States lack endangered species reporting.

Abstract

The U.S. Senate is currently considering a bill (S. 1051) that would cede some permitting decision authority to states relative to the U.S. Endangered Species Act ([ 1 ][1]). This bill is but one in a series of recent attempts to transfer authority for endangered species from federal to state agencies ([ 2 ][2]). The Endangered Species Act has long been criticized for its apparent inability to recover species ([ 3 ][3]). These efforts to give states more authority typically argue that recovery of endangered species would be more successful if states were granted more control. We find this argument problematic. State endangered species programs do not, generally, report on recovery planning, expenditures, actions, outcomes, or status of endangered species. In contrast, federal agencies report on each of these issues and make the information readily accessible ([ 4 ][4]). If states are to assume more responsibility for endangered species in the United States, then transparency is critical. Under existing policies, the lack of public reporting by states results in a disquieting accountability gap. Without information, how can the public evaluate whether the gains that Congress envisions actually occur? Information and accountability have been critical to the administration of, and the evaluation of, the federal application of the Endangered Species Act. This same transparency needs to be a component of any state Endangered Species Act responsibility. Before states take on tasks that are currently under federal jurisdiction, staffers, nongovernmental organizations, environmental lobbyists, and watchdog groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife should ask Congress to make sure that the relevant laws and regulations stipulate transparent reporting as a key part of the states' duties. 1. [↵][5]U.S. Senate Bill 1051, “A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to establish a program to allow States to assume certain Federal responsibilities under that Act with respect to agency actions applicable to highway projects within the States, and for other purposes” (2019); [www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1051/text][6]. 2. [↵][7]Center for Biological Diversity, “Politics of extinction” (2019); [www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_attacks/trumptable.html][8]. 3. [↵][9]1. D. M. Evans et al ., “Species recovery in the United States: Increasing the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act,” Issues in Ecology, Rep. No. 20 (Ecological Society of America, 2017). 4. [↵][10]U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Recovering threatened and endangered species” ([www.fws.gov/southeast/endangered-species-act/recovery/][11]). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: http://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1051/text [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_attacks/trumptable.html [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [10]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [11]: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/endangered-species-act/recovery/