After reading portions of the Federal Register notice (use link in
message below) proposing changes in the definition of "significant
portion of the range", I think that the proposal to restrict the term
"range" to only the current range of a species as described here:
"D. Range and Historical Range
When considering an interpretation of the SPR phrase, we must also
consider the meaning of the term ``range.'' The Services interpret the
term ``range'' to be the general geographical area within which the
species is currently found and to include those areas used throughout
all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular
basis. We consider the ``current'' range of the species to be the range
occupied by the species at the time the Services make a determination
under section 4 of the Act.
Some have questioned whether lost historical range may constitute a
significant portion of the range of a species, such that the Services
must list the species rangewide because of the extirpation in that
portion of the historical range. We conclude that while loss of
historical range must be considered in evaluating the current status of
the species, lost historical range cannot be a significant portion of
the range. In other words, we cannot base a determination to list a
species on the status of the species in lost historical range."
is inconsistent with the Act, which according to this same FR notice,
says that a species may be rendered threatened or endangered by any of
the five factors, including
(i) The destruction, drastic modification, or severe
curtailment of its habitat;
The impact of logging practices over the past 100 or so years, resulting
in complete loss of spotted owl habitat over a great portion of the
bird's historical range and the separation of bits of owl habitat by
unwelcoming logged lands (habitat fragmentation) have resulted in its
current very restricted range and endangered status. Attempts to restore
populations of spotted owls in only these presently occupied spots would
be unsuccessful.
The status of wolves in their historic range, also, would be affected
by this proposed change. We would have no wolves in this country except
in Minnesota and on Isle Royal under the new interpretation (and one
suspects that this case is the real driver for those pushing the
Secretary to propose this modification of language).
It is, finally, interesting that the proposed language indicates that
the final rule will invoke "judicial deference", requiring judges to
refrain from making decisions contrary to the clear intention of the law
when in this case the Secretary himself acknowledges that there is no
clear definition of "significant portion of the range" in the statute.
Mike
******************
For those interested in our government's interpretation of the
Endangered Species Act, it would be worthwhile to read the following
message and the Federal Register Notice referenced there.
Mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: proposed policy to water down the Endangered Species Act?
Comment period closes Feb 7
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:45:55 -0500
From: Pete Epanchin <pnepanc...@gmail.com>
The Obama administration is proposing policy to specify the Endangered
Species Act's definition of "significant portion of [a species'] range".
The public comment period closes on Feb 7.
If you have been following this proposed policy, please post a reply with
your take on whether or not the proposal undermines the ESA.
My take is that the proposed policy would undermine the ESA by excluding
consideration of a species' historic range when determining whether a
species should be listed. Knowing what a species' historic range relative
to its current range is obviously an important piece of information in
understanding the threats to a species and whether it deserves protection,
however under this policy, any loss of a species' historic range could not
be counted toward the "significant portion of its range", only the
currently occupied range can be considered. The argument goes that the bald
eagle would never have been listed because at the time of listing it was
doing great in Alaska despite its near disappearance in the lower 48.
Nonetheless, the proposed policy seems to take an opposing view, it states
that:
Listing a species when it is endangered or threatened in a
"significant portion of its range" before it is endangered or
threatened throughout all its range may allow the Services to protect
and conserve species and the ecosystems upon which they depend before
large-scale decline occurs throughout the entire range of the species.
This may allow protection and recovery of declining organisms in a more
timely and less costly manner, and on a smaller scale than the more
costly and extensive efforts that might be needed to recover a species
that is endangered or threatened throughout all its range.
Here's the notice in the Federal Register with links to submit comments:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-09/html/2011-31782.htm
Here's a short read on it from the Washington Post, based on concerns
voiced by Representative Markley's (D-Mass):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-ally-suggests-administration-is-undermining-endangered-species-act/2012/01/27/gIQAzlLaWQ_story.html
Thanks in advance for replying with your take on this one.
Best,
Pete Epanchin
