SCB criticizes proposed policy on Endangered Species Act’s “Significant Portion of Range” and offers alternative
Today, the Society for Conservation Biology submitted extensive comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning the Services’ proposal to define and implement the U.S. Endangered Species Act’s phrase “significant portion of its range.” Because the U.S. Endangered Species Act allows the Services to list species as threatened or endangered based on threats “throughout all or a significant portion” of a species’ range, it is critically important that this definition be based on the best available science in order to effectively conserve biodiversity.
SCB outlined several areas where the Services’ draft policy appears to ignore key principles from the field of conservation biology. Most importantly, the policy appears to ignore the basic purpose of the ESA, which clearly envisions protecting declining species, and the ecosystems on which they depend, before they become threatened or endangered with extinction globally, and to restore such threatened species that have been extirpated from significant portions of their historic range.
SCB developed a detailed alternative to the Services’ proposed policy that would better reflect the intent and goals of the ESA and best practice in applyng conservation science to effect recovery of endangered and threatened species.
The full text of SCB comments can be found here.
Background provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service on the Services’ draft policy can be found here.
SCB recommended the following changes to the Services’ Draft Policy:
1) A definition of “significant” should focus primarily on a species’ geographic representation within a defined ecoregion or ecosystem unit rather than based on a risk of extinction to the entire species.
2) Extirpation from an ecoregion or ecosystem unit, which constitutes part of a species’ historic range, provides a justification for finding that a species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.
3) The threat of extirpation from that ecoregion or ecosystem unit would provide the justification for finding that such species is threatened within a significant portion of its range.
4) A substantial portion of unoccupied historic range can constitute a significant portion of a species’ range and can provide a justification for finding that a species is threatened or endangered within a significant portion of its range, rather than the categorical refusal to consider historic range as the Services propose.
5) Recovery within an ecoregion or ecosystem unit can be prioritized using existing guidance on setting recovery priorities. This would focus recovery of a species to an ecoregion or ecosystem unit where recovery is feasible, while not requiring that a species be restored to every portion of its former range that is now unoccupied.
6) A definition of “significant portion of its range” that focuses on geographic representation, as modern conservation science recommends, requires that the Services modernize their 1996 joint Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act to allow a distinct population segment of a species to be based on ecoregion or ecosystem unit boundaries.
7) The future hypothetical consequences of listing species based on a particular definition of “significant portion of its range” should not be used as a justification for defining “significant portion of its range” in such a manner as to render the phrase devoid of scientific and practical meaning in the first instance. The Services should therefore remove part one of their Draft Policy: Consequences of Listing.
8 ) The Services should develop an integrated policy to fully reconcile the requirements of Sections 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c) of the Endangered Species Act together with the definition of “significant portion of its range” by referring the matter to a panel comprised of representatives nominated by scientific and professional societies as the Act advises the Services to do in Section 4(b)(5)(C) with regard to listing decisions.
