The fox, considered one of the rarest mammals in the United States, weighs about ten pounds, measures just over two feet, and generally lives only above an elevation of 7,000 feet. The current distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox is believed to be restricted to two small populations: one in the vicinity of Lassen Peak and the other in the vicinity of Sonora Pass.  In 1980, the California Fish and Game Commission listed the species as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act.

Historically, the Sierra Nevada red fox occupied high-elevation areas of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges in California, ranging from Tulare County north to Sierra County, and from the vicinity of Lassen Peak and Mt. Shasta west to the Trinity Mountains in Trinity County. A recent study indicates that this range also included the southern Cascade mountain range in Oregon, as far north as the Columbia River.

Scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this subspecies must be received on or before March 5, 2012. Based on the status review, the Service will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the listing is warranted.

NOAA has twice authorized lethal removal of California sea lions in this area.  In 2010, a lawsuit filed by the Humane Society stopped the program briefly (see NMFS Suspends Lethal Removal of Sea Lions in Oregon and Washington).  When the program resumed, the Humane Society filed a second lawsuit, halting the sea lion removal again.

NOAA expects to make a decision by March 2012 on whether to grant a new permit.

In April 2010, the Service issued a finding that concluded the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Mohave ground squirrel may be warranted; however, after review of the available scientific and commercial information on the species, the Service has now concluded there are no substantial threats to the Mohave ground squirrel throughout its range. 

The Mohave ground squirrel is found in desert scrub communities and Joshua tree woodlands in the Mojave Desert in portions of Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties.

The Service has opened a 60-day comment period seeking data and comments from the public on the proposed listing and whether designation of critical habitat for the Franciscan manzanita is prudent or determinable.  At this time, the Service believes that critical habitat is not determinable due to a lack of knowledge of what physical and biological features are essential to the conservation of the species, or what other areas outside the site that is currently occupied may be essential for the conservation of the species.

The 60-day comment period closes November 7, 2011.  According to the Service, comments may be submitted by accessing the following website: http://www.regulations.gov.  In the Keywords box, enter Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0049 and follow the instructions for submitting comments. 

The proposed rule is the result of a lawsuit filed against the Service by the Center for Biological Diversity challenging the final critical habitat designation for the plant in 2005.  At that time, the Service designated zero acres of critical habitat because it found that all habitat with essential features was located within areas to be conserved and managed by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan ("MSHCP/NCCP") or was within areas conserved within the Coachella Valley Preserve System under the Coachella Valley fringe-toed HCP.

For similar reasons, the Service is again considering excluding from the proposed designation over 18,446 acres of land covered by the MSHCP/NCCP, the City of Desert Hot Springs, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians.  It reasons that "the land managers sufficiently provide conservation for the plant; exclusion will encourage the continuation and strengthening of cooperative partnerships; or areas subject to the implementation of management plans provides equal to or more conservation than the designation of critical habitat would provide.”

Habitat components essential to the plant’s long-term survival include sands from transport channels/corridors and deposition sites.  Unoccupied stream channels within drainage systems provide for water transported sands essential for the conservation of the plant.

Comments and information on the proposed revision can be submitted electronically beginning on August 25, 2011 and must be received by October 24, 2011.

The Hawaiian Monk Seal was listed (pdf) as endangered throughout its range under the ESA in 1976.  In 1986, critical habitat for the species was designated at all beach areas, sand splits and inlets, including all beach crest vegetation to its deepest extent inland, lagoon waters, inner reef waters, and ocean waters out to a depth of 18.3 meters around Kure Atoll, Midway Islands (except Sand Island), Pearl and Hermes Reef, Lisiankski Island, Laysan Island, Gardner Pinnacles, French Frigate Shoals, Necker Island, and Nihoa Island.  In 1988, critical habitat was expanded to include Maro Reef and waters around previously designated areas out to the 36.6 meter isobath. 

Comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than August 31, 2011.

In March 2005, the California Fish and Game Commission listed the Coho as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).  Therefore, the taking of Coho is illegal without authorization from DFG.

Petitioners in this case included two fishing interest organizations, a Native American tribal group from the watershed area, and four environmental organizations. The court enjoined DFG from implementing the Program because it found that the watershed-wide Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CESA were inadequate due to faulty environmental baselines based on already-occurring illegal takes and deferred formulation of specific mitigation measures that would fully mitigate take, as required by CESA. The court also held that DFG abused its discretion by failing to field comments on any analysis of whether issuance of the ITPs would jeopardize the continued existence of the species because no additional environmental review would be required for approval of any future ITP provided it complied with the EIRs. Finally, because of the foregoing flaws in the EIRs, the court held that there was not substantial evidence to support a “no jeopardy” determination for the ITPs that have already issued. Accordingly, the court instructed DFG to set aside certification of the Program’s EIRs and any permits issued under the Program. 

While the court noted the hardship on farmers of the Coho's listing under CESA, some of whom have been diverting water independent of DFG oversight before and after Coho were listed as threatened, it concluded by stating that the Program as designed offers the incentive of reducing permitting costs in order to induce greater participation.  As such, CEQA requires analysis of the foreseeable increase of ITPs under the Program while CESA requires full mitigation of the increased take that naturally follows an ITP.

The beluga whale is a northern hemisphere species that inhabits fjords, estuaries, and shallow waters of the Arctic and subarctic oceans. The Cook Inlet population is numerically the smallest of five distinct stocks recognized in Alaska. The Cook Inlet borders the City of Anchorage and is the most populated and fastest-growing watershed in Alaska.  The final rule announcing the species’ critical habitat will become effective on May 11, 2011.

The Fish and Wildlife Service, proposed (PDF) today to designate critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  In addition, because of a taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua leopard frog, the Service is reassessing the status of and threats to the species.

The Service proposed designation of approximately 11,136 acres as critical habitat (PDF) for the species.  The proposed critical habitat is located in Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona; and Catron, Hidalgo, Grant, Sierra, and Socorro Counties, New Mexico.

The species was first listed as threatened in 2002.  At that time, the Ramsey leopard frog, found on the eastern slopes of the Huachuca Mountains in Cochise County, was thought to be a unique species. The Service has since determined that the Ramsey leopard frog is taxonomically identical to the Chiricauhua leopard frog.  As a result, the Service is now reassessing the status of and threats to the species and proposing to continue its protection as threatened under the ESA.  The current listing includes a special rule to encourage owners of occupied ponds to routinely maintain their ponds. Today’s proposal retains that rule.

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the Chiricauhua leopard frog is threatened by predation from nonnative species, a fungal disease, and habitat degradation from livestock grazing, mining, stream diversions, groundwater pumping and loss of natural fire regimes.

The Service will consider comments on the proposed listing received or postmarked on or before May 16, 2011.
 

The mountain yellow-legged frog occurs in the southern Sierra Nevada and mountains of southern California. The species' habitat includes sunny riverbanks, meadow streams, isolated pools, and lake borders in the Sierra Nevada and rocky stream courses in southern California. Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service lists the southern California species as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA").  The northern variant is listed as a candidate species.

All comments on the state listing proposal must be received by DFG by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2011. The public will also have a 30-day comment period after issuance of the report in September.

The possible listing recommendation comes as the result of a February 2008 petition by the Center for Biological Diversity to list the walrus as threatened or endangered. 

Links to the relevant documents, including a map of the revised area, can be found on the Service’s website. The deadline to submit written comments is February 17, 2010. They may be submitted on-line at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044.  Comments may alternatively be submitted by mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:( FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044)Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. Faxes or email are not accepted.  Comments submitted previously do not need to be resubmitted.

The Service will publish the final rule by July 1, 2011.

The Plan/EA, prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other federal laws and regulations, evaluates the environmental impacts of three alternative management actions for reducing predation on the listed species: (1) no action; (2) integrated predator management (the proposed action), which includes live trapping of cats and humane euthanizing of other predators; and (3) lethal control only.  Successfully implementing the proposed action, particularly in the National Key Deer Refuge, which includes public lands intermixed with private residential and commercial areas, will require a collaborative public and private effort on adjacent lands by a diversity of land managers and stakeholders, including Monroe County, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, animal control service providers, animal advocacy groups, wildlife rescuers, environmental organizations, private landowners, and responsible pet owners. 

The Service has invited public comments on the Plan/EA through February 3, 2011. Written comments may be submitted by email to keydeer@dws.gov, fax to (305) 872-3675, or regular mail to Anne Morkill, Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge, 28950 Watson Blvd., Big Pine Key, Florida 33043.

Both the spikedace and the loach minnow are small fish that measure fewer than three inches in length. They inhabit shallow water in perennial streams. According to the Service, prolonged drought, anticipated effects of climate change, increasing abundance, and the expanding range of competitive and predatory nonnative fishes have increased the threat of extinction for both species. The proposed re-designation of critical habitat is the result of court challenges and a General Inspector audit of the 2007 rule. As for the reclassification, the Service had actually determined that listing the species as endangered was warranted in 1994, but reclassification was precluded by other higher priority listing actions.

The original listing rules, 2007 critical habitat rule, current habitat proposal, and recovery maps are available on the Service’s website. The public may submit comments on the proposed rule and relevant scientific and commercial information to the Service until December 27, 2010.
 

The final rule, which will become effective November 17, 2010, identifies 32 critical habitat units on 3,500 water body segments across five states.  Approximately 18,975 miles of streams and 488,252 acres of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Nevada are being designated as critical habitat for the species.  An additional 754 miles of marine shoreline are also being designated in Washington.  While critical habitat for bull trout applies only to waterways, the rule recognizes that associated flood plains, shorelines, riparian zones, and upland habitat are important to critical habitat areas and that activities in these areas may affect bull trout critical habitat as well.

When compared to the proposed rule issued by the Service in January, the designation shows a net reduction of approximately 12.5% of the streams, 8.5% of lakes, and 23.5% of marine shoreline habitat.  According to the Service, these changes reflect new biological information received during the comment period resulting in the addition of some habitats and the removal of others, and exclusion of specific areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on ongoing conservation measures, activities, agreements, and other factors.  For more information the proposed rule, see our earlier post. 

Bull trout are primarily threatened by habitat degredation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, the effects of climate change and past fisheries management practices.

The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2010.  For a YouTube video on the bull trout, click here.

This decision marks the conclusion of a seven year controversy between politicians and scientists that began when the Service removed the fish from the threatened species list, overruling Service biologists recommendation to the contrary.  Julie MacDonald, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Department of the Interior, was heavily involved in delisting the Sacramento splittail.  Later it was found that MacDonald owned an 80-acre farm in the splittail’s habitat, which has a range that centers on the San Francisco Estuary (see earlier post).

While biologists favored listing the Sacramento splittail as threatened in 2003, counting populations of the fish by using straight surveys, scientists now say that natural fluctuations of population numbers demonstrate a pattern of successful spawning during wet years followed by reduced spawning during dry years.  Further, the Service reports that a number of habitat restoration actions benefiting the splittail are underway including species enhancement conservation measures, creation of new seasonal floodplains, and new state fishing regulations limiting the take of splittail. The Sacramento splittail is also one of the species targeted for protection under the proposed multi-agency Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

Still, environmental groups are not happy with this decision, claiming the Service’s conclusions are “outrageous” and scientifically unjustified.  Some argue that the Service’s decision regarding the species is politically charged: "Including it on the list would add a layer of complication to an already dizzying set of issues in the Delta, where a biological collapse is putting pressure on water supplies statewide,” says Mike Taugher with the Contra Costa Times.  The Center for Biological Diversity has indicated it plans to take the Service to court to press for a reversal of the decision. 

The Service’s finding is expected to be published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2010.

While in both instances Carle intentionally veered off-course and drove his boat directly toward the humpback whales, inadvertent "ship strikes," as they are called, are not uncommon.  In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that ship strikes with large whales in Alaska appear to be increasing, which may be a result of an increasing population of humpback whales in the North Pacific.