Environmental Management

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 161–172 | Cite as

The Route to Best Science in Implementation of the Endangered Species Act’s Consultation Mandate: The Benefits of Structured Effects Analysis

Article

Abstract

The Endangered Species Act is intended to conserve at-risk species and the ecosystems upon which they depend, and it is premised on the notion that if the wildlife agencies that are charged with implementing the statute use the best available scientific information, they can successfully carry out this intention. We assess effects analysis as a tool for using best science to guide agency decisions under the Act. After introducing effects analysis, we propose a framework that facilitates identification and use of the best available information in the development of agency determinations. The framework includes three essential steps—the collection of reliable scientific information, the critical assessment and synthesis of available data and analyses derived from those data, and the analysis of the effects of actions on listed species and their habitats. We warn of likely obstacles to rigorous, structured effect analyses and describe the extent to which independent scientific review may assist in overcoming these obstacles. We conclude by describing eight essential elements that are required for a successful effects analysis.

Keywords

Endangered species Consultation Effects analysis Best available science 

References

  1. Administrative Procedure Act (1946) U.S. code, vol 5, sects 551–706Google Scholar
  2. BDCP Independent Science Advisors (2009) Independent science advisors’ report on adaptive managementGoogle Scholar
  3. Beissinger SR (2002) Population viability analysis: past, present, future. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp 5–18Google Scholar
  4. Brennan MJ, Roth DE, Feldman MD, Greene AR (2002) Square pegs and round holes: application of the “best scientific data available” standard in the Endangered Species Act. Tulane Environmental Law Journal 16:387–444Google Scholar
  5. Carroll R, Augspurger C, Dobson A, Franklin J, Orians G, Reid W, Tracy R, Wilcove D, Wilson (1996) Strengthening the use of science in achieving the goals of the Endangered Species Act: an assessment by the Ecological Society of America. Ecological Applications 6:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce (1994a) Notice of interagency cooperative policy on information standards under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 59:34–271Google Scholar
  7. Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce (1994b) Notice of interagency cooperative policy for peer review in Endangered Species Act activities. Federal Register 59:34–270Google Scholar
  8. Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce (2009) Interagency cooperation. Code of Federal Regulations 50:402Google Scholar
  9. Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General (Undated) Investigative report on allegations against Julie MacDonald Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks. http://www.doioig.gov/images/stories/reports/pdf/Macdonald.pdf
  10. Doremus H (2004) The purposes, effects, and future of the Endangered Species Act’s best available science mandate. Environmental Law 34:397–450Google Scholar
  11. Endangered Species Act (1973) U.S. code, vol 16, sects. 1531–1544Google Scholar
  12. Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (1969) Public law 91–135Google Scholar
  13. Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Framework for cumulative risk assessmentGoogle Scholar
  14. Government Accountability Office (2003) Endangered species: Fish and Wildlife Service uses best available science to make listing decisions, but additional guidance is needed for critical habitat designationsGoogle Scholar
  15. Information Quality Act (2001) Public law 106–554, sect. 515Google Scholar
  16. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowi T (1979) The end of liberalism. W.W. Norton & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Meffe GK, Boersma PD, Murphy DD, Noon BR, Pulliam HR, Soule ME, Waller DM (1998) Independent scientific review in natural resource management. Conservation Biology 12:268–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mills TJ, RN Clark (2001) Roles of research scientists in natural resource decision-makingGoogle Scholar
  20. National Academies (2003) Policy on committee composition and balance and conflicts of interest. Forest Ecology and Management 153:189–198Google Scholar
  21. National Academy of Public Administration (1995) Setting priorities, getting results: a new direction for EPAGoogle Scholar
  22. National Marine Fisheries Service (1998) Biological opinion for authorization of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheriesGoogle Scholar
  23. National Marine Fisheries Service (2009) Biological opinion on the proposed coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water ProjectGoogle Scholar
  24. National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in the Federal government. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. National Research Council (1994) Science and judgment in risk assessment. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. National Research Council (1998) Peer review in environmental technology development programs. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council (2002) Scientific evaluation of biological opinions on endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath River Basin: interim report. National Academies Press. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. National Research Council (2009) Science and decisions. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Office of Management, Budget (OMB) (2002) Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by Federal agencies. Federal Register 67:8452Google Scholar
  30. Office of Management and Budget (2005) Final information quality bulletin for peer review. Federal Register 70:2664Google Scholar
  31. Ralls K, Beissinger SR, Cochrane JF (2002) Guidelines for using population viability analysis in endangered species management. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp 521–550Google Scholar
  32. Ruhl JB (2004) The battle over Endangered Species Act methodology. Environmental Law 34:555–604Google Scholar
  33. Ruhl JB (2005) Prescribing the right dose of peer review for the Endangered Species Act. Nebraska Law Review 83:398–431Google Scholar
  34. Shaffer M, Watchman LH, Snape WJ, Latchis IK (2002) Population viability analysis and conservation policy. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp 123–142Google Scholar
  35. Sullivan PJ et al (2006) Defining and implementing best available science for fisheries and environmental science, policy, and management. Fisheries 31:460–465Google Scholar
  36. Sunstein C (2002) Risk and reason: safety, law and the environment. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2001) Biological/conference opinion regarding the effects of operation of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath project on the endangered Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus), endangered shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and proposed critical habitat for the Lost River/shortnose suckersGoogle Scholar
  38. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) Biological opinion on the proposed coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water ProjectGoogle Scholar
  39. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) Response to the Family Farm Alliance Information Quality Act (IQA) Appeal of the Draft Effects Analysis of the Biological Opinion on the Continued Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP)Google Scholar
  40. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (1998) Endangered species consultation handbookGoogle Scholar
  41. Vogel, DA (2004) Juvenile Chinook salmon radio-telemetry studies in the northern and central Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 2002–2003. Report to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Southwest Region, January, 44 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner F (1999) Whatever happened to the National Biological Survey. BioScience 49:219–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.Nossaman LLPIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations