THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 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: 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) Does climate change apply to any of these ”factors”? What is the “best available science” in the context of climate science? (Most certain? Most precise? Most consensus? Most inclusive?) What is a species’ range in the context of species? (Current range? 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) Climate change “not typically been incorporated systematically or rigorously into ESA decision making” (McClure et al.) Tendency to use climate model uncertainty to deny endangered species listing Uncertainty surrounding long-term projections motivates use of short-term projections during viability analysis Not enough appreciation for peripheral habitat/populations and their importance to species’ survival PROBLEMS (EXTERNAL) Agencies only awarded around $250 million/year. Probably need $3 billion. Always political opposition to the ESA. Industry opposition State opposition Challenges to agency use of science in decision making What would be the danger in using short-term projections? What might be the benefits of using short-term projections? Opponents want to limit number of species protected Opponents want to eliminate ESA altogether States think their rights are being challenged by the ESA

DENIED ESA LISTING 2014 DENIED ESA LISTING 2010 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 - Species that deserve to be listed as endangered are not 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 - Seems to be calling for a more aggressive ESA response to climate change

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

GROUP 1: PREEMPTIVE CONSERVATION GROUP 2: REACTIVE CONSERVATION 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 Can states be trusted to deal with climate change and species responsibly? Can agencies be trusted to deal with climate change and species responsibly? (aggressive enough? too aggressive?) What rights to states have in dealing with climate change and species? Should states have jurisdiction over species populations that appear in their state? What is more important, honoring local rights or protecting species? Does preparing for the effects of climate change ask too much from states? ESA has proven track record of protecting what it sets out to protect (99%)