Conservation Groups Sue Over Lynx Meddling
By Michael Jamison, The Missoulian
August 13, 2007

KALISPELL - Political meddling trumped sound science, a scandal resulting in reduced protection for endangered species throughout the nation, and a broad coalition now wants government to reverse what it charges are tainted decisions.

This week, Montana-based Friends of the Wild Swan joined 20 other conservation groups from Maine to Washington threatening to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if the agency does not fully revoke and review federal actions related to the Canada lynx.

In 2000, the lynx was listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, and FWS began collecting data to determine how much “critical habitat” to designate. Critical habitat is an additional layer of protection for animals listed under ESA, a way to focus in on the areas most important to those species.

The original plan was to designate some 18,000 square miles as critical for lynx - a mix of federal, state, tribal and private forest lands where habitat could not be degraded.

But four days before that announcement was to be made, the protected area was slashed to just 1,841 square miles, all within three national parks.

In limiting critical habitat to Glacier, Voyageurs and North Cascades national parks, Arlene Montgomery said, FWS tried to meet its legal obligation while at the same time maintaining the status quo and ensuring that no additional burdens would be placed upon industry's use of public lands.

In fact, FWS brass now are reviewing that scientific decision, acknowledging it might have been influenced by improper political interference. But Montgomery, of Friends of the Wild Swan, says an internal review is not good enough.

She and others gave notice Wednesday that they will sue unless the agency fully reverses its earlier decision and conducts a critical habitat review that is open to public scrutiny.

“They need to do this right,” Montgomery said. “They need to do this in the light of day.”

That transparency is exactly what was missing the first time around, she said.

Last month, FWS officials issued a release saying they had decided to review the lynx ruling and seven others “after questions were raised about the integrity of the scientific information used, and whether the decisions made were consistent with appropriate legal standards.”

The decisions in question were overseen by former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald, who resigned May 1, the agency said.

MacDonald stepped down after an Inspector General's report concluded she had acted in a potentially unethical manner, including bullying, insulting and harassing FWS scientists “to change documents and alter biological reporting regarding the endangered species program.”

“The problem,” agency spokeswoman Valerie Fellows said, “is Julie changed the science that went into making those decisions.”

The solution, she said, is to pore over the actions, which means an initial internal review.

“We are trying to be as open as possible now,” Fellows said. The FWS Web site even includes links to internal memos relative to the MacDonald scandal, Fellows said, part of an attempt to “re-establish trust with the public. It's our intent to be as transparent as possible.”

But for now, she said, the review of what to do with the lynx decision must remain internal, threats of lawsuit notwithstanding. If evidence is found of politics hijacking science, then a more public process will begin.

“We need this internal review to determine whether we should start back at square one,” Fellows said. “We need to go back through it all and find out how much involvement Julie had with the lynx.”

A FWS statement indicates MacDonald's influence may have resulted in several scientifically questionable actions, including limiting the size of protected areas, in some cases to just one acre per species. She also proposed delisting species not considered recovered, and changed from “substantial” to “non-substantial” the evidence for protecting some animals.

With regard to lynx, Montgomery said, FWS ruled it would exclude all state, tribal, Forest Service, Bureau of Land management and private land from the critical habitat designation, and would include only a fraction of the three national parks.

Officials at FWS say they are reviewing that action “because the final decision may have been changed in a manner that does not comport with the best available science or the appropriate legal standard.”

“Of course it doesn't,” Montgomery said. “It was a political decision made on behalf of industry.”

In their notice of intent to sue FWS, the coalition writes that “indeed, it is clear that in crafting the critical habitat designation for the lynx, the Service, in particular through the actions of former Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald, placed political considerations ahead of the biological needs of the lynx.”

In reducing the critical habitat from 18,000 square miles to 1,841 square miles, plaintiffs wrote, FWS illegally excluded much of the species' primary range.

That change, they argue, is substantial enough that it should trigger a full public review and reconsideration., not simply an internal FWS review.

“This whole thing has been a real mess, right from the beginning,” Montgomery said. “Who knows what all happened behind closed doors. All we want them to do now is to open those doors and let the public see the process firsthand.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and as defined under the provisions of "fair use", any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment for non-profit research and for educational use by our membership.