Twenty-three grizzly bears have been permanently spared from a trophy hunt that was scheduled to begin in the greater Yellowstone area on September 1, thanks to a U.S. District Court ruling that found in favor of conservation groups and tribes on Tuesday. But the bigger triumph for grizzly advocates is that the entire population of Yellowstone鈥檚 grizzly bears鈥攂etween 700 and 1,000 individuals鈥攚ill once again receive federal protections under the Endangered Species Act.

Judge Dana Christensen ruled that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service聽acted 鈥渁rbitrarily and capriciously,鈥� and ultimately exceeded its legal authority, when it delisted the Yellowstone grizzly last year. 鈥淏y delisting the Greater Yellowstone grizzly without analyzing how delisting would affect the remaining members of the lower-48 grizzly designation the USFWS failed to consider how reduced protections in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem would impact the other grizzly populations,鈥� he wrote in the 48-page ruling.

The verdict came after a nearly one-month stay of the highly controversial hunt, while聽Christensen deliberated on the evidence and arguments presented by a coalition of plaintiffs, led by the Crow Indian Tribe, on whether the grizzly should return to its 鈥渢hreatened鈥� status. Had the hunt begun as scheduled, 22 hunters who drew tags in the Wyoming lottery, and one who drew a tag in Idaho, would have been allowed to bag a bear between September 1 and mid-November. The state of Montana, where Yellowstone鈥檚 grizzlies also live, had opted to forego a trophy hunt this season.

鈥淎lthough this order may have impacts throughout grizzly country and beyond, this case is not about the ethics of hunting and it is not about solving human- or livestock-grizzly conflicts as a practical or philosophical matter,鈥� wrote Christensen. Central to his ruling, rather, was that the USFWS had not applied the best available science to estimate the size of the population (bears are notoriously hard to count and the USFWS has long struggled with this). Plus, the long-term survival of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly depends on the introduction of new genetic material, which the USFWS did not logically address when it delisted the island-population of bears. Yellowstone鈥檚 grizzlies have not yet moved outside of the ecosystem鈥檚 boundaries to breed with bears farther north, limited by roads and cities.

The recovery status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear has been a hot-button topic in the conservation world for more than a decade鈥攕o much so that this delisting and re-listing debacle isn鈥檛 the first of its kind. In 2007, under the Bush administration, the Yellowstone grizzly bear was also unceremoniously kicked off the Endangered Species list. But environmental groups sued the USFWS and won. In that case, the judge found that the USFWS had not adequately considered the potential loss of white bark pine nuts鈥攐ne of Yellowstone grizzlies鈥� key foods鈥攆rom fungus and bark beetles when it removed protections. In 2009, the bears were back on the list. Shortly thereafter, under the Obama Administration, work began once again to remove the bear. In this case, though, Christensen鈥檚 ruling unearths some deeper questions about the connectivity of bears.

The Lower 48 grizzly bear was first listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1975. But in the early 1990s, wildlife managers divided the bear into five 鈥渄istinct population segments鈥� for recovery purposes鈥擸ellowstone, Bitterroot, Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak, the North Cascades, and Northern Continental Divide. Each group had its own conservation plan. The USFWS has since been using these same delineations as a tool for delisting the population groups one by one鈥攕omething that had never been done before, leading many to question the legality of this method of removing protections. (A District Court ruling last year on the Great Lakes gray wolf population segment set a precedent that this method is indeed illegal.)聽

The feds have been keen to hold up the Yellowstone grizzly bear as a national success story鈥攐ne meant to bolster support for the Endangered Species Act. Without being able to show species recovery, the USFWS risks losing public support鈥攁nd funding鈥攆or the Act and its conservation programs. Environmental groups, meanwhile, believe that the Yellowstone grizzly bear has been caught up in a states鈥�-rights battle, in which states want the power to manage wildlife without federal interference. In Wyoming and Idaho, this means administering a trophy hunt and gaining revenue. In addition, states have expressed concerns over public safety if too many grizzlies are roaming the woods. Earlier this month, a grizzly bear near Jackson Hole.

But by taking a population-group approach to removing protections, the USFWS hasn鈥檛 been focusing as much on connectivity as they should have. Such linkages provide new genetic material聽that helps populations thrive. Judge Christensen noted there were once 50,000 grizzlies living in America and that it would be 鈥渟implistic at best and disingenuous at worst鈥� to not take into account the populations of grizzlies outside of Yellowstone when considering stripping bears of federal protection. Fewer聽than 1,200 grizzlies remain outside of Yellowstone, and most of those are in the Northern Continental Divide population group in Montana鈥攁nother island population. Most of these other four groups have not seen improvement since the 1970s, with the North Cascades group believed聽to have no grizzlies left whatsoever.

Ultimately, this ruling will have profound implications for other grizzly populations and the United States and possibly the Endangered Species Act as a whole. The USFWS had also been preparing to delist the Northern Continental Divide grizzlies. It鈥檚 likely this ruling will halt those plans. On the flip side, the Trump Administration has been working to weaken the ESA through a number of House bills over the past year. This ruling could buoy arguments that the ESA isn鈥檛 effective at recovering species.

鈥淭he Department of the Interior can now go back to the drawing board to hopefully consider what research, such as the long-term impacts of climate change on the population, must be considered to ensure a healthy long-term future for Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzlies,鈥� Bart Melton, Northern Rockies regional director for the聽National Parks Conservation Association, said in a statement.

In the months ahead, the USFWS can either appeal this decision, or revise its science and strategy, if and when it applies to remove protections from the bears again.

The post Yellowstone Grizzlies Return to the Endangered List appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

If you live within a ten-minute walk of a public park, count yourself lucky. For millions of Americans, urban outdoor recreation spaces are few and far between and usually require a drive. As a result, it鈥檚 often hardest for those living in low-income neighborhoods to access parks. But cities are increasingly making an effort to distribute resources more fairly. 鈥淭he whole issue of equity has become very important within just the last two to three years,鈥� says Adrian Benepe, director of city parks development for the 聽(TPL), which has scored cities annually on their parks since 2012.

To determine if cities are adequately serving their low-income communities, looks at spending, acreage, and household access鈥攚hether there is a park within a ten-minute walk for those who make less than 75 percent of a city鈥檚 median income. Of course, proximity doesn鈥檛 necessarily equate to a high-quality park. 鈥淥ne thing we don鈥檛 measure is: Is it safe? Clean? Beautiful?鈥� says Benepe. But he notes that聽ParkScore is really just a way to begin a conversation about investment in parks. 鈥淲e give them interactive tools that they can use in planning鈥攚here to locate new parks聽and where to optimize existing ones.鈥�

In TPL鈥檚 most recent rankings, these five cities stood out for reaching low-income neighborhoods.

#5. Arlington, Virginia

Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park: 98

Arlington obtained top marks in parks-related spending, at $229.93 per resident (just ahead of Washington, D.C.), and was rated highly for its number of facilities, from dog parks to basketball hoops to recreation centers and playgrounds. In 2016, the county finished its , setting open-space acquisition as a top priority to maintain its high ranking.

#4. Chicago, Illinois

Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park: 98

A study of park spending between 2011 and 2014 found that more than half of the $500 million devoted to Chicago鈥檚 park improvements (most of which were affluent). So, in 2016, volunteers organized in low-income neighborhoods to identify improvements. They sought hundreds of thousands of dollars of private funding and pushed elected officials to split the cost. The result: building a new soccer field and playground in and fixing run-down baseball diamonds鈥攁nd ultimately buoying Chicago to a top spot.

#3. New York, New York

Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park: 98

In 2014, the city launched its to improve historically underfunded parks in neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty. The initiative invested $285 million in more than 60 community parks that had gone decades without proper maintenance or upgrades.

#2. Boston, Massachusetts

Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park: 99

With a 1,100-acre chain of nine parks linked by parkways and waterways, bordering some of the city鈥檚 poorest neighborhoods (like Fenway), Boston grabs the second spot for low-income access. Though the city received a lower grade for park spending鈥�$111.59 per resident鈥攊t ranks near the top when it comes to parkland as a percentage of the聽city鈥檚 total area.

#1. San Francisco, California

Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park: 100

San Francisco has done a stellar job across all income levels. The median park size is 1.6 acres, and parkland makes up 20 percent of the city鈥檚 total area. San Francisco also recently completed a review of its park system to assess whether money was being equally invested across all demographics. From there, the city highlighted the areas that were economically stressed and will incorporate those metrics into the parks department鈥檚 strategic plan.

The post How Cities Are Improving Low-Income Access to Parks appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

On Tuesday, June 27, the . 鈥淲e are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation鈥檚 farmers and businesses,鈥� said Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA, in a news release that confirmed the EPA鈥檚 move to get rid of the rule. The announcement prompted an immediate and harsh response from environmental groups. But what exactly is the Clean Water Rule, and how will rescinding it change things?

What It Is

The rule was . It was meant to , which was hazy about whether some waters鈥攑articularly seasonal streams and wetlands鈥攆ell under the EPA鈥檚 regulatory authority. The Clean Water Rule allowed for all 鈥渘avigable waters鈥� to be included under the Clean Water Act, extending protection to the drinking sources of nearly a third of the U.S. population.

Why the EPA Is Overturning It

Pruitt鈥檚 announcement follows the executive order penned by President Donald Trump at the end of February calling for a review of the regulation. 鈥淭he EPA鈥檚 so-called 鈥榃aters of the United States鈥� rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation, and it has truly run amok, and is one of the rules most strongly opposed by farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers all across our land,鈥� Trump said during the signing. 鈥淭he EPA decided that navigable waters can mean nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer鈥檚 land or anyplace else that they decide.鈥�

That executive order suggested revising the Clean Water Rule to fit within the late Justice Scalia鈥檚 interpretation, as the February executive order recommends. If that happens, pollution safeguards would be dismantled for all streams unless they are considered to be 鈥渞elatively permanent.鈥� This means seasonal or rainwater-dependent streams, as well as some wetlands, would lose protection.

How It Will Change Things

The move won鈥檛 technically change current practice in the United States, as Obama鈥檚 rule has been stuck in a federal appeals court since October 2015 and was never fully implemented. But that doesn鈥檛 mean you won鈥檛 see an impact down the road. 鈥淚t鈥檚 going to affect the places that hunters and anglers use,鈥� says Melinda Kassen, interim director of the . 鈥淚f you think about going up any mountain canyon and fishing streams that are not in national parks or wilderness areas, those are the sorts of streams where you could now have development鈥攂ulldozers pushing soil around, unearthing metals, and potentially putting pollutants into streams.鈥�

Why Outdoor Recreationists Should Care

According to the , this could mean the loss of pollution protections for in the lower 48 that don鈥檛 flow year-round. To put that in context, both and receive more than 58 percent of their drinking water from those streams.

鈥淔rom an outdoor industry perspective, it鈥檚 biting the hand that feeds you to pollute these tiny little streams,鈥� says Kassen. 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 necessarily run all the time, but that doesn鈥檛 mean they鈥檙e not great habitat. Sixty percent of water [in the United States] is in those tiny little headwaters, and even though each one individually doesn鈥檛 look so important, if we鈥檙e going to have clean water in the bigger streams, that starts with the little ones. If you don鈥檛 protect the small streams, you don鈥檛 protect the larger system.鈥�

Wetlands span some 110 million acres across the United States, providing critical habitat for fish and wildlife and aiding in filtration of contaminated runoff and groundwater storage. Headwaters and other streams are a big playground, too. A report by the Outdoor Industry Association found that recreationists spend more than $86 billion annually on watersports, which helps explain why . During the EPA public comment period in 2014, more than one million comments were received鈥�87 percent of which were in support.

The post What Exactly Is the Clean Water Rule? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Between the time Erlend Moster Knudsen left from the Arctic and the time he arrived at the Champs de Mars in front of the Eiffel Tower, he had worn out four pairs of sneakers. His current pair鈥攂lue and green Asics GT-3000 with gaping holes in the spongy fabric鈥攚ere barely holding up as he made the final, 20-foot sprint. Dan Price, who cycled from Antarctica as part of the duo鈥檚 joint effort to arrive at Paris from each of the poles, was ending with a blown-out knee.

With world leaders aiming to reach a new climate accord that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming at the in Paris, the goal of traveling with a low carbon footprint was foremost in many minds. But a handful of ultra-committed activists from around the globe made the trip using as few fossil fuels as possible. (When planes were a necessity, most participated in carbon offset programs.)聽

In January, Scotsman Simon Nelson and Kim Ngan began cycling from Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, Ngan鈥檚 native country. Six months later, Americans Morgan Curtis and Garrett Blad departed Vermont in the same fashion, though they flew across the Atlantic to Iceland and then to Norway. Biologist Henri Robert, from the Royal Belgian Institute, paddled nearly 250 miles from Brussels to Paris in a canoe. But for Knudsen and Price, who traveled for eight months and covered 1,864 miles and 7,456 miles respectively, the logistics were much more challenging.

Knudsen, a 29-year-old Norwegian climate scientist, set out for Paris from Tromso, Norway, one of the northernmost city in the world, last August. At the beginning of his run, Knudsen would go days without seeing another human being. At night, he stayed in primitive cabins, worn out from trail-less runs that climbed hundreds of feet. (He would complete more than 190,000 feet of vertical climbing before he left Norway.) In one long stretch there were 鈥渘o tracks, no signs, just reindeer.鈥澛�

Depending on the terrain conditions, Knudsen ran anywhere between 10 and 28 miles each day, sometimes finishing as early as 2 p.m. From the southern tip of Norway he flew to the United Kingdom, then to Belgium. From there to France,聽the聽hard pavement (instead of grassy meadows) quickly took a toll on his knees and ankles. By the time the adventure was done, he had suffered four major injuries to his knees, ankles, and thighs.聽

鈥淧hysically, the hardest part was in France because it鈥檚 so flat鈥攋ust asphalt the whole way,鈥� Knudsen said from Fleurines, France, two days before reaching Paris. 鈥淎nd the nature in Norway gave me so much more mentally. Here, it鈥檚 tougher to motivate yourself.”

The effort also offered Knudsen and Price, a climate scientist from the United Kingdom who had no cycling experience, a chance to discuss climate change at the local level. Price began his journey 77 degrees south on the McMurdo Ice Shelf, where he was conducting research on how giant ice sheets are moving off the continent and into the ocean. Though he had hoped to take a boat from Antarctica to New Zealand, and then Australia, he wasn鈥檛 able to secure funding. Instead, Price flew on a U.S. Air Force plane to those countries, later participating in carbon offset programs. Barring water, he continued to ride his bike through southeast Asia, then onto the Gobi Desert (he took a train from Mongolia to Latvia after he was denied a Russian visa), and finally the Alps. The most memorable part of his journey, he says, was in Bangladesh. The country ranks first as the nation most vulnerable to climate change in the coming decades, according to Germanwatch鈥檚 2011 Global Climate Risk Index. Already, the impoverished country has faced devastating cyclones and floods. With sea level rise, many of the coastal regions could soon disappear.

鈥淎 lot of people have asked [us] about the physical part of the journey, but the mental part is harder,鈥� says Knudsen, who ran over 1,500 miles. 鈥淭hat said, the goodwill of the people along the way who gave me a place to sleep, some food or maybe just a few kind words cheered me up. This is something that鈥檚 important and I feel like I owe it to them to bring their voice to Paris.鈥�

On Tuesday, the pair of athletes spoke at the Rio Pavilion of Le Bourget, where COP21 is taking place, and shared stories of the people they met on their journey.

The post These 国产吃瓜黑料rs Took the (Really) Long Way to the Climate Talks appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.