The route to best science in implementation of the Endangered Species Act's consultation mandate: The benefits of structured effects analysis

Environmental Management

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 161-172

  Murphy, Dennis D ^a   Weiland, Paul S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b Nossaman LLP   (United States)

Author keywords

Best available science; Consultation; Effects analysis; Endangered species

Indexed keywords

BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE; CONSULTATION; CRITICAL ASSESSMENT; EFFECT ANALYSIS; EFFECTS ANALYSIS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS; SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION;

INFORMATION USE;

CONSERVATION;

CONSERVATION STATUS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; EXTINCTION RISK; LITERATURE REVIEW; MINIMUM VIABLE POPULATION;

ACT; ANALYTICAL ERROR; BIOMEDICINE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA EXTRACTION; DATA SYNTHESIS; DECISION MAKING; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FISHERY MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; MANDATORY PROGRAM; NONHUMAN; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SPECIES HABITAT; STRUCTURED EFFECTS ANALYSIS; WILDLIFE CONSERVATION; ARTICLE; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; GOVERNMENT; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; LEGISLATION AS TOPIC; PEER REVIEW; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 79952471191     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-010-9597-9     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Administrative Procedure Act (1946) U.S. code, vol 5, sects 551-706
2. BDCP Independent Science Advisors (2009) Independent science advisors' report on adaptive management
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 5-18
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 16:387-444 (Pubitemid 36921439)
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 6:1-11
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 59:34-271
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 59:34-270
8. Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce (2009) Interagency cooperation. Code of Federal Regulations 50:402
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 34:397-450 (Pubitemid 38825201)
11. Endangered Species Act (1973) U.S. code, vol 16, sects. 1531-1544
12. Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (1969) Public law 91-135
13. Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Framework for cumulative risk assessment
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 designations
15. Information Quality Act (2001) Public law 106-554, sect. 515
16. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
17. Lowi T (1979) The end of liberalism. W.W. Norton & Co., New York
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 12:268-270 (Pubitemid 28202788)
19. Mills TJ, RN Clark (2001) Roles of research scientists in natural resource decision-making
20. National Academies (2003) Policy on committee composition and balance and conflicts of interest. Forest Ecology and Management 153:189-198
21. National Academy of Public Administration (1995) Setting priorities, getting results: A new direction for EPA
22. National Marine Fisheries Service (1998) Biological opinion for authorization of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries
23. National Marine Fisheries Service (2009) Biological opinion on the proposed coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project
24. National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in the Federal government. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
25. National Research Council (1994) Science and judgment in risk assessment. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
26. National Research Council (1998) Peer review in environmental technology development programs. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
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, DC
28. National Research Council (2009) Science and decisions. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
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 67:8452
30. Office of Management and Budget (2005) Final information quality bulletin for peer review. Federal Register 70:2664
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 521-550
32. Ruhl JB (2004) The battle over Endangered Species Act methodology. Environmental Law 34:555-604 (Pubitemid 38825204)
33. Ruhl JB (2005) Prescribing the right dose of peer review for the Endangered Species Act. Nebraska Law Review 83:398-431
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 123-142
35. Sullivan PJ et al (2006) Defining and implementing best available science for fisheries and environmental science, policy, and management. Fisheries 31:460-465 (Pubitemid 44621585)
36. Sunstein C (2002) Risk and reason: Safety, law and the environment. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY
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 suckers
38. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) Biological opinion on the proposed coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project
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)
40. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (1998) Endangered species consultation handbook
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 pp
42. Wagner F (1999) Whatever happened to the National Biological Survey. BioScience 49:219-222 (Pubitemid 29114474)