Defenders of Wildlife Blog

Wetlands in Izembek National Wildlife Refuge (©USFWS)

Isabel Ricker, Landscape Conservation Coordinator

A few months ago we told you about an important milestone being reached in the battle to preserve the wilderness and wetland integrity of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. This occurred when the Fish and Wildlife Service released its final environmental impact statement (EIS) recommending against building a $30 million road through the refuge. When a federal agency issues a final EIS, it has to wait at least 30 days before it can finalize its recommendation and begin its implementation. When the Service issued the Izembek EIS, the final decision rested in the hands of then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, but he subsequently retired from office without resolving the dispute over the proposed Izembek road.

So where do things stand at this point with regards to that road? Despite having fallen off the political radar screen in recent weeks, the future of this incredible wildlife refuge remains as uncertain as ever. And for that we can thank Congressional politics playing out as usual.

The problem stemmed from Salazar’s retirement and the need for the Senate to confirm his proposed successor, Sally Jewell. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska threatened to block Jewell’s nomination unless the Department reversed the Service’s recommendation against the Izembek road. So at the last moment before a vote on her nomination, an unfortunate deal was struck by the Department which agreed to seek further public comment from the supporters of the road. The deal between Senator Murkowski and Interior will likely delay a final decision on Izembek for many months, but it does not bind or force the Department to ultimately approve the road. So the fate of Izembek now rests in Sally Jewell’s hands.

Many species of birds, especially the Pacific black brant, rely on Izembek’s protected habitat (©Ryan Hagerty/USFWS)

Izembek was established in 1960 to protect some of the most distinctive and important wetlands in the world, and is home to an abundance of wildlife, including 98% of the world’s population of Pacific black brant (a sea bird), as well as grizzly bear, caribou, and salmon. The proposed road would bisect refuge and designated wilderness lands in order to connect the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay, crossing sensitive wetlands as well as steep slopes prone to avalanches. Numerous studies – by the federal government, the state of Alaska and wildlife experts – have concluded since the 1980s that a road through Izembek would permanently and significantly damage the wilderness and wildlife habitat value of the refuge. Furthermore, the road would set a dangerous precedent of sacrificing our nation’s protected wilderness national wildlife refuges for indefensible development projects.

The damage from the road is not being exaggerated. In the final EIS for the project, which was released earlier this year, the Service determined that the road would require the construction of eight bridges, 19 culverts and 254 stream crossings. Despite this unambiguous assessment by the Service, proponents of the road continued to push for its approval, saying that the road is a public health necessity for King Cove. Ironically, the village of King Cove had previously been provided with a $9 million all-weather hovercraft to cross the bay in medical emergencies to the air strip at Cold Bay, but the community ultimately gave the hovercraft away.

The hovercraft that they no longer wanted was able to reach Cold Bay in 20 minutes in a medical emergency. By contrast, the proposed road would take more than two hours to travel, even in the best of weather conditions. The hovercraft had a 100% success rate with 30 medical evacuations, while the road would be impassable for much of the year due to frequent icing, high winds, blizzards and other inclement weather. Pete Mjos, the region’s former U.S. Public Health Service director, has said that attempting to travel on the proposed road during the region’s extreme winter storms would be “foolish beyond reason” and “would clearly jeopardize life.”

The Aighleen Pinnacles in Izembek NWR (©John Sarvis/USFWS)

The best estimates suggest that between past efforts to enhance medical services to King Cove and the construction of the proposed road, the final bill to the American taxpayer would be close to $75 million, an extraordinary expense in a time of federal budget austerity. Two weeks ago, Defenders of Wildlife CEO Jamie Rappaport Clark and former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post that details the decades-long history of King Cove’s pork-barrel projects and the environmental consequences of this road.

Secretary of the Interior Jewell will face many tough decisions in her new position, but the Izembek road should not be one of them. While Izembek may be politically challenging to decide, from an economic and environmental perspective, it is easy and self-evident – the road must be rejected. We urge the new secretary to make the right decision – the honest and responsible decision – and preserve this iconic wilderness wildlife refuge. Both American taxpayers and the Izembek wildlife will thank her.

Celebrate Earth Day with this beautiful video of our planet’s wild places and the amazing wildlife that call it home.

Want to do something extra this Earth Day?
Become a Defender, and help protect the Earth and its wildlife for future generations.
You can also adopt something WILD for Earth Day. For the rest of April, get 25% off all wildlife adoptions by using the promo code 25EARTHDAY at checkout. These make great gifts for wildlife lovers, or for yourself – and you’ll be doing your part for the planet by helping to protect real animals in the wild.

Originally published at TalkingFish.org

A pending decision on fishing for cod and other groundfish in New England has big implications for marine mammals including some of the most endangered animals in our waters, the North Atlantic right whale.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is weighing a proposal that would expand commercial fishing into some 5,000 sq. miles of protected waters inside what are known as “groundfish closed areas” along the New England coast. More than 100 scientists sent a letter warning NOAA that this is a bad move for fish. But that’s not all. Scientists and conservationists also raised red flags about the potential harm to right whales, humpback whales, and harbor porpoises if NOAA ends protection for the closed areas.

Right whale sightings are concentrated within many of the current closed areas. Opening them to commercial fishing could put whales at risk. (©TalkingFish.org)

Right whale sightings are concentrated within many of the current closed areas. Opening them to commercial fishing could put whales at risk. As this map shows, hundreds of right whale sightings have been documented in the closed areas.

“Opening these currently closed areas to fishing only increases the overall risk of entanglement for whales,” said Sierra Weaver, an attorney formerly with the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife.

Defenders joined the New England Aquarium, the Humane Society of the U.S. and other groups in a letter to NOAA. The letter explains that fishing vessels are already accidentally killing too many of the area’s two most endangered species of large whale, the right and humpback whales. And allowing commercial fishing in areas that have been safe harbor for these animals will only make matters worse.

“With only about 400 North Atlantic right whales left, every loss is a blow to this critically endangered population,” Weaver added.

The groundfish closed areas have been an important part of plans required by the federal arine Mammal Protection Act to minimize whale deaths due to fishing. The groups make clear in their letter that allowing commercial fishing in an area the size of Connecticut would change all the underlying assumptions in the plan regarding risk and rates of whale mortality. There is little indication that NOAA or the New England Fishery Management Council has sufficiently considered this.

A right whale calf swims under the chin of its mother. Researchers sighted the pair 13 miles off Amelia Island, FL on December 28, 2012.

Others wrote to remind officials about how important whales are to the coastal economy. Maine naturalist Zack Klyver said the company he works for, Bar Harbor Whale Watch Co., takes 50-60,000 passengers to see whales each year.

“These visitors have an exponential effect on the New England economy as they stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and pay for gas,” Klyver wrote in his letter. Maine’s tourism industry generated nearly $10 billion last year—more than the state’s fisheries, forestry and agriculture combined, Klyver wrote. And he included this tidbit: the Maine office of Tourism found that “whales” is among the top words people use to search the office’s website.

Many of the letters and comments to NOAA noted how little thought seems to have been given to the broad ranging effects of the decision on the closed areas, and how rushed the decision process seemed. One letter cited the old adage “haste makes waste.” In this case, a hasty decision could end up wasting the lives of animals we cannot afford to lose.

©Eyeliam/Flickr

Anderson Shepard, Conservation Planning Associate

Instead of wilderness and wildlife, could visitors to Glacier National Park soon be passing fields of wine grapes as they drive up to the gate? Not long ago, I helped author a study that suggests that by 2050, this could very well be the case. In the paper, titled “Climate Change, Wine, and Conservation” and published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), we looked at how rising temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns are affecting the delicate balance of temperature and moisture – the primary elements for growing high-quality wine grapes.

This map shows how the change in wine-producing country will overlap with wolf habitat. ©Anderson Shepard

Using climate models and an analysis of the current distribution, temperature and moisture requirements of high-quality wine grape varieties, we project that climate change will shrink the area suitable for wine production in some of the most famous wine-producing regions in the world, while opening up wine production in some unusual places. Alarmingly, we found that climate change could soon drive a massive expansion of agriculture into some of the most intact wildlife habitat in the U.S., impacting dozens of species.

Although I performed this research before coming to Defenders, its message is still wildlife-focused. Agriculture can be a huge driver of habitat loss and degradation, and Defenders has spent an enormous amount of time and energy advocating for policies and actions that would promote habitat conservation and coexistence between farmers, ranchers and wildlife, putting solutions in place to protect animals like bears and wolves. Climate change threatens to take this issue to a whole new level. Not only will it change the biophysical landscape and cause shifts in the existing natural assemblages of plants and animals, but, as this paper shows, it is expected to open a great deal of new land to agriculture, causing more natural areas to be developed and more wildlife habitat to be broken into pieces.

Canada lynx, ©Ken Curtis

The Northern Rockies is a region where we focus much of our work at Defenders. The region is flush with extensive tracts of wildlands, and it is the last remaining area in the Lower 48 that hosts a complete set of large carnivores – one of the few places you can find animals like bears, wolves, lynx and bobcats all together. Our study found that between 2000 and 2050, the land in the Northern Rockies suitable for viticulture (growing grapes for wine) will increase by more than 58 million acres. The next 50 years will likely be a trying period for species such as the Canada lynx, gray wolf and grizzly bear – these species are likely to see vineyards popping up all over their range over the next few decades. Wolves attempting to roam across long-established territory will find acres of it replaced with land that is useless to them. Bears, often captured or killed when caught taking advantage of orchards or other fruit crops, will be sorely tempted to wander into new vineyards looking for a meal, only to put themselves in danger. Combine that with the region’s continuing surge in development, and we see impacts on a scale that could dramatically alter these species’ ability to thrive in the region.

Grizzly bear, ©Michael S. Quinton, National Geographic stock

We could see these impacts on an even broader scale if the shift in lands suitable for vineyards also holds true for other agricultural crops. This could put even more species in danger, caught between a changing climate and the ever- expanding human footprint on the land. For the conservation community, the key is to spot these issues early on and help the relevant industries to plan carefully so that we can minimize the damage to wildlife. In fact, this is already happening in some regions where wine growers are working closely with conservationists to confront the environmental, cultural and economic challenges posed by a changing climate. It is up to individuals and organizations like us to ensure a future for wildlife despite the challenges of a changing climate.

You can read more on this study in The New York Times, CBS News and The Guardian.
You can also read the full report at PNAS.

Lisa Östberg, Southwest Florida Coexistence Coordinator

Last week, I had one of the best days of my life: after many years of working as a volunteer and now for Defenders as its Florida coexistence coordinator, I had the opportunity to witness a Florida panther being released into the wild!

©Tim Donovan/FWC

The panther was one of a pair of siblings orphaned back in 2011 when their mother was killed. They were taken to a special rehabilitation facility where they were allowed to grow to young adulthood with very little exposure to humans, and were taught to hunt and fend for themselves. The female of the pair was successfully released into the Picayune Strand State Forest a few weeks ago, and today the male was released into a very remote part of southwest Palm Beach County within the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area.

I have never definitively seen a panther in the wild, although I’ve been the first on site at one roadkill and witnessed the “cleanup” at another. Today’s experience was a world away – away from that sadness, away from roads, away from people. The young panther was released on public preserve lands rife with prey like deer and hogs, which should provide this young male with lots of food as he learns to make his way in the wild.

The release itself was over in almost a heartbeat: his crate was opened and for a few seconds we all waited in crazy suspense while he stayed tucked inside. But then, in an instant, he peeked out, looked to one side and then ran like crazy into the wind, and within a few seconds turned off the dirt road and into the woods.

Quite simply, the experience was magical: seeing the hope on everyone’s face as this young male headed out to make his future in the wild was really special, and I know we all hope that he, and Florida panthers in general, can continue to survive and thrive in the wild.

After just a moment’s hesitation, the panther takes off into the wild. (©Lisa Östberg)

Sea otters rest wrapped in kelp beds along the California coast (c) Bruce J. Lichenberger

The tax deadline is looming, but there’s still time for Californians to help make a difference for threatened sea otters by donating as little as $1 to the California Sea Otter Fund on their state tax forms.

Though they once numbered in the hundreds of thousands, today there are fewer than 2,800 sea otters along the California coast. And with continuous threats of being poisoned by oil spills or other pollution, these charismatic critters are struggling to make a comeback.

In these tough economic times, donations that go to provide vital research dedicated to helping sea otters survive are more important than ever. That’s why Defenders worked with California lawmakers to establish the California Sea Otter Fund, giving California taxpayers the opportunity to contribute to the recovery of these animals just by entering $1 or more on line 410 of their California state tax form.

Each year, the Franchise Tax Board sets a target amount that the program has to raise in order to be on the form again the following year. For the last six years Californians have dug deep and donated enough for the tax check-off to return. This year, the tax check off must raise $273,025 — so if you’re in California, as you finish filling out your tax forms this year don’t forget about our furry aquatic friends.

2012 was a better year than usual for California’s sea otters, with the spring census showing a slight increase in the total population for the first time in four years. In December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also officially abandoned their failed no-otter zone, allowing sea otters to expand their natural range to California’s southern waters without the threat of being moved back north across an invisible line in the Pacific Ocean. Between pollution and disease, sea otters still face many serious challenges, but with your help we can work to keep them on this path to recovery.

Click here to find out more on sea otter conservation and Defenders’ work with the California Tax Check-off.

Not in California? You can still help save sea otters by adopting one of these marvelous marine mammals. Not only will you be sharing your appreciation for this imperiled species, but you’ll also be helping to support Defenders’ work on their behalf. Click here to visit our Wildlife Adoption Center.