A major challenge faced today to protect threatened endangered species is the multiple-use conflict and its array of stakeholders. The struggle is derived from the ambiguity in the congressional mandate for land management, as there are several parties in conflict over the interpretation of multiple use (Rosenbaum 2019). As defined in section 530 of the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (1960), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service are given the task of utilizing land in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people (Rosenbaum 2019). However, the hierarchy of needs is not defined. The act declared actions should not impair the productivity of the land, as well as consideration should be given to the relative values of the various resources and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest output (Rosenbaum 2019). However, it does not show managers how differing values should be balanced (Rosenbaum 2019). It can be a challenge to coordinate harmonious land use when certain actions inherently damage biodiversity in a given area. For example, the BLM has been challenged to manage desert areas near Los Angeles to the satisfaction of both conservations and vehicle-racing enthusiasts, and conservationists have argued that the races permanently scar the land (Rosenbaum 2019). Additionally, the Forest Service is expected to protect national forests from excessive timbering but also assist private forest owners in obtaining access (Rosenbaum 2019). Moreover, wildlife refuges are supposed to protect and preserve the ecologically viable habitat for endangered species but also provide grazing, hunting and perhaps mining opportunities to private interests (Rosenbaum 2019).
Currently, when a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the land management services must consider whether there are areas of habitat essential to conserving the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). Identifying critical habitat enhances the conservation of listed species by providing important information about the actual and potential distribution of a species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). However, critical habitat does not affect private landowners who are undertaking activities that do not require federal permits, funding, or approval (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). As a result, the effort to preserve a species is limited. One way to make the ESA more effective, Congress should consider extending its definition of critical habitat to impact private landowners. Additionally, successful examples of habitat restoration programs exist for the California condors and black-footed ferrets (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). Another way to make the ESA more effective is to closely investigate how these programs resulted in beneficial outcomes and model new restoration plans after these examples. Also, Section 6 of the ESA recognizes the key role that states play in conserving and recovering endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). However, the law restricts the states to having authority over non-federal lands. A document from the University of Montana goes into detail about the limitations faced by the state government (Nie, n.d.). Congress should consider how giving joint power over federal lands to the state would enable a combined effort to preserve wildlife. Also, below is a chart depicting the federal government’s wildlife management procedure from the document entitled Primary Federal Laws Associated with Wildlife Protection, provided in this week’s supplemental readings. Notice how it is optional to conduct a Biological Assessment if a species/critical habitat is present. Right now, it is a challenge using science to develop policy if the science is option. Requiring scientific investigation would strengthen its role in policy. In turn, making it mandatory to conduct Biological Assessment if a critical habitat is present is a way Congress can make the ESA more effective because it would be proactive in identifying potential problems.
Source:
Nie, Martin. n.d. “Federal Land Agency Managers’ Frequently Asked Questions About Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands”. University of Montana Bolle Center for People and Forests. Accessed November 9 2020.
Rosenbaum, Walter A. 2020. Environmental Politics and Policy 11th Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA.: CQ Press, a Division of Sage.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. “Endangered Species Act 101: Basic Overview.” YouTube. December 28.
Comment #1:
Original Post by Jess Gilbert:
One of the biggest challenges facing threatened and endangered species is the current administration, their disregard for science, and their stated interest in promoting economic ventures. Underneath of this, the threat towards these species lies in climate change and human activities. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973 to “conserve and restore species that have been listed by the federal government as either endangered or threatened” (Morgan 2020, 2). Under this Act, federal agencies working with the ESA and listed species were to do nothing and make no decision that would potentially harm a species to be protected (Morgan 2020, 2). Prior to the current administration taking office, there was no requirement to evaluate the economic cost of protecting a listed species. With the Trump administration’s overhaul of the ESA, this was now going to be a requirement (Rice 2019b). This is of concern to many conservationists, because often costs can be overstated while benefits of protecting a species can be understated and intangible, unlike the costs of losing out on a certain dollar figure for a prohibition on logging in a particular forest (Rosenbaum 2020, 145). As with other deregulatory processes that have come out of the current administration, easing up on the ESA is meant to ease “the regulatory burden on the American public” (Rice 2019b).
It is believed that the ESA has a success rate of over 99%, though there are many controversies over the act, how it is implemented, and how it possibly affects livelihoods around the country (Barry et al. 2013, 3). There is a lot of scientific uncertainty regarding different species and how to best aid in their recovery. Climate change is only going to exacerbate this uncertainty, not only with species listed under the ESA but other species as well (Rice 2019a). However, scientists and associated governmental agencies need to look to the precautionary principle and be prepared to make adjustments to management practices if necessary. Unfortunately, a lot of wildlife conservation efforts are launched off of incomplete data, but failing to act may be more of a mistake than choosing the wrong approach at first. “Reasonable and responsible” risks should be taken, but only if there is going to be close monitoring of the recovery period to adjust as needed (Barry et al. 2013, 8).
To quickly make the ESA more effective, Congress needs to allocate more money to federal agencies that are in charge of carrying out and enforcing the act. Continued stripping of budgets and layoffs in these agencies stretch workers and resources too think to carry out all of the numerous duties of which they are in charge. More money means more research and more staff, which can lessen the burden and stress on the personnel that focus their time and attention on the ESA.
References
Barry, Donald, Jamie Rappaport Clark, Nancy Gloman, Ya-Wei Li, Tim Male, and Mike Senatore. 2013. Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife.
Morgan, Ann J. 2020. “Primary Federal Laws Associated with Wildlife Protection.” Canvas. Accessed November 10, 2020.
Rice, Doyle. 2019a. “Feds aren’t doing enough to protect endangered species from climate change, study finds.” USA Today, November 20. Accessed November 10, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/19/endangered-species-climate-change-feds-must-do-more/4238170002.
Rice, Doyle. 2019b. “Trump administration overhauls Endangered Species Act as critics fear animal extinction.” USA Today, August 13. Accessed November 10, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/12/donald-trump-administration-weaken-endangered-species-act/1985543001.
Rosenbaum, Walter A. 2020. Environmental Politics and Policy. 11th ed. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.
My Comment:
Hi Jess,
I agree there is a lot of scientific uncertainty regarding different species and how to best aid in their recovery. In regards to the Endangered Species Act, Woods and Morey (2008) highlighted the importance of being explicit about sources and types of uncertainties, as well as the need to carefully evaluate how these uncertainties influence risk and consequences of making errors. It would be a proactive approach to limiting errors.
Evans et al. (2016) attested to your point that, in order to make the ESA more effective, it needs more funding. Considering many listed species will require ongoing management for the foreseeable future to protect them from persistent threats (Evans et al. 2016), insufficient resources is a major issue.
The authors would add the distribution of money among listed species is highly uneven (Evans et al. 2016). From 1998 to 2012, over 80 percent of all government spending went to support 5 percent of all listed species, whereas 80 percent of all listed species shared less than 5 percent of all funds (Evans et al. 2016).
Sources:
Evans, Daniel, Judy P. Che-Castaldo, Deborah Crouse, Frank W. Davis, Rebecca Epanchin-Niell, Curtis H. Flather, R. Kipp Frohlich, Dale D. Goble, Ya-Wei Li, Timothy D. Male, Lawrence L. Master, Matthew P. Moskwik, Maile C. Neel, Barry R. Noon, Camille Parmesan, Mark W. Schwartz, J. Michael Scott, Byron K. Williams. 2016. “Species Recovery in the United States: Increasing the Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act”. Issues in Ecology. 20: 1-28.
Woods, Theresa and Steve Morey. 2008. “Uncertainty and the Endangered Species Act”. Indiana Law Journal. 83 (2): 529-536.
Response by Jess Gilbert:
Mary,
Thank you so much for your response and all this additional information that you shared here. The Defenders of Wildlife echo your sentiments about how money is allocated to assist with the recovery of imperiled species. While there must be some level of prioritization, there needs to be some way to more efficiently use funds to manage other recovery processes as well. Protecting certain keystone species can aid in the recovery of others as well, however, there are hurdles put in place through litigation and party politics that sometimes impede progress (Barry et al. 2013, 4-5).
Funds that are distributed to each of the eight FWS regional offices are then sub-allocated to their research and field offices. Unfortunately, it seems that much of the money intended for recovery goes to paying the salaries of the recovery biologists – that doesn’t seem right (Barry et al. 2013, 5). In my opinion, those funds intended for species recovery should be spent on actually recovering the species and salaries should be pulled from other budgetary funds.
References
Barry, Donald, Jamie Rappaport Clark, Nancy Gloman, Ya-Wei Li, Tim Male, and Mike Senatore. 2013. Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife.
My Comment:
Hi Jess,
I agree prioritization has definitely led to success that is important to recognize. For example the bald eagle’s presence went from 417 nesting pairs in 1963 to more than 11,000 in 2007 (Evans et al. 2016). Other successes include such hallmarks of America’s wildlife heritage as the grizzly bear, and gray whale (Evans et al. 2016).
Good point in noting there are obstacles in place through politics that impede progress. One of the strategies the Ecological Society of America suggested to improve the effectiveness of the ESA is to strengthen partnerships for species recovery by expanding collaboration among federal agencies, the states, and nongovernmental organizations and by developing incentives for private landowners (Evans et al. 2016). States can provide funding and pass laws to help species recover in ways that are both specific and flexible (Evans et al. 2016). For example, Florida created dedicated funding sources for the endangered Florida manatee and Florida panther (Evans et al. 2016). Moreover, state wildlife agencies can conduct broad proactive conservation planning through their state wildlife action plans (SWAPs) which allows them to receive federal funds through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grants Program (Evans et al. 2016).. Congress funded these programs to help conserve species of greatest conservation need—before they need to be listed under the ESA (Evans et al. 2016). However, many states direct SWAP funding primarily to sport fish and game, instead of broadly addressing all species at risk (Evans et al. 2016).
Additionally, more than two-thirds of all listed species occur on private lands, and about one-third occur only on private lands (Evans et al. 2016). However, private landowners and businesses complain of infringements on property rights, which can yield perverse consequences such as efforts to discourage or eliminate listed species from private lands (Evans et al. 2016). Below is a list of incentive programs designed to partner with private landowners in the effort to preserve biodiversity.
Source:
Evans, Daniel, Judy P. Che-Castaldo, Deborah Crouse, Frank W. Davis, Rebecca Epanchin-Niell, Curtis H. Flather, R. Kipp Frohlich, Dale D. Goble, Ya-Wei Li, Timothy D. Male, Lawrence L. Master, Matthew P. Moskwik, Maile C. Neel, Barry R. Noon, Camille Parmesan, Mark W. Schwartz, J. Michael Scott, Byron K. Williams. 2016. “Species Recovery in the United States: Increasing the Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act”. Issues in Ecology. 20: 1-28.