NRDC petitioned to list the  insular Hawaiian population of the false killer whale in September 2009. The service proposed to list the DPS as endangered on Nov. 17, 2010.

The dolphin at issue (Photo by Doug Perrine, Seapics.com)

“[W]e have determined that the Hawaiian insular false killer whale is a distinct population segment (DPS) that qualifies as a species under the ESA,” NMFS said in the proposal. “Moreover, after evaluating threats facing the species, and considering efforts being made to protect the Hawaiian insular DPS, we have determined that the DPS is declining and is in danger of extinction throughout its range.”

In addition, NMFS said:

Reduced genetic diversity, inbreeding depression, and other Allee effects associated with small population size represent a high risk to current and future Hawaiian insular false killer whales. The current estimated number of breeding adults (46 individuals) is so small that inbreeding depression could have increasingly negative effects on population growth rate and other traits, including social factors (such as reduced efficiency in group foraging and potential loss of knowledge needed to deal with unusual environmental events), may further compromise the ability of Hawaiian insular false killer whales to recover to healthy levels.

NMFS described the “Allee effect”:

The decrease in per capita population growth as population size declines is often referred to as the ‘‘Allee effect’’ or ‘‘depensation’’ (see references in Oleson et al., 2010) . In essence, as the number of individuals decreases there are costs from a lack of predator saturation, impaired anti-predator vigilance or defence [sic], a breakdown of cooperative feeding, an increased possibility of inbreeding depression or other genetic issues, decreased birth rates as a result of not finding mates, or a combination of these effects. The Allee effect increases risk to small populations directly by contributing to the risk of extinction, and indirectly by decreasing the rate of recovery of exploited populations and, therefore, maintaining populations at a smaller size where extinction risk is higher for a variety of reasons (Dennis, 1989; Stephens and Sutherland, 1999). In addition, social odontocetes (such as false killer whales) may be particularly vulnerable over and beyond the numerical loss of individuals to the population (Wade and Reeves, 2010).

In its complaint, NRDC said, “Since the mid-1980′s the Hawaiian insular false killer whale population has undergone a substantial and pronounced decline. NMFS estimates that the historic abundance of this population was around 769 whales, with a lower limit of 470 whales. Currently, the best estimates of the population size are around 150 whales. This represents a dramatic departure from historic abundance. Evidence suggests that much of this decline has occurred over the past 10-20 years, and while some threats to the species are apparent, the reason for the decline is not known.”

Links

Honolulu Advertiser (5/23/12) (“The National Marine Fisheries Service recommended 18 months ago that the population be listed. Under federal law, the agency had one year to decide whether to do so.”)

Press release (reprinted below)

Final FONSI (for high-flow experimental releases) and more documents

Final FONSI (for non-native fish control) and more documents

Salazar Announces Improvements to Glen Canyon Dam Operations
to Restore High Flows and Native Fish in Grand Canyon

Adaptive management strategy meets water and power supply needs

5/23/2012

Contact: Adam Fetcher (DOI) 202-208-2416, Lisa Iams (Reclamation) 801-524-3673

WASHINGTON – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced today that, as part of the Interior’s Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, and in cooperation with five Interior agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation is approving two long-term research and experimental programs of high-flow releases and native fish protection to preserve and improve the Grand Canyon and its resources. Together, these decisions represent the most important experimental modification of operations of Arizona’s Glen Canyon Dam in over sixteen years.

The two programs authorize changes in flow releases from the dam to meet water and power needs, but also to allow better conservation of sediment downstream, more targeted efforts to control non-native fish predation, and continued scientific experimentation, data collection, and monitoring to better address the important resources in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam.

“We’ve gained tremendous knowledge about the unique resources of the Grand Canyon in the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam over the past sixteen years,” said Secretary Salazar. “Today’s decisions constitute a milestone in the history of the Colorado River and will provide a scientific foundation to improve future operations to benefit resources in the Grand Canyon, as well as the millions of Americans who rely on the river for water and power.”

The first program establishes a long-term protocol for testing high-flow releases from Glen Canyon dam to determine whether multiple high flow events can be used to rebuild and conserve sandbars, beaches, and associated backwater habitats that have been destroyed or lost over the years of the dam’s construction and operation. The experimental protocol will simulate natural flood conditions in order to provide key wildlife habitat, potentially reduce erosion of archaeological sites, enhance riparian vegetation, maintain or increase camping opportunities, and improve the wilderness experience along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. The protocol is designed to take full advantage of sediment provided by tributaries of the Colorado River as a result of rainstorms and monsoons.

The protocol for high-flow experimental releases applies scientific information gained in previous high flow releases in 1996, 2004, and 2008 and provides the necessary, flexible framework to conduct further experimental releases through 2020 to determine the optimal timing, duration, frequency, and conditions that will maximize ecological and riparian benefits downstream in the Grand Canyon. For more information on the program, click here.

The second program outlines a series of actions and research to control non-native fish and protect endangered native fish in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Conservation of native fish, particularly the endangered humpback chub, will be enhanced by reducing the threat of predation and competition from non-native fish and improving critical habitat. The actions will also ensure continued compliance with the Endangered Species Act and a Final Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2011. Extensive government-to-government tribal consultations and analyses were conducted to ensure the required non-native fish control actions can be implemented in a way that respects tribal perspectives. For more information on the program, click here.

“Implementation of these two programs marks a huge step forward in integrating the management of a dam that’s critical to the delivery of water and power to millions of people in the Southwest with better conservation of the incredible values of the Grand Canyon,” said Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Anne Castle. “We are refining our operations to reflect what we’ve learned and address the concerns expressed by several Native American tribes about the management of fish at locations honored as sacred sites by many of the tribes and pueblos.”

The actions outlined in both detailed Environmental Assessments completed today include important scientific research and monitoring components that are fundamental to the adaptive management process. Reclamation has primary responsibility for operation of Glen Canyon Dam and the National Park Service has primary responsibility for Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

“The National Park Service is a strong supporter of high flow tests to help determine how best to rebuild and sustain the beaches and sand bars below Glen Canyon Dam. We appreciate the extensive collaboration required to develop these research programs which are critical to preserving the awesome resources and visitor experience along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park,” said Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director of the National Park Service.

Today’s actions represent the most comprehensive experiment for protection of the Grand Canyon since Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt signed a Record of Decision in 1996 and conducted the first high flow release. The experiments will help answer critical questions about the complex interactions between dam releases and resource responses, and also advance the goal of the Grand Canyon Protection Act to improve resource conditions.

###

Link

Glen Canyon Dam High-Flow Experiments Provide Insights for Future Flow Management of the Colorado River (2/8/11)

The service’s reproposal will be published in the Federal Register Thursday, May 24. The draft EA is not yet available online.

“A change in mapping methodology” led the service to add about 6.6 river kilometers — about 4.1 miles — to its CH proposal for the yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei).

” The beginning and ending points of critical habitat, as well as the unit descriptions (as described in the proposed critical habitat rule) will remain the same. The change in mapping results from an oversight in methods used for estimating the unit lengths in the other units proposed for designation as critical habitat. This methodology uses a better technique for following the curve and meander of the river channel and results in an additional 6.6 river kilometers (rkm) (4.1 river miles (rm)) for the yellowcheek darter. In addition, a revision to the ownership of one property resulted in a change of the total number of river kilometers (miles) in private ownership, from 148 rkm (92 rm) to 162.7 rkm (101.1 rm), as well as a corresponding downward revision to other ownership types.”

The following table shows the revised totals.

The other four species are the Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae), rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum), chucky madtom (Noturus crypticus), and laurel dace (Chrosomus saylori).

In October, FWS proposed designating as critical habitat:

• 53 river miles (rmi) for the Cumberland darter in McCreary and Whitley counties, Kentucky, and Campbell and Scott counties, Tennessee
• 27 rmi and 22 acres for the rush darter in Etowah, Jefferson, and Winston counties, Alabama
• 98 rmi for the yellowcheek darter in Cleburne, Searcy, Stone, and Van Buren counties, Arkansas
• 20 rmi for the chucky madtom in Greene County, Tennessee
• and 26 rmi for the laurel dace in Bledsoe, Rhea, and Sequatchie counties, Tennessee.

The draft economic analysis concludes that “incremental impacts of critical habitat designation are limited to additional administrative costs of consultations and that indirect incremental impacts are unlikely to result from the designation of critical habitat for the five fishes. The present value of the total direct (administrative) incremental cost of critical habitat designation is $644,000 over the next 20 years assuming a 7 percent discount rate, or $56,800 on an annualized basis. Water quality management activities are likely to be subject to the greatest incremental impacts at $273,000 over the next 20 years, followed by transportation at $161,000; coal mining at $79,000; oil and natural gas development at $73,700; agriculture, ranching, and silviculture at $36,100; dredging, channelization, impoundments, dams, and diversions at $10,700; and recreation at $10,000.”

FWS said it will submit a final rule by Oct. 12, 2012.

Go here for an image of the yellowcheek darter.

A new lawsuit filed by Chickaloon Native Village, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Water Advocacy alleges violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act in connection with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization for seismic surveys in Cook Inlet (Chickaloon Native Village v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 12-102, D. Alaska).

Beluga whale (Photograph by Brian Skerry)

The Center put out a press release on the complaint, which likely will be amended to include charges under the Endangered Species Act. (The plaintiffs noted in a footnote that the ESA requires 60-day notice of intent to sue: “Plaintiffs sent such a notice to the Secretary of Commerce on March 29, 2012. Upon expiration of the statutory notice period, plaintiffs intend to seek leave to amend this complaint to add ESA claims against the defendants.”)

NMFS issued an inadequate Environmental Assessment and should have prepared an EIS, the complaint said:

Defendants failed to take a hard look at the impacts of the Apache IHA on marine mammals, particularly on the range of direct and indirect behavioral effects that can occur when marine mammals are subjected to sound levels that disturb foraging, habitat access, social organization, predator avoidance, availability of prey species, and other factors affecting reproduction and survival. Among these failures, Defendants dismissed the available literature on the impacts of anthropogenic noise, including airguns, on beluga whales, demonstrating the species’ abandonment of habitat over areas far greater than those assumed in Defendants’ analysis.

NMFS also did not consider the “cumulative impacts of Apache [Alaska Corp.]‘s survey, both from the entire three-to-five years of survey activity and in combination with other industrial activities occurring in Cook Inlet, which are increasing noise and chemical pollution in the same marine habitat.”

The service “failed to adequately consider socioeconomic impacts, including impacts on subsistence hunting caused by the airgun survey’s effects on Cook Inlet belugas and other species, and on subsistence, commercial and recreational fishing caused by its potential large-scale displacement of fish, for tribal members, subsistence users, and others in Cook Inlet,” the complaint said.

Excerpts from the lawsuit:

Defendants violated the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361-1421, by issuing an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) that authorizes Apache to repeatedly take beluga whales in their critical habitat, despite the fact that the MMPA limits such authorizations to “small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock,” requires no more than a “negligible impact” on species and stocks, and forbids “an unmitigatable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses” by native peoples. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(D)(i). Because of the significant risks to this highly endangered beluga population and its critical habitat, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, appointed by Congress to provide expert advice on the protection of marine mammals and the implementation of the MMPA, recommended in a letter to NMFS that the authorization not be issued. Defendants’ violations are compounded by their failure to fully consult with representatives from Chickaloon Native Village or the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council pursuant to the MMPA and Executive Order 13175.

Defendants violated NEPA, 40 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370, by issuing an environmental assessment (EA) that fails to take a hard look at the substantial and wide-ranging impacts of seismic surveys on the marine environment; consider and analyze all reasonable alternatives; identify and implement all feasible mitigation measures; and obtain information essential to the agency’s analysis. Defendants likewise violated NEPA by issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for seismic surveys conducted by Apache based on the EA rather than preparing an environmental impact statement.

Third claim for relief targets MMPA compliance

From the complaint:

In addition, NMFS violated the MMPA by not ensuring — among other things– that Apache’s activity would have no more than a “negligible impact” on species and population stocks in Cook Inlet; (4) determine and ensure that the activity will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species and stocks for subsistence use; (5) set forth sufficient methods to ensure the least practicable impact on such species and stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to areas of special significance; and (6) set forth sufficient requirements for the monitoring and reporting of impacts on marine mammals. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(D)(i); 50 C.F.R. § 216.107.

Defendants failed to comply with each and every one of these mandatory requirements and to make the requisite findings in a manner supported by the record, and therefore the IHA issued on April 30, 2012 is not legally adequate under the MMPA.

Defendants’ issuance of an invalid IHA and Apache’s subsequent reliance on that authorization will result in the unlawful taking of a large and unknown number of marine mammals, including the taking of endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales over substantial portions of their only remaining habitat. Because the authorization is invalid, Apache’s taking of marine mammals is prohibited under the MMPA. 16 U.S.C. § 1372(a).

Defendants’ actions are also contrary to Marine Mammal Commission’s advice and recommendations regarding “such steps as [the Commission] deems necessary or desirable for the protection and conservation of marine mammals.” 16 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(4). NMFS has failed to properly explain its substantial deviation from these recommendations, as required by the MMPA. 16 U.S.C. § 1402(d).

Background from the complaint

On September 21, 2011, NMFS published notice of its proposal to issue an IHA to Apache in the Federal Register. This notice indicated that Apache requested authorization to take by harassment beluga whales, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, killer whales, and Steller sea lions. 76 Fed. Reg. at 58485. Several plaintiff organizations submitted comments on the proposed permit indicating that, as proposed, it would violate the MMPA, ESA, and NEPA. . . .

On April 30, NMFS issued an IHA to Apache that authorizes it to take, by harassment, 30 beluga whales, 50 harbor seals, 20 harbor porpoises, 10 killer whales, and 20 Steller sea lions, over a period running from April 30, 2012 through April 30, 2013. Although the seismic surveys will be conducted over a period of three to five years, Apache applied for, and NMFS authorized, only a single year of surveys.  NMFS did not publish the IHA for public review until May 11, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 27720 (May 11, 2012).

Partial screenshot of docket

Links

• NMFS incidental take and incidental harassment authorization documents
• NMFS Cook Inlet beluga information
• Coverage in Alaska Dispatch
• Associated Press via Google (Dan Joling)
• NRDC blog by attorney (“Feds Agree to Protect Beluga Habitat in Alaska,” 4/8/2011)
• NatGeo on belugas
• NMFS Alaska Region news releases

2011 Apache Alaska Corp. Seismic Survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska

• IHA
• IHA Application
• Final EA
• FONSI
• Draft EA
• Federal Register Notice of Issuance
• Federal Register Notice of Proposed IHA

Make up your minds, already (Photo courtesy FWS)

Leapin’ lizards, batman: The dunes sagebrush variety of this particular reptile is getting a lot of attention.

The Washington Post’s Energy and Environment page has coverage of DOI’s approval of “a major natural gas project in Utah’s Uinta Basin that could develop more than 3,600 new wells over the next decade, while safeguarding air quality and assuring the protection of critical wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation values. The project will support up to 4,300 jobs during development.”

The quote is not from the Post’s story, but from DOI’s news release. issued yesterday (and reprinted below). In the Post, Steven Mufson writes that “the action doesn’t open any new land for production, because the drilling will take place on leases­ already owned by Anadarko. But the step by Interior assuaged some in Utah, where shortly after taking office President Obama had canceled 77 leases issued by President George W. Bush.”

In its Biological Opinion, FWS made a number of conservation recommendations regarding protection of — or avoidance of jeopardy to — four endangered Colorado River fishes. Or as they’ve been known all the years they’ve been swimming in endangered waters together, the Colorado River Endangered Fishes — Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail, and humpback chub by, which will be adversely affected by water depletions of up to 757 acre-feet per year.

One apparent difference between the DOI release and the Post story is the estimate of jobs created. DOI says 4,300, the Post quotes Anadarko as claiming creation of “as many as 2,900 jobs, directly and indirectly, during construction.”

But here’s DOI’s full explanation: “The new gas wells proposed under the plan would support an annual average of 1,709 jobs directly and 1,212 jobs indirectly. At peak development, the project would support 4,302 short-term jobs, and support an average of 875 long-term jobs over the production life of the project.”

It’s all in how you look at it.

Oddly, if you look at the Post’s E&E page, you won’t find a link to Juliet Eilperin’s story from just three days ago on the fight over the lizard’s conservation status: FWS is scheduled to decide in June whether to list it as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Mufson’s story, done from a political/economic point of view (and posted on the business page), doesn’t mention the lizard. Eilperin explores the lizard listing decision’s impact on a settlement the service reached with environmental groups to make decisions on hundreds of candidate species, including the lizard.

Here are the story’s first three paragraphs:

It wasn’t too hard for the Fish and Wildlife Service to decide the fate of 92 freshwater snails, or 17 dragonflies, or indeed more than 500 species over the past year. But when it comes to the dunes sagebrush lizard, trouble looms.

The small spiny reptile seeks refuge from the hot sun and potential predators in the shinnery oak dunes of southeastern New Mexico and West Texas. Ranchers have been clearing the oak shrubs, and oil and gas companies are drilling in the dunes. If the lizard is designated as an endangered species, some of those activities could be in jeopardy.

The lizard’s future is among the first in a series of wrenching tests threatening what has been a year-long cease-fire in the fight over endangered-species listings.

The article frames the upcoming deadlines — reached with Wild Earth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity in settlements agreed to last year — in the context of the big election in November.

The storm may start with the dunes sagebrush lizard, first listed as a candidate for federal protection in 1982. Since then its habitat has been reduced by 40 percent. Fish and Wildlife proposed listing the animal, also known as the sand dunes lizard, as endangered in December 2010.

The agency was set to issue a final decision a year later but delayed doing so by six months in the face of fierce congressional resistance. Now it must decide by mid-June what to do about the lizard. Some of its habitat overlaps with the oil-rich Permian Basin, which produces 17 percent of the nation’s annual onshore oil supply.

Permian Basin Petroleum Association President Ben Shepperd, whose group represents 900 oil and gas producers in New Mexico and Texas, estimates that the association has spent between $500,000 and $1 million on consultants who have conducted their own census of the lizard and challenged several aspects of agency’s listing proposal.

“The evidence does not point to a threat to this species,” Shepperd said, adding that his members fear this decision — along with ones on the lesser prairie chicken and spot-tailed earless lizard, also mandated under the settlement agreement — could restrict oil and gas drilling. “We think the impact is in the billions of dollars.”

In all, the settlements apply to more than 800 species, but the deadlines are spaced out over five years.

More lizard and settlement-related links

• Proposed listing (Dec. 14, 2010) (and first reopening of comment period, 4/7/12)
• NatureServe info on the lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus)
• Feds Reject Protection for Rare New Mexico Flower (Wild Earth Guardians release, 4/26/12)
• Final approved settlement agreement between FWS and WEG (5/10/11) and WEG settlement update from August 2011
• Final agreement between FWS and CBD (7/12/11)

Snails, mentioned above

• FWS reclassifies Tulotoma Snail (Tulotoma magnifica) from endangered to threatened (6/2/11)
• Fws proposes listing Chupadera Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae) as endangered, w/ CH designation (8/2/11)
• FWS initiates status reviews on 32 Great Basin and Mojave Desert springsnails (9/13/11)
• FWS reopens comment period on proposed endangered status and designation of critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail (Pyrgulopsis trivialis) and the San Bernardino springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bernardina) (11/17/11)
• Negative 12-month finding on frigid ambersnail (7/26/2011): “[W]e find that listing the frigid ambersnail is not warranted because currently living individuals that were identified as frigid ambersnails do not constitute a unique and valid, currently living taxon; therefore, it is not considered to be a listable entity under the Act.”
• FWS designates critical habitat for Roswell Springsnail, Koster’s Springsnail, Noel’s Amphipod, and Pecos Assiminea (and proposed designation, 2/17/11)
• FWS designates CH for Tumbling Creek Cavesnail (Antrobia culveri) (6/28/11) (and reopening of comment period on proposed designation)
• FWS issues positive 90-day finding  on 26 mollusks (snails and slugs) from Pacific Northwest (10/5/11)

Final listing rules from 2011 and from this year

Proposed listings and petition findings for this year (but don’t forget the March 21, 2012, reopening of the public comment period and announcement of a public hearing on proposed designation of critical habitat for the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou)

Below (just because we can do it) is a screenshot of proposed actions for this year. Click here to access that page with working links.

Some more recent news:

•  May 8: “Settlement Will Help Prevent Sea Turtles From Drowning in Fishing Nets“ (CBD release, 5/8/2012):

The proposed regulation is intended to address sea turtle captures in skimmer trawls — fishing equipment, used primarily in bays and estuaries, that are currently exempt from using TEDs. TEDs prevent turtles from drowning in nets, but limited applicability and lax enforcement are thought to have led to thousands of deaths in 2010 and 2011. Currently, skimmer trawls can use tow-time restrictions instead of TEDs. Tow times limit the amount of time shrimpers can keep their trawls in the water, but evidence is mounting that even when these restrictions are followed, skimmers drown turtles. The proposed rule would abandon the tow time restrictions and require skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls and wing nets to use TEDs.

• May 3: Seahorse moves toward protection (Ctr. for Biological Diversity) Excerpt:  “In response to an April 2011 petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced today that the dwarf seahorse may warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. The one-inch-long seahorse, found in seagrass beds in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida and the Caribbean, is threatened with extinction due to decline of seagrass, commercial collection and lingering pollution from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Today’s announcement kicks off a one-year review of its status to determine if federal protection will be granted.”

Here’s the DOI press release on the Salazar/Abbey/Ashe visit to the Permian Basin:

Salazar, Ashe Emphasize Importance of Texas Energy Development;
Highlight Conservation Agreement for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard

Meet with Industry Officials in Permian Basin

May 8, 2012

MIDLAND, Texas – A day after showcasing a successful partnership in Utah between industry and the conservation community to protect environmentally sensitive areas while developing America’s energy resources, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Director Dan Ashe today met with oil and gas industry representatives to emphasize the importance of energy development in the Permian Basin and to highlight expanding voluntary conservation efforts for the dunes sagebrush lizard on the part of ranchers and the oil and gas industry.

“Expanding responsible oil and gas development is a top priority for President Obama and his administration as part of an all-of-the-above approach to American energy,” Salazar said during the meeting at a ConocoPhillips site outside Midland. “As we pursue this goal, I commend oil and gas operators in Texas and New Mexico for their voluntary participation in conservation agreements to protect this ancient landscape and I encourage their continued stewardship efforts as we pursue balanced energy development.”

In New Mexico, which contains 73 percent of the lizard’s habitat, 29 oil and gas companies and 39 ranchers are participating in a voluntary project to help conserve the dunes sagebrush lizard, which has been proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If science shows that the lizard requires listing under the Endangered Species Act, landowners who have entered into a voluntary conservation agreement will receive assurances that no additional conservation steps above and beyond those contained in the agreement will be required. These conservation efforts now encompass more than 95 percent of the habitat area in New Mexico, with no known adverse impacts on energy development.

In February, the Fish and Wildlife Service signed an agreement (‘Texas Plan’) with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts that allows landowners – oil and gas companies and ranchers – to enter into voluntary conservation agreements that help provide certainty for development and protect the shinnery oak dunes that the lizard inhabits and that are characteristic of southeastern New Mexico and West Texas. Individual shinnery oak plants are known to extend over dozens of acres and can achieve ages of more than 13,000 years. Approximately 70 percent of the habitat area for the dunes sagebrush lizard in Texas, which contains 27 percent of the lizard’s total habitat, has already been enrolled in the voluntary conservation agreements.

The Texas Plan was developed locally in collaboration with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas A&M University, the Texas Oil and Gas Association, other state and county government agencies, local landowners, representatives from the ranching community and oil and gas operators and development companies in the area.

“It is good to see so many members of the oil and gas industry step up to the plate to voluntarily conserve this unique portion of the southern Great Plains,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe. “The scientists and professionals in the Fish and Wildlife Service will take these early, proactive measures into consideration in any final listing decision.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the dunes sagebrush lizard as endangered in 2010 and is currently reviewing and analyzing public comment on the proposal in anticipation of a final decision in June. Under the law, the agency must make listing decisions based upon the best available science. The Fish and Wildlife Service had extended the timeline for a final decision to six months to allow the maximum time for scientific study and voluntary conservation efforts.

If the dunes sagebrush lizard is listed as endangered or threatened, the Texas Plan would act as a Habitat Conservation Plan for those companies and other landowners who participate, enabling them to continue to develop oil and gas while ensuring the long-term health of lizard populations.

###

Greater Natural Buttes Project-BiOp.pdf

For those not familiar with the terminology, “downlist” means “to change from endangered to threatened.” That’s my own definition; it may not be found in any reputable dictionary.

Just let me sleep (Photo from "The 'splorin' Wolfies" blog)

The service said it’s changing Bison bison athabascae‘s designation from E to T because there are more of the big fellows in the wild.

From the FR’s pre-publication version:

“This action is based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial data, which indicate that the primary threat that led to population decline, unregulated hunting, is no longer a threat and that recovery actions have led to a substantial increase in the number of herds that have a stable or increasing trend in population size. Critical habitat has not been designated because free-ranging wood bison only occur in Canada and we do not designate critical habitat in foreign countries.”

TABLE 1.—Sizes of wood bison herds in Canada from 1978 to 2008 (data provided by Canadian Wildlife Service).

1 Excluding adjacent diseased Wentzel, Wabasca, and Slave River Lowlands herds.
2 Population estimate for year 2003.
3 Population estimate for year 2005.
4 Population estimate for year 2007.

And, it’s easier on the eyes.

It’s hard to argue with the logic of a proposal to be published tomorrow (May 1) by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. The agencies said the new process for critical habitat proposals, final designations and boundary changes will be “more efficient [and] less complex.”

“Previously, when the agencies designated or revised critical habitat for ESA-protected species, they were required to describe, in text, the boundaries of the designation for the Federal Register, in addition to using visual methods such as maps,” FWS and NMFS said in a news release issued today. “These textual descriptions often cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to publish and can be difficult to interpret and understand.”

In the proposal, the agencies said FWS spent $1.97 million in fiscal years 2008-2010 to publish critical habitat designations in the FR. “If we estimate that 50 percent of those costs are spent on the publication of the textual descriptions of the boundaries,” then not publishing those descriptions will save nearly $328,000 per year. Adding that to the cost of reprinting those same CH designations in the Code of Federal Regulations equals $391,742 per year in savings, the agencies said.

Thus, eliminating the need to publish latitude-longitude coordinates, UTM coordinate pairs or other detailed textual descriptions in the Federal Register and CFR would result in a significant cost savings to the services and the public as a whole.

So, no longer will readers be forced to thumb (or scroll) past edifying descriptions like this one:

Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83 coordinates (E,N): 733143, 99288; 733053, 99268; 733055, 99291; 733065, 99309; 733055, 99320; 733048, 99344; 733053, 99364; 733090, 99377; 733140, 99370; 733143, 99288.

Nothing else about critical habitat designations will change.

“The final joint rule . . . will not affect how the two agencies designate critical habitat under the ESA, or alter the criteria or methods used to evaluate areas for inclusion as critical habitat. The boundaries of critical habitat as mapped or otherwise described in the official rulemaking published in the Federal Register will remain the official delineation of the designation.”

More here: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/CH_Text.html

Retired federal judge James A. Redden, revered and reviled in the Pacific Northwest for his rulings on Columbia River dam operations, has told an interviewer for Idaho Public Television that the four Snake River dams should come down.

Said the former chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Oregon:

“I think we need to take those dams down … And I’ve never ordered them you know – or tried to order them that you’ve gotta take those dams down. But I have urged them to do some work on those dams…and they have.”

The story was first reported on EarthFix, a public media project operated by a number of radio and TV stations in the Northwest. The New York Times picked up on it today.

Illston, who had previously denied a request for an injunction to halt park activities, stayed the case while the city consults with the Fish and Wildlife Service on activities that could harm the two federally listed species that occupy the park — the threatened California red-legged frog and endangered San Francisco garter snake.

Illston said there is some question as to whether the frog population is growing, as asserted by the city.

New evidence and recent FWS activity have called into question the growth of the frog population at Sharp Park. In its denial of a preliminary injunction, the Court relied heavily on the City’s ability to carefully move the stranded egg masses. See Order at 14-15. The Court noted that during the winter of 2010-11, the City found 159 egg masses; it then requested and received permission to move 128 of them. See Order at 8 (citing Campo Dep. at 104)). However, the FWS has since revoked the City’s authorization to move the stranded egg masses. See Crystal Decl., Ex. 1 (Dec. 8, 2001 FWS letter). It is unclear what effect the revocation will have on the Frog’s population.

Plaintiffs have also pointed to testimony that calls into question whether the Frog population is increasing. They cite defendants’ expert Lisa Wayne, Sharp Park’s Natural Areas Program Manager, who testified at deposition that she could not say whether the population trend of the Frog at Sharp Park was increasing or decreasing, and that while the 2010-2011 rainy season was the highest she had seen, the egg mass population fluctuates from year to year. Wayne Dep. at 249:15-250:9. Plaintiffs also provide a new declaration from their expert, Dr. Marc Hayes, one of the scientists to originally petition the FWS to list the Frog. See Emery Decl., Ex. B (Hayes Rep. III)). Dr. Hayes now states that rather than increasing, recent analysis shows that egg mass numbers at Horse Stable Pond are merely stable. Id. at ¶ 62. The Court finds that the City has not established that there is no genuine issue as to the growth of the Frog population.

Illston did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ complaint. Instead, she found that they had standing to pursue their claim and stayed the matter until October, by which time consultation with FWS should be complete.

The environmental groups’ press release is pasted below the links.

• S.F. Examiner story
• Link to news release pasted below

Here’s the release issued by the environmental groups:

For Immediate Release, April 26, 2012

The stories “stem[] from a press release on a preliminary study of the Western Hudson Bay population that relied on a different methodology (aerial vs. capture-recapture) and larger geographic survey area than previous studies,” PBI said.

The aerial survey was conducted for the government of Nunavut in Canada. The Inuit population in Nunavut is concerned that the hunting quota in Western Hudson Bay will be lowered.

An article in the Toronto Globe & Mail said the survey “shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.”

“The bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management, told the Globe & Mail. “There is no doom and gloom.”

The Globe & Mail story, by reporter Paul Waldie, provided context.

There’s much at stake in the debate. Population figures are used to calculate quotas for hunting, a lucrative industry for many northern communities. Hunting polar bears is highly regulated but Inuit communities can sell their quota to sport hunters, who must hunt with Inuit guides. A polar-bear hunting trip can cost up to $50,000. Demand for polar-bear fur is also soaring in places like China and Russia and prices for some pelts have doubled in the past couple of years, reaching as high as $15,000.

The Nunavut hunting quota in the western Hudson Bay area fell to 8 from 56 after the 2004 report from Environment Canada. The Nunavut government increased it slightly last year but faced a storm of protest. Over all, about 450 polar bears are killed annually across Nunavut. Mr. Gissing said a new quota is expected to be announced in June.

The article also quoted longtime polar bear scientist Andrew Derocher, who questioned the validity of the survey’s conclusions.

Instead of the survey’s estimate that 1,013 bears are living in the area, PBI chief scientist Steven Amstrup said the more important piece of information is the number of yearlings seen from the air — 22, or 3 percent of the 701 bears “actually counted.”

“By comparison, in Alaska during the good ice years of the 1980s, about 15 percent of the animals observed were yearlings,” PBI said in an email sent out April 26. (See below for the text.)

The brief (eight-page) report from Nunavut notes the paucity of young bears. “Relatively few cubs of the year (50) and yearlings (22) were observed in [Western Hudson Bay] in comparison to the recent polar bear surveys in Foxe Basin in 2009 and 2010. Additionally, average litter sizes were the lowest recorded in recent years amongst the 3 Hudson Bay sub-populations suggesting that reproductive output in WH was poor in 2011.”

MediaMatters, a nonprofit watchdog group (yes, it’s a “liberal” watchdog group) took a look at the story on earlier in April, citing Amstrup’s criticisms.

More links

• Toronto Globe & Mail
• Reason.com (Curious lede: “Good news about polar bears – there are more than many enviromental lobbyist [sic] thought. “)
• “Polar bear population growth confounds libs” (FOX puts its own headline on Globe & Mail story)
• “Science Shows Polar Bears in Nunavut are Abundant and Healthy” 
• Polar Bears International
• Bears will adapt by eating goose eggs, scientist says (from two years ago)

Here’s the reprint from the PBI email:

You may have seen recent headlines stating that the Western Hudson Bay polar bear population–widely considered the most endangered–is, in fact, “healthy and abundant.”Sadly, that’s not the case. So what’s going on? The media flurry stems from a press release on a preliminary study of the Western Hudson Bay population that relied on a different methodology (aerial vs. capture-recapture) and larger geographic survey area than previous studies. Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, PBI’s chief scientist, says that media reports have made the serious mistake of comparing the aerial survey–with a point estimate of 1,013 polar bears–to a capture-recapture study from 2004 showing 934 bears. “It’s not a meaningful comparison,” he says. “It’s reasonable to expect there would be more polar bears in a larger geographic area than a smaller one. But even if the new aerial survey focused on exactly the same geographic area, it wouldn’t be surprising to derive a slightly different population estimate when using a different survey method.” He adds that from the standpoint of population welfare, it’s the trend in numbers that is critical, not a single survey from one point in time–so the aerial count will become meaningful only after several years of data are available. “A single point estimate of population size says nothing about whether the trend is up, down, or stable. Trend can only be addressed by multiple point estimates collected over time.”Dr. Amstrup says the new aerial survey does, however, include a piece of information relevant to trend: Of the 701 polar bears actually counted during the survey, only 22 (or about 3%) were yearlings–a very low percentage. By comparison, in Alaska during the good ice years of the 1980s, about 15% of the animals observed were yearlings.”If that 3% figure is even close to the number of surviving yearlings out there now, it’s not at all clear to me how the Hudson Bay population could be sustaining itself,” he says. “This observation is very much in line with the previously published indications that survival–especially of young–is declining.”The release in question was issued by a Nunavut group interested in increasing polar bear hunting quotas.Scientists who study polar bears emphasize that their concern about polar bears is focused on the future. Because polar bears rely on the sea ice to reach their prey, sea ice losses from a warming Arctic threaten their survival. “The available data from Hudson Bay indicate declining condition and survival,” says Amstrup. “But in the bigger picture, whether any one population is currently declining, stable, or increasing is beside the point. Ultimately, all polar bears will disappear from their current ranges if we do not mitigate the rise in greenhouse gases.”

Photo Credits:

Bear Photos by Daniel J. Cox/NaturalExposures.com;

Survey Photo by BJ Kirschhoffer