.S.A. (PR-Culebra Island) |
Endangered |
|
285. |
Fundulus julisia |
Barrens top minnow |
TN |
Endangered |
|
286. |
Epioblasma florentina florentina |
Yellow blossom (pearlymussel) |
TN |
Endangered |
|
287. |
Anguispira picta |
Painted snake coiled forest snail |
TN |
Threatened |
|
288. |
Chrosomus saylori |
Laurel dace |
TN |
Endangered |
|
289. |
Etheostoma akatulo |
bluemask darter |
TN |
Endangered |
|
290. |
Noturus crypticus |
Chucky Madtom |
TN |
Endangered |
|
291. |
Noturus stanauli |
Pygmy madtom |
TN |
Endangered |
|
292. |
Orconectes shoupi |
Nashville crayfish |
TN |
Endangered |
|
293. |
Pleurobema gibberum |
Cumberland pigtoe |
TN |
Endangered |
|
294. |
Pyrgulopsis ogmorhaphe |
Royal marstonia (snail) |
TN |
Endangered |
|
295. |
Eurycea chisholmensis |
Salado Salamander |
TX |
Threatened |
|
296. |
Eurycea naufragia |
Georgetown Salamander |
TX |
Threatened |
|
297. |
Eurycea tonkawae |
Jollyville Plateau Salamander |
TX |
Threatened |
|
298. |
Eurycea waterlooensis |
Austin blind Salamander |
TX |
Endangered |
|
299. |
Gammarus hyalleloides |
Diminutive Amphipod |
TX |
Endangered |
|
300. |
Gammarus pecos |
Pecos amphipod |
TX |
Endangered |
|
301. |
Notropis buccula |
Smalleye Shiner |
TX |
Endangered |
|
302. |
Notropis oxyrhynchus |
Sharpnose Shiner |
TX |
Endangered |
|
303. |
Pseudotryonia adamantina |
Diamond Tryonia |
TX |
Endangered |
|
304. |
Pyrgulopsis texana |
Phantom Springsnail |
TX |
Endangered |
|
305. |
Tryonia cheatumi |
Phantom Tryonia |
TX |
Endangered |
|
306. |
Tryonia circumstriata (=stocktonensis) |
Gonzales tryonia |
TX |
Endangered |
|
307. |
Gambusia georgei |
San Marcos gambusia |
TX; Possibly extinct |
Endangered (proposed for delisting) |
|
308. |
Batrisodes texanus |
Coffin Cave mold beetle |
TX |
Endangered |
|
309. |
Batrisodes venyivi |
Helotes mold beetle |
TX |
Endangered |
|
310. |
Bufo houstonensis |
Houston toad |
TX |
Endangered |
|
311. |
Cicurina baronia |
Robber Baron Cave Meshweaver |
TX |
Endangered |
|
312. |
Cicurina madla |
Madla’s Cave Meshweaver |
TX |
Endangered |
|
313. |
Cicurina venii |
Braken Bat Cave Meshweaver |
TX |
Endangered |
|
314. |
Cicurina vespera |
Government Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver |
TX |
Endangered |
|
315. |
Cyprinodon bovinus |
Leon Springs pupfish |
TX |
Endangered |
|
316. |
Cyprinodon elegans |
Comanche Springs pupfish |
TX |
Endangered |
|
317. |
Etheostoma fonticola |
Fountain darter |
TX |
Endangered |
|
318. |
Eurycea nana |
San Marcos salamander |
TX |
Threatened |
|
319. |
Eurycea sosorum |
Barton Springs salamander |
TX |
Endangered |
|
320. |
Gambusia gaigei |
Big Bend gambusia |
TX |
Endangered |
|
321. |
Gambusia heterochir |
Clear Creek gambusia |
TX |
Endangered |
|
322. |
Heterelmis comalensis |
Comal Springs riffle beetle |
TX |
Endangered |
|
323. |
Neoleptoneta microps |
Government Canyon Bat Cave Spider |
TX |
Endangered |
|
324. |
Neoleptoneta myopica |
Tooth Cave Spider |
TX |
Endangered |
|
325. |
Rhadine exilis |
[no common name] Beetle |
TX |
Endangered |
|
326. |
Rhadine infernalis |
[no common name] Beetle |
TX |
Endangered |
|
327. |
Rhadine persephone |
Tooth Cave ground beetle |
TX |
Endangered |
|
328. |
Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki |
Peck’s cave amphipod |
TX |
Endangered |
|
329. |
Stygoparnus comalensis |
Comal Springs dryopid beetle |
TX |
Endangered |
|
330. |
Tartarocreagris texana |
Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion |
TX |
Endangered |
|
331. |
Texamaurops reddelli |
Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle |
TX |
Endangered |
|
332. |
Texella cokendolpheri |
Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman |
TX |
Endangered |
|
333. |
Texella reddelli |
Bee Creek Cave harvestman |
TX |
Endangered |
|
334. |
Texella reyesi |
Bone Cave harvestman |
TX |
Endangered |
|
335. |
Tympanuchus cupido attwateri |
Attwater’s greater prairie-chicken |
TX |
Endangered |
|
336. |
Typhlomolge rathbuni |
Texas blind salamander |
TX |
Endangered |
|
337. |
Chasmistes liorus |
June sucker |
UT |
Threatened |
|
338. |
Cynomys parvidens |
Utah prairie dog |
UT; U.S.A.(UT); Utah prairie dogs are limited to the central and southwestern quarter of Utah in Iron, Beaver, Garfield, Wayne, Piute, Sevier, and Kane, counties. They occur at 6200 ft (1890 m) to 9180 ft (2800 m) above sea level (McDonald 1993). |
Threatened |
|
339. |
Lirceus usdagalun |
Lee County cave isopod |
VA |
Endangered |
|
340. |
Plethodon shenandoah |
Shenandoah salamander |
VA |
Endangered |
|
341. |
Polygyriscus virginianus |
Virginia fringed mountain snail |
VA |
Endangered |
|
342. |
Ameiva polops |
St. Croix ground lizard |
VI |
Endangered |
|
343. |
Thomomys mazama glacialis |
Roy Prairie pocket gopher |
WA |
Threatened |
|
344. |
Thomomys mazama tumuli |
Tenino pocket gopher |
WA |
Threatened |
|
345. |
Thomomys mazama yelmensis |
Yelm pocket gopher |
WA |
Threatened |
|
346. |
Thomomys mazama pugetensis |
Olympia pocket gopher |
WA |
Threatened |
|
347. |
Brachylagus idahoensis |
Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit |
WA; U.S.A. (WA – Douglas, Grant, Lincoln, Adams, Benton Counties) |
Endangered |
|
348. |
Cambarus veteranus |
Guyandotte River crayfish |
WV; U.S.A. (WV); upper Guyandotte River watershed |
Endangered |
|
349. |
Plethodon nettingi |
Cheat Mountain salamander |
WV |
Threatened |
|
350. |
Triodopsis platysayoides |
Flat-spired three-toothed Snail |
WV |
Threatened |
|
351. |
Bufo hemiophrys baxteri |
Wyoming Toad |
WY |
Endangered |
|
352. |
Rhinichthys osculus thermalis |
Kendall Warm Springs dace |
WY |
Endangered |
Footnotes
[1] The ESA defines “State” as “any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.” 16 U.S. Code § 1532(17). Throughout this report, the lowercase word “state” means “State” in the ESA.
[2] S. 2020, §§ 1-2. The Bill is available on Congress’s website at https://tinyurl.com/42put8ct. All websites cited were last visited on January 9, 2022.
[3] E.g., Daniel Fors, The Native Species Protection Act: A Deceptively-Named Measure to Destroy the Endangered Species Act, 29 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 177, 192-93 (2018) (discussing the Bill’s potential impact on endangered interstate species that rely on certain intrastate species for food), https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=elj.
[4] See Exhibit A. This report focuses only on the animal species that will be affected by the Bill. In total 2,276 plant and animal species are listed as endangered or threatened (including emergency listings) under the ESA as of December 9, 2021. We calculated this number by using the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s ECOS Environmental Conservation On-Line Search Tool and generating a “species list.” We determined that roughly 350 animal species would be covered by the Bill by running a report of all endangered and threatened animal species on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s ECOS Environmental Conservation On-Line Search Tool. If the animal’s “current distribution” was limited to only one U.S. state or territory in the report, we included it in the table in Exhibit A. We acknowledge that the table in Exhibit A may be over- or under-inclusive by a few species, but we have not been able to find a current count of all intrastate animal species from another source.
[5] Exhibit A lists the diverse range of animal species that would be affected by the Bill, including mammals such as the Key deer in Florida; birds such as the Puerto Rican parrot in Puerto Rico; fish such as Devils Hole pupfish in Nevada; reptiles such as the Plymouth Redbelly Turtle in Massachusetts; amphibians such as Red Hills salamander in Alabama; mollusks such as the Chittenango ovate amber snail in New York; arachnids such as the Tooth Cave Spider in Texas; and insects, such as the El Segundo blue butterfly in California.
[6] Among other goals. See ESA, § 2(b), https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESAall.pdf (“The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species[.]”); see also U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act | Overview, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/ (“The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.”).
[7] See generally ESA.
[8] The ESA protects endangered and threatened plant and animal species listed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[9] 16 USC § 1538(a)(1)(C).
[10] 16 USC § 1538(a)(1)(D).
[11] 16 USC § 1538(a)(1)(A).
[12] 16 USC § 1538(a)(1)(E).
[13] 16 USC § 1538(a)(1)(F).
[14] 16 USC § 1539. (On August 27, 2019, the Fish & Wildlife Service promulgated a rule withdrawing its “blanket 4(d) rule,” which automatically applied the “take” prohibitions in the Endangered Species Act section 9 to threatened species, and adopting a species-specific approach to applying the take prohibitions to threatened species. 84 Fed. Reg. 44,753. The Animal Law Committee issued a report opposing the withdrawal of the blanket 4(d) rule (https://www.nycbar.org/reports/opposition-to-proposed-rule-changes-related-to-the-endangered-species-act/), and we understand from numerous reports that the Biden Administration plans to reinstate the blanket 4(d) rule.)
[15] 16 USC §1539(a)(1)(B).
[16] The increased urbanization, development, and farming of land in the United States are causes that substantially decrease genetic variation of species in the United States and thus threaten endangered and threatened species. Thus federal management of development under the ESA is critical to ensure the survival of these species. See, e.g., Nicholas Primo, Federal v. State Effectiveness: An Analysis of the Endangered Species Act and Current Potential Attempts at Reform, Pepperdine Policy R. (2014) https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1110&context=ppr.
[17] 16 U.S. Code § 1535(d).
[18] Alina Bradford, Facts About the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Live Science (May 11, 2016), https://www.livescience.com/54707-endangered-species-act.html.
[19] Noah Greenwald, et al., Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act; PeerJ (Apr. 22, 2019), https://peerj.com/articles/6803.
[20] People for Ethical Treatment of Prop. Owners v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 852 F.3d 990, 1007 (10th Cir. 2017) (“Every one of our sister circuits that has addressed this issue has agreed that regulation of purely intrastate species is an essential part of the ESA’s regulatory scheme.”). For a succinct overview the interaction of the ESA and Commerce Clause that predates PETPO v. FWS, see Eric Biber, The ESA and the Commerce Clause, LegalPlanet (Nov. 18, 2014), http://legal-planet.org/2014/11/18/the-esa-and-the-commerce-clause/.
[21] Ala.-Tombigbee Rivers Coal. v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 1250, 1275 (11th Cir. 2007).
[22] GDF Realty Investments, Ltd. v. Norton, 326 F.3d 622, 640-41 (5th Cir 2003).
[23] Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483, 497 (4th Cir. 2000) (“This regulation is also sustainable as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.’” (quoting Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 (1995))).
[24] Id. at 504.
[25] See ESA, § 2(b); Fors, supra note 3.
[26] Humane Society of the U.S., Blog: Threats to Endangered Species Act Gain Speed in Congress (Oct. 23, 2017), https://blog.humanesociety.org/2017/10/congress-mounts-unprecedented-attacks-endangered-species.html.
[27] Defenders of Wildlife, Summary of Legislative Attacks on the Endangered Species Act in the 115th Congress (Dec. 29, 2017), https://defenders.org/publications/chart-of-esa-attacks-in-115th-congress.pdf.
[28] Michael Halpern, Union of Concerned Scientists, Blog: Your Handy Guide to Attacks on How the Endangered Species Act Uses Science (May 6, 2015), http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/your-handy-guide-to-attacks-on-how-the-endangered-species-act-uses-science-726?_ga=2.104931523.1769459149.1522433375-403494641.1522433375.
[29] Center for Biological Diversity, Press Release: Senate Bill Aims to Strip Protections from Nearly 1,100 Endangered Species (Sept. 28, 2017), https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/endangered-species-09-28-2017.php.
[30] The ESA defines “State” as “any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.” 16 U.S. Code § 1532(17). Throughout this report, the lowercase word “state” means “State” in the ESA.
[31] S. 1863, §§ 1-2.
[32] 16 USC § 1538(a)(1)(F).
[33] Turtles belong to the order Testudines.
[34] Fish belong to the phylum Chordata.
[35] Removing ESA protection from a species found only within a state may in fact lead to trade of that species beyond the state, as endangered and threatened species are often trafficked, which the ESA prohibits. See, e.g., Alice Catherine Hughes, Trading in Extinction: How the Pet Trade Is Killing Off Many Animal Species, The Conversation (Feb. 7, 2017) (“Due to collector demand for new and rare species, entire populations can be collected using academic publications to target animals as soon as they are scientifically described. At least 21 reptile species have been targeted this way . . . . ), http://theconversation.com/trading-in-extinction-how-the-pet-trade-is-killing-off-many-animal-species-71571.
[36] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Mar. 3, 1973, app. II, 993 U.N.T.S. 243, 264.
[37] CITES Appendices I, II and III (valid from June 22, 2021), https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php.
[38] Id.
[39] 16 U.S. Code § 1537a.
[40] CITES, Art. XIII.
[41] Alejandro E. Camacho et al., Assessing State Laws and Resources for Endangered Species Protection, 47 Envt’l L. R. 10843 (Oct. 2017), https://www.law.uci.edu/academics/centers/cleanr/images/cleanr-esa-report.pdf.
[42] 16 U.S. Code § 1535(d).
[43] Barry G. Rabe, Racing to the Top, Bottom, or the Middle of the Pack? The Evolving State Government Role in Environmental Protection, Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century 45-46 (Norman J Vig, Michael E Kraft, eds., 8th ed. 2013), https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/71528_VIG_9e_Chapter_2.pdf.
[44] N.Y. Dept. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, Help Brewing for Rare “Chitt” Snail at State Parks (Oct. 27, 2020) (the article describes a captive breeding program that is attempting to prevent the snail from becoming extinct)., https://nystateparks.blog/2020/10/27/help-brewing-for-rare-chitt-snail-at-state-parks.
[45] In 2013, Alabama spent only $96,600 of state funds on endangered species. In comparison, New York spent $668,658 and Washington State spent $32 million in state dollars. Camacho, supra note 43, at 10844.
[46] Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Alabama’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 at 3 (Sept. 2015), https://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/Research/SWCS/AL_SWAP_FINAL%20June2017.pdf.
[47] In 2021, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service provided almost $55 million in State Wildlife Grant program funds authorized under the FY 2021 Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act, 2020, PL 116-260; see Fish & Wildlife Svc., letter to states and territories (Feb. 2, 2021), https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/grantprograms/swg/SWG2021Apportionment.pdf.
[48] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Svc., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Conserve Salamander Habitat (Dec. 10, 2020), https://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2020/12/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-and-alabama-department-of-conservation-and-natural-resources-conserve-salamander-habitat.
[49] Michelle Kaske, Puerto Rico Bankruptcy-Exit Plan Offers Island a Fresh Start, Bloomberg (Dec. 15, 2021), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-15/puerto-rico-s-bankruptcy-exit-plan-offers-island-a-fresh-start.
[50] See, e.g., Jonathan H. Adler, When Is Two a Crowd? The Impact of Federal Action on State Environmental Regulation, Harvard Envt’l L. Rev. 79 (2007) (“There is evidence that state policy-makers consider the impact of environmental regulations on their states’ economic competitiveness.”), http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol31_1/adler.pdf; Fors, supra note 3.
[51] National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d at 1056-57; see also id. at 1059 (“Given the interconnectedness of species and ecosystems, it is reasonable to conclude that the extinction of one species affects others and their ecosystems and that the protection of a purely intrastate species (like the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly) will therefore substantially affect land and objects that are involved in interstate commerce.”).
[52] Susan George & William J. Snape III, State Endangered Species Acts, Endangered Species Act Law, Policy, and Perspectives 345 (Donald C. Baur & Wm. Robert Irvin, eds., 2nd ed. 2010), https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/StateEndangeredSpeciesActs.pdf.
[53] Camacho, supra note 43, at 10837. See also George & Snape, supra note 54 at 346 (noting most states “lack all but the most basic elements of a legislative scheme to protect a state’s imperiled species”).
[54] See Utah Code, Title 3.
[55] See W. Va. Code, Title 20.
[56] See Wyo. Stat., Title 23.
[57] George & Snape, supra note 54 at 354.
[58] See Ala. Code, Title 9.
[59] See Ark. Code, Title 15, Subtitle 4.
[60] George & Snape, supra note 54 at 354.
[61] Camacho, supra note 43, at 10840. The ESA considers modification of critical habitat that could harm an endangered or threatened species to be an illegal “take,” whereas only five states do so. Id. at 10841. For an explanation of the ESA’s prohibition on take and critical habitat modification, see U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services, ESA Basics, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf.
[62] Adler, supra note 52, at 99.
[63] Id.
[64] Fors, supra note 3 at 176-77.
[65] Mike Lee, U.S. Senator for Utah, Press Release: Sen. Lee Introduces Native Species Protection Act, (June 13, 2019) https://www.lee.senate.gov/2019/6/sen-lee-introduces-native-species-protection-act.
[66] See Adler, supra note 52 at 77 & 93 (“[M]uch of the information required for effective environmental protection is local in nature . . . .”).
[67] Jim Lyons, Center for American Progress, Under Threat: The Endangered Species and Wildlife It Protects (Nov. 28, 2017), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/11/28/443265/under-threat/.
[68] 16 U.S. Code § 1538(a)(1)(F) provides that it is unlawful “to sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such [endangered or threatened species].”
