Bill Overview
Title: Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2022
Description: This bill revises requirements concerning determinations on whether a species is a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and caps attorney's fees to prevailing parties in ESA citizen suits. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must publish online, subject to privacy or administrative limitations, the best scientific and commercial data available that are the basis for each determination. The bill states that the term best scientific and commercial data available includes all data submitted by a state, tribal, or county government. Thus, the USFWS and NMFS would no longer consider whether data from those sources are the best scientific and commercial data available. Instead, the data would be automatically deemed the best scientific and commercial data available regardless of the quality of the data. Before making a determination on whether a species is an endangered or threatened species, the USFWS and NMFS must provide affected states with all of the data that is the basis of the determination. The Department of the Interior must also publish and maintain an online searchable database that discloses federal expenditures related to litigation under the ESA.
Sponsors: Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4]
Target Audience
Population: People concerned with environmental conservation and species protection
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill relates to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and affects how species are determined to be threatened or endangered.
- Conservationists and environmental organizations are impacted as the transparency and availability of data influences conservation efforts.
- Governmental agencies such as USFWS and NMFS are directly affected due to changes in operational procedures for publishing data.
- Lawyers and legal firms managing citizen suits under the ESA will be affected by the cap on attorney fees.
- The data publication requirement impacts states, tribal, and county governments involved in submitting data to USFWS and NMFS.
Reasoning
- The budget for the policy implementation suggests a focus on governmental agencies, legal aspects, and data transparency rather than direct intervention with species. Therefore, the primary impact group includes individuals and agencies engaged with ESA-related activities.
- The policy will likely have a low direct impact on average citizens who are not engaged in conservation efforts or legal frameworks but may have a meaningful impact on conservationists, environmental agencies, and legal professionals involved in ESA cases.
- States, tribal, and county governments will face procedural changes due to data requirements, but individual impact will vary based on their involvement with the ESA.
- Since the ESA is a point of contention among different stakeholders, personal opinions might vary significantly based on occupational and ideological affiliations, particularly between environmentalists and industrial interests.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Lawyer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned that capping attorney fees will discourage lawsuits essential to enforce environmental protections.
- The increased transparency in scientific data might be beneficial, but the way data from states and counties is handled is worrisome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Conservation Scientist (California)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Science must not be compromised by unverified data; this bill puts a veil on conservation research.
- Transparency is welcomed, but the essence of 'best available science' is being overridden.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
Park Ranger (Montana)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased transparency is good, but how can we be sure the data is indeed the best when there's no review?
- I hope this doesn't lead to more species becoming at risk due to lower quality data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Oil Industry Executive (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Capping legal fees is a step in the right direction; it prevents frivolous lawsuits.
- Transparency in wildlife data might streamline operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
State Wildlife Official (Colorado)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This practically means more workload due to additional data requirements.
- It remains unclear how unvetted data impacts long-term conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Retired Fisherman (Maine)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried practical decisions will override ecological needs.
- Our waters need true scientific assessments to stay healthy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Science Student (New York)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act seems to prioritize convenience over actual conservation.
- We're losing trust in how science is validated for important decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
Legal Consultant (Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a double-edged sword; transparency is enhanced but at what cost to data integrity?
- Legal actions might shift focus due to attorney fee capping.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Tribal Government Official (Arizona)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Including tribal data is essential but must be done with due diligence and respect for its quality.
- Improper recognition of quality could lead to gaps in conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Tech Industry Worker (Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As much as I appreciate transparency, the validity of data matters more.
- I worry that this will undermine efforts to protect endangered species in our area.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $23000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $28000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $23000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Changes could affect public trust in ESA processes, depending on perceptions of data quality and transparency.
- Legal challenges may arise if data deemed 'best available' by this Act are not viewed as credible.
- State and local governments will need to adapt to the new data-sharing requirements quickly to avoid delays in determinations.