The third Friday in May is Endangered Species Day, where we should “celebrate saving species.”
We could certainly talk about past successes at saving and recovering some species, but here is a story that suggests the inadequacy of ESA for the task of mitigating or reducing the effects of human climate disruption on many (maybe all) species. This species has apparently become extinct in the Mule Mountains of southern Arizona – on BLM land under federal land management.
Over the last 3 million years — a million years longer than humans have been around — the Yarrow’s spiny lizards in the Mules adapted to live in cool mountain climates called sky islands. Because the desert floor below is too hot, the lizards were essentially marooned at higher elevations, as if on an island, and cut off from other Yarrow’s populations in southern Arizona and northern Mexico.
In 2014, the team could not find any lizards below 5,700 feet. Up to that elevation the temperature in the mountains had gotten too hot. In 2021-22, they returned to the Mules to count lizards in the same spot. They were gone. At that point, the lizards could only be found living much higher, at 7,100 feet, a cooler elevation.
In a scientific paper, Wiens and his colleagues calculated the rate at which the lizards were dying, concluding that it is among the fastest rates ever recorded.
But because the highest peak in the Mules is 7,700 feet, the Yarrow’s spiny lizards were quickly running out of elevations with cooler air. Based on its calculated rate of decline, and with nowhere else to go, Wiens projected the lizards would go extinct here by 2025 — a phenomenon that scientists call riding the “elevator to extinction.”
In March of this year, a survey trip into the mountains with CBS News proved his hypothesis correct, one year ahead of schedule. Wiens could no longer find any lizards, though it will take several more trips before rendering a conclusion.
This species was apparently never listed under ESA, or even petitioned. The BLM could have petitioned to list the lizard. You might think that a federal agency responsible for species on its lands would want all the tools available to provide for the species survival, but I think petitions to list a species by federal agencies are unheard of.
We know that species may be listed under ESA because of the effects of climate change (e.g. polar bears). The ESA would then force federal agencies to modify their actions that would adversely affect listed species. In this example, changing BLM management practices might have been necessary, but not sufficient, to save the species.
If the species had been listed, at least in theory, other actions that are causing the loss of habitat could have been modified or eliminated which could have benefitted federal lands ecosystems. A Congressional Research Service Report from 2019 found that unlikely:
Judicial review has helped to ensure that the Services consider projected climate change effects on species in their ESA decisions. However, the courts have not required the Services to curb activities that may contribute to climate change to protect threatened or endangered species.
Stakeholders disagree on whether the ESA should play a role in addressing climate change, with some arguing that the ESA is not equipped to mitigate climate change effects. Other stakeholders believe that the Services can and should wield the ESA to protect further species threatened by climate change by curbing activities contributing to climate change. From the Services’ viewpoint, the best available scientific and commercial data have been insufficient to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from a proposed activity cause detrimental effects on a species or its habitat. In light of the judicial deference afforded to the Services, the courts have not expanded the ESA as a tool to protect listed species by regulating activities that contribute to climate change.
Despite some success challenging BiOps, neither the courts nor the Services have found that climate change effects from a proposed federal action jeopardize the species or adversely modify its habitat.
Even though that is what happened here. Federal actions authorizing greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to a baseline for this species that trended toward and resulted in extinction. This same trend is occurring for many other species in less obvious ways. Nothing to celebrate here.
But the CRS authors offer this (faint) note of hope:
From the Services’ viewpoint, the best available scientific and commercial data have been insufficient to determine that GHG emissions from a proposed activity cause detrimental effects on the species or its habitat. However, as climate modeling and technology advance, the Services may be able to predict the causes and effects from climate change on species with greater scientific certainty and data.
(Note: This report was written at the end of the Trump Administration and discusses its changes in the ESA regulations, which have since been changed by the Biden Administration. Also, I have not tried to update what’s been happening in the courts.)
Extreme consequences require extreme measures.
So I traveled to the “celebrate savings species” site, via the link above, managed by the folks at the Endangered Species Coalition, eventually winding up on the “15 Ways to Celebrate Endangered Species Day Online and at Home” but couldn’t find much in the way of landowner oriented party advice except planting a pollinator garden. There was certainly plenty of tools for “advocates and agencies” and for effecting justice and inclusion, but little regarding rejoicing the punitive measures extorted from private landowners for providing 80% of the critical habitat for 50% of the “public’s” endangered species or how to enjoy being treated like a second-class citizen who gets the opportunity to provide free ecological services while having their management activities restricted or prohibited–even those that ensured the preservation of habitat well enough that even after 150 years of self-regulation it suddenly became critical and essential for the preservation of the species–and being relegated to basically a hostage-slave.
I think instead, I’ll celebrate the ESA the same way I have for decades–by watching the critters firsthand, managing their habitat to fit in with my rules and then writing checks to Pacific Legal Foundation, Mountain States and others….oh, and I’ll continue my reveling in barring state and federal agencies from my private property in a state not subject to the Open Fields Doctrine and refusing to cooperate with their one-sided “recovery” agendas. Unfortunate for so many reasons, but necessary given how so many people in power chose to celebrate their role in ESA.
Maybe the 150 years of “self-regulation” has something to do with that trend line towards extinction.
A private landowner does not have the right to “harm” listed species on their property because they do not own wildlife, and §11 of ESA says they can be criminally prosecuted for doing so. But “shoot, shovel and shut up” can be a pretty good defense.
I don’t think a private landowner can be forced to contribute to recovery of listed species unless it’s part of negotiating federal authorization for some activity. That’s why there are voluntary incentives for private landowners like safe harbor agreements.
Perhaps, although there certainly isn’t much published literature supporting that theory that I’m aware of, outside of the Eichenwald et al paper. It would be an interesting analysis though, to contrast the recovery trajectories of listed vs non-listed species on private land to further test what many are suggesting–that ESA’s punitive measures actually defeat its conservation intent. I certainly see that disparity first hand every day, for example the stark contrast between the voluntary landowner-shouldered recovery of spring chinook in the John Day basin versus the ongoing local wolf debacle; it would be intriguing to see what is happening across the nation.
Besides, I thought all resource recovery failures anymore were the result of climate change? Maybe those are only the publicly-led failures, private landowners being held to stricter standards.
Regardless, I’m very familiar with the elements of the ESA, both as a practicing biologist and a landowner, albeit likely for different motivations than those peering in from the outside trying to best determine how to leverage additional restrictions on other peoples’ lives. There are certainly various ways to force landowners to use private resources to contribute to the recovery of public species, such as state regulation as a surrogate (nearly always followed up with “free money” for structured compliance), designation of critical habitat, consultation and permitting requirements where a nexus exists, and etc. My being prohibited from legally shooting wolves that are attacking my livestock on my private land certainly is one example of me being forced to contribute to wolf recovery and while “SSS” isn’t an adequate defense, the choice of evils may be. Hopefully, we’ll soon see a case winding its way up to this supreme court that will overturn the Christy decision–a most joyous outcome that I’m most certain to celebrate the subsequent Endangered Species Day.
Until then, I encourage anyone who endorses uncompensated impairments of private property for the public good to demonstrate their personal commitment to this method by dedicating a portion of their own property (e.g., yard, garage, spare room) for occupancy by a homeless person or persons and self-impose restrictions on themselves that would otherwise limit the impact of the new resident(s) on their own property. Then, perhaps, we’d have a common foundation upon which to begin understanding each other’s positions.
Hi Shaun: Your reference to John Day makes me think you are probably an Oregon landowner. Although this is mostly a westside problem, I’m curious about your thoughts on the triple-whammy the ESA industry is trying to enforce on our private and state lands through “HCPs?”
The effect of federal “critical habitat” enforcements on our federal lands have resulted in millions of acres of predictable wildfires, millions of dead fish, deer, birds, and other animals, tens of thousands of lost jobs, thousands of burned homes, and several incidents of global air pollution at a cost of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. And zero evidence that any of the targeted animals (unusual races and subspecies, mostly) have been “saved” by this process of federal land management.
The HCPs are just the most current strategy for further control, in my opinion, based on several decades of observation and documentation. Your thoughts?
“The effect of federal “critical habitat” enforcements on our federal lands have resulted in … (etc.)
Show us the proof of your theory – about any lands. (Critical habitat on federal lands adds little or nothing in the way of management restrictions. Does sometimes require more paperwork.)
Animals “targeted” ESA by are “unusual races and subspecies, mostly.”
Show us the proof of your theory. I’ll give you spotted owls and grizzly bears as subspecies, but I don’t think either used to be “unusual,” and I’d like to see the numbers on such versus actual species.
Hi Jon: I’ve written numerous articles and editorials on the massive increase in wildfires on federal lands since spotted owl reserves were created in the Douglas Fir Region. You might be splitting hairs with your “enforcements on our federal lands” statement, but I’m referring directly to the lawsuits and regulations resulting in USFS and BLM “LSRs” and other reserves that predictably resulted in wildfires. I put together an anthology of these writings earlier this year that extend over the past 30 years and include lots of tables, maps, photos, and specific details: https://www.amazon.com/Western-Oregon-Wildfires-Dr-Zybach/dp/1732127689/
I’m glad you accept spotted owls as a subspecies (I consider them a Darwin-based race), but no idea why you think they used to be more numerous. As you know, there are no reliable “numbers” to share, but I would say my statements are based on opinion more than theory — and that my opinions are based on documentation and definitely not on computer models. You can look at the proposed 2000+ names of so-called “endangered species” and see that most of them are not very “usual” at all, and likely never have been.
Marbled murrelets prefer to live in the ocean off Alaska rather than the ocean off California, and Californians would rather live on land in California rather than land in Alaska. Neither one is “endangered” in their preferred habitat. But murrelets get special legal status due to regulations that have nothing to do with past populations or actual numbers globally — just isolated populations. Check out your reptiles and amphibians for a lot more examples.
LSRs are an administrative designation by the land management agencies, not critical habitat recognized by the ESA. Restrictions in LSRs come from the Northwest Forest Plan, not directly from ESA (I’m not sure what role the FWS might have played through consultation on the LSRs).
I fully expect many listed species to be unusual – ESA would naturally pick up species isolated in small territories at high risk that a single disturbance would wipe them out. I was more interested in how many are not actually “species,” which you suggested were “mostly.”
Hi Jon: All of the animals are members of a “species.” It’s just that most of them on the list are isolated populations, unusual races, and minor subspecies — apparently discovered and promoted for legal and employment purposes. The proposed list speaks for itself. Some of the major listings have definitely experienced a drop in population numbers during historical time, but little or nothing is known about past extent of those populations. We know about Pterodactyls and Dodo Birds, but leopard-spotted newts remain a mystery.
Shaun, it’s perhaps a small step from “encouraging people to do the right thing” and “forcing people to do what we consider the right thing” against their will. Carrots vs. sticks.
And of course it’s easier to force goodness on other people. I find these LSE suggestions about housing interesting…
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/solving-the-housing-crisis-without-building-new-houses/
One thought I had is perhaps USFWS is limited by numbers of staff, and driven by lawsuits in deciding which species to focus on. If that were the case, we might ask CBD folks, as the generator of many of those lawsuits, why the lizard did not make the list? Maybe CBD folks want to focus on species for which there are interventions that might work to help the species.. it seems like reasonable strategy.
As to the idea of ESA regulating climate change, I think we have enough agencies involved in that.. we have EPA regulating producers of carbon, DOE funding technologies to reduce carbon, tax breaks and free reductions and all other kinds of governmental intervention. I think USFWS is wise to steer clear of the current regulatory cluster of confusion.
I don’t think scientists will ever be certain of what exactly causes species’ demise in most cases. There are combinations of habitat changes, diseases, predators, and so on, even the human-caused part of each element of climate change are not known with certainty. The animals and plants found on cloud islands wouldn’t be there except for non-human caused climate changes.
“However, as climate modeling and technology advance, the Services may be able to predict the causes and effects from climate change on species with greater scientific certainty and data.”
How much would be “enough” certainty, given the little we understand about 1) climate changes and 2) adaptation, behavioral, genetic, and epigenetic? To whom is it important to partition these things out and why, exactly, since we seem to have policies to decarbonize?
The relevant question under ESA is whether the effects of any federal action, added to the environmental baseline and cumulative effects, is “likely to jeopardize the continued existence of” a listed species. The climate would be part of the baseline, the cumulative effects, and in some cases the effects of the action, and the “best scientific and commercial data available” must be used. I think the agency’s “certainty” about the combined effects is going to be given a maximum of amount of deference.
Here’s a little bonus courtesy of the Center for Biological Diversity – listed species by county. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/T_and_E_map/?utm_source=eeo&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=eeo1225&utm_term=EndangeredSpecies&emci=04498549-dfa4-ee11-bea1-002248223f36&emdi=ea000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001
“Yes, the Earth got destroyed but for a brief moment in time we created a lot of equity for our shareholders.”
On the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountain Front Spring runoff allows endangered pallid sturgeon in Yellowstone tributaries like the Powder and Tongue Rivers to spawn but the Corps canceled the Spring Pulse below Lewis and Clark Lake in 2022 due to inadequate runoff into the Missouri River.
So today, dry winter and low mountain snowpacks are driving the Corps to release storage in the Missouri River mainstem dams hoping to prop up the navigation season at the risk of providing less water for hydroelectric generation. Pallid sturgeon are living dinosaurs but when the Missouri River dams were built it sealed the fate of the ancient species. Scientists and the US Army Corps of Engineers have learned that unless newly hatched pallid sturgeon have several hundred miles of unimpeded waters they cannot survive.
Under President Joe Biden and pressure from the US Fish and Wildlife Service the Corps boosted releases from the Fort Peck Dam in 2021 for spawning pallid sturgeon after it was suspended during the horrors of the previous administration.
The US Army Corps of Engineers counts almost 90,000 dams in its database and on the western side of the Continental Divide the Snake River through Idaho, Oregon and Washington that was dammed to deny Indigenous salmon fishing is now the 4th most endangered as drought seizes the region.