GAINESVILLE, Florida, January 23, 2009 (ENS) – A coalition of conservation groups has notified the National Marine Fisheries Service of its intent to file a lawsuit as early as March if the agency does not act immediately to protect imperiled sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico.

The action comes after fisheries observer data showed that the Gulf of Mexico bottom longline fishery, which harvests reef fish like grouper and tilefish, resulted in the capture of nearly 1,000 threatened and endangered sea turtles between July 2006 and the end of 2007.

The coalition urges that the commercial bottom longline fishery be suspended until the federal agency meets its legal obligations under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that the fishery does not imperil sea turtles and other threatened species in the Gulf of Mexico.

All six species of sea turtles occurring in the United States are protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Loggerhead sea turtle in Boynton Beach, Florida (Photo by PelagicSal)

Even though the fishery has far exceeded the number of turtles it is allowed to take under the Endangered Species Act, the Fisheries Service, has declined to close the fishery while it studies options for reducing turtle take, a decision the conservation groups claim is illegal.

“Allowing this fishery to continue to kill threatened and endangered turtles while the government studies the problem is irresponsible and illegal,” said Andrea Treece, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.

“Now that the National Marine Fisheries Service knows the longline fleet is jeopardizing the future of the turtle populations they have a duty to act immediately,” said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of the Gulf Restoration Network.

Loggerhead sea turtles are of greatest concern to the groups because this species accounted for 799 of the 974 captured turtles in the government analysis. This is more than three times the number of loggerheads the Service authorized the fishery to take in 2005.

Loggerhead nesting populations in Florida have dropped by 41 percent over the past 10 years. The groups say the large number of juvenile and reproductive adult turtles injured or killed by the bottom longline fishery is likely contributing to this steep decline.

“It’s devastating to think about all the hard work and progress we’ve made safeguarding Florida’s loggerheads and their nesting beaches being destroyed by this rampant level of take,” said David Godfrey, executive director of the Caribbean Conservation Corporation based in Gainsville. “We must stop and reassess the impacts of this fishery before it’s too late.”

The Gulf of Mexico bottom longline fishery operates primarily off the west coast of Florida, an area that provides key habitat for several sea turtle species, including loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, and green turtles.

Bottom longliners lay a mainline up to 10 miles long with as many as 2,100 baited hooks. Sea turtles are caught when they attempt to eat the bait or become entangled when swimming near a line.

“The use of longlining in the Gulf of Mexico is tragic. Loggerheads, Kemp’s ridleys and other sea turtles die caught by a fishing method that has no regard for the waste it entails and the death of endangered species,” said Carole Allen, Gulf office director of the Sea Turtle Restoration Project. “It reminds many of us of the slaughter of sea turtles drowning in shrimp trawls before Turtle Excluder Devices were required.”

A Turtle Excluder Device is a grid of bars fitted into a trawl net. Shrimp pass through the bars and are caught in the bag end of the trawl. When larger animals, such as sea turtles are caught in the trawl they strike the bars and are ejected through the opening.

“There are other ways to catch the same fish without killing turtles,” said Sarthou. “The Service needs to follow the precedent set by Gulf shrimpers and require a change in gear now.”

Last month the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a revised Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the loggerhead sea turtle, the first revision since 1991.

The recovery plan identifies 208 actions needed to achieve recovery of the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle, including new regulations to require turtle excluder devices in fisheries where they are not now required.

“Loggerhead sea turtles face many domestic and international threats, and thousands die around the world every year,” said Jim Balsiger, acting assistant administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “This plan will help our agency and our partners to conserve and recover the species by providing a blueprint to address threats in the northwestern Atlantic.”

The northwestern Atlantic sea turtle population includes the northern Gulf of Mexico.

Florida accounts for more than 90 percent of the loggerhead nesting in the United States, and is one of the two largest remaining loggerhead nesting locations in the world. The other is on the beaches of Oman on the Arabian Peninsula.

Loggerheads dug more than 35,000 nests on Florida beaches last year, more than in 2007, which were the lowest nesting levels in the 20 year history of the state’s monitoring program. But this increase did not reverse the long-term declining trend between 1998 and 2008, according to Florida wildlife officials.

Generally, female turtles nest on the same beaches each season. Many scientists believe that hatchlings, when grown, return to their natal beaches to nest.

Threats to loggerhead survival include bottom trawlers that drag heavy gear across the ocean floor; longline and gillnet fisheries; legal and illegal harvest; vessel strikes; beach armoring; beach erosion; marine debris ingestion; oil pollution; light pollution; and predation by raccoons and feral hogs, among other native and exotic species.

The highest priority actions include monitoring trends on nesting beaches; maintaining the current length and quality of protected nesting beach; and acquiring and protecting additional properties on key nesting beaches; reducing vessel interactions with loggerheads; and maintaining the federal Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network.

Because loggerheads migrate into the waters of many countries, the plan recommends that the federal government work with foreign nations to eliminate commercial and subsistence harvest; and enact regulations to minimize loggerhead bycatch in their fisheries.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, January 21, 2009 (ENS) – In one of his first presidential acts, President Barack Obama has ordered federal agencies to halt all pending regulations until his administration can review them.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel issued the memorandum Tuesday shortly after Obama took the oath of office at noon on the steps of the Capitol Building.

The freeze halts publication of federal regulations planned under the Bush administration but not yet published in the Federal Register.

President George W. Bush used his executive powers to issue new regulations before leaving office, a usual practice during transitions.

Wildlife conservationists say the freeze will delay and possibly prevent the removal of gray wolves from the federal endangered species list in Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, and also in portions of Washington, Oregon, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity says the pause will afford President Obama and his new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar the opportunity to rethink the previous administration’s efforts to remove wolves from the endangered species list.

Salazar, a fifth-generation Coloradan who served as the state’s U.S. senator, attorney general and director of natural resources, was confirmed Tuesday by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate to head the Department of the Interior, the nation’s largest land and wildlife conservation agency. He started work in his new job this morning.

Gray wolf in the northern Rockies (Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

“Rather than remove protections from wolves in a piecemeal fashion, in the isolated locations where they have finally begun to recover from past persecution,” Robinson said, “the Obama administration should develop and implement a national gray-wolf recovery plan that will ensure the survival of these magnificent animals.”

On January 14, in what conservationists view as a last-ditch effort by the Bush administration to undermine environmental protections, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the Northern Rockies gray wolf will be taken off the Endangered Species List.

Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, said, “This blatantly political maneuver is hardly surprising. The Bush administration has been trying to strip Endangered Species Act protections from the Northern Rockies wolf since the day it took office – no matter the dire consequences of delisting wolves prematurely and without adequate state protections in place.”

Two previous attempts to remove protections from the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains have been struck down by federal courts.

“The Bush administration is forcing the future of wolves in the region to play out in the courts by finalizing a delisting rule in its last hours in office,” Schlickeisen said. “We intend to challenge this poorly constructed decision in court as soon as the law allows. It is outrageous that the Bush administration has chosen to create this unnecessary legal problem for the new Obama administration to deal with as it takes office.”

Announding the delisting, Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett said the success of gray wolf recovery efforts in the northern Rockies has contributed to expanding populations of wolves that no longer require the protection of the Act.

“Wolves have recovered in the Great Lakes and the northern Rocky Mountains because of the hard work, cooperation and flexibility shown by States, tribes, conservation groups, federal agencies and citizens of both regions,” said Scarlett. “We can all be proud of our various roles in saving this icon of the American wilderness.”

But wildlife conservationists disagree. Gray wolves are gone from over 95 percent of their historic range, including on millions of acres of national forests, national parks and Bureau of Land Management public lands whose ecological health has suffered in the absence of wolves, conservationists contend.

In the northern Rocky Mountains, wolf numbers are too low and populations too fragmented to ensure long-term survival, Robinson says.

The Bush administration intended to delist wolves in Idaho and Montana even though those states are inhabited by only 75 breeding pairs of wolves, far below the hundreds of breeding animals wildlife scientists say are necessary to maintain population viability without debilitating genetic problems.

Even these 75 breeding pairs are not secure since the Idaho and Montana state wolf management plans allow for killing of wolves, including a majority of the wolves in Idaho.

Schlickeisen said, “If allowed to stand, this rule would mean that the Northern Rockies wolf population could be slashed by as much as two-thirds, placing approximately 1,000 of the region’s roughly 1,450 wolves in peril. This is a loss from which they most likely would be unable to recover.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service and its predecessor agency were responsible for the extermination of wolves throughout much of the 20th century on behalf of the livestock industry.

Gray wolves survived in small numbers in the upper Midwest and expanded under the protections of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Wolves began recolonizing northern Montana and Idaho on their own in the 1980s, and numbers grew significantly after the 1995 and 1996 reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.

Under an exception to the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Service actions have resulted in the federal killing on behalf of the livestock industry of 931 wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and at least 1,951 wolves in the Great Lakes region from 1996 through 2008.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, December 17, 2008 (ENS) – Regulations announced by Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne last week that would exempt many federal activities, including those that generate greenhouse gases, from review under the Endangered Species Act were published in the Federal Register Tuesday.

But the regulations are being challenged in court by three conservation groups – the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and Defenders of Wildlife, who filed suit in federal court for the Northern District of California the day the regulations were announced, December 11.

Unless overturned in court, the regulations will take effect on January 11, nine days before President-elect Barack Obama is inaugurated and the presidency of George W. Bush comes to a close.

“These regulations undermine fundamental protections for the nation’s endangered species,” said Noah Greenwald with the Center for Biological Diversity. “We hope an Obama administration or Congress will act quickly to undo this 11th hour attempt to weaken our most important law for protecting wildlife.”

The lawsuit argues that the regulations violate the Endangered Species Act and did not go through the required public review process. The regulations, first proposed on August 11, were rushed by the Bush administration through an abbreviated process in which more than 300,000 comments from the public were reviewed in three weeks, and environmental impacts were analyzed in a brief environmental assessment, rather than a fuller environmental impact statement.

“This is a clear example of a lame duck administration ramming through weakened regulations that are opposed by Congress and the public,” Greenwald said. “When the survival of species hangs in the balance, public policy should not be rushed.”

Under current regulations, federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if the agencies permit, fund, or otherwise carry out actions that “may affect” endangered species, or if the Service has already determined those actions adversely affect endangered species.

Under the new regulations, federal agencies will themselves determine whether their actions are likely to adversely affect endangered species. That finding would determine whether the agency must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Announcing the final regulations, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said, “With the regulations finalized today, federal agencies must still follow all existing consultation procedures, except in specific and limited instances where an action is not anticipated to adversely impact any member of a listed species.”

Polar bear clings to a shrinking ice floe
in a warming world. (Photo credit unknown)

The policy would also prohibit any consideration of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from federal projects on endangered species such as the polar bear.

“When I announced the listing of the polar bear as threatened in May, I agreed with the President that the Endangered Species Act is not the right tool to set climate change policy,” Kempthorne said. “I also announced that day that we would propose common sense modifications to the existing regulations in order to provide greater certainty that the listing would not become a back door for setting climate change policy.”

Anticipating criticism of the regulations, Kempthorne said, “Importantly, the new regulations do not remove all consideration of the effects of climate change. Climate change should be considered when determining the environmental conditions under which actions are taking place.

He gave the example of a project that would pull water from a lake and it is predicted that, because of climate change, water levels in that lake will already be significantly reduced, then the expected lower lake levels should be taken into consideration, he said.

The U.S. Geological Survey has published a series of reports predicting that due to climate change loss of summer sea ice, crucial habitat for polar bears, could lead to the death of two-thirds of the world’s polar bears by mid-century, including all of Alaska’s polar bears.

The polar bear was listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act on May 14, 2008. The conservation groups’ lawsuit seeks to ensure that the polar bear receives the full protections that other species receive under the law.

The polar bear is the largest of the world’s bear species and is distributed among 19 Arctic subpopulations – two of which, the Chukchi and the Southern Beaufort Sea populations, are located within the United States.

Polar bears are threatened with extinction from global warming, which is melting the Arctic sea ice where polar bears hunt for ringed and bearded seals, their primary food source.

“This rule makes a mockery of the Endangered Species Act, our nation’s most important wildlife protection law,” said Defenders of Wildlife Executive Vice President Jamie Rappaport Clark, who headed the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Clinton administration.

“The polar bear doesn’t have time for political maneuvers. Its habitat is melting away, its food is becoming scarce and the science is clear that the cause is global warming – yet the rule this administration released today affirms that little will be done to save the species from sure extinction,” said Clark.

Listing polar bears as threatened should help protect polar bear habitat from threats such as oil and gas development, which the Bush administration is aggressively pursuing in the Chukchi Sea north of Alaska and has even proposed in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which provides the primary land denning habitat for the species, she said.

“Instead, the administration has made it clear with its 4(d) rule that the ESA will not provide any additional protections from these and other harmful activities than those that already exist under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and will provide no protection against emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing the rise in global temperatures that directly threaten the polar bear,” said Clark.

Greenwald said, “The polar bear and numerous other species threatened by climate change need the protections of the Endangered Species Act to survive.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SAINT PETERSBURG, Florida, December 1, 2008 (ENS) – NOAA’s Fisheries Service is increasing its protection of threatened elkhorn and staghorn corals in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands through a new rule to prohibit activities that result in death or harm to either species.

The new regulations took effect on November 21 and five days later critical habitat for the two corals was designated. But the biodiversity advocacy group whose successful lawsuit is responsible for these protections is threatening to sue the federal government again, calling the critical habitat designation inadequate and illegal.

“These corals were once the major reef builders in Florida and the Caribbean, but now more than 90 percent of their populations are lost,” said Roy Crabtree, NOAA’s Fisheries Service’s southeast regional administrator. “That not only threatens their survival – it affects the entire ecosystem. This rule will strengthen our efforts to recover these corals by allowing us to address the human-induced threats affecting their status.”

The rule will prohibit the import, export, take, and all commercial activities involving elkhorn and staghorn corals, including collection or any activities that result in the corals’ mortality or injury, anchoring, grounding a vessel, or dragging any other gear on these corals; damaging their habitat; or discharging any pollutant or contaminant that harms them.

Elkhorn coral (Photo courtesy NOAA)

In a related move, the federal agency has designated almost 3,000 square miles of reef area off the coasts of Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as critical habitat for the threatened corals under the Endangered Species Act.

The new critical habitat rule, published in Wednesday’s Federal Register, was required by a court-approved settlement of a 2007 lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity.

It requires federal agencies to determine whether their activities will destroy or adversely modify areas designated as critical habitat for threatened corals.

But these steps are not enough to protect the two coral species under the Endangered Species Act, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.

The nonprofit advocacy group has sent the Bush administration official notice of its intent file a lawsuit for excluding global warming and ocean acidification threats from the new rule protecting habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals.

“The critical habitat rule exposes the Bush agenda to ignore global warming, while rising temperatures are driving corals extinct,” said Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s San Francisco office.

“The rule shows the double standard of the Bush administration,” said Sakashita. “On one hand, the law required the federal government to identify areas to protect for the threatened corals. On the other hand, the administration skirted the real threats to coral habitat, global warming and ocean acidification, by inserting language into the rule that carves out an exception for those threats. It is not only irrational, but it is illegal under the Endangered Species Act.”

Elkhorn coral and staghorn coral, which were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2006, were the first species protected under the Endangered Species Act due to threats to their survival primarily caused by global warming.

Once the most abundant and important reef-building corals in Florida and the Caribbean, staghorn and elkhorn corals have declined by more than 90 percent in many areas. Sakashita says their decline is a result of disease and “bleaching,” a stress response to abnormally high water temperatures in which corals expel the symbiotic algae that give them color.

A related threat, ocean acidification, caused by the ocean’s absorption of carbon dioxide, impairs the ability of corals to build their protective skeletons.

Scientists have predicted that most of the world’s coral reefs will disappear by midcentury due to global warming and ocean acidification if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced.

“Critical habitat protection can be an important factor leading to the recovery of our coral reefs, because changes to the ocean habitat are some of the primary threats to the corals,” Sakashita said. “This rule, however, misses the mark by ignoring the simple fact that carbon dioxide pollution is degrading coral habitat and killing coral reefs.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

PORTLAND, Oregon, October 2, 2008 (ENS) – The nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity today filed five separate lawsuits in federal court all charging the Bush administration with political interference in designation of critical habitat for six western species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The species include two birds, the western snowy plover and the southwestern willow flycatcher; a mammal, the Buena Vista Lake shrew; an amphibian, the California tiger salamander; and two California plants, the Munz’s onion and the San Jacinto Valley crownscale.

The lawsuits are the latest action taken by the organization in its campaign to undo politically tainted decisions concerning dozens of endangered species.

The campaign began August 28, 2007 when the group filed a notice of intent to sue over decisions involving 55 endangered species in 28 states, covering 8.7 million acres of critical habitat.

“The Bush administration has the worst record protecting endangered species of any administration since passage of the landmark law,” said Noah Greenwald, science director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

“In the case of these six species, the administration’s malfeasance resulted in the removal of protection for over 300,000 acres of habitat in seven western states,” Greenwald said.

California tiger salamander (Photo by
C. Johnson courtesy USFWS)

Greenwald gives as an example the California tiger salamander, saying that the administration excluded all of the 74,223 acres of critical habitat in Sonoma County that was identified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists as “essential” to the survival or recovery the species.

Critical habitat exclusions for the other species ranged from 23 to 100 percent of the acres identified as essential by scientists.

“The Bush administration has demonstrated a total disregard for the scientific conclusions of the government’s own scientists,” said Greenwald. “This disregard places these six species and numerous others at risk of extinction.”

Typical of today’s lawsuits is the one filed over habitat protection for the Buena Vista Lake shrew.

The shrew’s historic range, the Tulare Basin in the southern San Joaquin Valley, once supported three large lakes interconnected by hundreds of square miles of tule marshes and other permanent and seasonal lakes, wetlands and sloughs. Now most of the lakes and marshes have been drained and cultivated, endangering the small mammal. Yet, the Bush administration reduced critical habitat for the shrew by 98 percent, from 4,565 to 84 acres.

In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed five areas, totaling 4,649 acres, as critical habitat for the shrew.

Buena Vista Lake shrew (Photo by B.
Moose Peterson courtesy USFWS)

But four of the proposed units were excluded in the final rule in favor of “voluntary” commitments made by landowners to provide protections for the shrew.

“In each case, landowners have developed robust and reliable strategies to enhance the Buena Vista Lake shrew,” said Steve Thompson, manager of California-Nevada Operations for the Service. “These agreements provide strong commitments for actions that will help the species recover.”

“Cooperative actions, such as the City of Bakersfield’s revised Management Plan, do more to help the species than a simple critical habitat designation,” Thompson said. “The Service believes this type of cooperative activity is more effective in restoring threatened and endangered species.”

Implementation of the Endangered Species Act by the Bush administration has been investigated by the Government Accountability Office, which is the investigative branch of Congress; by the House Natural Resources Committee; and by the Department of Interior’s own Inspector General.

The Inspector General’s 2007 report resulted in the resignation of Julie MacDonald, a former deputy assistant secretary in the Department of the Interior who left her post last year under a cloud of scandal. It was her decisions that led to some of the allegations of political interference that have triggered these lawsuits filed today.

The Center’s previous efforts to reverse politically tainted decisions have met with some success.

In response to lawsuits filed by the organization, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to redo critical habitat designations for 15 species, including the California red-legged frog, arroyo toad, vermillion darter, Mississippi gopher frog, four New Mexico invertebrates, and seven plants from California, Oregon, and North Carolina.

The newly proposed critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog alone totals approximately 1.8 million acres, four times the area previously protected.

In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to reconsider listing the rare, highly imperiled Mexican garter snake as an endangered species.

Under the Bush administration, the Service has repeatedly said that “the designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while preventing the Service from using scarce conservation resources for activities with greater conservation benefits.”

“In almost all cases,” the Service says, “recovery of listed species will come through voluntary cooperative partnerships, not regulatory measures such as critical habitat.”

But there are currently 281 candidate species that are recognized as warranting protection but have yet to be listed, and a host of critical habitat designations that the courts have found to be illegal because they were not based on science.

“The next administration is going to have their work cut out for them to correct the problems with endangered species management created by this administration,” said Greenwald. “The endangered species program needs a complete overhaul.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SEATTLE, Washington, September 11, 2008 (ENS) – A coalition of conservation organizations filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Bush administration alleging that federal officials diverted $350 million from the public treasury to forestry foundations “dominated by the timber industry.”

The suit alleges that the administration violated federal appropriations law when, in September 2006, without any public process or congressional approval, the administration steered $350 million from Canadian lawsuit settlement funds to the foundations.

The plaintiff organizations – the Forest Stewardship Council-US, Conservation Northwest, and the Center for Biological Diversity – say they filed the lawsuit because they are committed to promoting sustainable forestry in the United States.

The Washington Forest Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Seattle, filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs in federal court in Seattle.

The defendants are the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

“Once again the Bush administration has made up its own rules,” said Joe Scott, International Programs director of Washington-based Conservation Northwest.

“Here, the administration illegally gave away hundreds of millions of public dollars to organizations whose programs are not clearly established to advance the public interest,” said Scott.

An example of Georgia’s upland maritime
forest. (Photo courtesy U. of Georgia)

The groups are asking the court to declare that the Bush administration violated the law and asks the court to take reasonable and fair steps to ensure that the money is safeguarded until the administration follows the law.

One of the co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit, represents a forest certification system.

Corey Brinkema, president of the plaintiff Forest Stewardship Council-US, said the organization joined the lawsuit because, “FSC-US and our partners work tirelessly to develop and promote the highest standards for forest management, as well as provide the public the opportunity to reward responsible forestry through choosing FSC-labeled products. The administration’s action is a huge setback that, if left unchecked, could significantly lower the bar for what is represented as sustainable forestry.”

The suit alleges that money the Bush administration earmarked to the two timber industry-dominated organizations, the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, Inc. and the American Forest Foundation, should instead have gone into the US Treasury.

“How this money is spent should have been up to Congress, not timber industry executives in a backroom deal with the administration,” said Bill Snape, senior attorney for the plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity.

Forested land in northern Idaho
(Photo by Terry Gray)

The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities is a not-for-profit corporation established in September 2006, at the request of the governments of the United States and Canada in accordance with the terms of the Softwood Lumber Agreement between the two countries and endowed with $200 million. The Endowment is one of three entities designated to share in a one-time infusion of funds to support “meritorious initiatives” in the United States.

The American Forest Foundation is a nonprofit organization that works with family forest owners. It was chartered in 1981 “to encourage the long-term sustainability of America’s forests, restore wildlife habitat, and develop quality environmental education programs.”

The AFF Board of Trustees includes officials of the National Audubon Society, the Aldo Leopold Foundation, and the American Bird Conservancy as well as packaging company MeadWestvaco and timber company Weyerhaeuser, as well as keyboardist Chuck Leavell, known for his work with The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, and The Allman Brothers Band, among others.

The AFF adheres to the sustainability standards of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification PEFC, based in Geneva, Switzerland, a rival of the plaintiff Forest Stewardship Council.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, July 11, 2008 (ENS) – The delta smelt, a small silvery fish that has come to represent the condition of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, may be declared an endangered species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service action announced Wednesday.

The federal agency made a positive preliminary finding on a petition by three environmental groups to reclassify the smelt from “threatened” to “endangered.” The agency said the petition “contains substantial information that current threats to the delta smelt may be greater than in 1993,” when the fish was classified as threatened.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which, along with The Bay Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council, petitioned for the reclassification in 2006, noted that the finding by the service was more than two years late.

“We are seeing a cascading series of crashing Delta fish populations – delta smelt, longfin smelt, chinook salmon, steelhead trout, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail, striped bass – the warning bells are ringing loud and clear,” Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement.

“The ecological collapse of the Delta threatens more than just our native fish since millions of people depend on the Delta for drinking water, agriculture, and fishing,” he said.

Delta smelt (Photo courtesy Assn.
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies)

Delta smelt used to be common in the Northern California estuary that forms a nexus between freshwater mountain runoff and saltwater from San Francisco Bay. The smelt population declined sharply in 1982 and stayed low for the rest of the decade, leading to the species’ listing as threatened in 1993.

From 1992 to 2001, the numbers rebounded somewhat, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but dropped to record lows from 2002 through 2007.

The service cited a 2005 study that found a 55 percent chance that smelt would reach a “point of no return” – or virtual extinction – within 20 years.

A small fish the length of a finger, smelt are found only in the Delta. They are considered environmentally sensitive because they live mainly in the intersection between salt and freshwater, live only one year and have a limited diet, according to the California Department of Fish and Game.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is collecting comments on the prospective reclassification through September 8.

The agency noted that reclassification would have no practical effect: “An uplisting from threatened to endangered would result in virtually no change in our approach or actions we could take to assist the species because under the ESA [Endangered Species Act], there are few differences in treatment of species between the two categories.”

In a separate action, the Fish and Wildlife Service is under federal court order to revise a “biological opinion” it issued in 2005 that in effect allows delta smelt to be killed at two major water export pumping stations at the southern end of the Delta.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the federally owned Central Valley Project, and the California Department of Water Resources, which runs the State Water Project, used the wildlife’s agency’s opinion as justification to increase delta water exports and to renew 25 and 40 year contracts to irrigation districts and urban water agencies.

The new biological opinion is due by September 15.

Delta smelt are particularly vulnerable during winter and spring, when pre-spawning and spawning adults move into the delta for reproduction, and larvae and juveniles move downstream to rearing habitat.

In December 2007, Judge Oliver Wanger of the U.S. District Court in Fresno wrote, “The Delta smelt is undisputedly in jeopardy as to its survival and recovery. He ordered that enough water to ensure smelt survival must be held in the Delta and not pumped to downstream cities, towns and farms.

Water from the Delta supports about $400 billion dollars of the state’s $1.5 trillion dollar economy. The watershed of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary provides a portion of the drinking water to 25 million people in the Bay Area, Central Valley, and Southern California and water to over 3.7 million acres of irrigated farmland.

For years, lawmakers and California governors have sought a permanent solution that could protect the Delta ecosystem and also provide reliable water transfers to downstream water users.

Governor Arnold Swarzenegger has established a Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, which has until the end of the year to develop a strategic plan.

In addition, in February, the governor directed the California Department of Water Resources to begin environmental reviews on at least four alternatives for a canal that would allow water to be sent to downstream users by circumventing the Delta. Those include a two-part system with a canal and pumps, a stand-alone canal, and improvements to the existing pumps, or no new Delta transfer system.

The studies could take two years and cost more than $100 million that would be paid for by water users under existing contracts.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, June 7, 2008 (ENS) – Five conservation groups have filed a lawsuit against the Bush administration over what they claim is an illegal delay in listing the Cook Inlet beluga whale under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The suit, filed in federal court in Washington, DC by the Center for Biological Diversity, Cook Inletkeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council, North Gulf Oceanic Society, and the Alaska Center for the Environment, seeks to compel the federal government to immediately make a final listing determination for the beluga population.

“There is simply no lawful reason for further delay in protecting the Cook Inlet beluga whale,” said Vicki Clark, an attorney with Trustees for Alaska who represents the conservation groups in their suit. “If we don’t act soon, we stand to lose this treasured part of Alaska’s and the United States’ natural heritage.”

The Cook Inlet beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas, is a genetically distinct and geographically isolated population whose numbers have plummeted since the 1980s, when National Marine Fisheries Service scientists estimated the Cook Inlet beluga population numbered about 1,300 whales.
Beluga whale in Cook Inlet (Photo courtesy NOAA)
The most recent surveys by the agency, now known as NOAA Fisheries Service, show the population is currently estimated at 375 animals, the largest number counted since 2001.

Infrastructure projects – including the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, the Port of Anchorage Expansion, the Chuitna coal strip mine, and the Port MacKenzie expansion – will directly affect some of the whale’s most important habitat.

Following a 2006 petition from the conservation groups, the agency proposed to list the Cook Inlet beluga as endangered in April 2007. By law the agency was required to finalize the listing rule no later than April 20, 2008.

Instead, on April 22, the agency, bowing to pressure from development interests and the State of Alaska, announced that due to a “substantial disagreement” in the science it would delay the decision by six months.

The federal Marine Mammal Commission has stated that the purported scientific disagreement is “not scientifically credible.”

In a May 1 letter to Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, the commission recommends that the Department of Commerce “withdraw the six-month extension for determining whether to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale population, proceed immediately with an affirmative listing decision under the Endangered Species Act, and initiate all actions that flow from such a listing to conserve this population and promote its recovery.”

“The disagreement highlighted by the Service is whether there is a positive trend in response to harvest control measures established in 1999,” the commission said in its letter. “Between now and the end of the six-month extension, the only additional information on the trend will be a census estimate for 2008.”

NOAA Fisheries Service conducted the annual aerial survey for beluga whales in Cook Inlet in June and is expected to provide the population estimate in September.

The commission believes that the survey is just “one more data point” and that is “an insufficient and unreasonable basis for delaying a listing decision that withholds protective measures from a population that, as indicated by independent analysis and the most recent analysis by the Service’s own scientists, is clearly at high risk of extinction and in need of the protection of the Endangered Species Act.”

Cook Inlet is the most populated and fastest-growing watershed in Alaska, and subject to development pressures from oil and gas production, sewage discharge, and contaminated runoff and spills, which potentially affect the beluga whale and its habitat.

Infrastructure projects – including the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, the Port of Anchorage Expansion, the Chuitna coal strip mine, and the Port MacKenzie expansion – will directly affect some of the whale’s most important habitat.

“The experts agree: the science to list the Cook Inlet beluga is clear,” said Bob Shavelson of Cook Inletkeeper, who says the delay is due to the reluctance of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to allow the listing.

“The Palin administration’s request for delay and the Bush administration’s willingness to do so are not based in science but rather based on an ideology that always favors industry over the environment.” he said.

The conservation groups filed a 60 day notice of intent to sue as required by the Endangered Species Act immediately after the Fisheries Service announced the delay in listing the beluga in April. This suit, filed June 30, follows the end of the 60-day notice period.

“If the Cook Inlet beluga whale is to survive the coming decades it needs the protections that only the Endangered Species Act can provide,” said Brendan Cummings, oceans program director for the Center for Biological Diversity and one of the lawyers filing the lawsuit. “It’s simply unacceptable to sacrifice endangered whales on the altar of oil company profits.”

Cook Inlet belugas are one of five populations of belugas recognized within U.S. waters. The other beluga populations inhabit Bristol Bay, the eastern Bering Sea, the eastern Chukchi Sea, and the Beaufort Sea.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 2, 2008 (ENS) – Three conservation groups filed a formal petition today asking the federal government to protect areas on the main Hawaiian islands as critical habitat for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal under the Endangered Species Act.

As monk seal populations plummet on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, the main islands are playing an increasingly important role in the conservation of the species, the groups say.

The petition, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, and Ocean Conservancy, seeks to have beaches and surrounding waters on the main Hawaiian islands designated as critical habitat to better protect this unique monk seal.

Hawaiian monk seal (Photo
courtesy NOAA)

Currently, the species has critical habitat designated only on the northwestern islands, a 1,400 mile-long chain of small islands and atolls northwest of the main islands that are protected as the country’s only national marine monument.

Still, the monk seals in the northwestern islands are dying of starvation, emaciated and weak, scientists have found. Pups have only about a one-in-five chance of surviving to adulthood. Other threats include drowning in abandoned fishing gear, shark predation, and disease.

“Habitat in the main Hawaiian islands is essential to the survival of the monk seals,” said Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity and author of the petition. “Critical habitat protection could be the best chance of recovery for these struggling seals.”

Hawaiian monk seals are one of three species of monk seals. The Mediterranean monk seal is also critically endangered, while the Caribbean monk seal, which has not been seen in half a century, was declared extinct in June.

The Hawaiian monk seal is one of the most endangered marine mammals in the world. Since the 1950s its population has dropped to about 1,300 animals and will likely drop below 1,000 seals within a few years, scientists say.

“Saving the Hawaiian monk seal is not just about saving a species, but perpetuating the unique culture that has flourished around it,” said Marti Townsend, program director at KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance.

“Designating additional critical habitat for the last remaining monk seals is crucial to ensuring this uniquely Hawaiian species is not de-listed because it is extinct, but rather because it has survived the harms of humanity’s excesses,” Townsend said.

Hawaiian monk seals are increasingly populating the main islands, where they are giving birth to healthy pups. For the past decade, the number of Hawaiian monk seal births has increased each year on the main islands, and the population of seals is growing steadily; the seals are in better condition than those in the northwestern islands. This indicates more food availability and a better chance of survival.

But monk seals on the main islands are threatened by disturbance, development, disease, and entanglement in fishing gear.

Diver attempts to rescue a
Hawaiian monk seal that is entangled
in derelict fishing gear. (Photo
courtesy NOAA)

“Designating critical habitat in the main Hawaiian islands would protect against federal actions that could threaten monk seal survival. If we don’t act soon we stand to lose forever this treasured part of Hawaii’s natural heritage,” said Vicki Cornish of Ocean Conservancy. “Preventing the extinction of the Hawaiian monk seal needs to become a national priority.”

Global warming is also a threat to the survival of Hawaiian monk seals.

Already, the conservation groups warn, important pupping beaches have been lost due to sea-level rise and erosion, and the northwestern islands will eventually disappear under predicted levels of sea-level rise since they are elevated only a few meters above sea level. The higher-elevation main islands are less vulnerable to sea-level rise.

Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat identifies geographic areas that contain features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and may require special management considerations.

The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. It does not allow government or public access to private lands.

Recent studies have shown that species with critical habitat are twice as likely to be recovering as species without it.

But the Bush administration has been resistant to protecting critical habitat and has most often done so as the result of a lawsuit brought by conservation groups..

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appends a blanket statement regarding critical habitat to many of its press releases, stating, “In 30 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act, the Service has found that the designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while preventing the Service from using scarce conservation resources for activities with greater conservation benefits. In almost all cases, recovery of listed species will come through voluntary cooperative partnerships, not regulatory measures such as critical habitat.”

The Endangered Species Act requires that the government respond to this petition within 90 days.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, June 5, 2008 (ENS) – A petition by environmental groups seeking renewed protection for a miniature Southwestern owl has presented enough new information to persuade the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the bird deserves to be considered for relisting as an endangered species.

The agency announced Friday that it will now conduct a one year status review of the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl in Arizona.

The petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility offers new information on genetics, taxonomic classification and threats that was not available, or was not within the scope of analysis, when the Arizona population of the pygmy owl was previously listed in 1997 and delisted in 2006.

The petition relies on a recently proposed scientific reclassification of the pygmy owl that recognizes the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl subspecies in southern Arizona, and Sonora and Sinaloa, Mexico, as distinct, and with a smaller range than was recognized in 1997 for the subspecies.

A cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl on the
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
(Photo by Glen Proudfoot courtesy
Friends of BANRW)

The petitioners seek to list either the entire subspecies, or the Sonoran or the Arizona populations as distinct population segments.

“The pygmy owl should never have been removed from the endangered species list,” said Noah Greenwald, conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity and primary author of the petition. “The pygmy owl is near extinction in Arizona and sharply declining in northern Sonora. It desperately needs the protection of the Endangered Species Act to survive.”

The pygmy owl population in Arizona has declined from 41 birds in 1999 to fewer than 30 birds. “Urban sprawl has contributed to the near-extirpation of pygmy owls in northwest Tucson, where only one individual was found in 2006,” the petitioners say.

In northern Sonora, Mexico, the petitioners cite surveys showing that pygmy owls have declined by 26 percent since 2000.

“Recently published genetic and taxonomic information, together with updated data on the threats to the pygmy owl and its habitat, are substantial,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Regional Director Benjamin Tuggle. “Our initial examination of the information in the petition has prompted us to initiate an assessment of the entire subspecies.”

Tuggle is requesting public input on this decision. “Any additional information regarding threats to and conservation of the pygmy owl will be essential to us as we determine whether Endangered Species Act protection is warranted,” he said.

The cactus ferruginous pygmy owl was listed as an endangered species in Arizona in 1997.

In 2003, a federal court ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to better explain its decision that the Arizona population is “distinct” from pygmy owls in Mexico, which are more common than birds in Arizona.

A cactus ferruginous
pygmy owl in
Arizona (Photo by
Mike Wrigley courtesy
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service)

In response, the agency removed the population from the list in May 2006, arguing that while the Arizona pygmy owl is highly endangered, it does not qualify as a “distinct population segment” because it is not significant to the species as a whole.

On March 12, 2007, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued an order affirming the delisting of the Arizona pygmy owl population, as well as a judgment in favor of the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association, the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, and the National Association of Homebuilders.

These construction industry groups have been litigating to keep the tiny owl off the endangered species list so its presence does not interfere with construction and development.

The developers contend that the Arizona owl does not deserve protection because Mexico, and to a much lesser extent Texas, already has plenty of these birds to prevent their extinction.

The Southern Arizona Home Builders Association maintains that Arizona is inhabited by 20 or fewer of these birds, which are commonly found in Mexico. Halting development in Arizona due to a handful of birds does not make sense to them.

Keeping the owls off the list would free up nearly 500,000 acres of proposed prime owl habitat in Southern Arizona from federal development restrictions under the Endangered Species Act and permit development of these lands.

The delisting remains on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The environmentalists are pleased that their petition has started a re-evaluation of pygmy owl conservation status.

“Today’s decision is a first step toward correcting the politically motivated, poorly supported, and wrong-headed decision to remove the pygmy owl’s protection,” said Greenwald. “We hope the Fish and Wildlife Service will move quickly to restore protection to this unique bird before it is too late.”

Based on the status review, the Fish and Wildlife Service will make one of three possible determinations:

* Listing is not warranted, in which case no further action will be taken.

* Listing as threatened or endangered is warranted. In this case, the Service will publish a proposal to list, solicit independent scientific peer review of the proposal, seek input from the public, and consider the input before a final decision about listing the species is made. In general, there is a one-year period between the time a species listing is proposed and the final decision.

* Listing is warranted but precluded by other, higher priority activities. This means the species is added to the federal list of candidate species, and the proposal to list is deferred while the Service works on listing proposals for other species that are at greater risk. A warranted but precluded finding requires subsequent annual reviews of the finding until such time as either a listing proposal is published, or a not warranted finding is made based on new information.

Read previous ENS coverage of this issue:

Enviros Petition to Re-List Pygmy Owl as Endangered [www.ens-newswire.com]

Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Off Endangered Species List [www.ens-newswire.com]

For a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service chronology of events related to the conservation status of this owl, click here [www.fws.gov].

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

TUCSON, Arizona, May 23, 2008 (ENS) – The nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity today filed a 60 day notice of intent to sue the U.S. Forest Service for Endangered Species Act violations at Fossil Creek in central Arizona.

Addressed to Regional Forester Corbin Newman, the notice states that the Forest Service has failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the repatriation of native fish while management strategies continue to adversely impact the fish and their habitat.

The loach minnow and spikedace – two Arizona native fish species that are federally listed as Threatened – were returned to Fossil Creek last November.

The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure their activities do not adversely impact listed species. In this case, the conservationists say, the Forest Service has continued its status quo management operations at Fossil Creek despite changed circumstances.

In light of this, and the impending deluge of visitors expected over the summer camping season, the Center filed its notice of intent to sue.

Fossil Creek is a perennial, travertine-forming tributary of the Verde River located along the border between the Tonto and Coconino National Forests. It is a sensitive riparian ecosystem newly recovering from 100 years of diverted base flows used for power generation until a dam was removed in 2005.

Restocking rare fish species into Fossil Creek.
Summer 2007. (Photo courtesy
Arizona Game and Fish)

Field biologists from the Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Center for Biological Diversity transferred the threatened species of fish into the perennially flowing stream using a carefully regulated process that allows the fish to acclimate to the new waters.

But since the return of full flows to Fossil Creek in 2005, “the streamside deposition of trash and human waste and the streamside degradation from increased overnight camping and trampling has reached an unacceptable level,” the Center says in its notice to the Forest Service.

“The 2007 recreation season was particularly hard on Fossil Creek as human waste and garbage littered the banks, broken tree branches marked user-created trails, and kayaks arrived by the truck-load,” the notice states.

The loach minnow and spikedace, along with razorback sucker and Gila topminnow, also federally listed, have been repatriated to Fossil Creek following the decommissioning of Arizona Public Service hydropower plants and the restoration of water to the creek.

The creek had been dammed and water removed from its 14-mile course for a century until environmental groups, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and Arizona Public Service signed an historic settlement agreement to restore the creek in 2000.

Water was fully restored in 2005, and the loach minnow and spikedace were returned in late 2007.

Other native fish, including Sonora and desert sucker, roundtail chub, and speckled dace, have persisted in the creek following nonnative-fish-removal activities performed by state and federal agencies.

Visitation to Fossil Creek has increased since the restoration of flows, and the visitors have brought trash, off-road vehicle use, and firearm use.

“The Forest Service has refused to adequately respond to the increasing damage or to use its authority to curtail abuse,” the Center alleges. “The resulting impacts reduce the quality of the habitat for the loach minnow and spikedace, causing unnecessary threats to their survival.”

“Fossil Creek is a natural wonder,” said Robin Silver, co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s certainly no surprise that people want to enjoy this restored waterway, but there are few places in Arizona so well-suited to supporting populations of these highly imperiled fish. The Forest Service must better manage recreation at Fossil Creek, or the years of effort to restore it will have been wasted.”

The Center has called on the Forest Service to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service, complete management plans that will address recreation and protect listed species, and impose and enforce camping restrictions as necessary to protect Fossil Creek until a management plan is implemented.

In its notice of intent to sue, the Center says it and other groups have waited “patiently” for the Tonto and Coconino Forest Supervisors to protect Fossil Creek. “In correspondence, dated September 11, 2007, and December 15, 2007, and in meetings of November 13, 2007 and May 22, 2008, we have requested protection commensurate to the increasing recreational pressures.”

But little has been done.

“The Forest Service has exhibited an incredible lack of ability or desire to take the management actions necessary to preserve this wonderful place or the spikedace and loach minnow,” said Michelle Harrington, rivers conservation manager for the Center for Biological Diversity.

“We have repeatedly asked for an emergency closure of overnight camping to reduce the amount of traffic and waste in and along the stream,” Harrington said, “but the agency continues to drag its feet and offers no solutions or commitments.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.