scholarly journals Same law, diverging practice: comparative analysis of Endangered Species Act consultations by two federal agencies

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Evansen ◽  
Ya-Wei Li ◽  
Jacob Malcom
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Sea Turtle ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Turtle Species ◽  
Threatened And Endangered Species ◽  
National Marine Fisheries Service ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACTEvaluating how wildlife conservation laws are implemented is critical for safeguarding biodiversity. Two agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS; Services collectively), are responsible for implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires federal protection for threatened and endangered species. FWS and NMFS’ comparable role for terrestrial and marine taxa, respectively, provides the opportunity to examine how implementation of the same law varies between agencies. We analyzed how the Services implement a core component of the ESA, section 7 consultations, by objectively assessing the contents of >120 consultations on sea turtle species against the requirements in the Services’ consultation handbook, supplemented with in-person observations from Service biologists. Our results showed that NMFS consultations were 1.40 times as likely to have higher completeness scores than FWS consultations given the standard in the handbook. Consultations tiered from an FWS programmatic consultation inherited higher quality scores of generally more thorough programmatic consultations, indicating that programmatic consultations could increase the quality of consultations while improving efficiency. Both agencies commonly neglected to account for the effects of previous consultations and the potential for compounded effects on species. From these results, we recommend actions that can improve quality of consultation, including the use of a single database to track and integrate previously authorized harm in new analyses and the careful but more widespread use of programmatic consultations. Our study reveals several critical shortfalls in the current process of conducting ESA section 7 consultations that the Services could address to better safeguard North America’s most imperiled species.

scholarly journals Data indicate the importance of expert agencies in conservation policy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Evans ◽  
Jacob W. Malcom ◽  
Ya-Wei Li
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Marine Fisheries ◽  
Threatened And Endangered Species ◽  
Using Data ◽  
National Marine Fisheries Service ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Imperiled Species

ABSTRACTData on the implementation of laws and policies are essential to the evaluation and improvement of governance. For conservation laws like the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), such data can inform actions that may determine the persistence or extinction of species. A central but controversial part of the ESA is section 7, which requires federal agencies to conserve threatened and endangered species. One way they do this is by consulting with expert agencies for the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), on actions they may undertake that impact listed species. Using data from all 24,893 consultations recorded by NMFS from 2000 through 2017, we show that federal agencies misestimated the effects of their actions on listed species in 21% of consultations, relative to the conclusions reached by NMFS. In 71% of these cases the federal agency underestimated the effects of their action. Those discrepancies were particularly important for the conservation of 14 species in 22 consultations, where the agency concluded that its action would not harm a species, while NMFS determined the action would jeopardize the species’ existence. Patterns of misestimation varied among federal agencies, and some of the agencies most frequently involved in consultation also frequently misestimated their effects. Jeopardy conclusions were very rare—about 0.3% of consultations—with a few project types more likely to lead to jeopardy. These data highlight the importance of consultation with the expert agencies and reveal opportunities to make the consultation process more effective.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTThe US Endangered Species Act is the strongest environmental law any nation has enacted to conserve imperiled species. However, policy debates over how the Act should be implemented continue to this day. This study provides the first comprehensive evaluation of how the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implements one of the Act’s most important conservation programs – consultations under section 7. Our results reveal novel insights into the importance of NMFS role in ensuring federal actions do not jeopardize the existence of listed species. By using data to inform policy debate, we identify approaches to implementing section 7 that would undermine the conservation of imperiled species, and those that could improve the efficiency of the program without sacrificing these protections.

scholarly journals Data contradict common perceptions about a controversial provision of the US Endangered Species Act

2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (52) ◽  
pp. 15844-15849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob W. Malcom ◽  
Ya-Wei Li
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Species Conservation ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Threatened And Endangered Species ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Endangered Species Act ◽  
National Marine Fisheries Service ◽  
Imperiled Species ◽  
Analyze Data

Separating myth and reality is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of laws. Section 7 of the US Endangered Species Act (Act) directs federal agencies to help conserve threatened and endangered species, including by consulting with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service on actions the agencies authorize, fund, or carry out. Consultations ensure that actions do not violate the Act’s prohibitions on “jeopardizing” listed species or “destroying or adversely modifying” these species’ critical habitat. Because these prohibitions are broad, many people consider section 7 the primary tool for protecting species under the Act, whereas others believe section 7 severely impedes economic development. This decades-old controversy is driven primarily by the lack of data on implementation: past analyses are either over 25 y old or taxonomically restricted. We analyze data on all 88,290 consultations recorded by FWS from January 2008 through April 2015. In contrast to conventional wisdom about section 7 implementation, no project was stopped or extensively altered as a result of FWS finding jeopardy or adverse modification during this period. We also show that median consultation duration is far lower than the maximum allowed by the Act, and several factors drive variation in consultation duration. The results discredit many of the claims about the onerous nature of section 7 but also raise questions as to how federal agencies could apply this tool more effectively to conserve species. We build on the results to identify ways to improve the effectiveness of consultations for imperiled species conservation and increase the efficiency of consultations.

scholarly journals Better Representation Is Needed in U.S. Endangered Species Act Implementation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Andrew Carter
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
The United States ◽  
Alternative Interpretation ◽  
Gray Wolf ◽  
Picoides Borealis ◽  
Ecological Communities ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Threatened And Endangered Species ◽  
The U.S

In the United States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses the concepts of resilience, redundancy, and representation—often known as the “3Rs”—to guide implementation of the Endangered Species Act, which requires the U.S. government to designate imperiled species as threatened or endangered, and take action to recover them. The Service has done little, however, to relate the 3Rs to the statutory requirements of the Act. Here we focus on interpreting the concept of representation given core tenets of science and conservation policy. We show that the Service's current interpretation, which focuses on a narrow set of characteristics intrinsic to species that facilitate future adaptation, falls far short of a reasonable interpretation from the scientific literature and other policy, and has significant consequences for the conservation of threatened and endangered species, including those found in other countries. To illustrate the shortcomings in practice, we discuss the cases of the Lower 48 gray wolf (Canis lupus) delisting, the proposed Red-cockadedWoodpecker (Picoides borealis) downlisting, and the possible downlisting of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). We then propose an alternative interpretation of representation that accommodates the Service's narrow interpretation and broadens it to include the importance of intraspecific variation for its own sake as well as extrinsic characteristics such as a species' role in ecological communities. We argue that this interpretation better reflects the intent of the Endangered Species Act, the best available science, and policy needs for conserving imperiled wildlife, all of which recognize the importance not only of preventing global extinction but also of preventing ecological extinction and extirpation across significant portions of a species' range.

scholarly journals A Database of Habitat Conservation Plans and Related Documents Developed Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Carter ◽  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Heather Harl
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Habitat Conservation ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Data Resource ◽  
Habitat Conservation Plan ◽  
Threatened And Endangered Species ◽  
Conservation Plan ◽  
Conservation Plans ◽  
The U.S

Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, non-federal parties may be permitted to “take,” or harm, listed threatened and endangered species provided they develop an appropriate “habitat conservation plan” that details how the applicant will minimize and mitigate the impacts of their activities on the species at issue. Despite widespread use of such plans, with more than 700 approved to date, there have been few systematic analyses to determine their effectiveness in protecting imperiled wildlife. This has been driven by a lack of a centralized repository of essential habitat conservation plan documents, from the plans themselves to required monitoring reports. Here we present a new data resource of 6,290 documents related to 601 separate HCPs, assembled through a United States Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, supplemented by web scraping of available HCP documents online. We describe the completeness of responses, characterize the scope of documents, and identify data and research gaps.

scholarly journals Status of the recovery mandate under section 7(a)(1) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg Evansen ◽  
Heather Harl ◽  
Andrew Carter ◽  
Jacob Malcom
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Current Status ◽  
The Public ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Internet Searches ◽  
Policy Guidance ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Imperiled Species

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is widely considered to be one of the strongest laws for protecting imperiled wildlife, with nearly all species protected under the law still existing today. Among the ESA’s strongest provisions, at least as written, is the requirement under section 7(a)(1) that federal agencies use their authorities to help recover imperiled species. New initiatives like 30x30, the campaign to conserve at least thirty percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, offer opportunities to reinvigorate and expand 7(a)(1) programs to play a significant role in biodiversity conservation. To gauge the current status of 7(a)(1) plans and assess their effectiveness, we collected all section 7(a)(1) materials available to the public through internet searches and direct requests to agencies. We evaluated the scope of existing 7(a)(1) programs and found that despite the clear potential benefits of a strong 7(a)(1) program, the section has been significantly underused by federal agencies. Further, we show that existing plans are highly inconsistent in content and style, and we trace that inconsistency to the lack of policy guidance for their creation and implementation. Based on these findings, we recommend four strategies for improving 7(a)(1) implementation: establishment of formal guidance from federal wildlife agencies, tailored guidance from other federal agencies to help them meet their 7(a)(1) obligation, and dedicated funding.

scholarly journals Status of the Recovery Mandate Under Section 7(a)(1) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Evansen ◽  
Heather Harl ◽  
Andrew Carter ◽  
Jacob Malcom
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Current Status ◽  
The Public ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Internet Searches ◽  
Policy Guidance ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is widely considered to be one of the strongest laws for protecting imperiled wildlife, with nearly all species protected under the law still existing today. Among the ESA's strongest provisions, at least as written, is the requirement under section 7(a)(1) that federal agencies use their authorities to help recover imperiled species. New initiatives like 30 x 30, the campaign to conserve at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, offer opportunities to reinvigorate and expand 7(a)(1) programs to play a significant role in biodiversity conservation. To gauge the current status of 7(a)(1) plans and assess their effectiveness, we collected all section 7(a)(1) materials available to the public through internet searches and direct requests to agencies. We evaluated the scope of existing 7(a)(1) programs and found that despite the clear potential benefits of strong programs, the section has been significantly underused by federal agencies. Further, we show that existing plans are highly inconsistent in content and style, and we trace that inconsistency to the lack of policy guidance for their creation and implementation. Based on these findings, we recommend five strategies for improving 7(a)(1) implementation: establishment of formal guidance from the federal wildlife agencies, tailored guidance from other federal agencies to help them meet their 7(a)(1) obligation, dedicated funding, integration of 7(a)(1) into existing initiatives and opportunities, and top-level executive branch coordination and cooperation.

The Relationship of Political Party Affiliation to Wildlife Conservation Attitudes

2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Czech ◽  
Rena Borkhataria
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Endangered Species ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
Species Conservation ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Party Affiliation ◽  
Political Party Affiliation ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

Species conservation via the Endangered Species Act is highly politicized, yet few data have been gathered to illustrate the relationship of political party affiliation to species conservation perspectives. We conducted a nationwide public opinion survey and found that Democrats value species conservation more highly than do Republicans, and that Democrats are also more strongly supportive of the Endangered Species Act. Republicans place higher value on property rights than do Democrats, but members of both parties value economic growth as highly as wildlife conservation. The results imply that the Democratic propensity to value species conservation reflects a biocentric perspective that does not bode well for practical conservation efforts. Species conservation will depend upon the success of academicians and progressive political leaders in educating students and members of all parties about the fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation.

scholarly journals Costs of Biological and Cultural Resource Protection to the U.S. Natural Gas Industry

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Mitch Kunce
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Natural Gas ◽  
Jel Classification ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Private Lands ◽  
Gas Industry ◽  
Land Type ◽  
Threatened And Endangered Species ◽  
Natural Gas Industry ◽  
The U.S

Using a unique land transaction from the 1860s in the Western U.S., this paper examines whether the presence of biological and cultural resources on private and federal land increase drilling costs to the U.S. natural gas industry. Our results suggest that the presence of these resources can increase costs, but the effect depends on the land type and which resources are being protected. The presence of threatened and endangered species increase drilling costs significantly on both federal and private lands; whereas the existence of migratory wildlife like elk and pronghorn does not. Cultural resources have a differentiated impact-they raise drilling costs significantly on federal lands, but not on private lands. JEL classification numbers: C23, Q58. Keywords: Endangered Species, U.S. Natural Gas, Cultural Resources, Drilling Costs.

scholarly journals Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Greenwald ◽  
Kieran F Suckling ◽  
Brett Hartl ◽  
Loyal Mehrhoff
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
The United States ◽  
Species Extinction ◽  
Number Of Species ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Species Extinctions

The United States Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest laws of any nation for preventing species extinction, but quantifying the Act’s effectiveness has proven difficult. To provide one measure of effectiveness, we identified listed species that have gone extinct and used previously developed methods to update an estimate of the number of species extinctions prevented by the Act. To date, only four species have been confirmed extinct with another 22 possibly extinct following protection. Another 71 listed species are extinct or possibly extinct, but were last seen before protections were enacted, meaning the Act’s protections never had the opportunity to save these species. In contrast, a total of 39 species have been fully recovered, including 23 in the last 10 years. We estimate the Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of roughly 291 species since passage in 1973, and has to date saved more than 99 percent of species under its protection.

Endangered Science: The Regulation of Research by the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection and Endangered Species Acts

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Etienne Benson
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Environmental Regulation ◽  
Marine Mammal ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Professional Autonomy ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Biological Research ◽  
The Public

The Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act have been cornerstones of federal wildlife conservation policy in the United States since their enactment in the early 1970s. These laws prohibited the taking of members of protected populations without a permit, where “taking” was defined so broadly as to include harassment or disturbance, as well as capture or killing. Because most forms of biological research on protected species involved some sort of taking, and because such research was deemed vital to the achievement of conservation goals and the advancement of human knowledge, the laws established procedures under which proposed scientific takes could be permitted after review by federal regulators, scientists, the public, and, in some cases, the courts. Although there was relatively little controversy over the need for or nature of these permit procedures during the debates leading up to the enactment of the laws, they became the source of concern on the part of many zoologists, biologists, and ecologists as soon as federal agencies began to implement them. From these scientists’ perspective, certain forms of environmental regulation undermined their professional autonomy and threatened to hamper the production of the very knowledge necessary for effective environmental protection. Their efforts to block, weaken, or work around such regulation brought them into conflict with environmental and animal rights activists, regulators, and other members of the scientific community and resonated with a broader backlash against environmental regulation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document