A big loss for polar bears -- with a small silver lining

You may have heard the news, but early this morning we got word that the nations meeting at the Convention on International Trade Endangered Species (CITES) rejected an United States proposal, supported and encouraged by NRDC, that would have ended the international commercial trade in polar bears and strengthened the regulation of polar bear sports hunting.

My colleague Zak Smith is in Doha, Qatar, and has been blogging about our fight for polar bears (you can read his posts here, here, and here).

There’s no doubt about it, the vote was a big loss.  Canada alone takes about 300 polar bears for international trade and sports hunting each year—this is an unsustainable and unnecessary stress on the population.  And the Canadian populations are particularly important to the fate of the bear.  At the end of the day, our loss was the result of the failure of the European Union to vote to protect polar bears.  It’s a particularly frustrating outcome, given that both the European Parliament and the European Commission had formally supported increased protections.

But I comfort myself that some good did come out of the process.  As the result of the U.S. proposal, Canada significantly cut back on its polar bear quotas, in a (successful, as it turns out) attempt to head off further CITES restrictions.  In the Baffin Bay, for example, Canada recently announced that it was going to cut it total quota from 105 bears to 65 bears over the next four years.  Over the phase-in period alone, that’s 100 bears that won’t be shot thanks to our efforts.  A lot of the credit goes to NRDC’s members and activists who have been incredibly active in making their voice heard to both the Canadian and the U.S. governments.

In the coming days our polar bear team will regroup and figure out the best way to continue the fight.  There are still measures that the CITES convention can take to reduce polar bear trade and there are other international agreements and strategies we will be taking a close look at.  Stay tuned…this fight is far from over.

Polar Bear Trophy Hunt Ban Shot Down

CHICAGO (March 18, 2010) -- A proposal to end international trophy hunting and commercial trade in polar bear parts was voted down today at a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Sponsored by the United States and supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council with a coalition of groups, the proposal was considered critical to help ensure the long-term survival of polar bears in the face of climate change. According to NRDC legal and conservation experts, polar bears suffer from unsustainably high harvest levels driven by trophy hunters and an international market for their pelts, paws, teeth and other parts.

“While there has been a lot of positive momentum in polar bear conservation recently, this is a real setback,” said Andrew Wetzler, Director of NRDC’s Wildlife Conservation Project. “It keeps some of the most important populations of polar bears squarely in the crosshairs. We will continue work to find a new way to protect polar bears from this unsustainable hunt.”

A 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey conservatively estimated that the total population of polar bears would decline by over 70 percent in the next 45 years as global warming literally melts their habitat. Science-based estimates like these led the US to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. Nonetheless, Canada still allows the killing of 300 polar bears a year for international trade and trophy hunting, despite evidence that over half of the polar bear populations in Canada may suffer from overharvest.

NRDC is joined by a large group of international NGOs in pushing for this proposal that includes Animal Welfare Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, Eurogroup for Animals, Humane Society International, International Fund for Animal Welfare, ProWildlife and Species Survival Network. The proposal had sought to “uplist” the species to the more highly protected class 1 status under the international treaty. It lost by a vote of 48 - 62 with 11 abstentions.

Check the Switchboard blog for commentary and analysis from NRDC’s Zak Smith who has been participating in the CITES conference all week.

Stand Firm Manitoba: Protect the Heart of the Boreal and Say No to an Industrial Transmission Line

The political opposition in Manitoba, Canada has revived a proposal to run a major hydropower transmission line directly through the boreal forest on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. It’s an odd choice for an election issue. The current government had already made a decision to work with local communities to protect one of North America’s most outstanding sanctuaries for woodland caribou, timber wolves and songbirds – the Heart of the Boreal – as a World Heritage Site. That means that local communities make decisions about what to protect and how to encourage environmentally healthy development. It means that there can be local roads and businesses, but that the bulk of this untouched wilderness of emerald forests, marshes, lakes, and rivers is recognized for its ecological and cultural values. It means no industrial transmission line in a part of the province where the wilderness values are so high.

Manitoba has made an interesting choice around placement of the transmission line and one that should resonate in the United States as well. Our need for energy is often in conflict with our need to protect special places. Manitoba decided that the Heart of the Boreal region was so valuable that it was worth paying more to put the industrial transmission line elsewhere. In fact, what I suspect Manitoba realized, is that developed corridors should always be preferred over wildlands. Even if the cost appears to be greater, in reality developers usually fail to include the cost of the controversies that accompany efforts to build in untouched places. These can include special mitigation measures, delays, litigation, and the need for additional public relations and outreach – all of which cost money. This is a lesson to learn from as we face conflicts over how to get energy to the markets where it is needed. The on-the-face monetary cost of a project is not the only thing to consider: ecological and cultural values of the land should be considered equally with other aspects of where a transmission line goes.

The international environmental community has long supported the efforts of local First Nations communities to establish a World Heritage Site in this region – called Pimachiowin Aki. The site would span 10.6 million acres in Manitoba and Ontario and encompass two provincial parks in addition to First Nations traditional territories. A hydropower transmission line through this region would seriously jeopardize the World Heritage Site nomination.

Already several years ago, NRDC designated this region as an international BioGem. NRDC members and activists have long recognized the Boreal forest wilderness on the east side of Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba as an area of global importance, sending  thousands of messages calling for protection over the last few years. Today, our Manitoba environmental partners launched a new website celebrating the Heart of the Boreal. And together with our Manitoba partners, we are once again asking the public to let Manitoba know that the Heart of the Boreal is deserving of permanent protection – and that means no industrial transmission line.

So, stand firm Manitoba. You have the right values in place and made a good decision to move forward with a World Heritage Site nomination that is based on local, First Nations community planning, instead of an industrial transmission line. I think that the opposition will learn that Manitobans value their natural heritage. And I think that they will learn that local communities appreciate having a say in what happens on their traditional lands.

Canada Rejects Wishes of Canadians and the Spirit of CITES

Yesterday evening at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (“CITES”), the government of Canada hosted an event highlighting Inuit culture and the role hunting polar bears plays in that culture.  The government of Canada’s presentation was part of its campaign to defeat the US proposal, supported by NRDC, to uplist polar bears to CITES Appendix I, which would ban international trade in polar bear parts.  For more on CITES and what is at stake read my prior blogs, here and here.

Unfortunately, the government of Canada’s campaign is at odds with the wishes of the majority of Canadians and at odds with the spirit of CITES.  Poll results released today by Humane Society International/Canada show that over 80 percent of Canadians support banning the commercial trade in polar bear parts on the international market.  When Canadians were given more information on Canada’s plan to oppose the ban at the CITES conference, two thirds of those expressing an opinion opposed the government’s decision.

As for rejecting the spirit of CITES, for animals threatened with extinction, the core purpose of CITES is to ensure that trade in specimens of these species does not further endanger their survival.  In effect, CITES provides the means for the international community to recognize species that are threatened with extinction and to make certain that the international trade of those species will not be a further contributing factor (be it a primary or minor factor) to their potential extinction.  Thus, while the fate of the species will surely be dependent on the internal regulatory and management regimes of individual countries (or, in the case of polar bears, international cooperation on combating climate change), the parties to CITES can have a clean conscience knowing that at least international trade is no longer a threat.  It truly is a precautionary approach to the protection of species.  Unfortunately, it is a precautionary approach that Canada and many other CITES parties reject when they put economic and social interests ahead of species.  We do not currently know how many countries will follow Canada's lead, but until a decision is made at this conference NRDC will continue fighting to get polar bears the protection they deserve.  Stay tuned...  

Four Days on the Baker River: Chapter 4 - Water, Water, Water

As Julia, the local woman we visited on our last morning on the Baker stated, this past summer in Patagonia has been exceptionally rainy.  People told me that every single day of the summer months was wet and cold except for two.  Which is why we so relished those few moments of sunshine we saw each day on the River.  It is also why the water level of the Baker was unusually high during our trip.  At least once a day Brian commented on this fact, pointing out small, flowing channels that typically are dry, or the surprising height of the water level among the flora on the river banks. 

channels and wetlands in the foreground were products of the summer's rain

Given the fact that the water level when we were there was very nearly as high as it’s been in years, how can you explain this photo?:

How did that tree get deposited on top of that boulder? 

A GLOF did it. 

A what?

A GLOF – a glacial lake outburst flood (or jökulhlaup, the Icelandic term that is also often used).   Let me explain:

A GLOF occurs when water increasingly builds up behind an obstacle, such as a glacier, to the point of bursting through or over this obstacle and flooding downstream in a massive rush.  (Here is a more thorough description).  GLOFs are well-documented phenomena around the world (from Asia to Iceland, the U.S. to New Zealand), and are increasingly becoming an issue here in Patagonia, where much of the area’s fresh water depends on the steady melt of Chile’s remarkable quantity of glaciers.  A recent NASA study showed that these glaciers are melting at faster rates than ever before, which some researchers attribute to climate change.   As a result, after nearly 40 GLOF-less years, the Baker and its tributaries—specifically the Colonia River—have seen six substantial GLOFs in the past 2 years.*

One key reason I joined this research group on their Baker trip was to learn more about these hydrological events and see first-hand some of the jökulhlaups’ effects on the River.  And who better to show me than this team:  Brian, our boat captain and the Limnologist (a scientist who studies fresh water) who makes this trip monthly, taking detailed notes and water samples each time; Andy, a Ph.D. candidate in Geomorphology, who has a knack for explaining complicated hydrological processes in a very understandable way; and Nicolas, the Chilean journalist whose local knowledge was so helpful, and who (thankfully) asked almost as many scientific questions of the other two as I did.

Brian pointed out evidence of the last GLOF as we rowed down the Baker, such as the tree in the above photo (we saw several similar sights, in fact).  He also often put the phenomenon in context, as you can see in this photo, where, during a recent GLOF, the flood levels reached as high as the square blue box to the left of the river crossing apparatus. 

Why are GLOFs important to our Patagonia BioGem campaign?   These floods can be quite destructive to anything downstream, natural or man-made – such as dams.  They could potentially damage the proposed dams themselves, and they could affect the dams’ operation capacity and longevity by flooding the reservoirs with more sediment than they were designed to handle.  Logically then, HidroAysén’s two proposed dams on the Baker River could be compromised by the increased incidence of jökulhlaups, and the company should be worried about these events. 

Yet their environmental impact assessment (EIA) and its Addenda do not provide nearly enough solid scientific or technical data to prove that they have thoroughly considered these risks in their plans and designs.  During the last round of comments on the EIA’s Addenda, multiple government agencies specifically noted that HidroAysén’s data about GLOFs was highly inadequate, requesting more and better information (all official documents in HidroAysén’s environmental review process are available in Spanish here).

Each time I saw evidence of the recent Colonia and Baker River GLOFs while on this trip, I was again reminded of the unpredictable power of this river system, often belied by its placid surface.  It was clear to me that GLOFs pose a serious threat to HidroAysén’s proposed—and unnecessary—hydroelectric center, heightening the risks of building and investing in this scheme.  Clearly, these phenomena are important to our campaign.  Very, very important, in fact. 

And they should be important to HidroAysén.  Very, very important, in fact.  To date, however, the company has treated this topic as a peripheral nuisance, underscoring yet again why their proposal simply should not be approved.

 ____

*As this article was published in November 2009, its research does not include the most recent GLOF in January 2010.

EU Leaving Polar Bears Out In The Cold

NRDC is working to get better protection for polar bears at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (“CITES” or “the Convention”).  For background on the Convention and what is at stake for polar bears, read my previous blog, here.

Two days into the conference, more details have emerged as to why one key player, the European Union, is currently opposing the US proposal to uplist polar bears from Appendix II to Appendix I, which would ban the international commercial trade in polar bears.

There appear to be two main reasons for the EU’s lack of support.  First, some countries in Europe are worried that greater protections for polar bears will unduly limit trophy hunting.  This reasoning is flawed, as the US proposal would not ban trophy hunting.  It merely provides an extra layer of protection to ensure that trophy hunts do not take place in overharvested populations.  The second reason appears to be a bit of international petulance.  Some EU countries are mad at the US for not moving fast enough on climate change and are taking out their frustration on this proposal – arguing that if the US really wants to help polar bears it should focus on climate change, not the international market for polar bear parts.

Unfortunately, the European Union’s current position against the US proposal disregards the wishes of Europeans as expressed by the European Parliament, which voted in favor of giving more protections to polar bears, and the initial position of the European Commission, which recommended support of the US proposal because of the polar bears’ perilous situation and the negative impact killing polar bears for international trade has on struggling populations.

But all is not lost with this block of 27 votes at CITES (while EU Member States have individual votes at CITES, the members all vote the same once the EU forms a common position).  There are reportedly deep divisions among the ranks of the EU Member States on this proposal and we may yet have a chance to convince the EU that it must do more at this Conference of the Parties to protect polar bears.  As we have heard from more than one EU Member State, "What's the point of coming to this conference if you're not willing to negotiate?"  Indeed.

Stay tuned…

Helping Polar Bears in the Gulf of Arabia

Yes, you read that right.  NRDC is working to save polar bears in the Gulf of Arabia – Doha, Qatar, to be exact.  No, Qatar is not a polar bear range state – the world’s largest bear’s preferred habitat is the annual sea ice over the continental shelf and inter-island archipelagoes of the Arctic basin in the territory of five countries:  the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (via Greenland).  But Doha is hosting the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Conventional on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES” or “the Convention”).  CITES is the forum created by the international community to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.  And at this meeting, parties to the Convention will be voting on a US proposal to ban international trade in polar bear parts and put dual controls in place for the export of polar bear trophies. 

Approval of the US proposal is critical to ensure that the bears’ long-term survival is not further jeopardized by an international market for polar bear parts that creates an incentive for unsustainable overharvest.  That is why NRDC is attending the 15th Conference of the Parties, to help give polar bears a fighting chance.  Polar bears desperately need the help; in 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey conservatively estimated that the total population of polar bears – today numbering from 20,000 to 25,000 – will decline by over 70 percent in the next 45 years as global warming literally melts their habitat.  Science-based estimates like these led the US to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2008.  Nonetheless, Canada still allows the killing of 300 polar bears a year for international trade and trophy hunting, despite evidence that over half of the polar bear populations in Canada may suffer from overharvest.  So I am here on the ground in Doha, on behalf of NRDC and its 1.2 million members and activists, to help convince the CITES parties to do the right thing – support greater protections for polar bears.

It is going to be a tough fight.  Canada is firmly opposed to providing further protections under CITES, insisting, facts not withstanding, that it can adequately manage its populations.  But over the course of the conference, NRDC will do all it can to obtain better protections for polar bears.  I will report on that work as developments occur.  Stay tuned…

2010 State of the Birds Report Released Today – Confirms that Climate Change is a New and Serious Threat to Birds

Today the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Cornell Lab and many others released the second annual report letting us know how birds are doing in the United States. The report focused on impacts of climate change and it is no surprise that these are already being felt in every habitat. But the harm is especially seen among birds that cannot easily move as the climate in their ecosystem changes. For example, birds that live on islands, such as Hawaiian birds, are facing multiple threats including from disease and invasive species as their native habitat’s climate changes. Just last year, an article in Science Daily, reported that climate change had already caused reduction of Hawaiian bird species such as the honeycreeper through disease. Earlier this week, two Hawaiian honeycreeper birds, the akeke’e and the akikiki  were added to the U.S. endangered species list.  

Climate change is already changing the timing of birds’ life cycles. The impact of climate change on the distribution and abundance of many species is already widespread and even greater changes are predicted for the future. Many seasonal biological phenomena such as plant growth, flowering, animal reproduction and migration depend on the temperature. As the globe warms, birds will shift both their ranges and their densities. Different birds will change in various ways in reaction to climate change and that will cause a restructuring of communities and of critical predator-prey interactions. Approximately 11 percent of the world’s bird species are at risk and as many as 200 of these may disappear in the next 20 years.

Join NRDC's new social networking site for bird-enthusiasts www.welovebirds.org and share your photos and birding stories.

Protecting Tennessee From Mountaintop Coal Mining

As we study the universe, sending telescopes into other solar systems and far off galaxies, one thing has become abundantly clear: perhaps the rarest phenomenon in the universe is organic life.

To date, despite all our intergalactic travel and research, we have established that living organisms exist only in the biosphere surrounding just one planet, our Earth. The biosphere, the very narrow band that contains all the known life in the universe, is tiny, stretching from about three miles up, to the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, to about two miles down, to the depths of the oceans. Yup, that’s it: the biosphere, three miles up, two miles down.  That is the only location we know of in the universe where life exists. If we were to find a life form, even one as tiny as bacteria or a virus, on another planet or moon, it would be front page news. Life is indeed a rare thing. 

Our daunting task in the 21st century is the preservation of the functional integrity of the biosphere, on which all life depends.  And yet, to date, humanity’s chief interest in the biosphere has been to maximize the plunder of its great store of natural resources. Humanity has instigated unprecedented rates of ecological damage at a global scale. And although humanity adds up to a small share of the Earth’s total living matter, we have been responsible for all the damaging changes to all forms of life within the biosphere.

Yesterday, that fact, the extraordinary rarity of life, the urgency to protect every remaining creature that lives within our biosphere, kept running through my chattering mind over and over while I attended two hearings in the Tennessee state legislature.

Both hearings, one in the Tennessee Senate and one in the House, addressed bills designed to limit mountaintop removal coal mining (MTR) in the state, and both hearings brought into sharp relief how hard it is to tackle this ecological and cultural calamity.

The legislation being considered by the Tennessee legislature is simple and modest in scope: Each bill would merely prohibit surface mining on mountain ridgelines in Tennessee above 2,000 feet high. Not all of the mountains in Tennessee at risk of being blown apart for mountaintop removal coal mining (or a linguistic variation of it known as “cross ridge mining”) are higher than 2,000 feet, so the legislation would not entirely end the threat of MTR in Tennessee. But the bills would provide meaningful ecological and public health value, limiting MTR to lower elevations, fewer steep slopes and heights less subject to landslides.

And the bills would protect the Cumberland Plateau from MTR. The Cumberland Plateau is one of the world’s great biological treasures and an NRDC BioGem.

Some of the most important and rare forms of life found in Tennessee’s biologically diverse forests enjoy the higher elevations of the Plateau. For example, the Cerulean Warbler likes those higher elevations on the Northern Plateau. (It munches on insects found on the underside of hardwood leaves, keeping trees healthy.) So does Swainson’s Warbler, the Louisiana Waterthrush, the Worm-Eating Warbler, the Wood Thrush, the Acadian Flycatcher and the Kentucky Warbler.

According the greatest authority on Cerulean Warblers, Melinda Welton, that bird is perhaps the single most threatened songbird in North America. Its population throughout the United States has dropped by 82 percent in the last forty years, 88 percent in Tennessee during that same period. Habitat degradation from deforestation and fragmentation are the principle causes of its decline. Still, the Northern Cumberland Plateau region in Tennessee continues to host the single largest concentration of Cerulean Warblers reported from anywhere within its range. (see http://www.welovebirds.org/)

Unfortunately for the Cerulean Warbler, the region it most depends on for survival is the region in Tennessee most coveted by coal mining companies for mountaintop removal coal mining. The Tennessee Valley Authority alone owns 55,000 acres in the Northern Cumberland Plateau area, on which it could mine coal. MTR coal mining is a prime cause of deforestation and forest fragmentation in Appalachia, precisely the type of threats that are wiping out the Cerulean Warbler and other forms of life in the southeast United States. But perhaps there is room for hope: Some of the Northern Cumberland Plateau area is above 2,000 feet in elevation, and there are two bills in the Tennessee legislature that would prohibit MTR coal mining at those elevations.

Perhaps my thoughts about the uniqueness of life kept wafting through my mind because of a meeting I had earlier yesterday with the Reverend Ryan Bennett. Rev. Bennett, an elder in the United Methodist Church and pastor of the Bethlehem United Methodist Church in Franklin, Tennessee, was also attending the hearings because he belongs to a coalition of religious groups that support the bills to limit MTR in order to do what they can to protect God’s creation.

The Southern Baptist Church, the Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church have all taken official positions against mountaintop removal coal mining, the most destructive form of coal mining on Earth. Rev. Bennett was at the hearings yesterday with numerous other members of the Lindquist Environmental Appalachian Fellowship, (LEAF) a religious coalition committed to protecting “The Earth…and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it.” (Psalm 24:1)  LEAF is the prime backer of the legislation to stop MTR in Tennessee. LEAF’s Legislative Director, a charming church lady named Dawn Coppock, is the person most responsible for the progress of the MTR-limiting legislation in Tennessee.

The work of LEAF resonates strongly in me because my religion teaches that Nature reveals God. According to the Talmud, creation is not merely an act in the past. The processes of Nature represent the unceasing and ongoing creative power of the Divine. “Every hour He makes provision for all who come into the world according to their need. In His Grace He satisfies all creatures.” Every hour. Provision for all creatures. (Everyman’s Talmud, at P. 3.)

And the work of LEAF resonates in me as well because it is rational as well as spiritual, based on scientific fact as well as ethics.

Science is not just another opinion, and science tells us that there is no way to undertake MTR coal mining without causing irreparable harm and even death to many life forms, homo sapiens included.

So, along with church ladies and Reverends, also in attendance at the MTR hearings in Tennessee yesterday were scientists. Dr. Dennis Lemly, one of the world’s great authorities on selenium, testified powerfully about the effects that MTR has in causing selenium pollution: “Selenium from mountaintop removal mining poisons fish. Selenium threatens wildlife as well as fish. It bioaccumulates and threatens the entire food chain. The impacts are pervasive and irreversible.”

Selenium is a naturally occurring element in coal. It leaches from coal, from mining spoils and from valley fills. It leaches through waste rock. According to Dr. Lemly, “There is no way you can do MTR without selenium contamination. Selenium pollution will increase if MTR increases. Tennessee is facing a very serious situation with regard to water pollution and dead fish due to selenium poisoning.”

Last year, Tennessee enacted a law that would keep mines 100 feet from water bodies. According to Dr. Lemly, that was a “token effort” not likely to offer meaningful protection. “Fish are being poisoned from MTR sites as far as 13 miles away from the mine site. MTR sites in Tennessee are ticking time bombs and four have been allowed to explode.”

I remember my first visit to the Zeb Mountain MTR site in northern Tennessee. It was many years ago, when the mine had just begun. First I flew over it, and then visited it by car. Within ten minutes of my arrival at the gate to the mine, where I thought I was alone with my local guide, a local sheriff arrived who made it clear that he didn’t appreciate my effort to view the site. The waters running off the mine were acidic, nothing seemed alive in them. The rocks in the streams were orange and red, with ferrous and other elements leaching out due to the acidic quality of the water. According to Dr. Lemly, “A time bomb has exploded on Zeb Mountain. Selenium pollution has started and it will not stop. Things are in bad shape on Zeb Mountain. There are extremely high levels of selenium pollution that will lead to reproductive failure in fish populations, the situation is grim. Groundwater is also at risk and will affect human health.”

Photo of Zeb Mountain, United Mountain Defense

Other pollutants besides selenium that are released because of MTR coal mining include mercury, lead, arsenic, nickel, copper, and zinc.

The good news for Tennessee is that information from mining in other states provides a useful toxicological data base that can be used to protect against repeating the same mistakes in Tennessee. Says Dr. Lemly, “The information about mining in other areas is there. Look at West Virginia, at Kentucky. Don’t ignore that. The poisoning from MTR is inevitable and inescapable. Water quality will be gone and it will not come back. Out west selenium is still discharging from closed mines that were started 100 years ago. It doesn’t stop. I don’t know how we can ignore the science.”

According to Dr. Lemly, the selenium levels at Zeb Mountain are 40 times higher than the tolerable toxicity threshold in fish. “And I don’t mean fish no one cares about, I’m talking about the major fish species, largemouth bass, blue gills, the kind you and I like to fish for.” Selenium pollution of water resources near Zeb Mountain are 20 times higher than the level at which we expect to see reproductive failure, and 8 times higher than the toxicity level at which we would expect to see the collapse of the entire fish population. According to Dr. Lemly: “I think there is a high probability that the homes around Zeb Mountain have water quality problems.”

Another professor, Dr. Orie Louks, testified at the hearings about the effects of MTR on forest productivity. According to Dr. Louks, “Forest productivity collapses post-MTR. It is very difficult to reestablish trees post MTR. Trying to do so, to restore the land, would put coal operators out of business.” Scientists estimate that post MTR forests will not recover for 10,000 years.

Sometimes, enacting environmental regulations can challenge an industry. But in this case putting MTR coal operators out of business would be a good thing for the economy. According to Dr. Louks: “MTR takes away forest-based jobs and takes away underground mining jobs.” In Tennessee, there are less than 400 jobs in the surface mining industry. By contrast, tourism produces $14 billion worth of economic activity in the state and tens of thousands of jobs.

As I sat in the Tennessee Legislature’s hearing room, I thought of the diverse interests aligned that day against MTR: evangelical and other religious groups, scientists, and those interested in protecting the much more lucrative—and clean--tourism industry from the ravages of MTR coal mining. Religious groups, scientists, business interests, all aligned against MTR.

And yet, as I met after the hearings with a senior Tennessee government official, I was told there was probably no way that the bills under consideration to limit MTR coal mining in Tennessee would pass. “The coal companies own them. They finance their campaigns.” was what I was told, in reference to the Tennessee state legislators unmoved by the compelling ethics, the peer-reviewed science and the community economics aligned against MTR coal mining.

One might reasonably think that a pro-business coalition of religious groups and scientists might prevail in limiting MTR in Tennessee to “only” those mountains lower than 2,000 feet. And yet, I’m told the odds are slim for passage. We’ll see. The story isn’t over, not yet. After all, only God should move mountains, and sometimes, He does.

Idaho and Montana step up their efforts to reduce wolves

Although wolf hunting season is not yet closed in certain areas of the west, both Idaho and Montana are setting their sights on new ways to reduce their wolf populations.  Last week, Matt pointed to a resolution by Idaho’s legislature to declare a state emergency allowing for the reduction of wolves.  Over the weekend two more articles came out that highlight the states’ ability to reduce wolf numbers through a variety of means.

An article in the Helena Independent Record reports that Montana is making it easier to kill wolves through the use of Wildlife Services – a federal agency that already has wide discretion to kill wolves and other predators for the benefit of the livestock industry.  Wildlife Services will no longer need to receive permission from Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks division to kill wolves in the vicinity of confirmed livestock depredation sites.  Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks director also said he expects hunting quotas to increase next season as another way to lower the wolf population.

The Idaho Statesman is similarly reporting that Idaho plans on increasing their “management tools” to reduce their state’s number of wolves.  Unsatisfied with the results of this year’s hunt, Idaho’s Fish and Game director is proposing to increase harvest limits, issue multiple tags and allow trapping of wolves. 

These news stories aren’t exactly a surprise to us.  Central to our concerns over delisting is the latitude that the states have to reduce their wolf populations to well below current levels – levels that don’t get us to a recovered population.  As we have pointed out, due to outdated recovery plans that call for only around 300 wolves in the three state region of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, these states have little motivation to maintain more than a couple hundred of wolves – far fewer than the thousands of wolves that more recent science says is necessary for a viable population in the long term. 

In fact, these stories help illustrate exactly why we are in court to challenge the removal of endangered species protections from these wolves.  This season’s hunts stopped the wolf population from growing for the first time since reintroduction.  And as the hunts come to a close later this month, it is all too clear that this was just the beginning of the states' plans for wolves in the Rocky Mountains.

Image: Gray wolf in Yellowstone National Park, shared by SigmaEye via Flickr.