Center For Biological Diversity Research Articles

Cyantraniliprole may harm endangered species

The insecticide cyantraniliprole is likely to adversely affect about 41% of endangered or threatened species, the US Environmental Protection Agency says in a draft evaluation released Jan. 31. To help protect the vulnerable species, the agency has been working with pesticide manufacturers to develop measures to reduce spray drift and limit exposure to seeds treated with cyantraniliprole. The EPA allowed cyantraniliprole to enter the US market in 2014 to combat sap-sucking insects on citrus, blueberries, and many other crops. It is also used on turf and ornamental plants. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety challenged the EPA’s 2014 decision in court , claiming that the agency had failed to evaluate the risks of the pesticide to endangered species. The court agreed with the environmental groups and in 2017 ordered the EPA to conduct the evaluation. Last year, after 5 years of inaction by the EPA,

Public Perceptions on Population: U.S. Survey Results

The Center for Biological Diversity conducted a paid, self-selected, national online survey on the knowledge, attitudes, behavioural intentions and norms around population growth to inform a theory of change that highlights education and reproductive healthcare as solutions. We surveyed 899 people across the US. The sample was recruited via MTurk and Survey Monkey was used to collect the data. Results were segmented by demographics to assist in building culturally sensitive, inclusive and effective campaigns advocating for rights-based solutions to population growth. Results demonstrated that the public draws a correlation between the number of people on the planet and the alarming rate of animal extinction.

Coproducing the Endangered Polar Bear: Science, Climate Change, and Legal Mobilization

Applying insights from science and technology studies about the “coproduction” of science and sociopolitical order to research on legal mobilization yields important theoretical insights. Using the polar bear petition campaign by the Center for Biological Diversity as an illustrative case, this article shows how this protracted legal campaign around protection of the polar bear and its habitat opened up new legal opportunities for those advocating for the regulation of carbon emissions, mandated state‐sponsored generation of climate science, legally constructed the polar bear as “endangered,” and helped to shape the priorities of the nongovernmental organization itself.

Center for Biological Diversity v U. S. Forest Service: A New Type of Claim or Just Another Step in the Chain of Causation?1

This article discusses what it means to “contribute” to waste disposal as that term is used in section 7002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. More specifically, the article examines whether the US Forest Service can violate section 7002 by not regulating hunting. Among the issues addressed are whether one can contribute to waste disposal passively, whether one can contribute to waste disposal without taking any action that addresses waste disposal and the extent to which the statutory term “contribute” is analogous to the common law concept of causation.

Pesticides, biotech crops on wildlife refuges trigger lawsuit

The Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity are suing the Trump administration for reversing a 2014 decision that would have phased out the use of neonicotinoid pesticides and ge...

US Interior official under scrutiny for blocking pesticide report

Democrats in the US Congress are raising concerns about the Department of the Interior’s handling of a draft report on the impacts of two commonly used pesticides on endangered species. The report, which was prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2017 but not publicly released, concluded that chlorpyrifos and malathion have harmful effects on hundreds of endangered species, according to documents released through Freedom of Information Act requests from the New York Times and the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. In a March 29 letter, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) urged the Interior Department’s acting inspector general, Mary Kendall, to investigate whether Acting Secretary David Bernhardt, who in 2017 was deputy secretary, stopped the report from being released at the request of pesticide manufacturers that disputed the report’s findings. The allegations come as the Senate considers confirming Bernhardt for the top spot at the Interior. “It’s

Evaluation of Circuit Judge Kavanaugh's Opinions Concerning the CAA

Nineteen opinions by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh in the D.C. Circuit dealing with the Clean Air Act (CAA) were reviewed. In eleven of the cases, Circuit Judge Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. In two cases he wrote a concurring opinion and in six cases he dissented. The cases where Circuit Judge Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion are: (1) Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA, 864 F.3d 691 (2017); (2) Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, 866 F.3d 451(2017); (3) Energy Future Coalition v. EPA, 793 F.3d 141 (2015); (4) EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (2015); (5) In re Murray Energy v. EPA, 788 F.3d 330 (2015); (6) National Ass’n of Manufacturers v. EPA, 750 F.3d 921 (2014); (7) NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (2014); (8) American Road & Transportation Builders Ass’n v. EPA, 705 F.3d 453 (2013); (9) Honeywell International, Inc. v. EPA, 705 F.3d 470 (2013); (10) EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (2012, rehearing en banc denied Jan. 24, 2013); and (11) American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. EPA, 600 F.3d 624 (2010). Circuit Judge Kavanaugh’s concurring opinions are found in; (1) Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 744 F.3d 741 (2014); and (2) Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 401 (2013). His dissents are found at: (1) Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v. EPA, 787 F.3d 544 (2015); (2) (2) White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014); (3)Texas v. EPA, 726 F.3d 180 (2013); (4) Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 693 F.3d 169 (2012); (5) Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673 (2008), and (6) Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 2012 WL 6621785 (Dec. 20, 2012).

Do Wildlife Matter?

In today’s complex landscape, there is increasing competition for available space and resources. Global human population growth and associated landscape change, intensify space demands, resulting in the allocation of human priorities. At the 22nd Annual Conference of The Wildlife Society, held in Winnipeg, Manitoba, wildlife professionals grappled over these challenges and the inevitable question of whether wildlife matter within our presentday convoluted world. Currently, there is a myriad of inter-related issues that we now face: human overpopulation, unsustainable lifestyles, large-scale factory farming of animals, vast monoculture landscapes, an alarming rate of global biodiversity loss, shrinking fresh water supplies, global climate change, and desperate human poverty. The Center for Biological Diversity (2014) indicates we are now experiencing the worst loss of species since the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million year ago. If the current rate of biodiversity loss continues, we will experience one of the most extreme extinction events since the age of the dinosaurs, primarily attributed to human overpopulation and overconsumption Wilson [1]. Even the concept of what is natural in today’s global landscape has us in debate. It is difficult for us to define what the term natural means any more. Many different groups have varying definitions of what nature is and we seldom even agree on how to define the term. There is no question that humans leave large footprints wherever we go. As Jennifer Wolch suggests, many contend that development makes use of “empty” land, improving the converted spaces Wolch [2] into the seemingly best use, not recognizing these “empty” spaces as critically important ecologically and biologically diverse environments.

Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife and the Uncertainties in Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis

Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife and the Uncertainties in Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis

Mosses Identified on Deadwoods in the Research and Application Forest of the Çankırı Karatekin University, Faculty of Forestry

It is a certain fact for the forest ecosystem that the death of a tree gives way to other lives. Survival of many insects, birds, fungi, lichens, Liverworts and Mosses within life circle depend partly or mainly on those dead trees. That is why dead trees are also named as ‘Biotope Tree’, ‘a living space with high biological diversity’ or ‘a hotspot’; the center for biological diversity in forest. Research area has been assigned as ‘Research Forest’ to Çankırı Faculty of Forestry of Ankara University by the decision of Council of Ministers. However, research studies that have been carried out so far in the area are insufficient. It is aimed to get more information from the area by this study and similar ones. In this study, mosses have been listed with pictures identified on dead woods and logs in the area. Forest field survey was done so as to identify the bryophytes on dead logs and woods at the Research and Application Forest of Çankırı Faculty of Forestry within 2015-2016. As a result of identification studies of 80 mosses samples taken from the area 25 taxons have been confirmed among 15 genus and 10 families.

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Oil Spill Preparedness & Response Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Reducing Action Agency Exposure to Future Litigation

The Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior's U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (FWS), and the National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have partnered since 2001 through the Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultations. Under the authority of the National Contingency Plan, coastal and inland zone area committees, Coast Guard FOSCs & EPA OSCs fill a vital role in determining if certain proposed actions affect listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species or designated critical habitats (CH) and have a responsibility to initiate and coordinate either an informal, emergency, or formal consultation between the FWS & NFMS, also known as the “Services.” One of the best practices learned by the Coast Guard and EPA after the recent lawsuit and subsequent 2013 settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity on the use of pre-authorized use of dispersants in California is that Coast Guard FOSCs and EPA OSCs in concert with their respective area committees should make all efforts to engage the Services in the consultation process when there is a possibility of an action that could affect T&E species or designated CH. The norm in the past has been to delay the consultation process until the emergency response phase, often necessitating an emergency consultation during an actual spill or release that could affect T&E species or designated CHs. In the future, area committees, FOSCs, and OSCs at the start of each area contingency plan's quadrennial review and update, should engage the consultation evaluation process. This poster is about the ESA Section 7 consultation process to proactively mitigate and avoid potentially adverse affects to ESA-listed species and designated CH using the consultation process associated with complying with the Act, avoiding jeopardy, and reducing future Coast Guard and EPA exposure to future litigation.

Drilling on Publicly Owned Land

This article covers three recent court opinions dealing with drilling on state and federal land: two in Pennsylvania and one in California. In Minard Run Oil Co., v. U.S. Forest Service, a Third Circuit decision, private entities owned the subsurface rights, while the federal government owned and managed the surface rights. Belden & Blake v. DCNR, a PA Supreme Court decision, pitted the right of access by the owner of an oil and gas estate underlying a state park against the authority of a state agency to regulate and protect surface use. The article then contrasts those holdings with a recent California case, Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management, in which the government owned both the surface and the oil/gas in part of Central California’s Monterey Shale Formation.

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Dispatches

Center for Biological Diversity

Center for Biological Diversity