A monitoring policy framework for the United States Endangered Species Act

Page created by Debbie Hardy
 
CONTINUE READING
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 18:31
Environ. 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 Ltd
Environ. 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.

                                                     2
Environ. 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:

                                                      3
Environ. 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

                                                        4
Environ. 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

                                              5
Environ. 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

                                                     6
You can also read