BOSTON — Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey says she intends to sue the Trump administration over new rules that would gut the Endangered Species Act. The lawsuit she announced Monday alleges that the changes are illegal and that the administration failed to review environmental impact and ignored public opinion.

The Endangered Species Act was enacted more than 40 years ago and has since prevented the extinction of 99% of all listed species - including the bald eagle, humpback whale, green sea turtle and whooping crane. Healey said the new rules violate the act's purpose, which has helped revive some of Massachusetts's endangered and threatened species.

"These protections have boosted our piping plover recovery, increasing populations here in Massachusetts alone by 500% since 1990,” Healey said. “It used to be that there were no peregrine falcons in our state, but now our state is home to more than 40 breeding pairs of those falcons."

Healey said the new rules pave the way for approval of oil, gas and other development projects despite potential species impact. Supporters of the rules say they create greater transparency.

Under the new rules, economic factors can be considered when making endangered species determinations. They also make it easier to remove protections for a species.

Healey said these rules are unpopular and will help businesses exploit the environment.

"The Endangered Species Act has been one of our most successful environmental laws,” she said. “It was passed many years ago and, significantly, it was passed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support. And I think that speaks to the common understanding of the importance of this law."

The new rules are expected to appear in the Federal Register this week and will go into effect 30 days after that.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Forest Services are headed back to the drawing board after a federal appeals court ruled that the authorization to kill up to 72 grizzly bears, including females, on public lands near Yellowstone National Park violated federal law.

Andrea Zaccardi - carnivore conservation program legal director with the Center for Biological Diversity - said grizzlies have one of the lowest reproduction rates of all mammals, and the survival of females is critical for the bears' recovery.

"The removal of even a few female grizzly bears can significantly impact the health of the population," said Zaccardi. "It takes a female grizzly bear ten years to replace herself in the wild."

The agencies argued that removing 72 bears would be consistent with population goals for the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Conservationists are urging the Forest Service to order ranchers to use nonlethal options to avoid conflicts - including removing all livestock carcasses and consistently using range riders to monitor herds - and stop killing female bears, while they reconsider their analysis.

A Forest Service spokesperson deferred to Fish and Wildlife's authority to manage grizzlies. When asked to comment, Fish and Wildlife declined.

Before being hunted to the brink of extinction, some 50,000 grizzlies roamed the lower 48 states. Today there are fewer than two thousand.

Zaccardi said the Fish and Wildlife Service's own data acknowledges the importance of female grizzlies to the health of populations.

"In the past, (the agencies) have generally considered a limit on how many female grizzly bears can be killed in the Upper Green project area," said Zaccardi. "This is one of the first times that they completely ignored that aspect."

People come to Wyoming from all over the world for the opportunity to see a grizzly bear in the wild. Zaccardi pointed out that there are currently just five isolated populations in the lower 48.

"And Yellowstone is one of the best places to see them," said Zaccardi. "So the local economies rely very heavily on the tourism industry that support the local businesses and the towns that surround Yellowstone National Park."




get more stories like this via email

Nevadans will have the opportunity to learn more and weigh in on a proposed public lands rule that shifts the Bureau of Land Management's focus to prioritize wildlife conservation and protecting cultural resources. Tomorrow, the B-L-M invites the public to an in-person meeting
in Reno to better understand the proposal.

Russell Kuhlman, Executive Director for the Nevada Wildlife Federation, said the measure would help the agency put conservation efforts "on par and act as a balance," with recreational and commercial uses of public lands such as grazing, energy development and camping.

"The land is not built for continuous extraction without some conservation in order to make it sustainable, and what this conservation ruling does is hopefully take a big step in that direction," he said.

Kuhlman contended the B-L-M is "getting pulled in a lot of different directions because of the scope of work they're required to do." He says the proposed rule could "open the door," he said, for conservation groups to help out potentially underfunded and understaffed B-L-M offices, and aid in habitat rehabilitation.

Kuhlman added the proposed rule adds "another tool box within the conservation community," and takes what he calls a "proactive, boots on the ground approach," to help prevent further habitat degradation. The agency says if they receive an application for a conservation lease that conflicts with an existing grazing permit or lease, that conservation lease would not be approved. Kuhlman said the proposal
aims to level the playing field for the various uses taking place on public lands.

"There are some questions out there from different stakeholders and what they're concerned about is, is this conservation ruling going to be a tool to eliminate grazing or prevent energy resource development from happening on public lands. And that is not the case. "

Kuhlman says he is "excited" about the conservation ruling. He says it could help mitigate the degradation the sagebrush sea is experiencing. According to the agency roughly one-point-three million acres of sagebrush are degraded annually. In addition to tomorrow's meeting, the B-L-M will also hold a virtual meeting on the proposal on Monday, June 5th.

Critical Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear habitat has been degraded by a 2019 U.S. Forest Service decision to allow more than 17,000 livestock to graze in Wyoming's Upper Green River Basin, according to a new report.

John Carter, ecologist for the Yellowstone to Uintas Connection and the report's co-author, said 84% of the area is designated as having a wildlife emphasis in the Forest Plan.

"The area that this decision covers places a priority on wildlife," Carter explained. "But what we have in reality is a livestock emphasis, with wildlife way down in the order of priorities, as far as any evidence we've seen."

The Forest Service decided to put cattle in the project area even though it is where more than half of all grizzly deaths in western Wyoming happened between 2010 and 2014. All were due to conflicts with cattle. Grizzlies are classified as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The agency has not yet responded to a request for comment.

The Forest Service is not following the best scientific practices for managing livestock grazing, according to the report, which found a significant decline in the forage plants that should be present. A single adult cow and calf can weigh up to 1,600 pounds, due to added hormones and antibiotics, but Carter pointed out the agency's stocking rate assumes the total weight is just 1,000 pounds.

"When in reality, they weigh double that, and they're consuming double the rate that the Forest Service is claiming when they are calculating a stocking rate," Carter contended. "You've got some very basic fundamentals that are being glossed over in order to perpetuate the status quo."

The Forest Service is supposed to manage publicly-owned resources for long-term sustainability, but Carter argued there has been a gradual decline over time. He added laws passed in the 1960s and 70s to protect watersheds from overgrazing and logging have been weakened by industry lobbyists.

"Basically, you've got a system set up where the industry is essentially in control of the agency," Carter stressed. "It's called 'regulatory capture,' and so the public really is out of the loop here."


get more stories like this via email