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.
Is there an answer to this question (If it cannot be answered, say "unanswerable"): Why is this particular rule so controversial?
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient.