Category Archives: Fermata

Significant ESA Ruling

Conservation, Politics

CNAH ANNOUNCEMENT

The Center for North American Herpetology Lawrence, Kansas http://www.cnah.org

9 June 2009

Defenders of Wildlife

The Center for Biological Diversity

COURT ORDERS ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION FOR FLAT-TAILED HORNED LIZARD — FOR THE THIRD TIME U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must review decision to deny protections

San Francisco – In response to a lawsuit brought by The Center for Biological Diversity and a number of other groups, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to deny the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) protection under the Endangered Species Act was illegal and again ordered the agency to consider protection for the lizard.

“The Flat-tailed Horned Lizard is severely threatened by urban and agricultural sprawl and needs protection as an endangered species to survive,” said Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director at The Center for Biological Diversity. “With today’s court decision, we hope the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has finally gotten the message that it can not legally deny this imperiled species protection.”

Significantly, the decision rejected a Bush administration policy developed by the solicitor of the Department of the Interior in 2007 that required the Fish and Wildlife Service to ignore loss of historic range when determining if species warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. The decision observes that “the Secretary clings to his argument that lost historical habitat is largely irrelevant to the recovery of the species, and thus the ESA does not require him to consider it,” and then roundly rejects this position, concluding that past court decisions require “the Secretary to analyze lost historical range.”

“This decision goes beyond the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard by seriously undermining the Bush administration’s position that loss of historic range is not a basis for protecting species under the Endangered Species Act,” said Greenwald. “The courts have determined today that the Bush administration’s emergency room approach to species protection – in which only species that are on the brink of extinction everywhere are protected – is plainly illegal.”

The Flat-tailed Horned Lizard inhabits portions of southern California (Riverside, Imperial and San Diego counties), Arizona (Yuma county), and northwestern Mexico (Sonora, Baja Calif. N). It is severely threatened by habitat destruction caused by urban and agricultural sprawl, off-road vehicles, and other threats.

“This is the third time in the fifteen years since the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard was proposed for listing that a court has told the Fish and Wildlife Service to go back and review its refusal to protect the flat tailed horned lizard under the Endangered Species Act,” said Kara Gillon, senior staff attorney with Defenders of Wildlife. “These lizards need these protections now more than ever, if we are to avoid the loss of this species and the dwindling wild places that form its last refuge. We’re hoping that the third time’s the charm; these lizards are running out of time.”

The Flat-tailed Horned Lizard was first proposed for listing in 1993. The proposal has since been withdrawn three times with conservation groups successfully challenging each withdrawal in court. The groups involved in the latest court challenge include the Tucson Herpetological Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Horned Lizard Conservation Society, and Sierra Club, who were represented by attorneys Neil Levine, a private attorney, and Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity.

As the common name suggests, the species is recognized by its broad, flattened tail but also has long, sharp horns on its head, two rows of fringe scales along its abdomen, a dark stripe along its backbone, and concealed external ear openings. Adults of this species range in size between 2.5 and 4.3 inches long, excluding the tail.

Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. With more than 1 million members and activists, Defenders of Wildlife is a leading advocate for innovative solutions to safeguard our wildlife heritage for generations to come. For more information, visit www.defenders.org

Contact(s)

Kara Gillon, Defenders of Wildlife, (505) 715-3898 Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495

Texas, Our Texas

Conservation, Politics,

Texas, Our Texas! all hail the mighty State!

Jim Blackburn, environmental attorney from Houston and one of the original guiding lights for the conservation of our bays and coasts, writes an annual coastal update that he distributes in January. I have placed his latest on the One Galveston file server, and it can be accessed here.

John Anderson has written a thoughtful response to the questions raised by Jim, and he has graciously allowed for me to publish his letter, as follows.

Jim

Thanks for taking the time to do the Coastal Update. I always enjoy reading it.

With regard to your question concerning the State’s stewardship of the coast, I agree with Bob Moore, the answer is NO. As a long time researcher in Texas coastal geology, let me focus my remarks on a major problem with scientific research. I apologize if it reads like I have an ax to grind, it is not intended to come of that way, but rather to convey a problem in the way we do coastal science in Texas.

If you take a look at published results (peer-reviewed is the only true gauge of high level research in my opinion as it has passed the scrutiny of experts in the field) from scientific research along the Texas coast you will see that Texas lags behind many states, such as Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina and New Jersey, even though we have a lot of coastal real estate and one of the more interesting coasts in the world for investigation of coastal processes. Ours is also the second most vulnerable coast (Louisiana being first) to sea-level rise, subsidence and limited sediment supply. Why then is Texas not a leader in coastal research?

For decades the State of Texas has provided a minimal amount of funding for coastal research. We have done a good job of monitoring coastal erosion and that is important, but it is not science. We know our coast is eroding rapidly, both on the Gulf and Bay side of barriers, but we do not know why, how erosion will vary as the rate of sea-level rise increases, or how we might best minimize these impacts. There is an emerging scientific consensus that tropical storm frequency and magnitude will increase this century but how will that impact our coast? To what extent have humans altered sediment supply and distribution along the coast and in estuaries? These are only a few questions that require immediate attention if we are going to sustain our coast for future generations.

The State spends millions of dollars a year dumping truck loads of sand on beaches, only to have it wash away with the tides. This is unthinkable and reflects the total lack of understanding of the problem by Mr. Patterson and his people. The money spent on such projects would fund a lot of good research on wetlands ecology, sediment transport and other fields. You may not know that the only source of state funding for academic research requires that the grantee be at a State-supported university. This prevents researchers from other states and private universities (yes Rice included) from applying for state grants to work in Texas. The reality is there are relatively few scientists at state universities doing coastal research. The response from Mr. Patterson might be that various state agencies do our research, but if you count the publications over the past ten years from these agencies the number is deplorable given the amount of money that is spent, and most of that work has been done by a handful of good scientists who have somehow managed to prevail under difficult conditions. I have trained some outstanding young coastal geologists in my career who have gone on to universities in other states. They continue to be very active in the field, but not in Texas. So, we train the talent we need, they just can’t work in Texas. The final result is that our knowledge of coastal processes, such as tidal inlet dynamics, wetlands growth and development and sand transport within the coastal zone is limited, certainly no where near what it should be for us to answer questions about how our coast will respond to global change.

One might ask, so why not go to NSF or some other funding agency? This is what we have done in the past, but the reality is that NSF views coastal research at the regional scale as something the states should be supporting and most states do fund coastal research. I am not aware of another state that so discourages coastal scientists from from doing research in their state.

Jerry Patterson has his Coastal Coordinating Board, but that body is seriously deficient in scientific expertise. Most are political appointees, which is consistent with Mr. Patterson’s way of doing business. Meanwhile, our coast continues to change at a rate that astounds us all and we really don’t understand what is happening or what to do about it. We need more scientific understanding of our coast if we are going to protect it in the future, but I am not sure how the needed research is going to be done unless we encourage scientists to cross our borders.

John

John Anderson

Maurice Ewing Professor of Oceanography Department of Earth Sciences

Rice University Houston, Texas 77251-1892

Within my field, sustainable tourism and recreation, I am afraid the the same is true. The best work is being done outside of Texas, with rare exceptions such as Corpus Christi. Those who choose this profession, by necessity, are forced to work elsewhere (me being a perfect example). Given the situation that Galveston faces, one would expect sustainable recreation, tourism, and community development to be helping shape the future of our resurrected community. In my opinion, this is simply not the case. Allowed to their own devices, community interests will focus on patching Galveston back together in the same pathetically vulnerable condition that existed pre-Ike. I can only pray that there are enough of us on the island that can help direct Galveston’s future toward sustainability. The Long-Term Community Recovery Committee, under the leadership of Betty Massey, is, I hope, a step in the right direction. But what I still fail to see is the passionate, daring leadership willing to take hold of this situation and shake it into shape.

Time is passing, and we are still worried about who is winding the clock.

Ted Eubanks

Galveston’s Strategic Retreat by Ted Eubanks

Conservation, Politics, Sustainability, ,

The brouhaha over the buyout of beach front dwellings has flamed into an inferno. Many demand that the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program money be spent in less affluent neighborhoods in the central city, repairing homes that may well attract residents back to the city. Heber Taylor, editor of the GCDN, has argued this case repeatedly and effectively. As recently as today Heber is bemoaning the fact that West Enders are getting a sweet deal on their homes.

There is merit to both arguments, I believe. I live in the central city, and I would love to see hazard mitigation money be used to redevelop the contracting neighborhoods that surround me. But I also see how a strategic buyout on the west end offers an opportunity to address our flood risks in a unique fashion. To be honest, One Galveston should address both of these issues, no matter income levels or geographical location,.

For the moment let me focus on the west end. In recent weeks there has been a push for Galveston to consider armoring the entire length of the west end of the island. This “Ike Dike” would connect with a series of retractable or collapsible flood gates at Bolivar Roads, San Luis Pass, and across the GIWW. Even though the cost of such a massive project would be many billions of dollars, there has been little critical debate concerning its merits (like, would it work?). Galveston’s mayor and the county judge have already sped ahead with lobbying for this approach without critical analysis (or thought). If we are going to spend billions on such a massive structure, shouldn’t we at least know that it is not a Maginot Line?

During my past week’s recovery, I have had the chance to spend several days reviewing the literature (the only side benefit of being stuck in a hospital with a laptop). A review of the science, I found, should give us pause. Hardened or armored coasts are among the most significant causes of the loss (not gain) of beaches. In fact, Galveston’s seawall is often identified as the classic example (the beach having disappeared by 1916). Any “Ike Dike” would require continuous beach replenishment, a cost for which a source has yet to be identified (perhaps to be funded by beach front property owners?) The debate over who should pay for beach renourishment has been a point of contention around the country for decades, with many citizens objecting to being taxed to fund sand that benefits only a few.

There is an alternative to armoring the coast – a manageable or strategic retreat. In this scenario development is removed from the beach and the natural dune system is allowed to restore. In the case of west Galveston Island, the funds available for buyouts would be used to remove all beach front dwellings. Beach renourishment would still be necessary to stabilize the shore slope (the Bruun Rule), but a broad beach with an extensive dune structure would provide a buffer against all but the most severe storms. Since dune building is generally an aeolian (wind driven) process, I suspect that it would also be necessary to restrict vehicular traffic along the beaches to avoid compaction.

The same strategy of managed retreat would be necessary along the bay shore as well. Housing development should retreat to the upland properties that form the ridge of the island. The coastal wetlands should then be restored, and near shore boat traffic restricted, decreasing turbidity and allowing the once-prevalent sea grass beds to regenerate. Beach replenishment along the bay could come in the form of beneficial use of spoil from the dredging of the GIWW to extend the bay shore outward. In other words, a combination of beach replenishment and bay shore restoration with spoil would serve to widen the island and protect development in the interior.

The ultimate goal, of course, is to restore the natural buffers that once protected this island. With elevated housing limited to the interior, development can continue with limited risk. Natural beaches and wetlands will have been restored, offering residents recreational and aesthetic benefits that far exceed those available today. Significant efforts to rebuild a broad dune structure may well function in tandem with the planned flood gates at the ends of the island. In other words, Galveston may well be able to develop a cutting edge flood protection system where a majority of the structure is a restored natural system of protective dunes and wetlands.

No one is lobbying for a massive taking of property. Such a program could be accomplished by willing sellers selling to willing buyers (the government). This program would also require that the city planning department develop a progressive Comprehensive Development Plan, backed by council passing forceful rules and restrictions to insure the implementation of the plan. Of critical importance would be for rules that would disallow any new development in these buffer areas.

Today Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that “the time for action and realism is now” when facing the challenges of global warming. The same is true for Galveston and sea-level rise. We simply can no longer afford to blithely stumble forward, pretending that the forces of global climate change will somehow overlook our small sliver of sand.

In conclusion, the following is a summary from a study by Western Carolina University that speaks volumes to these very issues.


To reverse our losses, we must learn how to retreat from the shoreline. Where development already confronts the ocean, we must adopt corrective measures that are sure and fair. Where beaches are relatively undeveloped, we must apply preventive measures. A commitment to retreat as a guide to public policy and private investment would achieve the following goals:

  1. Reduce the loss of property and lives by replacing present high risk development with stable, safe development in suitable locations away from the open beaches.
  2. Meet increasing demand for public beaches by improving public access to natural beaches.
  3. Develop a more stable economic future for coastal communities.
  4. Eliminate unessential government spending and move coastal investment closer to a marketplace mechanism where economic decisions include realistic risk and cost without the benefit of direct or indirect government subsidies.
  5. Facilitate removal of many of the defensive structures and developments that now magnify the effects of erosion and the costs of disasters.

Stopping Erosion by Dr. John Anderson

Conservation, Sustainability, ,

Yesterday, Saturday January 24th, my wife Doris and I attended the town hall meeting at Sea Isle and wandered around the various booths reading the comments posted for each group. At the Environment Booth I was struck by one comment in particular that read “Stop Erosion”, which provoked me to sit down and write up this summary of the problem. Stopping beach erosion is about as complicated as stopping volcanoes from erupting and earthquakes from quaking and the sooner we accept this reality the sooner we will get on with the business of sustainable development in Galveston. I welcome questions and comments and am happy to provide scientific documentation of the statements I have made in this summary.

  1. For those who would question the importance of sea-level rise in controlling coastal retreat (erosion), consider that in the past 17,000 years, since the last major glaciation, sea-level has risen approximately 100 meters causing the shoreline to retreat approximately 80 miles from it previous location at the edge of the continental shelf to its current location.


  2. The current rate of shoreline retreat, which averages 3 feet/year along the west end of the island but in places is as much as 10 feet/year, is slow compared to times in the past when sea level was rising at a more rapid rate, at times as much as 50 feet/yr.
  3. The rate of rise in any given location is combination of eustasy (global sea level rise) and subsidence. This is called relative sea-level rise. Eustasy is fairly constant across the northern Gulf of Mexico but subsidence is highly variable. In western Louisiana the rate of subsidence is in places as much as 30 times faster than the rate of eustatic rise. Our neighbors to the east are already contending with problems that we will face by the end of this century. The rate of subsidence in Texas is significantly lower but locally is still a major contributor to shoreline change. Unfortunately, we have relatively few locations where elevation changes are being monitored and those are not all in the most ideal locations. There are ways to acquire long-term subsidence measurements but little work has been done in the field. Remember, we spend all our money in Texas dumping sand on the beach and pitifully little goes to address the real issues of why the coast is changing. If we don’t know why, we can’t begin address the problem.
  4. Sediment supply is as important as sea-level rise in controlling coastal change. If sediment is added to the coast fast enough to keep up with the rate of sea-level rise the shoreline will remain stable and even grow. This is how Galveston Island formed at a time when sea level was rising and why beaches adjacent to the north and south jetties have grown since the jetties were constructed. Sediment supply to the upper Texas coast is minimal. So, even a slow rise in sea level results in shoreline retreat. We still do not have an accurate sediment budget for the upper Texas coast. The recent study by the Corps of Engineers was a poor attempt to quantify the sediment budget and until the budget is improved it will not be possible to predict the response of the Gulf and Bay shorelines to accelerated sea-level rise. I have a PhD student, Davin Wallace, who is currently working on a more accurate sediment budget for the Texas coast.
  5. Many of the current maps that show coastal inundation through time are highly inaccurate because they simply flood the landscape with different scenarios for sea level rise. They do not account for subsidence or sediment supply. For the most part, they are best-case scenarios.
  6. The current Galveston Island Geohazard Map is a more accurate approach to predicting coastal change because it relies on historical rates of shoreline change to predict future change. However, it assumes a constant rate of sea level rise and does not take into account changes in sediment supply through time. Neither does it account for the impact of hurricanes. So, it is a best-case scenario and should be immediately adopted by the city until we have a better handle on subsidence and the sediment budget.
  7. Eustasy is controlled by the temperature of the oceans (remember water expands when heated) and the contribution from glaciers and ice sheets. There is no question but that the oceans are getting warmer as the atmosphere warms, and this is the main contributor to the current acceleration in sea-level rise. In addition, 80% of the glaciers on Earth are melting. The net result is that the rate of sea-level rise has nearly doubled (from an average of 1.8 mm/yr to nearly 3.0 mm/yr) this century. The contribution of ice sheets to sea-level rise is the greatest uncertainty when it comes to predicting future rise, but it is by far the most important in terms of magnitude. If the Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt global sea level would rise 60 meters (~200 feet). While this is not going to happen in the next few tens of millions of years, the most current scientific evidence suggests that the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are going to contribute to sea-level rise this century. At the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco one of the keynote speakers at the meeting (Dr. Eric Rignot) summarized the current scientific information on ice sheet mass balance and concluded that global sea-level rise will likely reach 5 mm/yr by the end of this century. Dr. Rignot is one of the best, most respected scientists in the field and I see no scientific justification to doubt his predictions.
  8. Let’s put Dr. Rignot’s sea-level prediction into perspective. If we want to view the world of coastal change at a time when sea level was last rising at a rate of 5 mm/yr we have to turn back our geological clocks 7,000 years. I have spent the past three decades studying the evolution of the Texas coast before and after 7,000 years. Take it from me, this was a time when our coast, including estuaries, was changing at a rate most people cannot (don’t want to) imagine. This is not science fiction, this scientific consensus based on the peer-reviewed literature. This is why we have to fight to educate people about the seriousness of the situation. We can no longer tolerate ignorance, indifference and greed on the part of those who control the destiny of our coast. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to fight for a more sustainable coast.

For additional reading consult Dr. Eric Rignot’s research.

John Anderson

Maurice Ewing Professor of Oceanography

Department of Earth Sciences

Rice University

Houston, Texas 77251-1892