WASHINGTON – Nearly 40 years ago, the Endangered Species Act passed the Senate with a vote of 92-0, but lately its efficiency has been under attack.
On Thursday, a House subcommittee considered the connection between science and policy in the Endangered Species Act.
“Using science to conserve species has become more difficult over the last 20 years because although the science and management has improved, the Endangered Species Act has not been updated,” said, Neal Wilkins, director of the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the NOAA Fisheries can put possibly endangered species on the list for assessment, or an individual or organization can petition to request one of these agencies add a species.
It must meet one of five criteria: natural or manmade factors inhibit its future existence, its population is in decline because of disease or predation, its habitat is being threatened, there aren’t enough existing regulations in place or it is being overused for educational, scientific or recreational purposes.
There is a 90-day screening process, and if the agency decides to continue consideration, it has the rest of the year to continue study and make a determination.
Wilkins said the 12-month review period allotted for listing and de-listing species imposes deadline pressure when trying to evaluate the science behind decision-making.
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act says, “The Secretary (of Interior) shall make determinations … solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available,” but Wilkins said that this is a problem because decisions often rely on previously collected information. The statute accepts former scientific assumptions based on legislative record. What may have been the best available science at one time isn’t necessarily the case today.
Other witnesses agreed the scientific process behind listing decisions is lacking.
“We believe there needs to be increased scientific rigor applied in ESA decisions,” said Douglas Vincent-Lang of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. And the decision-making shouldn’t be left only to the federal government, he said.
“When passing the act, Congress clearly identified a unique role for states in all Endangered Species Act decisions … including the application of science in these decisions,” Vincent-Lang said. “Unfortunately, states are not being given equal deference on science during the implementation of the act.”
Wilkins offered suggestions for improving the statute, including allowing states to manage the recovery plans that identify goals, tasks, finances and time needed to save a species.
Additionally, Wilkins said the quality of science can be improved by standardizing independent peer-review of information used in listing determinations as well as removing the 12-month deadline on the listing process and instead working based off of scientific priority.
That doesn’t mean the decision-making would be solely scientific or that it would disregard the policy driving endangered species protection.
“The ESA exists at the confluence of science, law and policy,” said Craig Manson, general counsel for the Westlands Water District in California. “It is not a purely scientific decision scheme. Nonetheless, its decision contexts must be science-informed. They also may be policy-informed and this must not be mistaken for improper or unlawful political influence.”