New
assessment shows landmark legislation helping dozens of species survive
by Jason
Daley, 1/19/19, Sierra Magazine
The
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is one of the legal cornerstones of
conservation in the United States, and when it works the results can be
spectacular. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons have returned to the skies,
wolves and grizzly bears prowl around Yellowstone, and humpback whales ply
oceans on both coasts. But deciding whether the ESA is doing its job for other
species is much more difficult. There are fewer scientists keeping tabs, less
data, and less money. That’s why researchers from the Center for Biodiversity
looked into the recoveries of marine mammals and sea turtles listed on the ESA:
78 percent of the populations they investigated saw significant increases after
listing, indicating that the law is doing its job.
For the
study in the journal PLOS
One, the researchers looked at the best available data
for 14 marine mammal species like killer whales, fin whales, sea otters, monk
seals, and sea lions, and five sea turtle species that call US waters home.
Because the ESA divides species into distinct populations that it manages
individually, the team analyzed 23 populations of mammals and eight populations
of turtles, finding that 18 of the mammal groups were on the rise and six of
the turtle populations had seen significant gains. Three mammal populations saw
no gains and two saw declines, while two populations of turtles showed no
increase (though no groups of turtles declined after being placed on the
endangered-species list).
Some of
the recoveries are striking. Hawaiian humpback whales, for instance, climbed
from just 800 animals in 1979 to 10,000 in 2005, which led to a delisting. The
eastern Steller sea lion population along the Pacific coast rose from 19,000 in
1990 to almost 60,000 in 2013. And sea otters doubled their numbers to almost
2,700 individuals between 1979 and 2017.
Lead author
Abel Valdivia, formerly of the Center for Biological Diversity and now a senior
manager at the conservation group RARE, says the study shows that turtles and
marine mammals have the capacity to recover as long as the right protections
are implemented in a timely manner. “We had a sense that there were a lot of
populations doing good or on the path of recovery,” Valdivia says. “But no one
had done the analysis.”
While the
study is good news, Valdivia says there’s no conservation silver bullet that
stands out in the data. Each species had an individualized recovery plan and
had critical habitat declared, each getting different interventions, whether
that was protecting turtle nesting grounds or keeping boats and ships a certain
distance from whales. The only commonality was time. The longer the species was
on the list, the more pronounced their population recovery was.
The two
mammal species in decline, Valdivia says, did seem to share one problem. The
population of southern resident killer whales in Puget Sound and the population
of Hawaiian monk seals in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands both face
challenges associated with feeding. For the seals, changes in the ocean likely
associated with climate change have shifted their feeding grounds away from
their traditional strongholds. The whales similarly are affected by diminishing
stocks of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound as well as increases in pollution and
boat traffic.
It wasn’t
the team’s intention to just study whales, turtles, and high-profile,
charismatic creatures. Valdivia says they initially wanted to look at all
marine creatures in US waters protected by the ESA. But that was problematic.
The team found that there was little data on most marine species. Many fish
species have been listed as endangered in just the last decade, and recovery
plans and critical habitat have yet to be implemented for them. Even well-known
species, like populations of polar bears in Alaska, didn’t have enough data to
create meaningful population profiles. Once those species are analyzed, the
picture may not be so positive. But the team hopes to one day analyze more of
the 62 marine mammals and turtles found in US waters. “For the other marine
mammals and sea turtles we didn’t analyze, it’s just a matter of waiting for
more data and more time for the ESA rules to get in place,” says
Valdivia.
However,
if some politicians get their way, many species will never have recovery plans
put in place or get the time needed to recover. The Trump administration has
yet to confirm a director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which
implements many ESA plans, but interim directors have included noted ESA foe
Susan Combs. The current nominee, Aurelia Skipwith, who has worked for
agribusiness giant Monsanto, is also feared to be an opponent of the ESA.
Under
former interior secretary Ryan Zinke, the FWS put forth proposed new rules that
would overhaul the Endangered Species Act administratively, including allowing
local economic impacts into listing decisions and changing the 4(d) rule, which
automatically grants the same blanket protections to animals listed as
“threatened” as those listed as “endangered.” Instead, the change would require
that each threatened species would receive an individualized protection plan—one
that would take a lot of time to develop and could be challenged in the courts.
A flurry of Republican-sponsored bills in the House last year also aimed to
reduce or redefine the ESA—though, with the Democrats now in charge of the
chamber, those bills are likely dead. If the rule changes for the FWS are
approved, it’s also likely they will lead to protracted legal battles with
unknown outcomes.
Whatever
the future holds for the ESA, Valdivia says this study, at least, shows its
implementation is not in vain. “I think the main point we’re trying to make is
that this is a positive news story in a background of really bad news about
overfishing, pollution, and climate change,” he says. “I think it’s good to see
the silver lining in marine conservation.”
