Issues
Gunnison sage-grouse to remain on ESA list, judge rules. Gunnison County, the Gunnison Stockgrowers Association, Colorado, Utah and San Juan County lost their case in federal district court last week when a judge ruled that the Gunnison sage-grouse should stay on the endangered species list as “threatened.” Being listed as “threatened” more severely restricts what can be done on grouse habitat and could negatively impact things like local economic development.
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello in Colorado also upheld Fish and Wildlife’s concurrent decision to establish 1.4 million acres of designated critical habitat for the bird. In doing so, Arguello rejected legal challenges that argued the service had violated the Administrative Procedure Act, in part by not allowing for public comment on a critical population analysis that was key to the service’s 2014 listing decision.
When FWS listed the bird as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the decision was sharply criticized by elected officials, including Hickenlooper and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who argued the listing was unnecessary. John Swartout, a senior adviser for Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), said the state is reviewing the ruling but added, “Obviously, we’re disappointed the court did not recognize the efforts of Gunnison County, the landowners and the state to protect the Gunnison sage grouse.”
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments on an ESA case in Louisiana with similarities to the Gunnison grouse case, said David Halverson, a lawyer for the state’s Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office. The Fish and Wildlife Service designated timberland in Louisiana as critical habitat for an endangered frog, but opponents say the frog has not lived in that state since 1965. Similarly, Utah argues that some of the land designated as critical habitat for the Gunnison grouse is not suitable for the bird. Halverson said Utah wants to save the bird but believes it can be done better outside the framework of the ESA.
Sage Grouse preserved by industry, study says. A study led by UC Santa Barbara’s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) shows that grazing restrictions on public lands may have unintended consequences for Greater sage-grouse. The species depends on habitat on both public and private lands, and much of that habitat can be lost when ranching operations go under. Policies to restrict grazing access on public lands are likely to harm ranch profitability, which in turn could spur ranchers to sell their private lands for other uses—namely, crop cultivation or housing developments—that would ultimately destroy critical grouse habitat.
“We found that as the restrictions to public lands increased, (private) landowners have historically made decisions to alter their land use. Then there’s trigger points where they may sell those lands to higher intensity uses that would be bad for sage grouse,” said David Naugle, study co-author and professor at the University of Montana.
The study, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, found that curbing public land grazing by 50 percent could lead to more than 429,000 acres of lost habitat for sage grouse. According to co-author Joe Fargione, science director for The Nature Conservancy’s North American region, their findings validate the increasing recognition that ranchers and conservationists must partner to support healthy sagebrush ecosystems for industry and sage grouse and open the door to creative solutions that take a more balanced approach.
In the News
States want greater oversight of endangered species. E&E News, (Sub req’d). States would get more authority to carry out the Endangered Species Act under a regulatory proposal that could be filed soon. The rulemaking proposal would ask the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to change how it works with state agencies under Section 6 of the act, Matthias Sayer, New Mexico’s deputy secretary for energy, minerals and natural resources, said yesterday at a meeting of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. If it’s adopted, states would be able to apply for authority to issue and administer the recovery plans that govern how endangered animals and plants are protected. State rules on “taking” animals would gain pre-eminence over federal rules. New Mexico and other Western states have been pressing for decades to get more control over both energy production and federal regulations like the Endangered Species Act. The IOGCC, a trade group for state oil and gas regulators, has served as a clearinghouse for those ideas. Wildlife conservation groups criticized the idea, but Sayer said New Mexico and other states are better positioned than FWS because they have more boots on the ground and have better relations with landowners than federal agencies.
Short-Handed Supreme Court Hears Endangered-Species Case. Wall Street Journal. An eight-member Supreme Court returned from its summer break Monday with a case pitting an endangered species against a logging company, immediately demonstrating the pivotal role that Judge Brett Kavanaugh would play if confirmed. Liberal justices said Congress had intended broad efforts to save endangered species. Conservatives said government shouldn’t impose costs on private landowners. With the court divided, a tiebreaking vote—probably for the property owner, should Judge Kavanaugh cast it—could be necessary to decide the case and others like it. Nevertheless, the marble chamber’s atmosphere seemed in many ways a world apart from the caustic partisan battle over the court unfolding in the Senate buildings across the street. When Justice Stephen Breyer matter-of-factly said “drain the swamp,” he was referring to actual Louisiana wetlands, seemingly unaware that the phrase plays double duty in President Trump’s rhetorical arsenal. Chief Justice John Roberts set the tone at the outset, noting the 25th anniversary of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s investiture at court. “We all look forward to sharing many more years with you in our common calling,” he said to his 85-year-old colleague. And after the fight over an endangered frog, a second case Monday showed the court largely in alignment behind Arizona firefighters raising an age-discrimination claim, highlighting that only a minority of cases, albeit often highly-charged ones, divide the justices along strict ideological lines. The first case involves, the government says, “one of the most imperiled species” in the U.S., the dusky gopher frog, which once ranged across Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. As its habitat was destroyed by development, the species had dwindled by 2001 to a known population of about 100 in a single pond in the De Soto National Forest.
Zinke announces $50M in state conservation grants. E&E News, (Sub req’d). The Interior Department will distribute $50 million in conservation grants designed to help keep sensitive wildlife species from being listed for federal protection in all 50 states and major U.S. territories. The State Wildlife Grant Program specifically targets projects that help conserve sensitive species and habitat that are listed in each state’s Wildlife Action Plan. The plans in all 50 states and major territories include detailed strategies to protect species that have been determined to be in greatest need of conservation, Interior said today. The goal is to keep them from being listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska, California, Florida, New York and Texas are the states receiving the biggest share, with each getting at least $2.3 million. American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands are each receiving $126,551. U.S. territories in years past have received less grant money than states. “When the federal and state governments work together, we can achieve the best outcomes,” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said in a statement. “This funding is an investment in the future of our wildlife. When we can recover species before they are listed under the Endangered Species Act, that means more federal resources for the other species that need it most.”
New science policy: ‘It’s all kind of vague right now’. E&E News, (Sub req’d). Fans and critics of the Interior Department’s new science policy are still holding their breath over what it will actually change. The arguments over the new order, titled “Promoting Open Science,” echo the fight at EPA to curtail research that doesn’t publish its raw data. The political left says Interior’s new policy threatens to politicize and complicate even routine science, such as counting animal populations, while the right says it will restore trust to processes that have historically tilted against industry — namely, endangered species listings. At stake is how all the arms of the Interior Department behave, experts said, because science underlies just about everything it does. But here’s where things get foggy: Unlike the EPA proposal, which outlines criteria to accept research into rulemaking, the new Interior policy seeks to “prioritize” reproducible studies with public data “to the extent possible.” The department may still use research with non-public data if staff explain why it’s the best available science. “We’ll have to see how they implement it, whether there are any changes in things or if this is just — it’s all kind of vague right now,” said Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “There aren’t bright lines in the order.” At least one expert suggested the order amounts to a victory for scientific integrity. Bernard Goldstein, who was assistant EPA administrator for research and development under President Reagan, has criticized the current EPA’s attempt to restrict the science it will use. But the Interior order seems to sidestep those problems, he said.
Green groups sue Zinke, BLM to cancel drilling leases. E&E News, (Sub req’d). A coalition of environmental groups today filed a federal lawsuit challenging three already-held Bureau of Land Management lease sales in Utah and Colorado, including some parcels less than 3 miles from Dinosaur National Monument. The lawsuit, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in Denver, seeks to invalidate the 121 leases covering more than 117,000 acres because the coalition claims BLM did not properly analyze the risks of potential oil and gas drilling on public health and the surrounding environment before offering them. The 45-page legal complaint — filed by the National Parks Conservation Association, Rocky Mountain Wild, the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians — says BLM’s lack of evaluation violates the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The coalition, which is being represented by attorneys with Earthjustice, wants the court to issue an order vacating the leases sold during the three sales — two in Utah, one in Colorado. “Prioritizing economic benefits over public health and the environment is wrong,” Matt Sandler, a staff attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild, said in a statement. “This is especially so when the BLM has failed to comply with the laws that would have ensured the public knew the full impacts of these leasing decisions. Representatives with the Interior Department did not respond to requests to comment on this story before publication. Interior usually does not publicly comment on matters pertaining to pending or ongoing litigation. A Department of Justice spokesman said the department is reviewing the complaint.
