Smallwood KS, Beyea J, Morrison ML
Consulting in the Public Interest, 109 Luz Place, Davis, California 95616 USA
Environ Manage. 1999 Nov;24(4):421-435. doi: 10.1007/s002679900244.
/ The Endangered Species Act calls for the use of the best scientific data in conserving threatened or endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The language of this act and other environmental laws and relevant judicial rulings also require assessments based on modern scientific standards that are routinely applied in ecological research. Particularly for the Endangered Species Act, "take" decisions should be made only after the supporting documents provide: (1) designation of critical habitat based on use and availability methods; (2) risk assessment(s) for proposed take and other project impacts; (3) ecosystem assessment by trained ecosystem ecologists; (4) a description of an adaptive management program involving more than post hoc adjustments to problems in mitigation design; (5) a description of the proposed scientific monitoring along with thresholds for application of adaptive management; (6) uncertainty analysis along with estimates of species' abundance and project impacts; (7) nonselective, academic-quality referencing of data, methods, and theory supporting the conclusions; and (8) reviews of the assessment by independent scientists. These standards have been rarely applied to assessments of environmental take, due to lack of incentives for cooperation among academic scientists, environmental consultants, and the government regulatory agencies. Particularly important is requiring the type of independent review used by academic scientists. Such review would help ensure that take decisions are based on use of the appropriate scientific standards, thereby qualifying the supporting data as scientific and the best available, no matter how limited the data. Until these standards are applied prior to political trade-off and pragmatism, the environmental laws will continue to have little bearing on conservation.KEY WORDS: Endangered Species Act; Habitat conservation plans; Independent review; Risk assessment; Scientific data; Uncertainty analysishttp://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00267/bibs/24n4p421.html</HEA
《濒危物种法》要求在保护受威胁或濒危物种及其所依赖的生态系统时使用最佳科学数据。该法案以及其他环境法律的措辞和相关司法裁决还要求基于生态研究中常规应用的现代科学标准进行评估。特别是对于《濒危物种法》,只有在支持文件提供以下内容之后才能做出“捕获”决定:(1) 根据使用和可利用性方法指定关键栖息地;(2) 对拟议的捕获及其他项目影响进行风险评估;(3) 由训练有素的生态系统生态学家进行生态系统评估;(4) 描述一个适应性管理计划,该计划不仅仅是对缓解设计中的问题进行事后调整;(5) 描述拟议的科学监测以及适应性管理应用的阈值;(6) 不确定性分析以及物种丰度和项目影响的估计;(7) 对支持结论的数据、方法和理论进行非选择性的、学术质量的引用;(8) 由独立科学家对评估进行审查。由于学术科学家、环境顾问和政府监管机构之间缺乏合作的激励措施,这些标准很少应用于环境捕获评估。特别重要的是要求采用学术科学家所使用的那种独立审查。这种审查将有助于确保捕获决定基于适当科学标准的使用,从而使支持数据有资格被视为科学的和可获得的最佳数据,无论数据多么有限。在这些标准应用于政治权衡和实用主义之前,环境法律在保护方面仍将收效甚微。
濒危物种法;栖息地保护计划;独立审查;风险评估;科学数据;不确定性分析
http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00267/bibs/24n4p421.html