Without A NetTop Ten Wildlife, Fish and Plants in Need of Endangered Species Act Protection

Introduction

The United States is unique in its commitment to protect wildlife. In 1973, forward-thinking politicians passed the Endangered Species Act. With this law, we made a promise to protect wildlife, plants and fish on the brink of extinction. We pledged that these species would not go extinct on our watch.

But, the only way that the law protects species from extinction, is if they are first recognized as threatened or endangered and officially placed on the endangered species list. Without this official recognition, even species in grave danger of extinction will receive little federal protection. Therefore, the “listing program” is absolutely crucial in implementing the Endangered Species Act.

Unfortunately, the listing program is broken. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is greatly under-funded and under-staffed. Agency supervisors tell scientists not to list a species, unless they are sued. And, as a result species languish on “the candidate list” or do not even make it that far. Candidate list species are species that FWS officially determined are in danger of extinction, but are not being placed on the endangered species list due to lack of funding or other reasons. According to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), delays such as lengthy waits on the candidate list—and by lengthy, we mean more than ten years—have contributed to the extinction of 42 species between 1974 and 1994.

The lack of listings has come to a head under George W. Bush. CBD reports that the Clinton administration placed 65 species per year on the endangered list, Bush Sr. averaged 59 species per year, and Reagan 32 species per year. And then came George W. Bush. His administration virtually closed its doors on the listing program, holding the worst listing record of any administration in the Act’s 35-year history—only 62 species. In 2008, under court order, the Bush administration listed the polar bear, and it began the listing evaluation of 45 Hawaiian plants, two birds and one insect. However, George W. Bush will leave office with an average of only a measly 8 listings per year!

To add insult to injury, a senior political appointee, Julie MacDonald, bullied scientists and changed their decisions on listings for political reasons. When taking measures to protect species, the law allows the consideration of things such as social and economic impacts, except when listing a species. When determining whether a species should be listed, only the science is allowed to be taken into consideration. That didn’t happen with the Bush administration, and MacDonald resigned under a cloud of controversy.

Today, timely listing of species is more needed than ever. Scientists predict that climate change may drive up to 30% of species to be faced with extinction. Therefore, we cannot afford to have our federal agencies simply ignore the law and abrogate their duties. We need proactive steps to protect species with a fully funded and staffed FWS.

The Obama administration has its work cut out for it. The challenges to protecting species in today’s world are certainly great. But, the Endangered Species Act provides a flexible and effective framework for doing just that, if implemented properly. And, the first step is to actually list species.

We hope that you find this report illuminating. And, we hope that you’ll join us in doing all that you can to protect our country’s treasure trove of magnificent wildlife and wild lands.

December, 2008

Leda HutaExecutive Director

www.StopExtinction.org

About the Without a Net Report

The Endangered Species Coalition is a membership organization with more than 400 conservation, scientific, faith, fishing, sportsmen, business, and community groups. These organizations have a deep and thorough understanding of the species and habitats that they work to protect. As a result when compiling this report, we turned to them. The Endangered Species Coalition issued a call for nominations from our member organizations for species that should be placed on the endangered species list.

We received nominations for more than 60 species. (Please see the list of additional nominated species on page 16). We then gathered together key scientific and policy experts on endangered species protections to judge the nominations.

In the end, choosing ten species was impossible. Therefore, we have ten species plus three honorable mentions. We considered factors such as remaining population size, immediacy of the threat, indicator species status, and greatest potential to benefit from being placed on the list. In truth, each of the submissions deserved to be on the endangered species list. As such, we chose ten plus three species here that can serve as ambassadors for all of the candidate species and other species in need. The stories of the species detailed in this report are a good reflection of the challenges the wildlife, plants and fish on the brink of extinction are facing today.

Though the judges’ assistance has been invaluable with creating this report, the policy conclusions discussed below do not necessarily reflect the judges’ opinions. These conclusions were developed through other Coalition processes and meant to represent here only the view of the Endangered Species Coalition.

Acknowledgments

I have been honored to be a part of this report, which represents the efforts of dozens of individuals. I would like to extend my gratitude to the organizations across the country—listed in the species profiles and in “Additional Nominations” on page 16—that nominated a species. In addition, I would like to thank the judges who gave thoughtful consideration to each species to make an impossible determination for the top 10. I would also like to thank Noah Greenwald, Biodiversity Director for the Conservation of Biological Diversity for his thorough and careful editing of the report, as well as Sarah Matsumoto, our Deputy Director for her review of the report. And, lastly, I’d like to thank Jon Hunter, our Policy Director for shepherding us through this process and putting the report together so elegantly.

Executive Director

Judges

Greg Butcher is the Director of Bird Conservation for the National Audubon Society. He has a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Washington. He has previously served as Director of Bird Population Studies at Cornell University’s Laboratory of Ornithology and is an elective member of the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU).

Jamie Rappaport Clark is a wildlife biologist and has been the Executive Vice President of Defenders of Wildlife since 2004. She was the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1997 to 2001 and served as the head of the Service’s endangered species program before becoming director.

Brock Evans is President of the Endangered Species Coalition. Prior to assuming leadership with ESC, he served as Vice President for National Issues for National Audubon Society for 15 years. He earlier served as Director of the Sierra Club’s Washington DC Office and as the Club’s Northwest Representative.

John Fitzgerald is Policy Director for the Society of Conservation Biology. Previously he was Counsel to a U.S. House Subcommittee, Legislative Aid to a Member of Congress serving on a committee that reauthorized the ESA, Chief Counsel at Defenders of Wildlife, an Environmental Analyst in the US Agency for International Development and has represented other ESC members as well.

Elizabeth Griffin is a Marine Wildlife Scientist based out of Oceana’s Washington, D.C. office. She received a master’s degree in Environmental Management, with a concentration in Coastal Environmental Management, from Duke University in 2003. She works extensively on science and policy issues related to marine mammals, sea turtles and sharks.

Jan Randall is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University. She has a B.S. in zoology, University of Idaho, M.Ed. University of Washington, Seattle, and a Ph.D. in zoology from Washington State University. She is also a board member of the Endangered Species Coalition.

Joe Scott is the International Programs Director at Conservation Northwest, a Washington State based conservation non-profit with 7,000 members that focuses on ecosystem protection in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. He is also a board member of the Endangered Species Coalition.

Bill Snape is Senior Counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, Chairman Emeritus of the board of the Endangered Species Coalition, practitioner in residence at American University Law School, and the head swim coach at Gallaudet University. He has been working on environmental advocacy issues for twenty years.

Cover Credits: Walrus: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Red knot: Delaware Riverkeeper Network; Wolverine: Daniel J. Cox/NaturalExposures.com; Gunnison Sage-grouse: Bureau of Land Management; Fluvial Arctic Grayling: Matt Fischer; Island Marble Butterfly: James Miskelly; Boreal Toad: Colorado Division of Wildlife; Mason’s Skypilot: Nevada Native Plant Society; Wood Turtle: Steve Krichbaum.

Pacific Walrus Odobenus rosmarus

At a Glance

Pacific walruses are one of the largest sea mammals. Adult males average over 2,700 lbs in weight and 10.5 feet in length. Both males and females have large tusks and squarish snout.

Range: Bering and Chukchi Seas, coasts of Alaska and SiberiaHabitat Type: Arctic Marine EcosystemPrimary Diet: Clams and other invertebratesEstimated Population: Currently unknown

Nominating Organization

Center for Biological Diversity

Captain Budd Christman, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The Pacific walrus relies on Arctic sea ice throughout the year for breeding, nursing calves, traveling and resting between dives for food. The rapid loss of sea ice due to global warming greatly threatens the survival of the Pacific walrus. Arctic summer sea ice is predicted to disappear completely by 2030 or before, and 40 percent of winter sea ice in the Bering Sea may be lost by mid-century if current greenhouse gas emissions continue.

Why Protection is NeededGlobal Warming – The rapid loss of sea ice from global warming is profoundly affecting walruses. Two examples of these impacts are:

Restricted feeding – Females and young walruses rely on summer sea ice as a safe haven for • resting between dives for clams and mussels in the shallow waters of the Chukchi Sea where their food is abundant. As global warming causes summer ice to retreat farther and farther north, walrus moms and calves are left without sea-ice resting platforms over their feeding grounds, forcing them to abandon their foraging areas and haul out on shore. On-shore risks – The disappearing ice causes walruses to concentrate in abnormally large • numbers on shorelines in summer when females and young walruses are forced to come to land. On shorelines, which are typically used only by male walruses, young walruses face significant threats from predators, human disturbance, and being trampled by other walruses. When spooked by a polar bear or human, walruses will stampede for the water and large, male walruses can easily crush smaller walruses. In 2007, 3,000 to 4,000 walrus, mostly calves, were trampled to death along the Chukotka, Russia coast alone.

In addition, Pacific walruses face growing threats from ocean acidification, which threatens to reduce their food supply, and oil and gas development which heightens the risk of oil spills and increases industrial noise pollution and harassment from ships and aircraft.

Additional InformationCenter for Biological Diversity petitioned in February of 2008 to protect the Pacific walrus under the Endangered Species Act. The petition is still pending.

States with Current Habitat

Red Knot rufa Calidris canutus rufa

At a Glance

The red knot makes one of the longest yearly migrations of any bird, traveling on average 9,300 miles from its Arctic breeding grounds to southern South America.

Range: Winter in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, as well as Argentina, Brazil and Chile. Critical stopover during Spring migration along Delaware Bay. Summer in Canadian Arctic. Fall migration utilizes coasts from New Jersey to Maine.Habitat Type: Coastal shorelineDiet: Horseshoe crab eggs, while in Delaware Bay. Diet elsewhere includes bi-valves and invertebrates. Estimated Population: Less than 18,500.

Nominating Organizations

Delaware Riverkeeper Network, American Bird Conservancy, American

Littoral Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Delaware Audubon,

Delaware Nature Society, Delmarva

Ornithological Society, New Jersey Audubon

Society

Red Knot rufa that was banded, measured and released on May 30, 2008 at Moores Beach, NJ Faith Zerbe, Delaware Riverkeeper Network

The rufa population of Red Knots relies on horseshoe crab eggs in Delaware Bay during the spring migration north. There, in two to three weeks, the rufas must increase their weight by 50 to 100 percent by feeding on as many as 24,000 eggs a day. This weight gain is vital to their ability to finish the migration to the Canadian Arctic and successfully breed. However, the overharvesting of horseshoe crabs for the commercial bait industry has diminished this vital food supply for the Red Knot and other shorebirds that rely on crab eggs. Additional threats to the Red Knot includes habitat loss due to development in wintering areas and possibly global warming impacts to its arctic breeding grounds, but scientific studies clearly show that their weight gain during their migration in and around the Delaware Bay is the key factor to their success or failure.

Why Protection is NeededSince 1985, there has been a 75% decline in the rufa Red Knot population. Between 100,000 and 150,000 Red Knot rufa used to stop along Delaware Bay each year during their migration north. In 2008, only 15,395 were recorded during the peak count. While some Red Knots winter in the southern United States, others migrate from as far away as the southern end of South America. The two to three week stopover in Delaware Bay each spring is critical to the Red Knot’s ability to finish the migration north to its Canadian Arctic breeding grounds and to successfully reproduce.

Populations of horseshoe crabs in Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia all influence the number of crabs spawning in Delaware Bay during the spring migration. During the 1990s, the horseshoe crab became an increasingly popular as commercial fishing bait until the dramatic decline in population prompted the need for increased management efforts. While harvests have been reduced in some states, the population count remains low. Consequently, the availability of eggs during the Red Knot’s migration remains limited.

Additional InformationAt least three petitions in the past have been submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the rufa population under the Endangered Species Act. While acknowledging the declining population, FWS determined that listing was “warranted but precluded” by higher priorities. In December of 2008, FWS elevated the status of the rufa on the Candidate Species List to a level three - the highest level possible for a subpopulation - with the recognition that the threat from low horseshoe crab populations is ongoing and therefore the danger of extinction is imminent.

States with Current Habitat

Wolverine Gulo gulo

At a Glance

The wolverine is known for its incredible strength and intelligence. The bear-like member of the weasel family is adapted for survival in harsh winter conditions and deep snow.

Range: Northern Rockies and Northern Cascades, Alaska and CanadaHabitat Type: High-elevation habitats at and around treeline.Diet: Carrion, small animals and birds, berries and insects.Estimated Population (in contiguous US): Fewer than 500 in the northern Rockies; an unknown, small number in the Cascades. The “effective population” size – those that breed and contribute to the gene pool – is estimated to be fewer than 50.

Nominating Organization

Defenders of Wildlife

Daniel J. Cox/NaturalExposures.com

Wolverines in the lower 48 states are threatened by the low number of individuals contributing to their genetic diversity, as well as the low overall population number; relative isolation from populations in Canada; global warming (which reduces the snow pack wolverines rely on for den sites); winter recreation in denning areas; and trapping in Montana.

Why Protection is NeededLow populations - The lower 48 population of wolverines is reduced to a perilously low number. Their breeding population is estimated at fewer than 50 individuals. Compounding the problem, wolverines in the western U.S. are segmented into subpopulations effectively separated by low valleys, altered land uses or other obstacles. This has resulted in decreased genetic exchange and decreased ability for self-sustaining populations or repopulation of areas that may be suitable for recovery, such as the Southern Rockies and Sierra Nevada. Global warming - Wolverines rely on snow packs that last into late spring to successfully raise young kits. Global warming is resulting in a loss of springtime snow pack and this loss may accelerate. The result may be further isolation of different populations as the vital alpine habitat becomes restricted more and more to higher elevations.

Human disturbances and trapping - Resource extraction, roads, winter recreation (such as snowmobiling and helicopter skiing) and other disturbances near denning sites may negatively impact the ability of wolverines to reproduce. In addition, Montana continues to maintain an annual trapping season for wolverines, despite their low population number and the risk it poses to maintaining a self-sustaining population.

Additional InformationIn March, 2008 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) refused a petition to list wolverines in the contiguous 48 states as endangered, despite their own recognition that the wolverines in the Northern Rockies and Cascades are facing serious threats. FWS used a controversial interpretation of the Endangered Species Act to justify its decision, declaring the species safe due to larger populations in Canada and Alaska. If this interpretation had been used throughout the Act’s 35 years as law, species such as the Bald Eagle would likely never have recovered in the lower 48. In September 2008, a group of ten conservation organizations filed suit to challenge the FWS’ decision not to protect wolverines in the lower 48.

States with Current Habitat

Gunnison Sage-grouse Centrocercus minimus

At a Glance

The Gunnison Sage-grouse is known for its strut and the unique sounds males produce during the mating ritual. It once lived in four states in the Southwest, but is now only found in eight small populations in two states.

The Gunnison Sage-grouse is a fully separate species from the Greater Sage-grouse, which is larger and occupies different areas, though they both face similar threats from loss of their sagebrush habitat.

Range: Southwestern Colorado, Southeastern UtahHabitat Type: Sagebrush steppeDiet: Sagebrush, forbs and insectsEstimated Population: 3,500 - 4,000 breeding individuals

Nominating Organization

WildEarth Guardians

Courtesy of the Bureau of Land Management

Current and expected declines in Gunnsion sage-grouse numbers – due to threats from energy development, livestock grazing, habitat loss and fragmentation, and West Nile virus – was sufficient for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to recommend listing the bird as endangered in 2005. However, political appointees interfered in what is supposed to be a science-based decision and instead pushed the bird away from listing and off of the Candidate Species List – the list of species the Fish and Wildlife Service has identified as likely in need of protection.

Why Protection is NeededThe loss of sagebrush habitat has caused Gunnison sage-grouse to disappear from over 90 percent of its historic range. Oil and natural gas drilling, motorized recreation, livestock grazing and development have all contributed to the degradation of sagebrush steppe. Habitat fragmentation further compounds the problem by segmenting the grouse into smaller groups, which limits genetic flow between isolated populations. West Nile virus also poses a risk.

In 2005, biologists and field staff at the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the Gunnison sage-grouse as endangered – even having gone as far as drafting a press release and planning public hearings to announce the listing decision and proposal to designate over 900,000 acres as critical habitat. However, political appointees within the Department of Interior in Washington, D.C. intervened to prevent the listing.

Interference came most notably from Julie MacDonald, Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Though she was not a biologist, MacDonald repeatedly questioned biological conclusions in the listing proposal and was actively involved in the effort to rewrite the proposal to find that protection was “not warranted” for the grouse. MacDonald resigned in 2007, after an investigation by the Government Accountability Office detailed her role in interfering in Endangered Species Act decisions throughout the country.

Additional InformationAlthough the Gunnison sage-grouse was once ranked among species as most in need of protection on the Candidate Species List, the Bush Administration’s “not warranted” listing decision resulted in its removal from the list altogether in 2006. Unfortunately, the need for protection remains extremely high. The National Audubon Society has identified the Gunnison sage-grouse as one of the most endangered birds in North America and NatureServe lists the species as “Critically Imperiled.”

States with Current Habitat

Fluvial Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus

At a Glance

In 1805, Lewis and Clark noted a “new kind of white or silvery trout” as they crossed Montana. The Montana fluvial arctic grayling was once found throughout the upper Missouri River basin above Great Falls, Montana, including in the Madison, Gallatin and Jefferson rivers.

Range: Upper Big Hole River, MontanaHabitat Type: Clear, cold streams and rivers; lakesDiet: Aquatic & terrestrial invertebratesEstimated Population: In recent years, populations are so low that biologists with the state of Montana have not been able to reliably estimate numbers. Certainly fewer than 1,000 adults.

Nominating Organization

Federation of Fly Fishers

&Center for Biological

Diversity

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

The Montana fluvial– or river-dwelling – arctic grayling is one of two populations of grayling historically found in the lower 48 states that were relicts of Pleistocene glaciation and separated from more widespread populations of the species dwelling in arctic rivers. The other population, which was historically found in Michigan, went extinct in the 1930’s. Despite its genetic uniqueness and dwindling population, the Montana fluvial arctic grayling was denied protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2007.

Why Protection is NeededHistorically, the species was decimated by a combination of dams, livestock grazing and the introduction of non-native fish, as well as being easily attracted to fishing lures. Now, the over utilization of water for irrigation and livestock, along with drought, threatens to push this member of the salmonidae family into extinction.

In 2007, Fish and Wildlife Service denied protection for the grayling under the Endangered Species Act. According to documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity, the determination not to list was influenced by Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald and went against the recommendations of agency scientists. The final decision determined that the extinction of the fish in the lower 48 states would be insignificant, despite evidence that the Montana population is genetically different from the arctic graylings found in Canada and Alaska.

Additional InformationIn 1994, Fish and Wildlife Service determined that listing the fluvial arctic grayling was warranted, but precluded by higher priorities, and thus placed the fish on the Candidate List. In 2004, the fish was given a level three priority for listing, but removed from the list completely in 2007.

The Service determined that the Montana population did not constitute a Distinct Population Segment and the presence of healthier populations in Alaska and Canada negated a need for listing. In addition to seemingly ignoring the science that indicated genetic differences, the notion that listing could be avoided due to populations in other countries ignored the 30 years of precedence that helped facilitate the recovery of species such as the Bald Eagle and Grizzly Bear in the lower 48 states. Nonetheless, in March of 2007, the Department of Interior’s Solicitor General issued an opinion that justifies the use of species in other nations as a means of denying protection to local populations.

States with Current Habitat

Island Marble ButterflyEuchloe ausonides insulanus

At a Glance

The island marble is the largest subspecies of the large marble (Euchloe ausonides). It was thought to have gone extinct after a 1908 sighting until being identified again 90 years later.

Range: On San Juan Island and Lopez Island in Washington State.Habitat Type: Coastal shoreline and adjacent prairie.Diet: Larvae feed on field mustard (Brassica campestris) and tumble mustard (Sisymbria altissimum). Adults use a variety of flowers for nectar.Estimated Population: The exact number of butterflies is not known but in most years there may be less than 2000.

Nominating Organization

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate

Conservation

James Miskelly

The Island Marble Butterfly, which was once thought to be extinct, faces multiple threats to survival and political interference in 2006 appears to have prevented its protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Why Protection is NeededThe Island Marble Butterfly faces threats due to habitat loss from development, road maintenance, invasive plants and weather events such as winter storms that produce large waves.

This butterfly historically lived along coastal grasslands and adjacent prairies in a small part of the Northwest. It disappeared after a sighting in 1908 and was thought extinct until it was found again on San Juan Island, Washington in 1998.

In 2005, two hundred twenty-five surveys were conducted at 110 potential Island Marble sites by staff from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, USFWS, Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Xerces Society, and local volunteers. As a result of these searches, Island Marble butterflies are now found at 19 sites although most have fewer than 5 individuals and only one site is considered large enough to be a viable population.

In 2006, Fish and Wildlife Service issued a positive 90-day finding, indicating that listing for the butterfly may be warranted and initiated a listing determination process. The review was conducted as the result of a petition by Xerces Society and Center for Biological Diversity.In conversations with the Xerces Society during the review process, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists stated that the butterfly met all of the criteria for listing. However, in September 2006, the same biologists said they were no longer allowed to discuss the listing. In November the Service denied protection to the Island Marble Butterfly without legal or scientific justification.

Additional InformationOn May 21, 2008 Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society, testified about the Island Marble Butterfly before the House Natural Resources Committee during a hearing on political interference in endangered species protections. He supplemented testimony by the Government Accountability Office that indicated at least four high-ranking Interior Department officials – other than Julie MacDonald, who is mentioned elsewhere in this report – had been influencing endangered species decisions.

States with Current Habitat

Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas

At a Glance

Boreal toads often use holes dug by squirrels or other rodents as burrows during the winter and can spend half of their life hibernating. Like all toads, they can also use stars and their sense of smell to navigate across land.

Range: Colorado and Utah (extinct in New Mexico)Habitat Type: Montane wetlands and adjacent forested areas.Diet: Mostly ants, spiders and beetles for adultsEstimated Population: As of 2005, 39 breeding populations (evidence of breeding in the past 5 years) were known. Only two of these remain free of chytrid fungus.

Nominating Organization

Center for Native Ecosystems

& Center for Biological

Diversity

Colorado Division of Wildlife

Fungus and other threats have diminished populations and habitat for the southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad. Combined with interference in protection from political appointees and the growing impact of global warming, the southern Rocky Mountain boreal toad remains in danger of disappearing forever.

Why Protection is NeededThe toad has disappeared from most of its historical sites and has faced serious declines in population over the past 25 years. Threats include a wide range of sources, such as water pollution and livestock grazing, but chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) is also having a large impact. Currently, only two locations for the toads remain free of the fungus. The toad is also an example of political interference misusing genetics to prevent protection.

The southern Rocky Mountains population of the toad, including Colorado and Utah, was originally petitioned to be protected in 1993 and found to be warranted but precluded in 1995. In August 2004, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a draft proposed rule to list the southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad as an endangered species, but because of political interference, this finding was never published. Instead, the agency claimed that the southern Rocky Mountain population no longer qualified as a distinct population segment based on recent genetic studies. The lead researcher on the genetics study, however, stated her research was misused by the Service.

In addition, the toad is only found in higher elevations – for example, above 8,500 feet in Colorado – and is thus susceptible to the impacts of global warming. As average temperatures increase, suitable habitat gets pushed to higher and higher elevations, which can then become isolated from one another by valleys and other lower elevation breaks in the terrain. Additional InformationThe southern Rocky Mountains boreal toad was listed as a distinct population segment on the endangered species Candidate List from 1995 to 2005.

States with Current Habitat

Mason’s Skypilot Polemonium chartaceum Mason

At a Glance

Mason’s Skypilot is also known as Mason’s Jacob’s ladder.

Range: Klamath Ranges, Sweetwater Mountains, White and Inyo Mountains in CA and NVHabitat Type: Subalpine Forest, Alpine Fell-fieldsEstimated Population: Twelve known occurrences in California, one in Nevada

Nominating Organization

Native Plant Conservation Campaign

Margaret Williams, courtesy of Nevada Native Plant Society

Mason’s sky pilot lives in high alpine zones and is thus very susceptible to the effects of global warming. Given that it is only known to occur currently in 13 locations, it is also highly vulnerable to loss of habitat.

Why Protection is NeededMason’s skypilot occurs in isolated populations and only at high altitudes where temperatures and other unique habitat characteristics are changing rapidly.

As global warming increases average temperatures, species have to move to higher and higher elevations to find the cooler temperatures at which they have evolved to survive. For Mason’s skypilot and other species that live in higher elevations, this means getting closer and closer to the top of the mountains – and eventually having no where to go once they live at the peaks.

Being restricted to the highest of elevations in mountains can also create isolated groups of species. When the valleys between peaks no longer offer pathways – due to their warmer temperatures – between groups, it segments them and threatens long-term survival. Plants, which obviously cannot hike to higher grounds, sometimes need many generations of new plants to transport over short distances and can thus be overcome if the warming comes too quickly.

Additional InformationThe best way to protect high alpine species such as Mason’s skypilot is to slow or reverse global climate change. The United States – and the world - urgently needs to implement an energy policy that follows the best available science in greenhouse gas emission limits.

States with Current Habitat

Great White Shark Carcharodon carcharias

At a Glance

Range: Much of the subtropical world. For the Americas: Atlantic: Newfoundland, Canada to Argentina; also north Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Cuba and Lesser Antilles. Pacific: Alaska to Chile, as well as Hawaii. Habitat Type: Brackish; marine; depth range 0 – 1280 m. Primarily a coastal and offshore inhabitant of continental and insular shelves, but may also occur off oceanic islands far from land. Diet: Bony fishes, sharks, rays, seals, dolphins and porpoises, sea birds, carrion, squid, octopi and crabs, and whales.Estimated Population: Unknown. The population appears to be in decline where detailed data is available.

Nominating Organization

Oceana

White sharks can grow to between 13 and 16 feet long as adults and can weigh up to 2,450 pounds. This shark is so sensitive to the electromagnetic field created by the movement of living creatures in the ocean, it can detect a charge as small as half a billionth of a volt.

The white shark is a widely distributed around the globe, but sparsely present in any one place. It is late to mature for reproductive purposes and has a small litter size, making recovery more difficult. The shark is targeted by commercial and recreational fishers, and is also vulnerable to being bycatch.

Why Protection is NeededThe Great White Shark is incredibly important for maintaining the health of marine ecosystems. Because it is a top predator, it plays an important role in hunting out prey that are not as healthy as others, which keep the stocks that it feeds on in a healthier state. If you remove the top predator from the ecosystem, the repercussions can be quite dramatic. In some cases where sharks have declined there has been a wholesale decrease in all the species in the ecosystem. Ecosystems have evolved over millions of years in a very delicate balance, one in which the white shark as an “apex” predator has helped to maintain.

The shark faces a variety of threats. Commercially, it is targeted for its fins, jaws, teeth, liver oil, skin and meat. It is also targeted by recreational sports fishers. In addition, white sharks are also caught accidently by commercial fishing operations and discarded with the other “bycatch.”

Because of its wide range as a large predator, the white shark could serve as an umbrella species for the conservation of many marine species. Protecting the white shark could help protect whole marine ecosystems. Additional InformationThe Great White Shark is listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A listing of Vulnerable is given when the best available evidence indicates a high risk of extinction. It has some protections in parts of its range, but this can be inconsistently enforced. There is a prohibition against catching white sharks in U.S. waters, but protection under the Endangered Species Act would help address the issue of bycatch and other threats.

States with Current Habitat

Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta

At a Glance

Wood turtles are the all-terrain-vehicles of the turtle world, sometimes even climbing into bushes to eat berries. They are known to stomp on the ground to draw earthworms to the surface to eat.

Range: Northern Virginia and West Virginia, up through the Northeast and upper Midwest.Habitat Type: Variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitatsDiet: Omnivorous – including flowers, mushrooms, fruits, leaves and invertebratesEstimated Population: Unknown

Nominating Organization

Wild Virginia, Virginia Forest Watch

& Heartwood

Steve Krichbaum

The state statuses for the Wood Turtle ranges from “apparently secure” in a few parts of its range, to rare and endangered in most other parts. However, the intense development of its native range has fragmented populations and shrunken available habitat, which affects both the current population and limits their ability to repopulate areas. In addition, global warming threatens to alter their aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

Why Protection is NeededWood Turtles face a variety of threats, including loss and fragmentation of habitat, global warming, roads, collection for pets and logging, which alters habitat and increases the number of predators that thrive on forest edges. High populations of predators such as Raccoons devastate Turtle populations.

The Turtles need cool, clean water to survive; accumulations of large woody debris are a vital component of this habitat. When temperatures are low, they spend most of their time in the water and hibernate in deep pools or under submerged logs. In warmer months, they become much more terrestrial and are found in upland habitats.

Development is perhaps the most pervasive present threat to the Wood Turtle. A great deal of historic habitat has been converted to other land uses and increasing urbanization of forest areas continues to be a problem. The Wood Turtle is native to what is now some of the most densely populated areas of our country. As we continue to expand out from urban areas, it further fragments and reduces Turtle habitat.

Global warming is a growing threat as well. As a cold-adapted species that relies on streams for winter survival and hibernation, Wood Turtles are threatened by the possibility of warmer temperatures and decreased precipitation. Given the fragmentation in their habitat, many Turtles may not be able to avoid the changing climate by moving northward.

Additional InformationWith pressures on the species mounting, sites on relatively undeveloped public lands grow increasingly crucial as refugia for the Turtle. Preserving Wood Turtle populations and habitat in our National Forests and other public lands appears critical for ensuring their long-term survival.

States with Current Habitat

Honorable Mentions

William Radke

Sand Dune Lizard

Range: Southeast New Mexico and adjacent parts of Texas.Habitat Type: Sand dunes within shinnery oak forests.Diet: Arthropods, including ants, beetles, crickets, grasshoppers, and spiders.Estimated Population: Unknown

The Sand Dune Lizard, sometimes called the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, is highly tied to its habitat and is seldom found more than six feet from a shinnery oak plant. Herbicidal control of shinnery oak - for the benefit of ranching - has caused lizard declines of 70 to 94 percent.

This lizard is also highly sensitive to oil and gas disturbance and has the misfortune to overlay one of the most active oil and gas well fields in the country: the Permian Basin.

The lizard was one of 71 species the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had promised congress that it would initiate a listing proposal for by September, 2008. However, no proposal has been made by the release date of this report - December 16, 2008.

Susan Meyer

Graham’s Penstemon

Range: Endemic to the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah and western Colorado. It occurs in a band six miles wide and 80 miles long.Habitat Type: Only found on oil shale substrates of the Green River Formation.Estimated Population: Around 6,200.

The main threats to this plant are oil shale development, conventional oil and gas drilling, and tar sands extraction. Eighty-eight percent of the flower’s populations are in areas where active oil and gas exploration is already taking place. Three-quarters of the habitat is on land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Because the penstemon is tied to a very specific substrate, climate change could be disastrous - it cannot move in response to global warming like some other species may. Drought is also a concern, with only one of the past five years having resulted in substantial flowering.

Graham’s Penstemon was included in the original list of plants that the Smithsonian determined warranted protection under the Act in 1975. When listing was attempted in 2006, the BLM formed a “Penstemon strike team” to ensure it did not get protected.

Sky Jacobs

Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl - Western population

Range: Lowland central Arizona south through western Mexico to the States of Colima and Michoacan.Habitat Type: Currently, most are found in Sonoran desert scrub communities.Diet: Omnivorous – prey ranges from insects to mourning doves.Estimated Population: Fewer than 50 adult pygmy-owls and fewer than 10 nest sites in Arizona in any given year.

The primary threat to the owl’s continued existence is inadequate habitat protection.

The Western population of the cactus pygmy owl was once protected under the Endangered Species Act, but was removed under the pretense that it did not constitute a distinct population segment - despite government scientists’ opinion that this group was indeed unique “on ecological conditions, pygmy owl distribution and genetics.”

Similar to the wolverine and fluvial arctic grayling discussed earlier, protection has been denied using a controversial opinion that populations in other countries are sufficient to preclude the United States need to protect our own species.

Nominating Organization

WildEarth Guardians

Nominating Organization

Center for Native Ecosystems & Native Plant Conservation

Campaign

Nominating Organization

Defenders of Wildlife

Extend the Act’s safety net to all species in need, including those not on the 1. candidate list.

Address the backlog of species languishing on the “candidate list” by setting an 2. aggressive listing timeline of not more than five years for listing the species.

Restore regulatory protection to the more than 500 species on the U.S. list that 3. occur mostly beyond our borders, and now have no protections against U.S. federal actions in foreign countries.

Root out corruption and restore scientific integrity to the Departments of Interior 4. and Commerce by implementing transparency, a real code of ethics policy and whistleblower protections.

Fast-track reversing and correcting any species decisions that have been tainted by 5. political interference under the Bush administration—particularly those already identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Inspector General’s office and the Government Accountability Office.

Fund endangered species programs in full to ensure their implementation.6.

Increase staffing at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine 7. Fisheries Service by 30 percent.

Create the infrastructure and resources necessary to determine how best to 8. implement environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, in a time of climate change. These should include the full development of a Science Advisory Board, a Climate Change and Natural Resource Science Center, a National Adaptation Strategy, and Regional Ecological Symposia.

Create an open and transparent blue-ribbon panel of inter-agency officials and 9. outside scientific, legal and policy experts to synthesize information and make recommendations as to Endangered Species Act implementation specifically.

Implement an energy policy that follows the best available science in greenhouse 10. gas emission limits.

Top 10 Solutions

Additional NominationsCommon Name Scientific Name Sponsor(s) Websites

American Bison Bison bison Buffalo Field Campaign www.buffalofieldcampaign.org

Atlantic Wolffish Anarhichas lupus Conservation Law Foundation www.clf.org

Bracted Twistflower Streptanthus bracteatus Center for Plant Conservation www.centerforplantconservation.org

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Wild South www.wildsouth.org

Corkwood Leitneria floridana Center for Plant Conservation www.centerforplantconservation.org

Godfrey’s Blazingstar Liatris provincialis Native Plant Conservation Campaign

www.plantsocieties.org

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereogentus cinereogentus

Endangered Small Animal Conservation Fund

www.geocities.com/deadwildlife

Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus WildEarth Guardians www.wildearthguardians.org

Mohave Ground Squirrel Spermophilus mohavensis Defenders of Wildlife www.defenders.org

Monterey Pine Pinus radiata Native Plant Conservation Campaign

www.plantsocieties.org

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus WildEarth Guardians & Center for Native Ecosystems

www.wildearthguardians.orgwww.nativeecosystems.org

Northern Rockies Fisher Martes pennanti Defenders of Wildlife www.defenders.org

Oregon Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus Oregon Wild www.oregonwild.org

Ouachita Creekshell Villosa arkansasensis Ecological Conservation Organization

www.ecoconservation.org

Prairie Dog Genus Cynomys WildEarth Guardians www.wildearthguardians.org

Red Mangrove Rhizophora mangle Native Plant Conservation Campaign

www.plantsocieties.org

Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly

Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti

WildEarth Guardians www.wildearthguardians.org

San Bernardino Springsnail Pyrgulopsis bernardina WildEarth Guardians www.wildearthguardians.org

Thorny Skate Amblyraja radiata Ocean Conservancy www.oceanconservancy.org

Veiny Mondardella Monardella douglasii ssp. venosa

California Native Plant Society www.cnps.org

Wyoming Pocket Gopher Thomomys clusius Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

www.voiceforthewild.org

32 western U.S. invertebrate and plant species that occur in only one or no known locations globally.

Various WildEarth Guardians www.wildearthguardians.org