|
BUSH
ADMINISTRATION SUED FOR REFUSING
TO IMPLEMENT CLINTON
DECISION TO PROTECT ENDANGERED
STURGEON FROM MONTANA
DAM
The
Center for Biological Diversity
and Ecology Center filed
suit 2-18-03 against the
Army Corps of Engineers for
refusing to implement conservation
measures established
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to save the Kootenai
River white sturgeon from
the river killing effects
of Libby Dam. We also sued
the Fish and Wildlife Service
for restricting the sturgeon’s
critical habitat
area to a tiny portion of
the river which contains no
habitat for the species.
Kootenai
River white sturgeon, which
were listed as endangered
in 1994, require large spring
flows and gravel riverbed
conditions to successfully
spawn. Following completion
of Libby Dam in 1974, natural
flooding ceased and silt
covered over gravel beds
in the lower portion of the
river. In 1995, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service declared
that the Army Corps was driving
the sturgeon to extinction.
It established mandatory
reforms to dam management,
but the Army Corps ignored
them. In December 2000, the
Fish and Wildlife Service
again declared that Army Corps
is jeopardizing the sturgeon,
and again established
mandatory dam reforms. The
Army Corps are again refusing
to implement them.
The
Fish and Wildlife plan requires
Army Corps to release
at least 35,000 cubic feet
of water from Libby Dam in
the spring. This would mimic
natural flood levels, allowing
the sturgeon to swim upstream
to gravel beds suitable
for spawning. Army Corps,
however, plans to release
only 26,000 cfs from the
dam and has refused to begin
a mandatory study on re-engineering
the dam to allow
more water to pass through
its turbines.
Subsequent
to the Clinton era BO, the
Fish and Wildlife designated
critical habitat for the
sturgeon. This designation,
however, only included 11.5
miles of river and did not
include gravelly sections
despite the fact that the
whole purpose of their BO
was to attract sturgeon to
these sections. Under the
Bush administration, both
agencies have retreated from
sturgeon recovery efforts
in order to placate agribusiness
and power production
interests.
The
suit is being argued by Geoff
Hickcox of Kenna &
Hickcox.
For
more about the Center’s
efforts to save the sturgeon,
click
here.
PETITION
FILED TO PROTECT ENDANGERED
DUNES BEETLE
On
12-12-02, the Center for
Biological Diversity filed
a scientific petition with
the Department of Interior
to list the Andrews dunes
scarab beetle (Pseudocotalpa
andrewsi Hardy) as an
endangered species and to
designate critical habitat
for it. The beetle occurs
in the Algodones Dunes in
the Sonoran Desert of Imperial
County and Baja California,
Mexico.
The
Andrews dunes scarab beetle
is endangered by extensive
off-road vehicle (ORV) use
on the Algodones Dunes. The
dunes can experience upwards
of 240,000 ORVers on a
single busy weekend. A pending
Bush administration decision
would roll back environmental
protections on nearly
50,000 acres, opening 85%
of the beetle’s habitat
to ORV damage. Pesticide
drift from Imperial Valley
agricultural spraying is
also likely harming beetles.
ORVs
at the Algodones Dunes use
special tires that cut deeply
into the sand, directly killing
beetles and wrecking
habitat. Beetles are most
active February through April,
a biologically critical time
that coincides with the
season of heavy ORV use on
the dunes.
As
with hundreds of imperiled
species, the road to Endangered
Species Act protection has
been fraught with lengthy
delays. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service proposed
to protect in 1978, but later
withdrew the proposal
because it was not finalized
in time. But they took
no further steps to rectify
the mistake, allowing the
Bureau of Land Management
to continue encouraging ORV
damage to the dunes for 24
years. Currently, BLM is
proposing a new management
plan that fails to protect
the beetle and eliminates
ORV closures designed to protect
the threatened Peirson’s
milk-vetch.
SUIT TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIA ISLAND
FOX
The
Center for Biological Diversity
has filed a formal notice
of intent to sue the Department
of Interior for failing
to protect four subspecies
of the island fox under the
Endangered Species Act. In
response to a Center petition
and lawsuit, Fish and Wildlife
proposed to list the
foxes on 12-10-01, but has
failed to finalize the protection.
The
San Miguel Island fox, Santa
Rosa Island fox, Santa
Cruz Island fox, and Santa
Catalina Island fox are endemic
to California’s Channel
Islands. All four have
suffered dramatic population
declines. On San Miguel
Island, for example, the
population declined to just
15 animals, after which 14
were captured for captive
breeding, leaving only one
individual in the wild.
Threats
to the four subspecies include
introduced disease (canine
distemper), habitat loss
related to overgrazing by exotic
cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits,
deer, elk, pigs, and
horses, and predation by
golden eagles, which have recently
colonized the Islands in
response to the loss of bald
eagles and introduction of
new prey items (pigs).
For
more information on the Center’s
efforts to protect
the island fox, click
here.
SUIT TO PROTECT
MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING
On
2-10-03, the Center for Biological
Diversity, Western
Watersheds Project and George
Wuerthner filed a 60-day
notice of intent to sue the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for failing to protect the
Montana fluvial arctic grayling
under the Endangered Species
Act. In 1994, the agency
used a loophole in the law
to indefinitely delay listing
of the grayling as an endangered
species while at the
same time declaring that
listing was necessary. Since
then the grayling has continued
to decline and is now
threatened with rapid extinction.
Once found throughout the
upper Missouri River drainage
above Great Falls, the fluvial
arctic grayling has been
reduced to a single self-sustaining
population in a
short stretch of the Big
Hole River above Divide Dam.
A primary factor in this
range decline was dewatering
of rivers for irrigation.
Continued irrigation in combination
with four consecutive years
of drought have resulted
in drastic declines in the
remaining population in the
Big Hole River.
A
member of the salmon family,
arctic grayling are widely
distributed across Canada
and Alaska. Populations of
arctic grayling have also
been established in many lakes
in Montana and other states,
where previously they did
not exist. Historically,
fluvial [i.e. river-dwelling]
populations of arctic grayling
existed in only two places
in the lower 48 states: Michigan
and the upper Missouri
River of Montana. The Michigan
population went extinct
by the 1930s, and populations
in Montana were restricted
to the Big Hole River by
the end of the 1970s.
FEDS DENY
PROTECTION TO CALIFORNIA SPOTTED
OWL
In
response to a petition and
lawsuit from the Center for
Biological Diversity and
Sierra Nevada Forest Protection
Campaign, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service announced
on 2-10-03 that it will not
protect the California spotted
owl under the Endangered
Species Act. Bizarrely, the
agency claimed that the Clinton
era “Sierra Nevada
Framework” plan is sufficient
to protect the owl,
even though the Bush administration
has announced that
it wants to gut the plan,
including removal of logging
restrictions to protect the
owl.
The
California spotted owl is
the only subspecies of spotted
owl without protection under
the ESA. Like its close
relatives the Mexican and
northern spotted owl, it is
dependent on old growth and
mature forests. A century
of logging and development
in the Sierra Nevada and
Southern California have
degraded most old growth forests.
Long-term studies indicate
poor adult survival and persistent
owl population declines.
For
more information on the Center’s
efforts to protect
the California spotted owl
and its habitats, click
here.
Click
now and become a member of
the Center for Biological
Diversity, and ensure a future
for wildlife and habitat.
This message was sent to [email]. Visit your subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from Center for Biological Diversity - Biodiversity Activist, click to remove yourself from our lists (or reply via email with "remove or unsubscribe" in the subject line).
|
