Washington University Law Review Volume 75 Issue 3 January 1997 Listing Decisions Under the Endangered Species Act: Why Better Science Isn't Always Better Policy Holly Doremus University of California, Berkeley Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Evidence Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Holly Doremus, Listing Decisions Under the Endangered Species Act: Why Better Science Isn't Always Better Policy, 75 WASH. U. L. Q. 1029 (1997). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol75/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 75 NUMBER 3 1997 ARTICLES LISTING DECISIONS UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHY BETTER SCIENCE ISN'T ALWAYS BETTER POLICY HOLLY DOREMUS* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1031 II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE SCIENCE MANDATE .................. 1037 A. Background................................................................................. 1037 1. Ambivalence Toward Science ............................................ 1037 2. The HistoricDominance ofScience in Conservation P olicy ...................................................................................1040 B. MandatingReliance on Science ................................................. 1041 1. Testing the Waters: Requiring Considerationof Science. 1042 a. Early EndangeredSpecies Legislation...................... 1042 b. The Marine Mammal ProtectionAct ......................... 1044 c. The Fishery Conservationand ManagementAct of 1976 .............................................................................1046 * Acting Professor of Law, University of California at Davis. B.Sc. 1981, Trinity College (Conn.); Ph.D. 1986, Cornell University; J.D. 1991, University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall). Thanks are due to Professors Diane Amann, Alan Brownstein, Joel Dobris, David Faigman, Eric Freyfogle, Thomas Joo, Evelyn Lewis, Bruce Markell, and Steve Polasky for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Of course all shortcomings remain mine alone. Thanks also to Brennan Cain and Jennifer Harder for capable research assistance, and special thanks to Gordon Anthon for invaluable moral support and willingness to endlessly discuss these topics. 1029 Washington University Open Scholarship 1030 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [VOL. 75:1029 d. The Convention on InternationalTrade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Faunaand Flora......... 1047 e. Summary: The Origin andMeaning of the Science M andates..................................................................... 1047 2. Taking the Plunge: Making Science the Only Factor....... 1049 a. Overview of the ESA ................................................... 1049 b. The ESA's Science Mandate ...................................... 1051 i. The EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 ............. 1051 ii. The 1978Amendments .................................... 1052 iii. The 1979 Amendments .................................... 1053 iv. The 1982 Amendments ..................................... 1054 c. Summary: Reliance on Science in the ESA ............... 1056 1H. INTERPRETING THE STRICTLY SCIENCE MANDATE ............................ 1056 A. The Nature ofScientific Inquiry: ProgressThrough Process... 1057 1. Data Gatheringand Falsifiability...................................... 1059 2. Communication................................................................... 1061 3. Critiqueand Corroboration............................................... 1062 4. The Role ofHunches and Intuition..................................... 1063 B. Recognizing the Limits ofScience .............................................. 1065 1. Objectivity andIts Limits.................................................... 1065 2. Reliability and Its Limits..................................................... 1069 3. The Risks ofHunches .......................................................... 1071 C. Identifying the Best Available Scientific Information................ 1074 1. The Best Available Science May Be Uncertain................. 1075 2. Using the Scientific Process............................................... 1078 a. Data Gatheringand Evaluation................................ 1079 b. Communication andResponse to Criticism.............. 1082 IV. THE STRICTLY SCIENCE MANDATE CONFRONTS REALITY: THE SCIENCE AND ART OF LISTING ............................................................ 1087 A. The Taxonomy Problem:Identifying ProtectableGroups ........ 1088 1. The Meaning of "Species "................................................. 1089 2. LegislativeHistory and the Statutory Definition of "Species"............................................................................ 1092 3. Does the Strictly Science MandateApply? ........................ 1095 4. Is the Identification of "Species" Scientific?... ...... 1097 a. Defining the Species Concept .................................... 1097 b. Applying the Species Definition................................. 1101 5. The IncoherentRegulatory Approach to the Taxonomy P roblem ............................................................................... 1103 a. CategoryDefinition .................................................... 1104 b. CategoryApplication ................................................. 1111 https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol75/iss3/1 1997] SCIENCE AND ESA LISTING DECISIONS 1031 c. Summary .....................................................................1112 B. The Viability Problem:Determining If the Group Needs Protection.................................................................................... 1112 1. Deciphering the Terms .......................................................1113 2. Is the Identification ofEndangeredand Threatened Species Scientific?............................................................... 1117 a. CategoryDefinition .................................................... 1117 b. Category Application .................................................1118 3. The Incoherent RegulatoryApproach to the Viability Problem ...............................................................................1122 a. Category Definition.................................................... 1122 b. Category Application .................................................1123 c. Recognizing Extinction ...............................................1128 V. GETTING REAL: DESIGNING A SCIENTIFICALLY AND POLITICALLY CREDIBLE LISTING PROGRAM .............................................................1129 A. GeneralPrinciples ...................................................................... 1130 B. Solving the Taxonomy Problem: The Limits ofScience ............1131 1. Recognizing the Problem.................................................... 1131 2. Better Science Is Not the Answer .......................................1132 3. Solving the Taxonomy Problem .........................................1134 a. Legislative Correction................................................ 1134 b. Administrative Correction.......................................... 1138 c. Anticipating Criticisms............................................... 1139 C. The Viability Problem:Applying Science Effectively Within Its Limits ......................................................................................1141 1. Defining the Terms ..............................................................1141 2. Identifying the Best Available Science ...............................1145 a. Puttingthe Scientific Process to Work ......................1145 b. The Role ofPeerReview ............................................1146 c. The Role ofPublic Scrutiny .......................................1148 VI. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................1152 I. INTRODUCTION The Endangered Species Act' ("ESA" or "the Act") has aroused substantial controversy in recent years.2 Four years have passed without 1. 16U.S.C.§§ 1531-1544(1994). 2. See, e.g., Margaret Kriz, Caught in the Act, NAT'L J., Dec. 16, 1995, at 3090 (describing the President and Congress as "bracing for an all-out conflagration over rewriting the 1973 Endangered Washington University Open Scholarship 1032 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [VOL. 75:1029 Congressional reauthorization, despite the devotion of substantial resources to reauthorization efforts. Much of the controversy stems from divergent views of the need for, and efficacy of, the legal protections the Act affords endangered and threatened species. Environmentalists believe the ESA does too little for too few species, while 3 their opponents claim it provides too much protection for too many. In this rhetorical battle, both sides look to science for support. Environmentalists insist the Act has been ineffective because the implementing agencies have refused to take the protective steps science shows to be necessary.4 Those who see the ESA as excessively protective respond that failure to apply science rigorously