Download Assessing the Endangered Species Act and

Assessing the Endangered Species Act and
Improving its Implementation
J. Michael Scott
University Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences
University of Idaho
How things have changed…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
First endangered species list 1967 78 species
Today 1570 species
Projected 2023 6000 species
Congress has never fully funded the Endangered
Species Act
1970 Implementation of ESA was regulatory and
top down
Today Implementation of ESA is more permitting
and development of partnerships
Climate change not an identified threat when ESA
passed
84% of listed species conservation reliant
DM Evans
Main findings: Successes
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been remarkably successful at
shielding species from extinction
 It has directly prevented at least 200 species from going extinct
 It has stabilized and increased populations of several hundred
additional species
DM Evans
Main findings: Successes
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been remarkably successful at
shielding species from extinction
 It has directly prevented at least 200 species from going extinct
 It has stabilized and increased populations of several hundred
additional species
In general, the longer species are protected by the ESA, the more likely
they are to be improving in conservation status, i.e., moving toward
recovery
DM Evans
Clarifying the meaning of recovery
Species recovery is a central goal of the ESA, but the ESA does not
explicitly define “recovery”
Instead, the ESA vaguely instructs federal agencies to “conserve” listed
species using “all methods and procedures which are necessary” until
“the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary”
(ESA sec. 3(3))
In short, recovery means that listed species no longer need the act’s
protection (ESA sects. 3(3), 4(g)), and the species, therefore, can be
removed from the endangered species list
DM Evans
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
The number of listed species has increased almost every year since 1973,
and hundreds or even thousands of additional species could be added to
the list in the next 10-20 years
Number and type of U.S. listed species each year from 1973 to 2013
Plants and lichens
Invertebrates
Reptiles
Amphibians
Mammals
Fishes
Birds
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
http://ecos.fws.gov
0
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
Thanks to
Mark Schwartz
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
The number of listed species has increased almost every year since 1973,
and hundreds or even thousands of additional species could be added to
the list in the next 10-20 years
Comparing the number of ESA-listed species to the number of U.S.
species that NatureServe considers imperiled
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Thanks to Larry Master
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
ESA Listed
Species
NatureServe
Imperiled
Species
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
With historical and current ESA implementation strategies, recovery has
been rare (<2% of all listed species have been delisted), and it takes a
long time
Twenty years of recovery status trend information provided by the
Services between 1990 to 2010 (N=1,292)
Unknown
2%
Stable or
No Trend
35%
Declining
52%
Thanks to Tim Male
Improving
8%
Presumed
extinct
3%
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
There are large gaps in our knowledge of the status of listed species, and
monitoring programs to assess species’ responses to recovery efforts are
inadequate or nonexistent
For many listed species, there’s a critical lack of data describing:
 How many individuals there are
 How big their range is
 How they are distributed across their range
 Basic ecological requirements
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
Recovery criteria are not consistently rooted in the best available science
Recovery plans frequently:
 Include qualitative criteria related to population trends that are not
specific enough, e.g., populations should be “increasing”
 Provide thresholds for species abundance that are too low to ensure
a high probability of species persistence
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
The amount of government funding is one of the best predictors of
recovery success, but government spending on species recovery has long
been insufficient, and spending is highly skewed toward a few taxonomic
groups
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
Government spending is highly skewed toward a few taxonomic groups
2012 Total federal and state government spending on endangered and
threatened species
$168,000 $57,000
$295,000
Fish (165)
$1.5 million
Birds (98)
Mammals (101)
$1.8
million
$1.9
million
Thanks to Mark Schwartz
Data: USFWS
Reptiles (42)
$5.1 million
Invertebrates (238)
Amphibians (25)
Plants and Lichens (778)
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
A large majority of listed species face persistent and pervasive threats
that can be managed but are extremely difficult or impossible to
eliminate
 Conservation managers may be able to increase the populations of
such species and abate the threats that caused them to decline,
bringing the species to the point where they may reach the recovery
goals described in their recovery plans
 But because the threats causing the species to decline are extremely
difficult or impossible to eliminate, the species will need ongoing
management for the foreseeable future
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
A large majority of listed species face persistent and pervasive threats
that can be managed but are extremely difficult or impossible to
eliminate
Percent species affected (%)
Percentage of listed species affected by the primary ecological threats
described in recovery plans (N=1,421)
100
Animals
Plants
80
60
40
20
0
Habitat Loss/
Degradation
Thanks to Judy Che-Castaldo
and Maile Neel
Invasive/
Other Species
Pollution
Overharvest/
Overhunting
Transient Human
Climate/
Disturbances
Natural Disasters
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
A large majority of listed species face persistent and pervasive threats
that can be managed but are extremely difficult or impossible to
eliminate
Percent species affected (%)
Percentage of listed species affected by the primary ecological threats
described in recovery plans (N=1,421)
100
Animals
Plants
80
60
40
20
0
Habitat Loss/
Degradation
Thanks to Judy Che-Castaldo
and Maile Neel
Invasive/
Other Species
Pollution
Overharvest/
Overhunting
Transient Human
Climate/
Disturbances
Natural Disasters
Main findings: Challenges to implementing the ESA
Climate change is becoming a greater threat to many individual listed
species; it will continue to reshuffle ecological communities; and it will
increase the uncertainty associated with managing listed species
Main findings: Strategies to improve ESA implementation
• Use a systematic, biologically based prioritization framework for
funding species recovery programs
• Strengthen partnerships to manage and monitor species recovery,
especially with the states, private landowners, and nongovernmental
organizations
• Increase adaptive management
• Develop more consistent, objective, measurable recovery criteria
based on the best available science
• Adopt climate-smart conservation strategies
• Consider using ecosystem-based approaches to increase the
efficiency of managing for recovery
DM Evans
Main findings: Strategies to improve ESA implementation
Use a systematic, biologically based prioritization framework for
funding species recovery programs
Because funding is limited, tradeoffs are necessary
 The Services already have a prioritization framework for making
tradeoffs, but they have not consistently applied it to decisionmaking
 With a systematic prioritization framework, conservation managers
can recovery more species more efficiently
DM Evans
Main findings: Strategies to improve ESA implementation
Increase the use of adaptive management
Because managing listed species is fraught with uncertainty, and climate
change is increasing management uncertainty
 It is necessary and desirable to increase the use of adaptive
management, which is explicitly designed to
• Manage in the face of uncertainty, and
• Permit managers to learn from management outcomes to
improve management techniques
DM Evans
Main findings: Strategies to improve ESA implementation
Develop more consistent, objective, measurable recovery criteria based
on the best available science
Because recovery criteria, as given in recovery plans, are not
consistently rooted in the best available science
 Strengthen the scientific foundation of the Services’ current “3R”
approach to recovery planning:
• “Recovery criteria should address the biodiversity principles of
representation, resiliency, and redundancy (Schaffer and Stein
2000)” (Recovery Planning Guidance)
• Scientists should work with the Services and other agencies
responsible for implementing the ESA to more clearly articulate
the 3R principles
DM Evans
Main findings: Strategies to improve ESA implementation
Adopt climate-smart conservation strategies
Because climate change is stressing individual species and reshuffling
ecological communities
 Increase habitat connectivity to facilitate species’ movements
 Reduce nonclimate stressors, e.g., invasive species
 Consistently incorporate climate change into regular species
vulnerability assessments
Also further evaluate and consider:
 Using assisted colonization to move species to suitable habitats
 Protecting potential habitats outside of species’ current ranges
DM Evans
Main findings: Strategies to improve ESA implementation
Consider using ecosystem-based approaches to increase the efficiency of
managing for recovery
Because listed species are not distributed randomly across the
landscape but instead overlap in ecological communities
Thanks to Curt Flather
DM Evans
Main findings: Strategies to improve ESA implementation
Consider using ecosystem-based approaches to increase the efficiency of
managing for recovery
Because listed species are not distributed randomly across the
landscape but instead overlap in ecological communities
Thanks to Curt Flather
 Conservation scientists and managers should further evaluate
ecosystem-based approaches:
• Using surrogate species to manage for listed species
• Using coarse ecological filters to target ecosystems rich in listed
species
DM Evans
Moving Forward
• Prioritization of recovery efforts
• Ecosystem approach
• Strengthen partnerships
• Build up people skills in work force
• Time to conserve a species is when it is still
common
• Establish Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts for delisted species
• Endangered Species and unfunded Federal
mandate or?
DM Evans
Thank You!
J. Michael Scott
[email protected]
Adapted from Daniel Evans’ presentation on
DM ESA
Evans
Assessing the