A monitoring policy framework for the United States Endangered Species Act
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
PERSPECTIVE • OPEN ACCESS
A monitoring policy framework for the United States Endangered
Species Act
To cite this article: Megan Evansen et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 031001
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 46.4.80.155 on 15/09/2021 at 18:31Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 031001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe0ea
PERSPECTIVE
A monitoring policy framework for the United States Endangered
OPEN ACCESS
Species Act
PUBLISHED
15 February 2021 Megan Evansen1, Andrew Carter1,2 and Jacob Malcom1,2
1
Center for Conservation Innovation, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC 20036, United States of America
Original content from 2
this work may be used
Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States of America
under the terms of the E-mail: mevansen@defenders.org
Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 licence. Keywords: Endangered Species Act, monitoring, environmental policy, USFWS, NMFS, adaptive management
Any further distribution Supplementary material for this article is available online
of this work must
maintain attribution to
the author(s) and the title
of the work, journal
citation and DOI.
Biodiversity is rapidly deteriorating at a global level monitoring the implementation of the ESA is
as human actions like development, overexploita- inconsistent at best and, more typically, absent. For
tion, and pollution have led to a dramatic increase example, a 2009 Government Accountability Office
in the rate of extinction (Intergovernmental Science- report found that the FWS lacked a systematic way
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Ser- to track monitoring reports required in biological
vices (IPBES) 2019). The U.S. Endangered Species Act opinions under section 7 of the Act and had little
(‘ESA’ or ‘the Act’) is widely considered one of the knowledge of compliance with monitoring require-
strongest laws in the world for protecting imperiled ments; Malcom and Li (2015) found huge interoffice
species. Part of the law’s strength comes from the variation in section 7 consultation data recorded;
central role of science: from listing to recovery plan- Evansen et al (2020) found monitoring of authorized
ning to consultation (Schwartz 2008, Malcom and Li harm that varied from the use of Excel to whiteboards;
2015, Evansen et al 2020), Congress directed that Owley (2015) found a disturbing lack of basic record-
the ‘best available scientific and commercial data keeping; the authors are finding little and inadequate
available’ be used to make decisions that ultimately monitoring in an evaluation of the habitat conser-
determine the fate of species (see critiques of the vation plan (‘HCP’) program; and the Service sus-
standard, Doremus 1997). The use of best available pended a broadscale status monitoring program in
science helps ensure short-term non-biological con- 2010 (US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2011)
siderations do not take precedence over a species’ attributed to inadequate reporting standards. This
long-term conservation. lack of consistent monitoring means the Services
The best available science mandate allows the cannot accurately evaluate the effects of authorized
two services that implement the Act, the US Fish harm to species or habitats; weigh the effectiveness of
and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisher- recovery actions; make effective listing, delisting, and
ies Service (FWS and NMFS; ‘Services’ collectively), downlisting decisions; or learn about effective mit-
to improve conservation outcomes through adapt- igation measures across regions or species. In other
ive management. In brief, adaptive management uses words, science-based adaptive management is not
and generates the best available science. The adapt- possible.
ive management process lays out a cycle of optimiz- Without the optimization of management
ation that improves management by learning from decisions from adaptive management, there is the
outcomes. In the ecological management domain, likelihood of the misallocation of scarce conservation
this translates to planning actions; carrying out the funding (Evans et al 2016). Misallocation of con-
actions; monitoring the effects of the action; and then servation funding means a small number of listed
repeating and adjusting plans and actions based on species have received many more times the fund-
monitoring results (Walters and Hilborn 1978). The ing called for in their recovery plan, while other
integral role that monitoring plays in the adaptive listed species have received far less (Gerber 2016).
management cycle means that monitoring is essential Unsurprisingly, what monitoring data that does exist
for the production of the best available scientific data suggests that while some ESA-listed species may be
required by the Act. improving or at least remaining stable, the majority
Although monitoring is intrinsic to adapt- are declining (Evans et al 2016, Malcom et al 2016).
ive management, the unfortunate reality is that Funding for conservation is consistently insufficient,
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing LtdEnviron. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 031001 M Evansen et al
Table 1. Monitoring stipulations found throughout the implementation of the Act.
Where found Monitoring focus Legally binding on services?
Section 4(c) of the Act 5 year reviews on the biological status Yes—Mandated in text of
and threats of the species Act (A review is required,
but there is no require-
ment for a document to be
produced.)
Section 4(g) of the Act Monitoring the status of delisted Yes—Mandated in text of
species for up to 5 years post-delisting the Act
50 CFR 402.14(i)(3) Effects of the action of a section Yes—In implementing
7(a)(2) consultation regulations
Section 7 Consultation Monitor for compliance with No—Handbook guidance
Handbook consultation requirements (e.g. only
impacts on species, conservation
measures, project area limitations)
Recovery Planning Monitor for recovery action No—Handbook guidance
Handbook effectiveness only
Habitat Conservation Monitor to evaluate need for No—Handbook guidance
Planning Handbook adjustment and adaptive management only (HCPs may require
monitoring)
Safe Harbor Agreements Dependent on individual agreement No (SHAs may require
(SHAs) monitoring)
Candidate Conservation Dependent on individual agreement No—Handbook guidance
Agreements with only (CCAAs may require
Assurances (CCAAs) monitoring)
Handbook
with the FWS receiving less than half of what is Permitting under section 10 also receives extensive
required to implement the Act as Congress intended attention under the ESA, with amendments, guid-
(Malcom et al 2019). With inadequate resources, it is ance by multiple regulations and policies, and
imperative that the Services implement conservation handbooks3 . While monitoring appears in some of
actions that have a marked effect on moving a spe- these, it is a minor element, which speaks to the fact
cies toward recovery. We are missing key information that monitoring is a low priority for the Services des-
on how actions and plans are affecting conservation pite its essential nature. Were it given priority based
outcomes. on its importance, we should expect the availabil-
We posit that the widely observed lack of con- ity of one or more policies, perhaps a monitoring
sistent monitoring of ESA implementation—and the handbook, an emphasis on funding for monitoring,
consequences for species and habitats—is driven by and a larger body of literature on monitoring in ESA
missing or inadequate policy direction. Congress did implementation. But those things do not exist.
not explicitly require monitoring for threatened or When monitoring does occur, it is frequently
endangered species or critical habitat beyond 5 year done through myriad stakeholders or agencies,
status reviews in section 4(c) and post-delisting mon- each with their own method of gathering essential
itoring, stipulated in section 4(g) (U.S. Congress data. Monitoring data on the same species might
1973). The Services, however, do recognize the gen- be simultaneously collected through different con-
eral need for monitoring in regulation and in internal tractors for HCPs and reported to local Service
documents that guide the implementation of the Act, offices, through National Wildlife Refuge System
though this guidance is usually not legally binding biologist surveys, and/or through data collected by
(table 1). In contrast, consider the extensive policy other agencies and provided to the Service through
direction on other aspects of the ESA (table 2). Detail section 7 consultation. Incorporating such data into
on listing species, recovery planning and designating range-wide analyses such as those needed during five
critical habitat encompass most of section 4. It is sub- year reviews of listed species is hampered by lack
ject to multiple regulations and policies; guided by a of coordinated monitoring. For example, when sci-
handbook for recovery planning that has been revised entists attempted to aggregate data from surveys of
repeatedly over the years; and has garnered signi- non-breeding waterfowl in certain national wildlife
ficant scientific attention. Interagency cooperation
under section 7 receives similar treatment, with a full 3 For a comprehensive list of government sources referenced,
section of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Regulations and Policies
Part 402), a handbook, and a considerable amount page at www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/regulations-and-
of scientific research focused on its implementation. policies.html.
2Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 031001 M Evansen et al
Table 2. Direction and guidance provided for the implementation of aspects of the ESA.
Selected policies and
ESA element Regulations guidance4 Handbook guidance
Section 4 (including 50 CFR Part 17 (USFWS), Distinct Population Segment Policy, Yes (NMFS/FWS
listing, critical habitat, 50 CFR Subpart A 61 FR 4722 (Feb. 7, 1996); Significant Recovery Planning
recovery planning and (NMFS), 50 CFR Part Portion of its Range Policy, 79 FR Guidance)
5 year reviews) 424 (joint) 37577 (July 1, 2014); Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions,
68 FR 15100 (March 28, 2003);
Director’s Memo: Streamlining 90 d
and 12 month Petition Findings
Section 7 (including 50 CFR Part 402 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Yes (Consultations
interagency Mitigation Policy; Procedures Handbook)
cooperation) for Implementing Programmatic
Consultation Strategies
Section 10 (Permitting 50 CFR Part 13 Candidate Conservation Agreements Yes (Habitat
including habitat with Assurances Policy; Guidance for Conservation
conservation plans the Establishment, Use, and Operation Planning
(HCPs), safe harbor of Conservation Banks (68 FR 24753, Handbook)
agreements (SHAs), May 8 2003)
candidate conservation
agreements (CCAs) and
scientific collection
Monitoring (other than None None None
post-delisting)
refuges, they found inconsistency in how and when policy framework as a starting point for detailed mon-
refuges collected their data which impeded analysis itoring policy and guidance that can help ensure effi-
of aggregated data. Here, the main cause of incon- cient and effective implementation of the Act and lead
sistency was the fact that survey method design was to better conservation outcomes for imperiled spe-
largely left to individual refuges (Andersson et al cies. A comprehensive monitoring policy will not by
2015). While not about the ESA—we are not aware of itself ensure effective system-wide monitoring: imple-
any published, citable examples for the ESA, only that mentation and compliance will also be critical. The
we have been told it is a problem—this example high- framework we offer can serve as a starting point, and
lights how lack of coordination of monitoring can certain provisions we offer (for example, the pub-
preclude essential inferences. The lack of monitor- lic dissemination of monitoring data) can strengthen
ing of programs under the Act means that we cannot compliance.
know whether there are similar systemic problems
that should be addressed. If such problems exist, in 1. A monitoring policy framework
addition to being wasteful of government and private
sector resources, the species meant to be protected Here we present a proposal of a monitoring policy
bear the brunt of these errors. framework for the ESA (SI appendix A (available
Without such a framework, it is far more dif- online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/16/031001/mmedia)).
ficult for the Services to use knowledge gained The monitoring policy framework covers five key
through monitoring to assess implementation, often- areas for reporting: (a) biological status monitor-
times leaving the best available science off the table. ing; (b) threats status monitoring; (c) compliance
Despite the ‘best available scientific and commer- monitoring; (d) effectiveness monitoring; and (e)
cial information’ mandate in the listing and con- investment analysis. The framework further incor-
sultation provisions of the Act, existing monitoring porates cross-cutting themes, including the need
data useful to one agency biologist may be languish- for increased transparency within and outside the
ing on the shelf of another (Government Account- Services; accommodating emerging technologies for
ability Office (GAO) 2009, Owley 2015). A con- monitoring; and addressing the need for qualitative
crete monitoring policy framework is thus needed to and quantitative data (figure 1).
improve effective conservation of imperiled species The framework addresses the following core
under the ESA. We introduce ideas for a monitoring needs, which stem from implementation gaps and
lack of transparency within current monitoring
4 Unless practices, and areas where increased monitoring may
the in-text citation states otherwise, all lis-
ted policies and handbook guidance can be found at improve ESA-based conservation outcomes for listed
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/index.html. species:
3Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 031001 M Evansen et al
Figure 1. The structure of the monitoring policy framework.
(a) Incorporation of Adaptive Management. The species (Shwiff et al 2012). This will help avoid
adaptive management process produces the best inefficient use of resources, and may have the
available science to be used in the implementa- additional benefit of reducing monetary costs of
tion of the Act (Green and Garmestani 2012). monitoring.
(b) Increased Recovery Implementation and Effect- (g) Adoption of Modern Technology. Modern tech-
iveness. Prescribing and implementing effective nology can improve monitoring methods. For
recovery actions is essential for restoring pop- example, the use of an electronic database that
ulations. The framework addresses the need to can be updated by staff from any FWS region
monitor the implementation and effectiveness to enable consistent data recording and facilit-
of recovery actions outlined for listed species. ate effective conservation reporting.
(c) Increased Compliance with the Act. Compli- (h) Increased Transparency. Data transparency to
ance with permits and agreements is essential enable agencies, academic researchers, nongov-
for ensuring proper implementation and for ernment organizations and other stakeholders
assessing where improvements might be made to access the most up-to-date information on
(Malcom et al 2017). imperiled biodiversity facilitates better conser-
(d) Consistent Data Collection and Resolution. vation and decision-making.
Improved coordination, collection and resol- (i) Increased Coordination Among All Partners.
ution of data gathered is incorporated as part Coordination with federal, state, local, Tribal,
of the monitoring process. This includes timely non-governmental and academic partners who
and accurate reporting and the use of standard- share in the responsibility for monitoring spe-
ized measures for qualitative and quantitative cies and/or who can assist in the monitoring
data. process will increase the efficiency of monitor-
(e) Scientific Capacity Building. The timeliness and ing data collection efforts.
accuracy of data recorded enables the use of
the best available science by decision-makers. 2. Next steps
The adaptive management process can assess
the efficacy of conservation actions prescribed Developing and adopting a monitoring policy for
for species’ recovery. the Act will require the Services to take the next
(f) Implementation of Cost Effectiveness Analysis. steps, including internal development, extensive
The framework includes a cost-effectiveness collaboration with other government agencies, and
analysis of monitoring efforts when the bene- engagement outside of government (e.g. academics
fits or impacts of a conservation measure are and practitioners). We hope this contribution offers
not ones that can be monetized, but rather a strong starting point for the process. As the pro-
quantified in the increase in population of a cess develops, a number of step-down actions could
4Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 031001 M Evansen et al
both improve current monitoring while setting the We encourage the Services to move toward
stage for the Services’ development of an overarching the implementation of a comprehensive monitor-
monitoring policy. The following changes to current ing policy, starting with initial steps outlined above,
practices would improve adaptive management pro- to improve the conservation of threatened and
cesses in the short term and help with adoption of a endangered species.
monitoring policy in the long term:
3. Conclusion
(a) Improved use of modern technology. Enabling
Service biologists to share and access monitor- Conserving biodiversity is imperative for the sake
ing data through the use of electronic databases of natural systems and people, all of whom depend
would improve coordination and transparency on functioning ecosystems that biodiversity helps to
among biologists, offices and regions. Cur- maintain (IPBES 2019). The ESA is the best route
rently, no such centralized database for monit- to protect imperiled species within the United States,
oring data exists or is in use. Incorporating the but it can only do so if it works as designed. Cur-
use of remote sensing technologies will allow for rently, the lack of a cross-cutting and comprehensive
more efficient monitoring. Increasing the avail- monitoring policy means that despite the strengths
ability of these data will generally improve the of the Act, we cannot determine if it is reaching its
science used for decision-making. full potential. The monitoring policy framework out-
(b) Increase funding for monitoring-specific actions. lined here would fill a major gap in implementing the
Increasing the funding for monitoring through Act, establish monitoring as a priority and give rise
avenues such as funding requests to Con- to using the best available science to improve con-
gress, adjustment (where permitted) of existing servation outcomes for the species that need it most:
appropriations, grants, and through permit threatened and endangered plants and animals pro-
conditions that specify monitoring investment tected by the ESA.
requirements, will allow more resources to
be dedicated solely to monitoring efforts and Data availability statement
establish monitoring a priority. Monitoring the
funding increases can inform adaptive man- No new data were created or analysed in this study.
agement to optimize funding allocations and
identify additional funding needs to bring to the
ORCID iDs
attention of decision makers.
Megan Evansen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
(c) Dedicated personnel for compliance monitor-
5734-5259
ing. With the addition of a minimum of one
Andrew Carter https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9002-
additional staff person in each USFWS Regional
6463
office dedicated solely to compliance monit-
oring, the Services can increase the capacity
References
for monitoring internally and more effectively
coordinate across federal agencies and with Andersson K, Davis C A, Harris G and Haukos D A 2015 An
other stakeholders. The duties of compliance assessment of non-breeding waterfowl surveys on National
monitoring personnel can be outlined and pri- Wildlife Refuges in the Central Flyway Wildlife Soc. Bull.
39 79–86
oritized in the policy.
Doremus H 1997 Listing decisions under the Endangered Species
(d) Enhanced interagency coordination. The Ser- Act: why better science isn’t always better policy Wash. Univ.
vices can enhance an emerging monitoring pro- Law Rev. 75 1029–153
gram with early, dedicated engagement with Evans D M, Che-Castaldo J P, Crouse D, Davis F W,
Epanchin-Niell R, Flather C H and Male T D 2016 Species
federal agencies that share the need to mon-
recovery in the United States: increasing the effectiveness of
itor imperiled species. Such coordination is the Endangered Species Act Issues in Ecology
required by sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Evansen M, Li Y W and Malcom J 2020 Same law, diverging
Act and can improve access to key monitoring practice: comparative analysis of Endangered Species Act
consultations by two federal agencies PLoS One 15 e0230477
information, increase data collection efficien-
Gerber L R 2016 Conservation triage or injurious neglect in
cies, and highlight knowledge gaps. endangered species recovery Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
(e) Coordination with other stakeholders. The 113 3563–6
Services can maximize capacity and reduce Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2009 Endangered
Species Act: the US Fish and Wildlife Service has incomplete
the burden of monitoring by establishing
information about effects on listed species from section 7
partnerships with those stakeholders for which consultations US Government Accountability Office
monitoring efforts are part of their duties. These Green O O and Garmestani A S 2012 Adaptive management to
stakeholders may include but are not limited protect biodiversity: best available science and the
Endangered Species Act Diversity 4 164–78
to: state agencies, Tribes, nongovernmental
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
organizations, regulated entities, and academic Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 2019 Summary for
partners. policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity
5Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 031001 M Evansen et al
and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Malcom J, Kim T and Li Y W 2017 Free aerial imagery as a
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem resource to monitor compliance with the Endangered
Services (available at: https://ipbes.net/sites/default/ Species Act BioRxiv: 204750
files/inline/files/ipbes_global_assessment_report_ Owley J 2015 Keeping track of conservation Ecol. Law Q.
summary_for_policymakers.pdf) 42 79–138
Malcom J W and Li Y W 2015 Data contradict common Schwartz M W 2008 The performance of the Endangered Species
perceptions about a controversial provision of the US Act Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39 279–94
Endangered Species Act Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. Shwiff S A, Anderson A, Cullen R, White P C L and Shwiff S S
112 15844–9 2012 Assignment of measurable costs and benefits to
Malcom J W, Webber W M and Li Y-W 2016 A simple, wildlife conservation projects Wildlife Res. 40 134–41
sufficient, and consistent method to score the status of U.S. Congress 1973 Endangered Species Act US Code, 16 pp
threats and demography of imperiled species PeerJ 1534–44
4 e2230 US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011 Budget justifications and
Malcom J and Evansen M 2019 Funding needs for the U.S. performance information, fiscal year 2012 (Washington,
Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species program, FY DC: CBJ)
2020 (Center for Conservation Innovation, Defenders of Walters C J and Hilborn R 1978 Ecological optimization and
Wildlife) adaptive management Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9 157–88
6You can also read
