The Politics of The Endangered An Overview Species Act Introduce - - PDF document

The Politics of The Endangered Species Act

Material by Chris Reenock, Political Sciences FSU

An Overview

1.

Introduce concepts important in public policy development

2.

Highlight science’s role in the ESA

3.

Review key provisions of act

4.

Discussion of a case study

Public Policy -- Key Concepts

Policy Image – Policies have multiple images (positive and negative) – The public focuses on the “dominant” image – The dominant image varies over time (ebb and flow) – Policymakers and stakeholders have incentives to

manipulate policy images

Policy Venue – Legislature, Executive Branch, Courts, Federalism – Every venue carries with it a decisional bias – Majority rule – Burden of Proof – Conflict expansion forces venue change

How does Science fit into this?

Part I

Policy Image

– Provides tools to shape policy image Part II Policy Venue – Supplies information to implement policy choices

Part I The Role of Science in the Production of Policy Images

A contested policy image – Politics is negotiation of priorities Scientific studies

Knowledge Production

– Biological – Economic

Application of Knowledge

Policy Images of the ESA

“One of the strongest most comprehensive environmental

programs ever enacted.”

“The final barrier preventing the extinction of thousands of

species; preserving untold opportunities for human advances.”

“Represents the power of the extremist environmental

special interests over those of the reasonable common citizen.”

“A clear violation of personal property rights; in need of

comprehensive amendment.”

Source: PublicAgenda.org

Science’s Impact on The Public’s Concern

Specifying the Extent of the Threat Specifying the Importance of a Species to the

Ecosystem

Specifying the Balance of Ecological vs.

Economic concerns

Large Incentives to Politicize Scientific Knowledge Production

Public uncertainty is key Interests benefit from the public’s (un)certainty Politics creeps into both the production and

dissemination of scientific knowledge

– Over/under emphasis on species threat – Over/under emphasis on single species value – Over/under emphasis on critical habitat – Over/under emphasis on ecological vs. economic tradeoffs

Part II The Role of Science in Policy Venues

Supplies critical information in policy debates Most critical in Agency/Judicial Venues

Species Listing Decisions Designation of Critical Habitat

To appreciate let’s consider specific provisions of

the ESA

The Basic Components of the

• Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) lead

agency at the Federal level

1.

Listing Species

2.

Species Protection

• Once listed they qualify for:

1.

Protection/Recovery

2.

Critical Habitats

3.

Financial Assistance

• 1. Listing and De-listing

Species

“Endangered species" means any

species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

“Threatened species" means any species

which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future

Current Listings as of 9-1-2003 Listing and De-listing Decisions

Biological decisions based upon the “best

scientific and commercial data available.”

“Solicit the expert opinions of three

appropriate and independent specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and assumptions…”

The Role of Science in The Listing Process

• Status Survey/Status Report

1.

An accurate field survey

2.

Museum/Literature research

3.

Estimate biological vulnerability

–

Projected populations

–

Habitat considerations

4.

Estimate certainty that conservation efforts will be implemented

5.

The certainty that conservation efforts will succeed

• Quantifiable performance measures
• Each step of this process is open to political debate

Listing Decision Tree

De-Listing

A species can be de-listed for one of three

reasons:

– The species is extinct – The species is recovered to the point where

protection is no longer necessary

– Data used in the original listing was in error Another political resource to exploit

Changes In Listing Status

32 species currently listed have changed status

between “Endangered” and “Threatened”

28 have moved from Endangered to Threatened 8 have moved from Threatened to Endangered

What Benefits Does ESA Provide?

• 2. Species Protection

Congratulations!

You’ve made the list

– What do you win?

Protective Regulations Recovery Plans

– Maybe

Originally Listed 1967

Section 9 – Prohibited Acts: provides guidance regarding activities determined to result in take.

Prohibits “Taking”

Prohibits any action that will “harass or harm” a

member of an endangered species.

To take: – “pursue, hunt shoot wound, kill trap capture or collect. To harm: – Any act that significantly modifies habitat

– Impairs essential behavior patterns – Breeding, feeding, shelter

Section 4 – provides guidance regarding the promulgation of protective rules (e.g., 4(d) rules), the steps within the listing determination process, the designation of critical habitat, and recovery plans.

The Key Provisions of the Act Critical Habitat

"critical habitat" for a threatened or endangered species means (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by

the species…on which are found those physical or biological features

– (I) essential to the conservation of the species and – (II) which may require special management considerations

• r protection

Designation prevents modification to such critical habitats to

the point that they will no longer aid in the species’ recovery

Critical Habitat cont’d

FWS designates critical habitat on the basis of “the

best scientific data available”

– Must consider economic impact of specifying any

particular area as critical habitat.

Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat

if the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits

• f specifying such area as critical habitat.

– Only if this action will not result in the extinction of the

species.

428 species currently have Critical Habitats

Demonstrate species occupies geographical

area

Demonstrate that geographical area is

essential to the conservation of species

Must conduct a full scale economic analysis of

each Critical Habitat designation

The Role of Science in The Designation of Critical Habitats Large Incentives to Politicize Scientific Knowledge Production

Policy Uncertainty is key Interests benefit from altering policy (un)certainty Politics creeps into both the production and

dissemination of scientific knowledge

– Over/under emphasis on species location and numbers – Over/under emphasis on criticality of habitat for species – Over/under emphasis on ecological vs. economic tradeoffs

Critical Habitats in the U.S.

428 species currently have Critical Habitats

Provisions of ESA: Critical Habitat

Critical Habitat (as a recovery tool) – Has ranged from as little as 10 acres up to

• ver 80 million acres

Provisions of ESA: Critical Habitat

Does Politics Matter? – Clinton

115 million acres for 50 species Reduced size of 64% FWS proposals

– average reduction 9%

– Bush

No voluntarily designations 40 million acres for 195 species Reduced size of 92% FWS proposals

– average reduction 76%

Section 10 – Exceptions: provides guidance regarding the issuance of incidental take permits and the development of habitat conservation plans.

Incidental Taking and Habitat Conservation Plans (Amended 1982)

Incidental Taking -- any taking otherwise

prohibited… if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.

Applicants provide a Habitat Conservation Plan

which details steps to mitigate and minimize takings.

Over 430 HCPs have been approved

The Coal-Fired Electricity Gibson Generating Station (Cinergy) and the Least Tern

The Gibson HCP. – Restoration of the 463 acre Cane Ridge Wildlife

area

– In turn, incidental taking allowed so as to not

exceed 5% of the current population

The Least Tern Case The Least Tern Case

Results – Population rose to 85 adults with 72

fledglings in 1999

– Cinergy was awarded the 1999 regional

winner of the Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland Conservation Award

A Case Study

49,310

The California Desert

• 25-million acre expanse of land by

Congress in 1976 through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

• 10 million acres are administered by

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

• Management based on the concepts
• f multiple use, sustained yield, and

maintenance of environmental quality

Algodones Dunes (a.k.a. The Imperial Sand Dunes) Multiple Use: Recreational Activities Pierson’s Milkvetch

(Astragulus magdelenae

• var. peirsonii) is a silvery,

short-lived perennial plant.

In the U.S., the plant is

known only known to exist in the Algodones Dunes of the California Desert Conservation Area

In 1998 it was listed as a

“threatened” species by the Federal Government

The Development of Political Conflict

March 2000. Center for Biological Diversity, Public

Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Sierra Club sue the BLM for failure to consider the ESA

October 2000 BLM Issues a Settlement November 2000 Temporary Ban Issued on 5 areas In

The Imperial Sand Dunes totaling 49,310 acres

Legal Parties

American Sand

Association

Off Road Business

Association

San Diego Off Road

Vehicle Association

California off –road

vehicle association

American motorcycle

association

Center for Biological

Diversity

Public Employees

for Environmental Responsibility

Sierra Club

Result: Happy Environmentalists vs. Frustrated OHV users Next: 2000 Election

Kathleen Clarke Director Bureau of Land Management

Developments

Parties sue the U.S. FWS to consider the de-listing of

Pierson’s Milkvetch. (February 2003)

The Petitioners’ Claims

• 1. Original listing was made without an actual

plant count

• 2. Original listing relied upon data developed

prior to the CDPA

• 3. Original listing relied upon field studies that

BLM has admitted were unsound

• 4. Current assessments indicate that the species is

thriving

• 5. Plant count confirm that the Dunes support

more than 100,000 plants

BLM Biological Assessment

The American Sand Association’s Study Biological Assessment

How was Science Politicized in this Process?

Competing scientific studies – Who commissioned the study?

Consequences of resource constraints?

– Peer reviewed? – Similar sample frames? – Research Assumptions? – Static vs. dynamic assessments? – Controls for alternative explanations?

An Initial FWS’s Publication in The Federal Register Finds that De-listing May be Warranted

Developments

BLM issues a Final Environmental Impact Statement and

Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) on the Sand Dunes issue (May 2003)

Proposes to re-open the closures of all 49,310 acres.

The Bush Administration’s Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP)

The Bush Administration’s New RAMP Plan (May 2003)

Education Programs

Environmental Awareness Training for All OHV Users

(Permitting)

Educational Outreach (minimizing impacts; GIS maps)

Controlled OHV Use

Entry controlled through permits

No Camping Buffer Zone June 2003, Conservation groups file a legal challenge

to Bush Administration’s RAMP

August 2003, Fish and Wildlife that acres in Algodones

Dunes be set aside as “Critical Habitat”

Challenges to The Bush Administration’s New RAMP Plan Fish and Wildlife Services Proposed Critical Habitat Area The Conclusion

What came of those 49,310 acres? FWS issued a finding on the de-listing on

• Sept. 1 2004:

The size of the Critical Habitat was reduced to 21,836 acres

FWS Proposed CHP Actual CHP

• Sept. 2004

Conclusion cont’d

Why was the size reduced?

In part, an economic analysis estimated that

closing 52,780 acres to vehicles could cost the region as much as $124 million by 2013.

Closing the smaller area, which is mainly

wilderness, to traffic would cost about $2.8 million in the same period A Sense of The Timeline

Competing Uses of Science in Different Policy Venues

Policy Image – Science is politicized to affect the public’s estimate

• f uncertainty on ESA issues.

Policy Venue – Science is politicized to affect policymakers’

estimates of uncertainty on ESA issues.