1. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
CLIMATE CHANGE
&
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
(….and uncertainty)
Lee Brann
ENVS 5830
April 17, 2017

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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

5. DENIED ESA LISTING 2014 DENIED ESA LISTING 2010 WOLVERINE
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

6. DIFFERENT WARMING SCENARIOS
(Ex. American Pika)
DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES
(Ex. Cusk)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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%)