Following the worst scandal in the recent history of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency is reconsidering whether to list two animal species that live in Utah as threatened or endangered.
They are the white-tailed prairie dog and the greater sage-grouse, both also found in other states.
The action comes after the Interior Department Office of Inspector General, and a federal judge said an Interior Department official had indulged in political meddling to prevent the listing of new species.
In January 2005, the FWS ruled against protecting the greater sage-grouse.
But a March 23, 2007, report by the Interior Department inspector general found that Julie MacDonald, assistant department secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, was "heavily involved with editing, commenting on and reshaping the Endangered Species Program's scientific reports from the field."
The inspector found that she was not involved in illegal activity but that she disclosed nonpublic information to private organizations, such as the California Farm Bureau and the Pacific Legal Foundation.
MacDonald, who has since resigned, intervened in the agency's determination concerning the greater sage-grouse, according to the report. The grouse is found in 11 Western states, but their numbers have dropped drastically since settlement of the region.
According to the report, one issue was whether state attempts to protect the species are adequate. Several FWS regional offices — including that of Region 6, based in Denver, which includes Utah — had reviewed state plans and determined that state conservation efforts did not meet standards.
"The Portland assistant regional solicitor (in the Interior Department) said once MacDonald was informed, she claimed that FWS came up with the wrong conclusions and instructed them to go back and do the review again," says the report. "He termed this behavior by MacDonald as 'the most brazen case of political meddling' he had seen."
The Fish and Wildlife Service determined in 2005 that protecting the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered was "not warranted."
In a memorandum dated June 21, 2007, J. Mitch King, then-director of the FWS Region 6, wrote that MacDonald had been involved in the ultimate determination on the greater sage-grouse but that she did not affect the outcome.
However, on Dec. 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho agreed with plaintiffs Western Watershed Project, based in Hailey, Idaho, who challenged the FWS decision on the grouse.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote that the FWS did not make a coherent analysis of the deterioration of sage-grouse habitat and regulations designed to protect the bird.
"Finally, the FWS decision was tainted by the inexcusable conduct of one of its own executives," Winmill added. "Julie MacDonald, a deputy assistant secretary who was neither a scientist nor a sage-grouse expert, had a well-documented history of intervening in the listing process to ensure that the 'best science' supported a decision not to list the species.
"Her tactics included everything from editing scientific conclusions to intimidating FWS staffers. Her extensive involvement in the sage-grouse listing decision process taints the FWS's decision and requires a reconsideration without her involvement."
Winmill added, "MacDonald had extensive involvement in the sage-grouse listing decision, used her intimidation tactics in this case, and altered the 'best science' to fit a (protection) not-warranted decision." Winmill asked the agency to reconsider.
On Tuesday, the FWS Denver office announced that it was conducting a status review of the greater sage-grouse, "to determine if the species warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act."
Comments and information will be accepted until May 27, the office said, and can be submitted via the Web site regulations.gov.
Mark Salvo, director of the environmentalist Sagebrush Sea Campaign for WildEarth Guardians, commented in a press release, "The sage grouse should have been protected in 2005" and today there is even more evidence of threats to the species. "The cumulative effects of livestock grazing, oil and gas extraction, pipelines, roads, fences and sprawl are driving the greater sage-grouse toward extinction," he wrote.
A spokeswoman for the Denver regional office of the FWS, Sharon Rose, said a sage-grouse review is appropriate because new information is available about the species.
In November 2004, the Fish and Wildlife Service turned down a petition by a number of environmental organizations and Utah nature writer Terry Tempest Williams to list the white-tailed prairie dog as threatened or endangered.
In King's memorandum of July 21, 2007, he wrote that the Utah Field Office had drafted findings that concluded information from those seeking to protect the white-tailed prairie dog was substantial. But on Oct. 26, 2004, the regional office responded to questions from MacDonald.
"During the course of that call the (Utah) Field Office did not suggest or support modification of the finding to 'not substantial,"' King wrote.
Later, the Utah office received an e-mail saying MacDonald and the Interior Department wanted to go with a finding that the information was not substantial, King added. And that was the Interior Department decision published in the government's official record, the Federal Register.
King wrote, "The finding was surnamed as 'substantial' by the Field Office, Regional Office and Washington Office. The change to not substantial only occurred at Ms. MacDonald's direction."
Sharon Rose of the FWS Denver office said a court settlement was reached recently in the white-tailed prairie dog controversy, overturning the earlier decision not to consider the species for listing. "Terms of the settlement were that we were going to initiate what we call a 12-month finding by May of this year, and that we were going to complete it June 1, 2010," Rose said.
"That gives us a chance to get some field data in on that. We look to the states for a lot of those things."
E-mail: bau@desnews.com