Candidate Conservation Agreements

In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (federalism), this policy has no significant federalist effects and a summary federalist impact statement is not necessary. This revision of the policy concerns only the requirement of the service of a net conservation benefit for the species identified for the admission of a CCAA and would not have a significant direct impact on the states, on the relationship between the federal state and the federal states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the different levels of government. Comment (6): Some commentators felt that a benefit retention standard for pre-listing agreements was inappropriate and ambiguous. They stated that, given the successes already achieved with the current CCAA policy, the FWS should simply streamline the CCAA process and improve the effectiveness of CCA authorization rather than changing the standard. One commentator also stated that the changes are not necessary, as existing regulations and guidelines already establish principles to avoid, minimize and/or reduce results. Several commentators recommended that the services withdraw the proposed rule and directive. Comment (13): One commentator noted that the concept of net conservation benefit is based on the assumption and potential requirement that the success of a CCAA be based on an increase in species populations or habitat improvement. Because many other critical factors, such as weather, food sources, print page 95168 and disease, can have a significant impact on species populations, it is not practical to use population growth as an objective or metric for the success of a CCAA. The types of candidates are defined differently by the services. The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) defines „candidate species“ as species for which FWS has sufficient information on the status and threats to support the issuance of the proposed listing rules. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) defines „candidate species“ as (1) species that are the subject of a petition on the list and for which the NMFS has announced, in accordance with SECTION 4 B(3) (A) of ESA, the inclusion of a status check in the federal register, as (1) species for which no petition has been filed, but for which the NMFS has announced the opening of a revision of the status in the federal register. The term „candidate type“ used in this policy refers to species designated by one of the services as candidates. In March of this year, the FWS issued an expanded opinion on the proposed regulation, in which it asked the public how the FWS manages and manages candidates and proposals for the species list. The comment period was extended in May and closed in July. You asked for feedback and suggestions on how to improve the protection of these species. Comments are being read and reviewed, and although there is no formal notification process that requires some speculation that these efforts could be used to prepare changes to the ESA display, perhaps even to dream of guidelines for conservation banks or others. There is nothing in this directive that prevents a participating owner from implementing the conservation measures not described in the agreement, provided that these measures are consistent with the conservation measures and conservation objectives described in the CCAA.