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

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.

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-192
Author(s):  
Stacey L. Crecy ◽  
Melissa E. Perera ◽  
Elizabeth J. Petras ◽  
John A. Tarpley

ABSTRACT #2017-373 Federal agencies involved in oil spill response in the U.S. are required to comply with several environmental compliance laws. Where a Federal agency is operating in a way that may affect endangered species in the area, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the agency to “consult” with the two Federal agencies responsible for protecting those species and habitats – the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, nonprofit organizations filed several lawsuits against the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (the “Action Agencies”) for failure to comply with the ESA during oil spill contingency planning. In one case, a settlement required the Action Agencies to consult with the NMFS and USFWS (together, called the “Services”) on the plan to use oil spill dispersants in California waters. Perhaps responding to these developments, several Regional Response Teams across the country initiated or made plans to review the status of their ESA Section 7 consultations. These efforts have varied in cost, scope, composition of agency representatives involved, and success in completing a consultation for a variety of reasons. There have been numerous challenges for USCG and EPA in meeting the ESA Section 7 consultation requirements for oil spill planning. First, the most recent framework for cooperation between the Action Agencies and the Services regarding consulting on oil spill planning and response activities is contained in an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed in 2001. Although the agreement is still valid, some parts have been identified as outdated or in need of clarification. Secondly, there are no direct funding mechanisms or dedicated personnel assigned to the Action Agencies to work on pre-spill ESA Section 7 consultations. Third, recommendations and consultation outcomes can vary between Service agencies as well as internally within each Service agency due to a high level of regional autonomy. In 2015, the National Response Team (NRT) formed a new, interagency subcommittee to improve the Federal Action Agencies’ ability to comply with environmental laws such as the ESA with respect to oil spill response and pre-spill planning. A workgroup of the NRT Subcommittee was formed to specifically address pre-spill ESA Section 7 consultation processes. The workgroup includes regional and national representatives from the Action Agencies and the Services. In addition to strengthening relationships and understanding among the participating agencies, the workgroup has identified gaps in the 2001 MOA and is in the process of developing tools and templates on how to conduct pre-spill ESA Section 7 consultations to help fill some of the existing gaps. The workgroup ultimately hopes to facilitate the development of updated, complete, efficient, and consistent ESA Section 7 consultations across the nation.


Wild Capital ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 163-196
Author(s):  
Barbara K. Jones

The wolf as both an endangered species and an animal with abundant charisma returned to the West at a critical time. If the reintroduction of the wolf had not occurred when it did, one of the greatest wildlife conservation success stories in history would not have become a reality. For many, our willingness to co-exist with the restored wolf in the lower forty-eight states has moved the American relationship with wildlife even further away from the divisive Western worldview to a more Japanese worldview that sees us and wild nature as points on a continuum. This change is embedded in the debunking of the “bloodthirsty wolf myth” and an improved awareness of a predator’s right to exist, encouraged by more appropriately valuing its presence against other competing values. For the red wolf, its reintroduction to northeastern North Carolina has provided a powerful educational tool for engaging the public and improving their ecological and economic understandings of the value of wildlife. The return of a charismatic predator like the wolf to the lower forty-eight is not only changing the narrative regarding this animal, but has given us the opportunity to assign its presence tremendous value for future generations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 676-690
Author(s):  
Richard O. Flamm

AbstractThis paper describes the conception, development, launch, marketing, and maintenance of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Reporter (FWC Reporter), a mobile application (app) that the public can use to report fish and wildlife and environmental concerns to appropriate state agency offices. The FWC Reporter, launched in February 2018, is the first comprehensive reporting app developed by a fish and wildlife agency in the United States that we are aware of. On the basis of a consumer concept test and library research, the app's design incorporates elements of fast and frugal heuristics and inductive decision theory. The FWC developed this version of the app in-house with an open-source development package, and involves primarily email and telephone to send reports and facilitate communication with agency staff. From February 2018 through December 31, 2018, the FWC recorded over 1,000 downloads on Android and 4,308 on Apple devices, and 258 emailed reports. Since fish and wildlife reporting apps do not provide clear benefit to the user (low value proposition), it is crucial that offices receiving reports are proactive in building and maintaining their own reporting constituency. Engagement with the public is not only through active recruitment of app users, but also following up after a report is made so that the users know their efforts are appreciated. Two FWC programs demonstrated successful engagement, horseshoe crabs Limulus polyphemus and fish kills, as they received the most email reports. Other topics for any conservation or fish and wildlife agency to consider when developing their own reporting mobile app include download intention, adoption, continuance, habit formation, public and organizational acceptance, and marketing.


FACETS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1088-1127
Author(s):  
Daniel Kraus ◽  
Stephen Murphy ◽  
Derek Armitage

Wildlife is declining around the world. Many developed nations have enacted legislation on endangered species protection and provide funding for wildlife recovery. Protecting endangered species is also supported by the public and judiciary. Yet, despite what appear as enabling conditions, wild species continue to decline. Our paper explores pathways to endangered species recovery by analyzing the barriers that have been identified in Canada, the United States, and Australia. We summarize these findings based on Canada’s Species at Risk Conservation Cycle (assessment, protection, recovery planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation) and then identify 10 “bridges” that could help overcome these barriers and bend our current trajectory of wildlife loss to recovery. These bridges include ecosystem approaches to recovery, building capacity for community co-governance, linking wildlife recovery to ecosystem services, and improving our storytelling about the loss and recovery of wildlife. The focus of our conclusions is the Canadian setting, but our findings can be applied in other national and subnational settings to reverse the decline of wildlife and halt extinction.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg Evansen ◽  
Heather Harl ◽  
Andrew Carter ◽  
Jacob Malcom

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Evansen ◽  
Heather Harl ◽  
Andrew Carter ◽  
Jacob Malcom

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.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Evansen ◽  
Ya-Wei Li ◽  
Jacob Malcom

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-125
Author(s):  
Christopher Lee ◽  
Suzie Allard ◽  
Nancy McGovern ◽  
Alice Bishop

In the United States, research funded by the government produces a significant portion of data. US law mandates that these data should be freely available to the public through ‘public access’, which is defined as fully discoverable and usable by the public. The U.S. government executive branch supported the public access requirements by issuing an Executive Directive titled ‘Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research’ that required federal agencies with annual research and development expenditures of more than $100 million to create public access plans by 22 August 2013. The directive applied to 19 federal agencies, some with multiple divisions. Additional direction for this initiative was provided by the Executive Order ‘Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information’ which was accompanied by a memorandum with specific guidelines for information management and instructions to find ways to reduce compliance costs through interagency cooperation. In late 2013, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) to conduct a project to help IMLS and its constituents understand the implications of the US federal public access mandate and how needs and gaps in digital curation can best be addressed. Our project has three research components: (1) a structured content analysis of federal agency plans supporting public access to data and publications, identifying both commonalities and differences among plans; (2) case studies (interviews and analysis of project deliverables) of seven projects previously funded by IMLS to identify lessons about skills, capabilities and institutional arrangements that can facilitate data curation activities; and (3) a gap analysis of continuing education and readiness assessment of the workforce. Research and cultural institutions urgently need to rethink the professional identities of those responsible for collecting, organizing, and preserving data for future use. This paper reports on a project to help inform further investments.  


2018 ◽  
Vol 148 (suppl_2) ◽  
pp. 1401S-1405S ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna T Dwyer ◽  
Paul M Coates

Abstract Until a decade ago, no dietary supplement (DS) databases with open access for public use existed in the United States. They were needed by researchers, since half of American adults use dietary DSs and, without information on supplement use and composition, exposures could not be estimated. These articles on Challenges and Future Directions for Dietary Supplement Databases describe subsequent progress. They begin by describing why information on DSs is needed by the government and how it is used to ensure the health of the public. Current developments include: application of DS information to meet public health needs; research efforts on DS quality, efficacy, and safety (as conducted by the Office of Dietary Supplements and other federal agencies); enhanced regulatory activities implemented by the FDA Office of Dietary Supplement Programs, the FDA Office of Enforcement, and the Federal Trade Commission; and initiatives for broader development and dissemination of DS databases for commercial and public use. Other contributions in this journal supplement describe the challenges of working with DSs and the progress that has been made. Additional articles describe surveys of DS use among the general US population and also among special groups such as high supplement users, illustrating why there is a need in the United States for information on supplements. Likely directions for the future of DS science are summarized.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document