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 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 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 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 Missing, delayed, and old: A status review of ESA recovery plans

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Ya-Wei Li
Keyword(s):  
Planning Process ◽  
Completion Rates ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Recovery Planning ◽  
The Past ◽  
Time To Completion ◽  
New Information ◽  
Dynamic Web ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Using Data

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. Common criticisms are that too many species lack recovery plans, plans take too long to write, and they are rarely updated to include new information. Using data from all U.S. domestic and transboundary ESA-listed species—most of which are required to have recovery plans—we quantify these basic characteristics of ESA recovery planning over the past 40 years. We show that nearly 1/4 of eligible listed species (n = 1,503) lack recovery plans; the average recovery plan has taken >5 years to finalize after listing; half of recovery plans are 19 or more years old; and there is significant variation among regions and between agencies in plan completion rates and time-to-completion. These results are not unexpected given dwindling budgets and an increasing number of species to protect, but underscore the need for systematic improvements to recovery planning. We discuss solutions that may address some of the shortcomings we identify here, including a transition to dynamic, web-based recovery plans.

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

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Ya-Wei Li
Keyword(s):  
Planning Process ◽  
Completion Rates ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Recovery Planning ◽  
The Past ◽  
Time To Completion ◽  
New Information ◽  
Dynamic Web ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Using Data

Recovery planning is an essential part of implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), but conservationists and government agencies recognize many problems with the planning process. Common criticisms are that too many species lack recovery plans, plans take too long to write, and they are rarely updated to include new information. Using data from all U.S. domestic and transboundary ESA-listed species—most of which are required to have recovery plans—we quantify basic characteristics of ESA recovery planning over the past 40 years. We show that nearly 1/4 of eligible listed species (n = 1,503) lack recovery plans; the average recovery plan has taken >5 years to finalize after listing; half of recovery plans are 19 or more years old; and there is significant variation among regions and between agencies in plan completion rates and time-to-completion. These results are not unexpected given dwindling budgets and an increasing number of species to protect, but underscore the need for systematic improvements to recovery planning. We discuss solutions that may address some of the shortcomings we identify here, including a transition to dynamic, web-based recovery plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

scholarly journals A Monitoring Policy Framework for the United States Endangered Species Act

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg Evansen ◽  
Jacob Malcom ◽  
Andrew Carter
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Effectiveness Monitoring ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Status ◽  
Conservation Actions ◽  
Compliance With The Law ◽  
The U.S

Biodiversity is deteriorating at a global level as human actions like development, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and other factors have led to a dramatic increase in the rate of extinction. The U.S. Endangered Species Act is considered one of the strongest laws in the world for protecting wildlife, but its effectiveness depends on proper implementation. Despite the importance of ensuring such proper implementation, the agencies that implement the Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS; Collectively, the Services) have no systematic monitoring policy to allow such evaluation. This lack of monitoring means the Services cannot accurately evaluate the success of recovery actions, make effective listing, delisting, and downlisting decisions, which can not only put species at risk for further decline, but also result in the misallocation of oftentimes scarce conservation funding. We posit that the absence of a monitoring policy has led to the lack of comprehensive systems to monitor and report on: a) compliance with the law, b) the effectiveness of conservation actions, or c) the state of listed species populations or the status of their threats. To help address this gap, we drafted a monitoring policy that covers (1) biological monitoring; (2) threats monitoring; (3) compliance monitoring; (4) effectiveness monitoring; and (5) investment analysis. The need for increased transparency within and outside the Services; accommodating emerging technologies; and addressing the need for detailed qualitative and quantitative data are considered in this proposal. This blueprint provides a starting point for more detailed monitoring policy and guidance that can help ensure efficient and effective implementation of the ESA and lead to better conservation outcomes for imperiled species.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document