Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
CLIMATE CHANGE & THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (….and uncertainty) Lee Brann ENVS 5830 April 17, 2017 MOTIVATIONS Species are not given enough attention in climate change debate Predicted 37% species lost by 2050 due to climate change 6th Mass Extinction Need more discussion about role of specific environmental programs ESA should have a leading role in confronting climate-related extinction ESA probably needs to be major updates to deal with climate change Challenges created by uncertainty FIVE FACTOR ASSESSMENT A species must be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) if it is threatened or endangered due to any of the following 5 factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; over-utilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The ESA requires that listing determinations be based solely on the best scientific and commercial information available; economic impacts are not considered in making species listing determinations and are prohibited under the ESA. (from NMFS.NOAA.GOV) SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF RANGE ASSESSMENT 1. Is the species threatened or endangered throughout ALL of its range? 2. Is the species threatened or endangered throughout a Significant Portion of its Range? PROBLEMS (INTERNAL) PROBLEMS (EXTERNAL) ESA history of using uncertainty to justify inaction (Rohlf, 1991) Agencies only awarded around $250 million/year. Probably need $3 billion. Climate change “not typically been incorporated systematically or rigorously into ESA decision making” (McClure et al.) Always political opposition to the ESA. Tendency to use climate model uncertainty to deny endangered species listing Industry opposition Uncertainty surrounding long-term projections motivates use of short-term projections during viability analysis State opposition Not enough appreciation for peripheral habitat/populations and their importance to species’ survival Challenges to agency use of science in decision making WOLVERINE 25-300 live in lower 48 states Snow-dependent species Predicted 60% loss of US habitat within 70 yrs DENIED ESA LISTING 2014 “AMBIGUOUS” LOCALIZED IMPACTS AMERICAN PIKA Lost from 1/3 of their habitat Cannot migrate to higher altitudes Can die from a few minutes at high temperatures (78F) Models show 4.5 to 14.4F warming in habitat over 100 yrs DENIED ESA LISTING 2010 DIFFERENT WARMING SCENARIOS (Ex. American Pika) DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES (Ex. Cusk) RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MCCLURE ET AL (2013) Current climate conditions should not be used in analyzing threats to species and in determining species’ eligibility for listing Climate change should not be discounted solely because magnitude of change at a particular time is uncertain Time frames for assessing risk should be determined on case-by-case basis, depending on how far into future science can predict Magnitude of climate effects increases with time; likelihood of extinction in the short-term is always very small Need to consider the full range of possible effects on given species, including extreme scenarios Improving species’ status in near-term may be important investment in species recovery Strategies useful in the face of more than one potential future will improve the likelihood of success. Consider management actions as experiments; may help to understand ecological systems and reduce uncertainty THE CASE FOR LESS PREEMPTIVE CONSERVATION What if projections are wrong? Species are extremely resilient; can withstand major shocks to their environment, even climate change Dealing with extreme resource constraints; don’t waste money on unsuccessful interventions Because of climate change, many extinctions are inevitable, so get over it Species preservation not always essential for ecosystem preservation Need to focus on the limited number of species that can really be saved Basing decisions on uncertain science is irresponsible use of science YOU ARE A TEAM OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGISTS WORKING TO MODERNIZE THE ESA IN LIGHT OF CLIMATE CHANGE GROUP 1: PREEMPTIVE CONSERVATION GROUP 2: REACTIVE CONSERVATION Protect species even when specific climate impacts are unclear Use long-term time scale for threat analysis Prepare for multiple possible futures Protect species only when there is high confidence in specific climate impacts Use short-term time scale for threat analysis Prepare only for most probable future THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND: Limited conservation resources What level of risk to species is acceptable? What is the “best available science”? Which will have the best conservation outcomes in the long run? Political opposition either way High stakes decision Why is a long-term or short-term perspective better? OR