Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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