Consequences of the USDA's Wildlife-Killing Program

Coyote at Tule Lake NWR / USFWS Photo

This week The Sacramento Bee is reporting on the results of its investigation into the wildlife-killing practices of USDA Wildlife Services. The report is in three parts. Two have already been published, and the third will run on Sunday, May 6. The articles are long and maddening but very much worth reading, as this is some excellent investigative reporting. The articles are based on interviews with past and present USDA employees, as well as outside scientists and documents obtained through FOIA requests. The article focuses on mammals since that is the USDA's primary target in the western states, but the agency's actions affect birds as well.

This federal agency originated in the early 20th century as a means to protect livestock from wolves. Since then its role has expanded to reduce all manner of wildlife impacts on agriculture such as blackbirds eating sunflower seeds. It also includes other missions such as protecting endangered species from predation and airplanes from bird strikes. That all may sound reasonable, but the reality is that Wildlife Services causes a great deal of collateral damage in the process, including killings of species of conservation concern.

In all, more than 150 species have been killed by mistake by Wildlife Services traps, snares and cyanide poison since 2000, records show. A list could fill a field guide. Here are some examples:

Armadillos, badgers, great-horned owls, hog-nosed skunks, javelina, pronghorn antelope, porcupines, great blue herons, ruddy ducks, snapping turtles, turkey vultures, long-tailed weasels, marmots, mourning doves, red-tailed hawks, sandhill cranes and ringtails.

Many are off-limits to hunters and trappers. And some species, including swift foxes, kit foxes and river otter, are the focus of conservation and restoration efforts.

"The irony is state governments and the federal government are spending millions of dollars to preserve species and then … (you have) Wildlife Services out there killing the same animals," said Michael Mares, president of the American Society of Mammalogists. "It boggles the mind."

One critical loss occurred two years ago when a wolverine, one of the rarest mammals in America, stepped into a Wildlife Services leg-hold trap in Payette National Forest in Idaho. It was the third wolverine captured in agency traps since 2004 (the other two were released alive.)

"Shot wolverine due to bad foot," the trapper wrote in his field diary, which The Bee obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The collateral damage is not limited to wildlife; it includes pet dogs and people, sometimes even USDA employees. Even when the agency is successful in killing the target species, it is unclear that the killings are actually beneficial, either to agriculture or to the ecosystems. This is discussed in detail in part 2 of the series, which focuses on coyote extermination. And yes, coyote extermination is not a thing of the past. Over 500,000 coyotes were killed by the USDA between 2006 and 2011, but coyotes still prosper:

In Nevada, scientists found that when Wildlife Services began killing coyotes to protect deer south of Ely in 2004, the average coyote litter size jumped from one pup to 3.5. In 2007, one coyote killed by a Wildlife Services hunter in Nevada had 13 fetuses in its uterus.

Just how coyotes prosper amid persecution remains a mystery. But many believe they benefit from better dining opportunities that emerge over time as coyotes are killed and rabbits and mice begin to multiply.

"A lot of it comes down to nutrition and competition. When you have fewer animals (coyotes) on the landscape, you have more food available per individual. There is a ton of food on the landscape. Why not have a bigger litter?" said Stewart, the Nevada ecologist.

Coyote extermination is usually carried out either to protect mule deer or (more commonly) to protect livestock. However, the actual impacts of coyotes (and other wild predators) are probably exaggerated:

Wildlife Services spends about $30 million a year to protect livestock from predators – mostly coyotes. On its Web page, it says losses to predators top more than $127 million a year....

Like a crime scene investigator, Niemeyer journeyed into the field to inspect sheep and cattle that ranchers said had been killed by predators. Often, his verdict was not guilty.

"You start looking and you realize nothing killed this," said Niemeyer. "They died from a multitude of things: birthing problems, old age, bad hooves, cut by barbed wire. There were an awful lot of things attributed to predation that really were not."

Niemeyer is not the only former Wildlife Services employee to raise questions about agency practices. In California, biologist Mike Jaeger did, too, with studies in Mendocino County that showed most coyotes don't prey on sheep at all and those that do are the hardest to kill with nonselective traps and poison.

As one ecologist quoted in the article says:

"There is a widespread perception that predators are the root of all evil and I'm tired of it," said Stewart. "More often than not, if you have predation on a mule deer population, you're going to have a healthier population."

Many readers will not find the agency's actions surprising. I was already aware of the agency's existence and that it often killed non-target species, but the extent of the killings and the details of the investigation were still sickening. I can see a case for lethal control of wildlife under some circumstances, such as protecting the nesting areas of endangered birds or individual animals that cause repeated damage or kill humans. Reducing the numbers of large herbivores like white-tailed deer that have no remaining natural predators makes sense if they start affecting other species. However, the widespread and indiscriminate killing is unacceptable, especially when it results in the deaths of thousands of non-target animals. For that reason, I am glad that WildEarth Guardians has filed a suit to force the USDA to stop killing wildlife until it conducts a new analysis of the environmental impacts.

New Greenhouse Gas Regulations

This week the EPA proposed its first-ever regulation of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural-gas plant emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.

Industry officials and environmentalists said in interviews that the rule, which comes on the heels of tough new requirements that the Obama administration imposed on mercury emissions and cross-state pollution from utilities within the past year, dooms any proposal to build a new coal-fired plant that does not have costly carbon controls....

The rule provides an exception for coal plants that are already permitted and beginning construction within a year. There are about 20 coal plants now pursuing permits; two of them are federally subsidized and would meet the new standard with advanced pollution controls.

Based on the coverage I read, it looks like the coal industry and its political patrons are trying to paint this as a sign of the EPA having a radical agenda. The EPA only came to this point reluctantly, however. The EPA was bound by a Supreme Court decision in 2007 to determine whether carbon dioxide was a harmful pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. Once the EPA determined that carbon dioxide emissions are causing harm in 2009, it was bound by the Clean Air Act to issue regulations. Even so, the Obama administration waited three years after the initial determination to do something about it because they wanted Congress to pass a new climate change bill.

A potential downside of the new regulation is that it only applies to new power plants and not existing ones. So this will not lead to an immediate decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. That will only happen once older coal plants come offline and get replaced with cleaner power sources. However, David Roberts argues that regulations of existing plants are bound to come at some point.

Here’s the story: Once something is deemed a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (which, in the case of CO2, was settled by the Mass v. EPA Supreme Court case), then it must be regulated under Section 111 of the act, the New Source Performance Standards program.

Section 111b governs new sources. That’s what was issued today. But when EPA regulates under 111b, that triggers a legal obligation for it also to regulate existing sources under 111d.
Which is a nerdy way of saying: EPA is legally obligated to regulate existing power-plant sources of CO2.

All that remains is to determine the timing. A bunch of green groups sued EPA over their delay on CO2 several years back. The settlement that was reached obligated EPA to issue CO2 regs by last September. Obviously that didn’t happen. Green groups then agreed to a few extensions. They have taken the issuance of the rule today as a sign of good faith from EPA that it’s on track.

Regulation of existing sources under 111d is a much trickier, more difficult matter than regulation of new sources. There are genuinely novel questions of law and technology involved. EPA has been grappling with these questions, but it’s not easy and there are a great many interested stakeholders, to say the least. Even if it wanted to, EPA probably couldn’t get that rule done and issued before the election.

On the whole, I think this is a step in the right direction, though perhaps not one that will bear immediate fruit. If Obama is reelected, it would not surprise me to see some regulation of existing sources during his second term. Of course, if he loses, the new regulation could be watered down or rescinded entirely, though the latter would be in defiance of the Supreme Court.

Green Standards to Incorporate Bird Safety

For a long time, green building standards, as codified by the LEED program, focused on a building's energy use, often to the exclusion of other environmental considerations. One significant problem is that LEED-certified buildings often have large expanses of glass to let in light and heat and reduce energy use. Those same energy-efficient windows attract birds, which crash into the windows when they mistake reflections for trees and sky. Thanks to the work of the American Bird Conservancy and the Bird-Safe Glass Foundation, LEED certification will soon include credits for reducing bird fatalities.

To earn the credit, buildings must comply with one facade requirement, one interior light requirement and one exterior light requirement and develop a monitoring program.

The facade requirement focuses on the creation of “visual noise” to help birds distinguish inviting sky from unwelcoming wall by the making glass less reflective and more textured and/or opaque.

The lighting requirements can be met through actions as simple as turning off all the interior lights in a building at night or making sure that exterior lights are not angled up into the sky.

This looks like a step in the right direction. A green building ought to be safe for wildlife, to the extent that this is possible.

Drilling Spills and Hydrofracking

The one-year anniversary of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig and subsequent massive oil spill was marked by yet another drilling accident. This time, the accident occurred at a drilling site for natural gas in Pennsylvania when a well blew out and started spewing toxic fluids.

Chesapeake Energy officials said a piece of equipment on the well failed.

Now a major response is underway to stop the leak of frack fluid and get control of the well.

Water is gushing from the earth at the Chesapeake well pad.  It has been all hands on deck to put a stop to the leak of fracking fluid that, according to company officials, spilled thousands and thousands of gallons into nearby land and waterways.

"We've been able to limit the flow. We're still doing additional work to regain full control," said Brian Grove of Chesapeake Energy. He added there is no telling yet how much of that extremely salty water mixed with chemicals and sand has impacted the nearby Towanda Creek, but no gas has escaped into the air....

Officials with DEP said the flow of frack fluid has stopped flowing into the nearby creek and its tributary.

Public safety officials in Bradford County said they, along with DEP, will continue to monitor the Towanda Creek which empties into the Susquehanna River. According to officials with Chesapeake Energy, the fluids that spilled all over farm land and into the creek have a very high salt content and contain numerous chemicals used to fracture the rock below.

Environmentalists have been warning about the potential dangers of fracking for quite some time. "Fracking" refers to a drilling process formally called "hydraulic fracturing," which involves injecting fluids into underground rock formations to break up the rocks and release the natural gas they contain. The major concern is that the fluids used for fracking – which often contain toxic chemicals – may leak from gas wells into aquifers and render the groundwater undrinkable for the people who depended on it. Another concern is that fluids from such wells are diverted to wastewater treatment plants, even though the plants are not equipped to process and remove the toxic chemicals found in fracking fluids. Only some of these chemicals are known to the public due to a lack of transparency on the part of energy companies. According to a recent government report:

Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.

Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the same three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because it contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking by a dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the drinking water act.

As yesterday's incident illustrates, blowouts and the resulting contamination of farmland and watersheds are serious concerns as well.

The blowout occurred just as Pennsylvania was beginning closer oversight of the fracking operations.

The DEP and the industry appear to have been influenced by complaints from public water suppliers in Western Pennsylvania, which say they are challenged by bromide levels whose concentrations have increased concurrently with the drilling boom.

The bromides themselves are not a public health risk - they account for a tiny part of the salty dissolved solids that create an unpleasant taste in water at elevated levels.

But bromides react with the chlorine disinfectants used by drinking water to form brominated trihalomethanes (THMs), a volatile organic compound. Studies have linked the prolonged ingestion of high levels of THMs to several types of cancer and birth defects.

Officials at several water authorities in the Pittsburgh area say their facilities have failed several tests for trihalomethanes in recent years....

Bromides, chlorides, and some heavy metals occur naturally in deep rock formations such as the Marcellus Shale, the massive deposit that underlies much of Pennsylvania and parts of several surrounding states.

In other regions where shale production has taken off, operators dispose of the wastewater in deep, federally regulated injection wells. But Pennsylvania's geology is insufficiently porous to accept large volumes of wastewater.

This week's incident ought to prompt closer examination and oversight of fracking operations, whether in the form of voluntary programs like Pennsylvania's or stronger regulations. Aquifers and watersheds are too important to risk contamination.

Christmas Trees and the Environment

Are real or artificial Christmas trees better for the environment? The New York Times comes down on the side of real trees.

The balance tilts in favor of natural Christmas trees because of the way they are grown and harvested.

Close to 400 million trees now grow on Christmas tree farms in the United States, according to the National Christmas Tree Association, which represents growers and retailers of real trees. About 30 million trees are harvested annually.

The living trees generate oxygen, help fix carbon in their branches and in the soil and provide habitat for birds and animals, Mr. Springer said.

Christmas tree farms also help preserve farmland and green space, particularly near densely populated urban areas where pressure for development is intense.

“It allows people with land that may not be the best farmland to have a crop that they can actually make a profit on, and not be under pressure to sell out to developers,” said Mike Garrett, owner and operator of a Christmas tree farm in Sussex, N.J.

After the holidays, real trees can continue to serve a purpose. New York City, for instance, offers free curbside recycling for trees, which are turned into compost. The city’s parks department also provides a free mulching service for trees at several locations after the holidays. In 2009, nearly 150,000 trees were composted or mulched in the city.

Artificial trees, by contrast, are manufactured almost exclusively in Asia from plastic and metal and cannot be recycled by most municipal recycling programs. After six to 10 years of use, most will end up in a landfill.

How much better natural trees are is subject to disagreement. A recent analysis by an environmental consulting firm concluded that a fake tree would have to be used for 20 years to have less environmental impact that buying a real tree annually. Industry groups making artificial trees argue that the difference is really five or ten years. In either case, the impact of a tree is probably smaller than choices we make year-round, such as commuting methods.

Pollution Regulations Could Reduce Greenhouse Gases

By now you are probably aware that there will not be a comprehensive climate bill this year. There might be a smaller bill, but in the meantime, climate action will be up to the EPA. There has already been some movement on regulating greenhouse gas emissions from major sources. In addition to that initiative, mercury regulations have potential to reduce greenhouse gases indirectly.

That is because scientists say mercury from coal accumulates in many fish. Children and babies exposed to the metal, through mother's milk or eating contaminated fish, are at risk of learning and developmental problems. Adults who eat too many of the fish also face risks....

When combined with the EPA's other current and coming rules on "criteria" pollutants, like ones that cause acid rain and smog, the mercury measure would force utilities to invest tens of millions of dollars on technologies to remove the substances....

Francois Broquin, a co-author of reports on coal by Bernstein Research, said the combined rules could push as much as 20 percent of U.S. coal-fired electric generation capacity to retire by 2015. "Obviously that will have an impact," he said.

Frank O'Donnell, the president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch, said that if a large chunk of the coal-fired power fleet went into retirement it could help the country exceed Obama's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020....

Utilities would likely build plants to burn natural gas, which emits half the carbon that coal does, as the main alternative. Alternative energy like wind and solar power, which provided the most new U.S. electricity capacity last year, could also become more attractive to utilities.

A reduction of 17% (or somewhat less than that) by 2020 is well below what is needed to prevent the worst effects of climate change. However, it is better than nothing and could build some momentum for better climate change policy. Perhaps in future years the political climate will be more favorable to passing a climate change law with deeper cuts.

Birds Spread Heavy Metals to Arctic Ponds

A recent study found that coastal seafood-eating birds can carry toxins inland.

The team collected sediment cores from two ponds on a small island in the Canadian Arctic that is home to the nests of two kinds of seabirds: Arctic terns, which feed primarily on fish, and common eider ducks which feed mainly on mollusks. The researchers analyzed the pond sediment for metals and other indicators of the birds' activity.

They found significant differences between the samples that aligned with the birds' diets. There were higher concentrations of metals such as mercury and cadmium in the sites inhabited by terns, while the nearby eider site recorded higher amounts of lead, manganese, and aluminum. The patterns of metals in the sediment cores matched those recorded in the different bird species' tissues....

"The seabirds are obviously not directly to blame for the elevated metal concentrations in the ponds," says team member Jules Blais, a biology professor from the University of Ottawa. "They are simply carrying out their natural behaviours and lifecycles, but have become unwitting vectors of pollutants in an increasingly industrial age."

An earlier study found a similar pattern in Northern Fulmars, so this result is not at all surprising.

Oil Spill: Possibly 95,000 Barrels Per Day

According to congressional testimony, the Deepwater Horizon spill may be 19 times larger than official estimates:

Steve Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., earlier this month made simple calculations from a single video BP released on May 12 and calculated a flow of 70,000 barrels a day, NPR reported last week.

On Wednesday, Wereley told a House of Representatives Energy and Commerce subcommittee that his calculations of two leaks that are on videos BP released on Tuesday showed 70,000 barrels from one leak and 25,000 from the other.

He said the margin of error was about 20 percent, making the spill between 76,000 and 104,000 barrels a day. However, Wereley said he'd need to see videos that showed the flow over a longer period to get a better calculation of the mix of oil and gas from the wellhead.

The Coast Guard plans to put a sensor near the source of the leak to get a better sense of how much is leaking.

The tar balls found in Florida earlier this week did not come from the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Lab results released Wednesday, after the U.S. Coast Guard used a Falcon jet to whisk the samples from Miami to a lab in Groton, Conn., revealed the 50 or so three- to eight-inch tar balls did not come from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The Coast Guard lab's findings were conclusive, a statement said, even as the source of the spill that spawned the tar balls was still not known.

Meanwhile, the Minerals Management Service will be split into three parts to avoid having the regulatory and revenue-collecting functions housed in the same agency.

The reorganization, which has a 30-day timetable, will create the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to develop energy resources, including offshore renewable resources, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which will police offshore operations and protect the environment.

Most importantly, Salazar said, the existing division of the agency that oversees $13 billion in annual revenue collection will evolve into the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, move to the Interior Department's budget and management division, and be entirely separate from Interior's land and minerals division.

About 700 of the agency's 1,700 employees will move to the revenue collection division. Another 300 will be devoted to environmental safety and enforcement, and the remaining 700 will work on offshore energy leasing plans.

Hopefully this move will lead to more effective health and environmental regulation of drilling operations.

Oil Spill: Investigations into its Causes and Video of a Leaking Pipe

Workers clean up oil at South Pass, Louisiana / Photo courtesy Deepwater Horizon Response

There have been a few new developments regarding the oil spill. Unfortunately, a stop to the spill is not one of them, at least not yet. The latest proposal to reduce the spill is to position a "top hat" over the leaking riser pipe. The "top hat" is smaller than the containment chamber that failed last week. As with the containment chamber, no one can be sure that this will work until the "top hat" is actually in place. An image of the device is below. Another possible solution is an insertion tube.

The "top hat" on the deck of the motor vessel Gulf Protector / Photo courtesy Deepwater Horizon Response

More dead marine animals have washed up on beaches. As the BBC link mentions, six dead dolphins have appeared on shore. Tissue samples have been sent to a laboratory for testing; pending the results, the National Marine Fisheries Service is treating them as likely victims of the spill. In addition, hundreds of dead fish showed up on a beach in Alabama. As with the dolphins, the cause of death is so far unknown, but the mass fish kill is unusual enough that it may be connected with the spill. Some of the dead fish are very large.

The House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has been holding hearings this week to investigate the cause of the explosion and the attempts to stop the leak. The various companies involved have each tried to blame the others, so it may be some time before we have an accurate idea of what happened. For now, the House panel is blaming the blowout preventer, a device that regulates the flow of oil to the riser pipe. In case of an accident, the blowout preventer is supposed to cut through the pipe and stop the flow of oil. The company that placed the device provided BP with incorrect diagrams of the blowout preventer; this may explain why the undersea robots were unable to activate it. The well had also failed a pressure test on the day of the explosion:

It passed one set of so-called positive pressure tests in which fluids were injected into the well to increase pressure to monitor whether the well remains stable.

It failed, however, a negative pressure test, in which fluid inside the well is reduced to see whether gas leaks into the well through the cement or casing....

Another test showed high pressure in the main well pipe but zero pressure in two other connecting lines, a sign, Waxman said, that gas was leaking into pipe.

What happened next, Waxman said, is "murky." BP attorneys say the well passed subsequent tests and at 8 p.m. the company resumed removing heavy and costly drilling lubricants known as mud from the well.

The well blew about an hour and a half later when a huge mass of methane gas burst up the pipe, engulfed the rig and exploded into flames.

There is some possibility that the explosion and spill will result in criminal charges for one or more of the companies involved. Criminal charges, if they result in a conviction, would help the government recoup more of the cost of the damage and cleanup from the companies involved. Currently civil liability is capped at $75 million, but criminal charges have no such penalty cap. Laws that could have been violated include the Clean Air and Water Acts and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Various other laws could also apply.

BP finally released a portion of its video of the oil leak after much pressure from the government and media. Here is a short snippet, which I found via Treehugger.



Finally, The Boston Globe has a gallery of large images from the spill and its aftermath. You can keep up with news about oiled birds at the International Bird Rescue Research Center's blog.

Nuclear Water in South Jersey

Tritium, a radioactive chemical present in nuclear waste, has been detected in a major aquifer in southern New Jersey. The problem stems from a leak discovered last year at the Oyster Creek Generating Station:

The agency said 180,000 gallons of tritium-tainted water gushed from two leaks at the plant on April 9, 2009.

Tritium, a low-level nuclear material, was found in the groundwater of Ocean County in the Cohansey aquifer at 50 times higher concentrations than DEP safety standards for drinking water.

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin on Friday said in a statement there was no imminent public health threat. The tainted water is believed to be 2 miles from the nearest residential wells, he said.

Since tritium was detected in the aquifer, the DEP has taken over management of the cleanup under the Spill Act.

The DEP said polluting the aquifer is a violation of the law. They ordered the company to install deeper monitoring wells into the aquifer to track the pollution.

The plume is migrating about three feet per day, according to the state. At that rate it would take about 15 years for the contaminated water to reach the wells. Tritium has a relatively short half-life of 12.3 years, further reducing the potential risk to human health.

The radioactive water tested at 1 million picocuries. The federal safe-drinking-water standard is 20,000 picocuries.

Cleaning up tritium leaks is difficult. PSEG is still cleaning up a 2002 spill that measured at 15 million picocuries, the highest radiation level ever recorded in any tritium spill nationwide.

The Oyster Creek Generating Station is the oldest nuclear power plant operating in the United States.

Updates on the Gulf Oil Spill

Oil Slick in the Gulf of Mexico on May 1, as seen by NASA's Terra ASTER

First, BP has built one of three coffer dams that it will try to use to collect leaking oil underwater.

BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said that the company had fashioned the first of three domes designed to be placed Tuesday "over the leak sources and allow us to collect the oil, funnel it up through pipework to a drill ship called Enterprise on the surface."

He added that the company expects "to load out the fabricated containment chamber tomorrow and we hope to have the system up and operating within a week." ...

Suttles admitted there would be "technical challenges" in trying to sink a 65-tonne structure down so deep, but said that despite the extreme pressure physics was to some extent in their favor.

"What allows this to work is the fact that oil is less dense than water and wants to float.

"Essentially an oil column exerts less pressure than a water column so that helps push the oil to the surface and we can assist that with other means."

This method was used to reduce the environmental damage from spills after Hurricane Katrina, but in much shallower water. Since this has not been tried with such a deep well, it is not known whether it will work. The link does not make clear what the timetable for the second and third containment chambers will be. A more permanent solution is to drill a relief well, but this is months away and similarly uncertain.

The Australian accident, known as the Montara spill, began Aug. 21 with a blowout of high-pressure oil similar to the one in the gulf. With the well spewing 17,000 to 85,000 gallons per day, precious weeks passed before the relief wells were started. When efforts got under way, the first four attempts — drilled on Oct. 6, 13, 17 and 24 — missed the original well.

A fifth attempt finally intersected the original on Nov. 1, and about 3,400 barrels of heavy mud were pumped through the relief well into the base of the original well. The spewing oil finally stopped Nov. 3 — more than 10 weeks after the original explosion.

BP intends to drill a similar relief well close to the site where the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig blew up and sank in the gulf nearly two weeks ago. The company says the well could take months to complete. In the meantime, the well continues to leak 210,000 gallons of oil a day, according to the latest official estimates.

BP's well in the Gulf of Mexico is at a much greater depth, which makes the plugging operation more difficult, but the seabed around BP's well is better mapped than the Montara well. In both operations, the goal is to hit a narrow shaft over a mile below the ocean floor. One additional connection between the two spills is that Halliburton did contract cement work shortly before each blowout.

Prior to Obama's announcement of expanded offshore drilling, NOAA warned that the Interior Department underestimated the risks of oil spills in its draft proposal.

NOAA complained that the draft report overstated the safety of offshore oil production by using information on frequency of spills from 1973 to 2004. NOAA pointed out there was a "substantial increase in spill volume in 2005, primarily due to spills associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Some of the damaged rigs and pipelines damaged during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons continue to have episodic releases, and repairs have not been fully completed."

Citing Interior's own data, NOAA scolded it for asserting that it had "been many years since any substantial environmental impacts have been observed as a result of an oil spill caused by the [Outer Continental Shelf] production and transportation activities."

NOAA also wrote that the administration's "analysis of the risk and impacts of accidental spills and chronic impacts are understated and generally not supported or referenced, using vague terms and phrases such as 'no substantive degradation is expected' and 'some marine mammals could be harmed.'"

So far relatively few oiled birds have been recovered, and the first is already cleaned and recuperating. In that case, the oiled gannet happened to swim up to a boat. It is possible that other seabirds are getting oiled and not making contact with people before dying since the slick is large and has mostly stayed away from land. When parts of the slick are burned, the smoke presents a potential threat to migratory songbirds flying over the gulf; songbirds that die from smoke inhalation over the Gulf might not be found.

Birds are not the only animals at risk. Since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, dozens of sea turtles have been washing up dead on Mississippi beaches. Necropsies will be necessary to determine whether their deaths are connected with the spill.

Finally, Paul Krugman writes that the oil spill in the Gulf could rejuvenate the environmental movement.

For one thing, as visible pollution has diminished, so has public concern over environmental issues. According to a recent Gallup survey, “Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years.”

This decline in concern would be fine if visible pollution were all that mattered — but it isn’t, of course. In particular, greenhouse gases pose a greater threat than smog or burning rivers ever did. But it’s hard to get the public focused on a form of pollution that’s invisible, and whose effects unfold over decades rather than days. ...

Then came the gulf disaster. Suddenly, environmental destruction was photogenic again. ...

For the gulf blowout is a pointed reminder that the environment won’t take care of itself, that unless carefully watched and regulated, modern technology and industry can all too easily inflict horrific damage on the planet.

This oil spill has gotten a lot of coverage, and the risks of offshore drilling have become more obvious. However, since the bulk of the spill has remained offshore, most of the environmental damage is also offshore, underwater, and out of sight. This allows oil industry supporters to liken the spill to chocolate milk or assert that the damage is minimal. By contrast, the Santa Barbara spill that Krugman references coated California beaches in heavy oil where the damage was visible and obvious. Even if Krugman is right, this disaster seems a heavy price to pay for bringing environmental problems back into the public consciousness.

Oil Slick Hits the Louisiana Coast

Oil slick approaching the coast on April 29 / via NASA – MODIS

Yesterday the oil slick from the sunken oil drilling rig reached coastal wetlands. National Geographic has photos from some of the affected areas. The only oiled bird recovered as of last night was a Northern Gannet (included in the photos at the link above). The International Bird Rescue and Research Center and Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research are both on hand to rehabilitate oiled waterfowl. Aside from wetlands and waterbirds, the spill is also affecting the local fishermen, who have launched lawsuits in response.

A solution is still months away since the "blowout preventer" did not work and robots could not engage it.

Industry scientists say the permanent solution is to close the entire well. To do that, they must drill another hole—through 13,000 feet of rock a mile under the ocean's floor—that will intercept the leaking well. They can then pump in cement to try to plug the leaks.

This operation will take up to three months and is highly complex; the drills must precisely hit the leaking well—which is just seven inches wide. When a well off the coast of Australia blew out last year, it took five attempts over 10 weeks to hit the old well and shut it down.

BP says it will begin drilling the new well this weekend.

Until then, the wellhead will continuing spilling at least 5,000 (and possibly 25,000) barrels of oil every day since BP did not have a contigency plan for a catastrophic accident. According to a leaked document, the spill's output could get much worse.

"The following is not public," reads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Emergency Response document dated April 28. "Two additional release points were found today in the tangled riser. If the riser pipe deteriorates further, the flow could become unchecked resulting in a release volume an order of magnitude higher than previously thought." ...

In scientific circles, an order of magnitude means something is 10 times larger. In this case, an order of magnitude higher would mean the volume of oil coming from the well could be 10 times higher than the 5,000 barrels a day coming out now. That would mean 50,000 barrels a day, or 2.1 million gallons a day. It appears the new leaks mentioned in the Wednesday release are the leaks reported to the public late Wednesday night. 

"There is no official change in the volume released but the USCG is no longer stating that the release rate is 1,000 barrels a day," continues the document, referred to as report No. 12. "Instead they are saying that they are preparing for a worst-case release and bringing all assets to bear."

The emergency document also states that the spill has grown in size so quickly that only 1 to 2 percent of it has been sprayed with dispersants.

And it would be even worse if the wellhead is lost:

The worst-case scenario for the broken and leaking well pouring oil into the Gulf of Mexico would be the loss of the wellhead and kinked piping currently restricting the flow to 5,000 barrels -- or 210,000 gallons -- per day.

If the wellhead is lost, oil could leave the well at a much greater rate.

"Typically, a very good well in the Gulf can produce 30,000 barrels a day, but that's under control. I have no idea what an uncontrolled release could be," said Stephen Sears, chairman of the petroleum engineering department at Louisiana State University.

The government is investigating an inadequate cement job as a possible cause of the explosion.

Transocean operated the drilling rig under contract for British oil giant BP Plc., the largest oil producer in the U.S. portion of the gulf and a company with a spotty safety history. Transocean has said the global construction titan Halliburton had just completed "cementing" the 18,000-foot-long well around the time of the explosion....

If "cementing" is the cause, it could spell new troubles for Halliburton, whose work was also suspected in a well explosion that took place last August in the Timor Sea near Australia. It took 71 days to fully cap and contain that spill, according to Australia's Sunday Times. The official investigation is still ongoing, but cementing was the main area of investigation, the head of the inquiry has said.

BP's safety record in the United States is spotty. Last October, it was hit with a record $87 million workplace-safety fine for failing to take corrective steps and new violations after a 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery that killed 15 workers.

In addition to the criticism of BP, there have been some complaints about a slow federal response to the spill. Despite the mess, the Obama administration insists that it will continue to push forward with expanded offshore drilling. However, there will be a moratorium until the Interior Department can review additional safety steps to prevent spills like this one.

Oil Spill Worse Than First Reported

NASA image courtesy the MODIS Rapid Response Team.

When two leaks were first reported in the damaged oil wellhead, reports estimated that the leaks were discharging about 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons) of oil per day. That figure has been quoted consistently since then. Apparently the wellhead has a third leak, so the leakage is actually much greater: about 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) per day.

The inability of the Coast Guard and BP to shut off the leaks makes it more likely the oil slick will hit the coast when the winds shift.

Meanwhile, an air of inevitability has settled in — a sense that the question about the oil reaching marshes and beaches is no longer if, but when. Experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the oil is likely to hit Louisiana on Friday night.

Gulf winds have pushed the slick farther from Florida's coastline, said Mike Sole, secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. On Tuesday it was 89 miles from Pensacola, and by Wednesday it was 127 miles. But that's no reason to celebrate, he said.

"If the winds shift again, Florida could easily be the target," Sole said.

Worried Louisiana officials have already begun lining passes with boom lines to contain oil.

But some parts of the swampy coastline will be impossible to protect, said NOAA ecologist Tom Minello. Once it hits those mangroves, he said, "it'll just kill all the vegetation. It's years before it will recover. The stuff's pretty toxic, and it will kill all the growth that supports the shrimp and crabs," hurting a seafood industry that's still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

While noting he wouldn't want oil to hit any of Florida's coast, Sole said it would be easier cleaning it off of a beach than scrubbing sensitive estuaries. The only way to get oil out of a contaminated marsh, he said, "is to burn the marsh."

Audubon has a good listing of which bird species might be at risk from an oil slick in Louisiana. Most of them are waterbirds that use coastal wetlands for nesting, but migrating birds are at risk as well.

Meanwhile a controlled burn is going ahead:

On Wednesday, two vessels dispatched by the Coast Guard and the British oil company BP - which had hired the sunken rig - swept the thickest concentrations of oil on the surface into a 500ft (150m) fire-resistant boom.

They then towed it to a five-mile "burn zone" set up inside the slick, where it was set alight shortly before nightfall. It will be allowed to burn for an hour.

If the test is deemed successful, BP is expected to continue the controlled burns as long as the weather conditions are favourable.

The decision to start the test burn came after the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warned that winds in the area were about to shift and possibly push the oil onto the coast by Friday night.

Hopefully this will work until a better solution can be implemented.

Louisiana Oil Spill to be Burned?

The oil slick as seen by the European Space Agency's Envisat

So far efforts to shut off the leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico have been unsuccessful. The next step to control the leak would be to build an underwater dome, a process that could take up to a month. A more permanent solution would be to drill a relief well and block the wellhead that is currently leaking. That process would take several months to complete.

In the meantime, the wellhead is spilling 42,000 gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico. Officials are considering a controlled burn to prevent the slick from reaching the coastal wetlands once the winds shift.

In a controlled burn, towing boats and fire-resistant booms are arranged in a U shape to contain spilled oil before it is ignited, according to a description of the oil-containment measure (PDF) on the Web site of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is aiding in the spill response. The process may be repeated multiple times.

Indeed, Landry said that burning would remain a tool under consideration as long as oil was still leaking.

Authorities are drawing heavily on a 1993 experiment conducted off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, which showed that this type of controlled burn can eliminate 50 to 99 percent of the oil collected.

The heat generated by the burning oil—a temperature of 1,800°F (982°C) was measured at the top of the boom at the Newfoundland burn—will cause the smoke to rise several hundred to several thousand feet and at the same time be carried away by the prevailing winds, NOAA's report said.

According to the National Geographic article, the effects of a controlled burn of the oil slick would be similar to a forest fire. The fire would generate smoke containing carbon dioxide, water vapor, and particulate matter. I would be concerned about birds migrating over the Gulf, but the Coast Guard seems to think the risk is minimal.

The prospect alarmed fisherman and ecologists along the Louisiana coast. Gov. Bobby Jindal requested that the Coast Guard set up protective booms around several wildlife refuges in the Delta.

Those delicate coastal rookeries and estuaries factor into the consideration for the surface burn. Such a burn would most likely ease the impact on wildlife.

The oceanic agency issued a guide to the burn that advised as follows:

“Based on our limited experience, birds and mammals are more capable of handling the risk of a local fire and temporary smoke plume than of handling the risk posed by a spreading oil slick. Birds flying in the plume can become disoriented, and could suffer toxic effects. This risk, however, is minimal when compared to oil coating and ingestion.”

Meanwhile, the spill is leading to questions about the Obama administration's plans to open more of the coast to offshore drilling and about plans to expand drilling as part of the proposed energy and climate legislation. Some previous supporters of offshore drilling, such as Charlie Crist, are rethinking their positions.

Oil Spill Continues off Louisiana

The Coast Guard and BP are attempting to stop the leak that resulted from last week's drilling rig explosion. As of last night, their efforts were still unsuccessful, and oil continued to leak out of the pipes at a rate of 42,000 gallons per day. For now, they are trying to use robots to shut off a valve at the wellhead. If that fails, it may be possible to build an underwater dome to collect the oil or drill a relief well to take pressure off the original wellhead.

Plans are moving forward to design a dome that could be submerged over the leaks, which are coming from a 5,000-foot pipeline called a riser that ran between the wellhead and the rig. The riser is now snaking along the ocean bottom.

The dome would corral the oil and route it up to vessels to be collected. But Doug Suttles, the chief operating officer for exploration and production at BP, which was leasing the rig from Transocean and is required by law to pay for the cleanup, continued to emphasize the engineering challenges of such an operation at a news conference on Monday.

“I must stress that this is state of the art,” Mr. Suttles said, adding that the method had never been done at such depths. It would take at least two weeks to put into place, he said.

More than 1,000 people are working on the spill, including officials from the Coast Guard, the federal government and BP. BP is also mobilizing rigs that would drill one or more deep wells nearby to push mud and concrete into the gushing cavity, an operation made all the more expensive and complex in the deep waters. That would take two to three months.

Here are good diagrams of the leak and what might be done about it. So far the oil slick is not threatening the coastal wetlands because winds have pushed it eastward. If the wind direction changes before the leak is stopped, the slick could reach the coast relatively quickly. Even if the coast is not affected, the oil spill can still harm marine life.

Charlie Henry, the lead science coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that three sperm whales were seen swimming near the spill but that they appeared unaffected.

But other environmentalists warned of damage. "Oil spills are extremely harmful to marine life when they occur and often for years or even decades later," said Jacqueline Savitz, a marine scientist and climate campaign director at Oceana, an environmental group. She said spills could coat sea birds and limit their flying ability and damage fisheries by injuring marine organism's systems related to respiration, vision and reproduction.

Savitz said that the Gulf of Mexico is host to four species of endangered sea turtles and bluefin tuna, snapper and grouper. "Each of these can be affected," she said. "Turtles have to come to the surface to breathe and can be coated with oil or may swallow it." And, she added, the Gulf is one of only two nurseries for bluefin tuna, more than 90 percent of which return to their place of birth to spawn.

The event will raise questions about the Obama administration's plans to open more of the coast to offshore drilling. One accident does not necessarily mean that the policy is wrong. However, accidents like this one have human costs, environmental costs, and monetary costs for cleaning up the mess. Those costs need to be accounted in any decisions regarding increased drilling.

Sunken Drilling Rig Leaking Oil

As most of you probably know, last week an oil drilling rig exploded, burned, and collapsed just off the coast of Louisiana. The rig was performing exploratory drilling at the time of the explosion. Most workers escaped, but 11 are still missing and presumed dead. The initial word was that leakage from the wreck had stopped after the rig sank and that environmental damage would be minimal.

It turns out that confidence was premature. Oil has been leaking from the damaged rig pipes at a rate of 1,000 barrels per day. (At that rate, it would take three days to classify as a major spill.) BP is trying to shut off the leak, but the likelihood of success is uncertain.

The best hope is that the remote-operated submarines—at least four are deployed at the scene--would be able to activate a huge device on the sea floor called a “blow-out protector,” a series of valves meant to control pressure in the well. “This is a highly complex operation,” said Doug Suttles, chief operating officer for BP’s exploration and production division. “And it may not be successful.”

If that operation fails, the next option is to drill a relief well—a process that would take at least two to three months, said Suttles. A BP rig equipped for this task is to arrive at the scene by Monday.

Suttles also said that the company was putting in place a plan to mitigate the potential damage by capturing the oil beneath the water surface. It’s an operation that involves lowering a large dome to trap the oil and pipe it to a holding vessel at the surface.

Although such a system was deployed successfully after Hurricane Katrina, Suttles said it has never been attempted at this depth. “We have the world’s best experts working to see if we can make that possible,” he said.

The oil slick is not expected to reach the coastal wetlands and beaches in the near term. However, changes in the wind or weather could move it towards land more quickly. The short term goal is to contain and disperse the slick.

The size of the oil spill appeared to be 600 square miles (1,500 square kilometers) as of Sunday, located 30 miles (48 kilometers) offshore, said Charlie Henry, scientist with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a member of the response team.

Landry said that chemical dispersant also has been applied to the oil spill, and that the team was ready to apply more. She said a third of the world’s oil dispersant supply was available in the Gulf region.

According to the U.S. National Research Council, oil spill dispersants do not actually reduce the total amount of oil entering the environment. Rather they change the chemical and physical properties of the oil, making it more likely to mix into the water column than to contaminate the shoreline. “Dispersant application thus represents a conscious decision to increase the hydrocarbon load … on one component of the ecosystem… while reducing the load on another,” a 2006 NRC report said.

One of the worst drilling rig leaks in the Gulf Coast took nine months to fix in 1979. A drilling rig in the East Timor Sea leaked for months without a successful fix despite numerous attempts. So I hope the submersibles are successful in shutting off the pipes before this spill gets worse.

Map of the spill's extent and location as of April 25 (click through for a larger version)

Update: NASA's Aqua satellite captured an image of the oil slick, which appears as a silvery sheen in the image above.

A Recount of Oil Spills from Hurricane Katrina

New analysis of U.S. government data reveals that Hurricane Katrina caused over 200 oil spills:

According to comprehensive research using government incident databases, about 8 million gallons of petroleum releases were reported as a result of Katrina hitting the U.S. Gulf coast in 2005, nearly 75 percent of the total volume of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. The releases were largely due to storage tank failure and the shut down and restart of production processes. Storm surge floods were the primary cause, but some incidents occurred as a result of hurricane and tropical storm strength winds where no surge was present, according to the authors.

The study appears in the April issue of the journal Risk Analysis.

The authors include consultant Nicholas Santella, Laura Steinberg of Syracuse University, and Hatice Sengul of the Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council. Ten onshore releases of petroleum products were greater than 10,000 gallons each, primarily made up of crude oil that leaked from storage tanks. Fewer and smaller releases were reported from chemical and manufacturing industries handling hazardous materials. Of the releases from onshore facilities and storage tanks, 76 percent were petroleum, 18 percent were chemicals and six percent were natural gas. Many refineries and other facilities shut down in anticipation of large storms to minimize damage and prevent process upsets and are required to do so for safety purposes. However, shutdowns and restarts have the disadvantage of leading to potentially large emissions of volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and other chemicals.

Storms as powerful as Hurricane Katrina are rare, but less intense hurricanes are common in the southeastern U.S. This is why I think states along the Gulf Coast and southern Atlantic seaboard will take a large risk if they permit offshore oil drilling.

Volcano Causing Problems for Wildlife?

Ash plume from Eyjafjallajokull Volcano / NASA/MODIS Land Rapid Response Team

Much of the coverage I have seen of the Eyjafjallajökull Volcano's eruption has focused on the problems caused by flight cancellations, its possible effects on Europe's weather, or the spectacular images documenting the eruption. So far there has not been much (or at least not much that I could find) on whether the volcano might affect wildlife generally or birds specifically. The information I have seen is rather fragmentary. One story, from Iceland Review, mentions a possible impact for wildlife: birds flying into the ash plume.

One of the most terrible consequences of an eruption like this is the effect on animals. Most domestic animals are still in house, but the birds have no shelter. They fly into the dark cloud, flap their wings like they have lost their bearings and then fall down and die. Our reporters saw a flock of geese fly straight into the deadly ash. Farmers have told of the desparate [sic] sound coming from the birds battling death. This is the season when birds are migrating back to Iceland.

Unfortunately this is rather vague and does not elaborate on why the ash kills birds (presumably suffocation) or how much of a threat the ash plume represents. Like North America, Europe is in the midst of its spring migration season. Birds will be flying the same skies deemed too dangerous for airplanes. At least one Whooper Swan carrying a satellite tracking device passed near or through the plume successfully. However, the current eruption is still a concern for migrating birds.

On Iceland itself, the volcanic eruption is causing concern for the returning waterfowl. A report from WWT’s colleague Dr Olafur Einarsson in Reykjavik confirms that that there is dense ash and total darkness to the southeast of the volcano, near the area dubbed “Whooper Airport” because it is where most of the birds land after their migration.

Previous eruptions

Dr Einarsson reports that bird deaths have occurred during previous eruptions of other volcanoes in Iceland, when the feeding areas were covered with ash, causing major problems for farmers and birds. Fortunately at the moment the main area affected, between Vik (in the west) and Kirkjubaejarklaustur (in the east), is primarily an area of sand and gravel, leaving internationally important whooper swan staging or breeding sites still suitable for swans.

The BBC reports that farmers have had to keep their domestic animals indoors to prevent them from being poisoned by the falling ash.

The fluoride in the ash creates acid in the animals' stomachs, corroding the intestines and causing haemorrhages.

It also binds with calcium in the blood stream and after heavy exposure over a period of days makes bones frail, even causing teeth to crumble.

If this poses a threat to domestic animals, it probably applies to wildlife too. In fact, wildlife may be at greater danger because they rely on the outdoors for food. It is possible that they could relocate temporarily, but I am not sure if they would know to do that. The BBC article does not mention much about wildlife, but it does mention that some geese had difficulty flying because their wings were caked with ash.

Since volcanic ash reduces sunlight passing through the atmosphere, volcanic eruptions in the past have been followed by colder winters. Earlier this year, parts of Europe experienced a historically cold winter, and that caused noticeable changes in local bird life. If Eyjafjallajökull does cause a harsh winter this year, I would expect to see some effect on birds.

Update: Grrlscientist also wrote about how ash clouds might affect birds's lungs.

DC Bag Tax Reducing Plastic Bag Usage

Reusable Giant Bags / Photo by Mr. T in DC

Last summer, the DC Council approved a 5¢ tax on each disposable shopping bag distributed at stores within the District. The goal of the tax was not so much to raise money as to reduce waste and clean up litter. At the beginning of this year, that tax took effect. It is showing results almost immediately.

Less than a month into the program, which D.C. officials describe as an effort to reduce litter and generate funds to clean up the Anacostia River, the nickel bag fee is having a big impact. Managers at stores that sell food or beverages say the switchover has cut the use of plastic bags by half or more. One Safeway in Northwest reports a falloff of more than 6,000 bags a week, about half of its former volume.

And for customers, the bag law is changing the District's carryout culture in ways large and small. A lunchtime army of office workers now ply the sidewalks with near-naked sandwiches and sodas filling their hands, making some diners more self-conscious about what they buy. Parking lots feature impromptu juggling acts as determined fee-avoiders teeter to their cars with heaping armloads of loose groceries. And people are stockpiling reusable shopping bags -- and routinely forgetting to take them shopping.

If the Post is to be believed, many residents are responding to the tax in unnecessarily difficult ways. One resident reports paying more to shop in Virginia so that she will not pay the bag tax. Other residents try to carry more items than they physically can without any bag at all. I hope that these reactions are not the typical ones because adapting to the tax need not involve so much self-inflicted pain. There is a third choice besides a taxed disposable bag and no bag at all – a reusable bag. Most stores offer durable reusable bags at cheap prices; one can also pay a bit more to obtain more stylish shopping bags of various sizes and materials. I have read many tips for making reusable bag use easier; one of the best is to keep bags in places that will make it easy to remember them if you go shopping.

Still it is good to see that the tax is having its intended effect of cutting back on disposable bags. Over time, I hope that almost all will be eliminated.

Grading Obama on Conservation

President Barack Obama listens to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar during an Oval Office meeting on the regulation of mountaintop mining, June 9, 2009. / White House Photo

Now that President Obama has been in office for a year, it is possible to get a better sense of his administration's priorities and how much it has accomplished so far. At this point, any evaluation of the administration will be at best incomplete, especially given the absurdly large number of unfilled appointments. The Center for Biological Diversity looks at Obama's record on conservation issues and gives him a C overall.

Here is how he does on endangered species conservation. On the plus side:

• He undid regulations implemented late in the Bush administration to weaken the Endangered Species Act.
• His Interior Department increased the critical habitat for several endangered or threatened species such as the Canadian lynx and leatherback sea turtle.

However:

• His administration has protected only two new species , despite a large backlog of candidate species, the fewest since Reagan.
• He removed protection from gray wolves.
• He allowed regulations from late in the Bush administration to weaken ESA protection for polar bears.
• He is continuing policies left over from the Bush administration for managing Snake River salmon.
  

The administration does a lot better on public lands protection than other issues, but even on that its record is not stellar. The CBD report covers endangered species, public lands, oceans, climate, and energy. One could probably find other issues that ought to be part of such an evaluation; for example, I do not see anything specifically on air or water pollution or environmental justice issues. Granted these are probably outside the CBD's mission, but they are part of the administration's environmental record. The major public lands act that Obama signed into law also seems to be omitted even though it may be the most significant achievement so far.