Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Wishful Thinking Doesn’t Justify Grizzly Delisting

Cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet.

Federal Judge Donald Molloy in Montana has ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to restore grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area to the list of endangered and threatened species. Judge Molloy refused to allow FWS to delist the grizzly on the basis of unsupported wishful thinking about the bear’s future.

Grizzly bears once roamed across most of the North American west, but the population in Yellowstone is one of the few remaining remnants in the lower 48. The grizzly was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1975, when there were about 1000 bears in the continental US, with an estimated 136 to 312 of those in the Greater Yellowstone Area.

In 2007, with the Yellowstone grizzly population up to about 500, FWS removed it from the protected list. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition Challenged that decision. This week, Judge Molloy ruled in their favor. He identified two major flaws with the delisting decision: a lack of enforceable regulatory mechanisms to assure protection of the population at adequate numbers into the future; and inadequate consideration of the impacts on the grizzly of whitebark pine declines.

The ESA requires the listing of species that are endangered or threatened due to habitat destruction; overutilization; disease or predation; “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;” or other factors. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1). In order to remove a species from the list, FWS must conclude that the species no longer qualifies for listing on the basis of those same factors.

In most cases, the key question for delisting is whether legal protections post-listing will be sufficient to maintain the population at healthy levels. As Joel Pagel and I explained in Conservation Biology in 2001 (abstract here; pdf here for subscribers), delisting requires two distinct determinations: first, that the population has reached a biologically viable level; and second, that sufficient protections are in place to ensure maintenance of that population level.

With respect to the grizzly bear, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition challenged both findings. Judge Molloy rejected the claim that the population size was too small to support delisting, ruling that FWS had considered the best available science and that the evidence supported its conclusion that a population of 500 was sufficient.  On the second finding, however, Judge Molloy delivered a sharp rebuke to the agency. He noted that the Conservation Strategy FWS had developed in conjunction with the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana to guide grizzly management post-listing was not binding on its signatories. Instead of committing themselves to specific conservation actions, FWS admitted that the federal and state agencies had only “indicated their intention to manage grizzly bears according to the Strategy.”

Even if it had been binding, the Conservation Strategy would not have satisfied legal requirements for delisting. Judge Molloy found that it was devoid of enforceable standards for important lands. Instead of specifying standards for permissible changes to habitat or limits on activities that lead to grizzly mortality, the Conservation Strategy simply promised that state and federal authorities would cooperate to develop future management goals and standards. Judge Molloy concluded that the management plans for the national forests in the region and the grizzly management plans drafted by the states suffered from the same fundamental flaw — none of them had sufficient enforceable standards to ensure grizzly protection.

In essence, Judge Molloy looked closely and found that the emperor had no clothes. There were lots of documents detailing how grizzly bears should be looked after following delisting, but no assurances other than promises and good intentions that those prescriptions would actually be followed.

Judge Molloy also faulted FWS for another kind of wishful thinking. Whitebark pine nuts are an important food source for Yellowstone grizzlies, but whitebark pines are declining in the region due to climate change and disease. In its delisting rule, FWS concluded that grizzly bears would not be threatened by the loss of whitebark pine because the bears would adapt to other food sources.  Judge Molloy pointed out that there was little if any evidence to support that assumption. To the contrary, the evidence suggested that bears searching for food when pine nuts were not available were more likely to come into contact with people and to suffer human-caused mortality. That may already be happening — as Doug Peacock has pointed out in Yale Environment 360, grizzly bears were shot in record numbers in 2008.

It’s understandable that FWS and others who are deeply invested in conservation efforts want to celebrate their successes by delisting species which show population recoveries. But this decision should serve as a reminder that population increases by themselves don’t establish that delisting is appropriate. Delisting should happen only when the species’ future is secure, which means that the agency has taken a hard look at its future and verified that looming threats are adequately controlled. At that point, and only at that point, delisting can be cause for celebration rather than for litigation.

Showing 2,828 results

Holly Doremus | September 23, 2009

Wishful Thinking Doesn’t Justify Grizzly Delisting

Cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet. Federal Judge Donald Molloy in Montana has ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to restore grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area to the list of endangered and threatened species. Judge Molloy refused to allow FWS to delist the grizzly on the basis of unsupported wishful thinking about the bear’s […]

Amy Sinden | September 22, 2009

Obama’s Frank Talk on Climate at the U.N.: More Please

Imagine if the end of the world were coming and everyone was just too polite to talk about it. That’s been the eerie feeling I’ve gotten over the past eight months listening to the President talk about energy policy. Not wanting to be a downer, he couches his energy talk in positive spin: We’re going […]

Holly Doremus | September 22, 2009

A Promising Step Toward a National Ocean Policy

Cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet. In June, President Obama created an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, and directed it to make recommendations for a national ocean policy.  The Task Force got right to work.  Now, after convening two dozen expert roundtables, inviting public comment, and holding the first of six public sessions, the Task […]

Ben Somberg | September 21, 2009

9th Circuit’s Strong Words for EPA’s Office of Civil Rights

As first reported by Law 360 on Thursday: In a decision reversing a ruling in favor of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a federal appeals court has chastised the agency’s Office of Civil Rights for what the court said was its apparent failure to consider alleged civil rights violations in a timely manner. “What the […]

Shana Campbell Jones | September 18, 2009

The Poop on Manure in the Water: We’re Sick of It

Today’s New York Times article about excess manure in the water is a stark reminder of what can happen when an environmental problem isn’t addressed: people get really sick. While the article is shocking — it describes how families in Wisconsin living close to dairy farms suffered from chronic diarrhea, stomach problems, and severe ear […]

Alejandro Camacho | September 18, 2009

Interior’s Initiative on Adaptation Will Need to Overcome a Legacy of Inaction

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed a secretarial order on Monday establishing a new department-wide strategy for gathering data and developing management options to help managers cope with the effects of climate change on resources governed by the Interior Department. The order seeks to initiate three components: A “Climate Change Response Council” to coordinate […]

David Driesen | September 17, 2009

Administrative Delay in Implementing a Cap-and-Trade Program: A Compelling Reason to Auction All Allowances

Cap-and-trade legislation making its way through Congress has become enormously complex, embodying a host of arcane political deals governing the distribution of the vast majority of emissions allowances being given away for free, with crucial details being left to EPA. This complexity threatens to hinder the effort to address climate disruption (see my article Capping […]

Daniel Farber | September 16, 2009

It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again

Cross-posted from Legal Planet. Since opponents can’t seem to come up with any new arguments against climate change legislation, they seem determined to recycle the old, discredited ones. Here’s Tuesday’s example, straight from the GOP press release: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif, today urged the Environmental Protection Agency to include several […]

William Andreen | September 16, 2009

One More Point on the N.Y. Times Water Article — the Problem of Nonpoint Source Pollution

Sunday’s New York Times article about the neglect of our clean water laws included a shocking example of how a regulatory gap in the Clean Water Act can harm public health. For example, the article referred to water supplies in parts of the Farm Belt that are contaminated by dangerous levels of pesticides, which originate […]