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 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 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 Marine mammals and sea turtles listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are recovering

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abel Valdivia ◽  
Shaye Wolf ◽  
Kieran Suckling
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Marine Mammals ◽  
Population Change ◽  
Extinction Risk ◽  
Sea Turtles ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Marine Species ◽  
Effective Manner ◽  
The U.S

AbstractThe U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the world’s strongest environmental law protecting imperiled plants and animals, and a growing number of marine species have been protected under this law as extinction risk in the oceans has increased. Marine mammals and sea turtles comprise 36% of the 161 ESA-listed marine species, yet analyses of recovery trends after listing are lacking. Here we gather the best available annual population estimates for all marine mammals (n=33) and sea turtles (n=29) listed under the ESA as species. Of these, we quantitatively analyze population trends, magnitude of population change, and recovery status for representative populations of 23 marine mammals and 9 sea turtles, which were listed for more than five years, occur in U.S. waters, and have data of sufficient quality and span of time for trend analyses. Using generalized linear and non-linear models, we found that 78% of marine mammals (n=18) and 78% of sea turtles (n=7) significantly increased after listing; 13% of marine mammals (n=3) and 22% of sea turtles (n=2) showed non-significant changes; while 9% of marine mammals (n=2), but no sea turtles declined after ESA protection. Overall, species with populations that increased in abundance were listed for 20 years or more (e.g., large whales, manatees, and sea turtles). Conservation measures triggered by ESA listing such as ending exploitation, tailored species management, and fishery regulations, among others, appear to have been largely successful in promoting species recovery, leading to the delisting of some species and to increases in most. These findings underscore the capacity of marine mammals and sea turtles to recover from substantial population declines when conservation actions under the ESA are implemented in a timely and effective manner.

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 Missing, delayed, and old: The status of ESA recovery plans

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Ya-Wei Li
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Recovery Planning ◽  
The Past ◽  
Threatened And Endangered Species ◽  
The Status ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Taxonomic Groups ◽  
The U.S

Recovery planning is an essential part of implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), but conservationists and government agencies recognize challenges with the current planning process. Using data from all U.S. domestic and transboundary ESA-listed species, we quantify the completeness, timeliness, age, and other variation among ESA recovery plans over the past 40 years. We show that nearly 1/4 of eligible listed taxa (n = 1,548) lack final recovery plans; half of plans have taken >5 years to finalize after listing; half of recovery plans are more than 20 years old; and there is significant variation between agencies and among regions and taxonomic groups in planning. These results are not unexpected given dwindling budgets and an increasing number of species requiring protection, but underscore the need for systematic improvements to recovery planning. We discuss solutions—some already underway—that may address some of the shortcomings and help improve recovery action implementation for threatened and endangered species.

scholarly journals Missing, delayed, and old: The status of ESA recovery plans

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Ya-Wei Li
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Recovery Planning ◽  
The Past ◽  
Threatened And Endangered Species ◽  
The Status ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Taxonomic Groups ◽  
The U.S

Recovery planning is an essential part of implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), but conservationists and government agencies recognize challenges with the current planning process. Using data from all U.S. domestic and transboundary ESA-listed species, we quantify the completeness, timeliness, age, and other variation among ESA recovery plans over the past 40 years. Among eligible listed taxa (n = 1,548), nearly 1/4 lack final recovery plans; half of plans have taken >5 years to finalize after listing; half of recovery plans are more than 20 years old; and there is significant variation in planning between agencies, and among regions and taxonomic groups. These results are not unexpected given dwindling budgets and an increasing number of species requiring protection, but underscore the need for systematic improvements to recovery planning. We discuss solutions—some already underway—that may address some of the shortcomings and help improve recovery action implementation for threatened and endangered species.

scholarly journals Free Aerial Imagery as a Resource to Monitor Compliance with the Endangered Species Act

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Tiffany Kim ◽  
Ya-Wei Li
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Remotely Sensed ◽  
Aerial Imagery ◽  
Compliance Monitoring ◽  
Remotely Sensed Data ◽  
Commercial Development ◽  
Threatened And Endangered Species ◽  
Cost Efficient ◽  
Using Data

AbstractCompliance monitoring is an integral part of law and policy implementation. A lack of compliance monitoring for the Endangered Species Act (ESA), driven in part by resource limitations, may be undercutting efforts to recover threatened and endangered species. Here we evaluate the utility of freely available satellite and aerial imagery as a cost-efficient component of ESA compliance monitoring. Using data on actions authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under section 7 of the ESA, we show that approximately 40% of actions can be found in remotely sensed imagery. Some types of actions, such as residential and commercial development, roadwork, and forestry, show substantially higher observability. Based on our results and the requirements of compliance monitoring, we recommend FWS standardize data collection requirements for consultations; record and publish terms and conditions of consultations; and encourage their staff to use technology such as remotely sensed data as a central part of their workflow for implementing the ESA.

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 ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document