Download climate change

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