Success rate of the Endangered Species Act

The success rate of the Endangered Species Act in rescuing endangered species from extinction is a highly debated issue. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "The goal of the Endangered Species Act is the recovery of listed species to levels where protection under the Act is no longer necessary." In the text of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Congress declared that "to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction" was one of the law's main goals. The ESA defines "conserve" as using "all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any [endangered or threatened species] to the point" where the law's protections "are no longer necessary."

Despite these goals, there is no one way to define the "success," or "success rate" of the Endangered Species Act. According to the criteria used by environmental groups, the ESA has a success rate of 90 percent or better. They consider mainly factors such as the increase in listed species, meeting deadlines for recovery and increased federal spending. Critics of the law cite a 2 percent success rate based mainly on the number of species that have been delisted due to recovery.

Different groups have come to different conclusions about the law's success or lack thereof based on their mission, political leaning or policy preferences. Defining the success rate of the Endangered Species Act depends on what factors are measured.

Background

How species are listed

Before a species is added to the threatened or endangered list, it is first placed on a list of candidate species. This placement happens in two ways. First, the public may petition to get a species listed. Second, biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) can study a species whose population may be declining and decide themselves whether the species qualifies as a candidate. FWS scientists must use accurate scientific information collected from several sources to back their candidate decision.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses five criteria to label a species as endangered or threatened:

“	the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; other natural or manmade factors affecting its survival.	”
—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

If one or more of these criteria are met, the agency can begin action to protect the species and its habitat.

Delisting species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) removes animals and plants from the federal list of endangered and threatened species, an act known as "delisting." A species can be delisted after the agency has concluded that threats and negative impacts to the species are gone or are being managed. "Downlisting" is the reclassification of a species's status from endangered to threatened.

As of September 2015, 59 species had been delisted nationally since the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973. Of those species, 30 were delisted due to recovery, 19 species were delisted due to errors in the original listing (for scientific reasons or because new information about a species was discovered) and 10 species went extinct.

Proponents of the ESA

Environmental organizations focusing on endangered species often support the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in its current form. One prominent organization is the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a nonprofit organization that supports using the Endangered Species Act "to obtain sweeping, legally binding new protections for animals, plants, and their habitat." The group has called the Endangered Species Act "one of the world's most powerful and successful legal tools for protecting species at risk of extinction." The group, "which has 900,000 members and online activists," uses the Endangered Species Act namely for "submitting legal petitions, filing lawsuits when necessary, using the leverage of [its] supporters' voices and taking multiple other actions to ensure that imperiled species are federally protected."

The group Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) is another nonprofit organization, which calls itself "a major national conservation organization focused solely on wildlife and habitat conservation and the safeguarding of biodiversity." Defenders of Wildlife has called the Endangered Species Act "the strongest and most important federal law protecting imperiled wildlife and plants." The group works "to protect and increase federal funding for the [Endangered Species Act], oppose all legislative attacks that would weaken the law, and make sure that those responsible for implementing the Act’s provisions and regulations are held accountable when they fail to enforce the law."

The group WildEarth Guardians is also a nonprofit organization, which has called the Endangered Species Act "one of the best tools for fighting species loss" and "our nation's most powerful environmental law." Like the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, WildEarth Guardians campaigns to petition "for protection of individual species and follow those requests up with lawsuits as necessary."

Together, these environmental organizations support the current Endangered Species Act (ESA) and defend the law, and its implementation, as successful. When a species is listed as an endangered or threatened species at the federal level, that species receives government protection (through habitat protection and prohibitions against harming the listed species). The groups see the listing of species, and the federal protection of species from extinction, as one of the ESA's central aims. Defenders of Wildlife says the ESA "has helped prevent the extinction of our nation's wildlife treasures" and has benefited human beings by "maintaining healthy natural systems." The Center for Biological Diversity says "species are going extinct at 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural rate," and the Center uses the ESA "to secure legal protection for all species in danger of extinction and to enact conservation strategies that will save them."

The metrics used by these organizations reflect their goal of using the Endangered Species Act to list and protect more species at the federal level and to enact conservation plans for them so as to prevent their extinction. The Center for Biological Diversity's metrics for the Endangered Species Act's success serve as a useful representative of how environmental organizations measure success:

“	Very, very few species have gone extinct once granted protection under the Act. The longer a species is listed under the Act, the more likely it is to be recovering. Species with critical habitat designated under the Act are twice as likely to be recovering as those without critical habitat. Species with recovery plans are more likely to be recovering than those without plans. The more money is spent on a species, the more likely that species is to be recovering.	”
—The Center for Biological Diversity

Another argument in favor of the ESA's success states that federally protected animals and plants have had their populations stabilize because of federal protection, even though they may not have fully recovered. Although recovery looks different for each species, recovery is often defined as having a species be sufficiently abundant and its threats managed or eliminated so that removing federal protection does not push a species into decline (species are listed in the first place primarily due to the likely risk for decline). Although only 10 species have had federal protection removed because their population had recovered (as of September 2015), this argument emphasizes that the Endangered Species Act helped to prevent the decline of many more species, which is viewed as evidence of the law’s success. According to the popular science magazine Scientific American, the majority of federally protected plant and animal populations have stopped declining (the magazine did not specify an exact number of species). WildEarth Guardians has argued that, by evaluating the Endangered Species Act by how well it prevents extinction, "The ESA has been 99 percent successful at preventing the extinction of listed species.".

2012 Center for Biological Diversity study

A May 2012 study conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), called On Time, On Target: How the Endangered Species Act Is Saving America’s Wildlife, looked at the number of species that met the goals found in their federal recovery plans. According to the study, out of a CBD-selected sample of 110 endangered and threatened species that had "advanced toward recovery" between their listing and either the date of their delisting or December 2011 (the CBD chose whichever date was earliest), 90 percent of the sample met the "recovery rate" outlined in the federal conservation plans. The CBD's success rate was calculated by taking the sample of 110 species and selecting the 51 species that had recovery deadlines in their federal conservation plans. Ten of those 51 deadlines occurred before the end of 2011, and nine of the 10 species had been delisted by the end of 2011, leading the CBD to conclude that "90 percent of species in [the study] met their recovery timeline." The federal conservation plans used several criteria to determine a species's recovery, including "population size, number of sites, geographic distribution, demographic markers (i.e., risk of extinction or stability evidenced over time), [and] habitat protection and management (i.e., formal commitments to long-term conservation)." Note: Not all federal recovery plans for listed species include quantifiable goals such as expected delisting or recovery dates.

Since the CBD completed its study in 2011 (published in 2012) and September 2015, nine species had a projected delisting deadline. Of those nine species, one was delisted in 2013 before its projected delisting deadline and eight had still been listed as endangered or threatened as of September 2015 (two of those eight species were proposed for delisting in November 2013 and September 2014, respectively). Although some species from the CBD study remained listed, one scientist, who provided testimony to Congress about the Endangered Species Act in June 2013, has emphasized the difficulties associated with the recovery and delisting of species. Dr. Reed F. Noss, a professor of biology teaching conservation biology at the University of Central Florida, has testified in Congress that delisting and recovery can be complicated processes, primarily because species continue to face threats. "Species recovery is extremely challenging today because the threats that led to species being listed in the first place have generally not subsided," said Noss. He has also cited researchers who view that improvements to species recovery planning, begun in the 1990s, may help spur recovery for some listed species to become delisted eventually. Noss concluded that, despite challenges to species recovery, the Endangered Species Act's record "is not so bad."

The Atlantic piping plover had been scheduled for delisting in May 2012. As of September 2015, its two populations, located on the Atlantic Coast and the Midwest, had been listed as threatened and endangered, respectively.

2006 Center for Biological Diversity study

A 2006 study published by the CBD, called Measuring the Success of the Endangered Species Act, looked at listed species in eight northeastern states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey) to determine whether the listed species in the study were "progressing toward recovery in a timeline consistent with their federal recovery plans," and whether the listed species were "increasing or decreasing in number since being placed on the endangered species list."

The California condor has been on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's list of endangered species since 1967.

The small whorled pogonia was listed as threatened as of September 2015. Its anticipated recovery date was 2003.

The CBD's criteria were limited to species that had been historically present or were present in the eight selected states at the time of the study (which was conducted in 2005 and 2006). There were 56 species that met the criteria, seven of which were excluded from the sample. Four of the seven species were excluded because they had been listed for fewer than six years (the CBD included species listed for a minimum of six years). Three species had either gone extinct or were extirpated from the United States prior to their listing since, according to the CBD, "the mere saving of species from extinction. ... is one important measure of the Endangered Species Act's effectiveness." The CBD studied a total of 49 listed species in the Northeast. Of the 49 species used for the study, the CBD concluded that the ESA had been "100% successful in preventing the extinction of endangered species in the Northeast" since the 49 species were not extinct at the time of the study's completion in 2006. The CBD's study examined the following questions:

“ Are species increasing or decreasing in number since being placed on the endangered species list? Are they progressing toward recovery in a timeline consistent with their federal recovery plans? ” —The Center for Biological Diversity

In the study, the CBD argued against the use of delisting due to recovery as a measurement of the ESA's success, a criterion typically cited by ESA critics, because the method would exclude listed species with growing populations that had not yet been delisted. Like the CBD's 2012 study, the 2006 study emphasized that "a more sensible measure of recovery" was to observe the number of listed species that had met the expected recovery dates in their federal recovery plans, rather than use delisting as the sole measurement. The CBD used the expected recovery date measure because the delisting measure "declares all improvement [of listed species] short of complete recovery a failure," according to the study. The CBD study assumes that "recovery will require decades of intensive, difficult work," and that the study's particular metric presents a more complete view of ESA success. The average length of "expected recovery time for species" in the CBD's sample was 42 years, while those species had been listed for an average of 24 years. As examples of success, the CBD cited populations of the bald eagle, the shortnose sturgeon and the Atlantic piping plover. Each of the three species's population had been on the rise up to 2005 when the CBD study began, though they had not been delisted at the time. According to the CBD, the bald eagle had grown from 417 pairs in 1963 to 7,280 in 2003; the sturgeon had grown from 12,669 fish located in the Hudson River to 56,708 fish in 1996; and the plover had grown from 550 pairs in 1986 to 1,423 in 2004.

Using the above criteria, the CBD looked at a total of 11 listed species with expected recovery dates before the end of 2005. At the time of the study's completion, seven of the 11 species had been delisted, proposed for delisting or downlisted before the end of 2005. Since the study's conclusion in 2006, three species had been delisted on or before their anticipated recovery date; one species, the bald eagle, was delisted seven years after its anticipated recovery date of 2000. Seven species, including two animals and five plants, did not meet anticipated recovery dates and remained listed as of September 2015.

Critics of the ESA

Critics of the ESA often cite the number of species that have been delisted due to recovery as evidence of their belief that the ESA is unsuccessful. The central criticism of the ESA states that, if the current Endangered Species Act was effective policy, more listed species would be delisted due to the recovery of their populations. In addition to this argument, ESA critics say that the law's implementation since 1973 has also had a negative impact on achieving that goal. Most critics of the current law do not support eliminating or repealing the Endangered Species Act entirely. Instead, critics have supported changing the law to incentivize voluntary conservation by private individuals, to revise land use regulations on property owners with nearby endangered species, and to oppose the use of litigation by environmental groups to list more species under the law.

Use of delisting and ESA success

The main metric used by critics/reformers of the ESA is the number of species delisted because they recovered after they had received federal protection. ESA critics/reformers use this metric because they view the law's main goal as the conservation of listed species until they recover so that they no longer require legal protections (and hence are "delisted"). This goal is also referred to in the text of the law itself. The ESA defines "conserve" as using "all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any [endangered or threatened species] to the point" where the law's protections "are no longer necessary."

“ Critics [of the Endangered Species Act] cite the very small number of species that have recovered or been delisted. ” —G. Tracy Mehan III, former Assistant Administrator for Water at the EPA and adjunct law professor at George Mason University School of Law.

According to G. Tracy Mehan III, a former assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency between 2001 and 2003, "Critics [of the Endangered Species Act] cite the very small number of species that have recovered or been delisted." Although different figures are used to calculate the percentage of species delisted since the law's passage in 1973, the percentage of species delisted due to recovery is usually between 1 and 2 percent; as of September 2015, 30 species had been recovered out of the approximately 2,000 species listed. Other critics have argued that the federal government's existing conservation efforts have been ineffective at protecting listed species. Litigation, with the goal of placing more species on the federal list, has also been a target of ESA critics who view excessive litigation as a drain on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) time and resources, which could be used for protecting already listed species or managing major threats to habitats (such as wildfires).

Role of science and ESA success

Other ESA critics/reformers of the law and its implementation criticize the ways in which more species are added to the federal list. They argue that adding more species to the list hinders the law's goal of recovering and delisting species. One aspect of the process to list more species involves the use of science. The Endangered Species Act requires the federal government to list species, either as endangered or threatened, "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available." Rob Roy Ramey II, a former science adviser to the U.S. Department of the Interior and a visiting scientist at the Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species at the San Diego Zoo, has testified to Congress that most listing decisions are not based on "publicly available data." Instead, the federal government relies upon reports and papers summarizing the conclusions of the scientists, which does not contain the underlying data used in the reports. "Far-reaching ESA listing and regulatory decisions are being made without an opportunity to independently analyze the underlying data and assumptions upon which the cited studies are based," said Ramey. Ramey's solution to the issue included a legal requirement to archive any data prior to its use by the federal government in its decisions and to publish the data and methods used in a scientific study allowing third party researchers or individuals to reproduce the study. "In my experience, recovery of threatened and endangered species is most effective when there is active scientific debate and discussion about the best courses of action to identify and ameliorate threats, and how to devise more effective conservation measures."

The Aleutian Canada goose was declared a recovered species and delisted in 2001, after being considered endangered for 34 years (1967-2001).

Other causes of success

Jonathan H. Adler, the director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation and a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, wrote on the topic of the ESA's effectiveness in his 2011 essay The Leaky Ark for the American Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) think tank that supports free market economic policies. Along with the Congressional ESA Working Group, Adler highlighted the increase in listed species since the law's passage in 1973, relative to the smaller number of delistings. According to Adler, between 1973 and 1994, the federal list had increased from 78 species to more than 1,000 species, a twelvefold increase. Meanwhile, 23 species were delisted by the end of 1994, seven of which were delisted due to recovery, nine that were delisted due to errors in the original listings and seven that were delisted due to extinction.

Adler also argued that factors outside the ESA have contributed more to the recovery of species. For example, the Aleutian Canada goose (delisted in 2001) and the Robbins' cinquefoil (a plant delisted in 2002), were recovered mostly due to the removal of identifiable threats, which were unrelated to the ESA's restrictions on land use and taking a species. The cinquefoil plant was recovered after the U.S. Forest Service made changes to its land management policies in areas surrounding the plant and made agreements with local conservation groups to protect local populations. In the case of the Canada goose, its predators were eliminated primarily on federal lands, which ended up protecting the bird's nesting sites. Around the same time, hunting closures were imposed in areas in California and Oregon where the goose nested during winter. Between 1975 and 1989, the bird's population rose from 790 birds to 6,000 birds. According to two FWS biologists working on goose conservation in 1982, "Of the many strategies implemented in an effort to restore Aleutian Canada Geese to a non-endangered status," hunting closures in California and Oregon between 1975 and 1982 were considered "the most successful to date." According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when it downlisted the goose from endangered to threatened in 1990, "hunting closures on key wintering areas in California and Oregon" were "primarily responsible for Aleutian goose populations increases."

Congressional Endangered Species Act Working Group

In February 2014, a report was published by the Congressional Endangered Species Act (ESA) Working Group, which began in May 2013 and is composed of 13 Republican members of the U.S. House. The group was convened to study the ESA's implementation and to propose changes to the ESA's current structure. The group concluded that the ESA should "be updated and modernized to ensure its success where it matters most: outside of the courtroom and on-the-ground."

“ Progress needs to be measured not by the number of species listed, especially as a result of litigation, but by recovering and de-listing those that are currently listed and working cooperatively on-the-ground to prevent new ones from being listed. ” —Republican-led Endangered Species Act Congressional Working Group

The group stated that the ESA's central goal is to recover and to delist species already on the federal list and to prevent species from being added to the list. Using this goal, the group concluded that the ESA was unsuccessful in its central aims. The following reasons were given in the report characterizing the ESA's lack of success:

• Out of over 1,500 species listed since the ESA's passage in 1973, only 2 percent had been recovered at the time of the study's publication (February 2014). Fifty-seven species had been delisted as of February 2014, 28 of which had been delisted due to recovery. Using the study's baseline figure of 1,500 species listed since 1973, the percentage of delisted species due to recovery was 1.86 percent.
• At the time of the study's publication, 19 of the 57 delisted species, or approximately 33 percent, were removed due to errors in the original listings. According to the study, this was evidence of the ESA's failure because the species "should never have been listed" in the first place.
• The amount of litigation to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list a species had a negative impact on the federal government's protection of species that were already listed.

In response to organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, which have argued in favor of listing more species, the report argued that petitioning to list more species (an activity that occupies much of the two organizations' work) took time and resources away from the FWS's protection of species already listed. "In summary, lawsuits to list species under strict statutory deadlines only end up impeding recovery efforts for truly endangered species," the report concluded.

See also

• 

  Environmental policy in the U.S.

• 

  Energy policy in the U.S.

• 

  Endangered species policy

• Endangered Species Act
• Implementation of the Endangered Species Act
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Endangered species

External links

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website
• U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service

References

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox