Resolution for the Transfer and Leasing of
Land, Buildings and Other Assets to
Maine Audubon Society by National Audubon Society

Dated: June 6,1999

Whereas, both Maine Audubon Society (MAS) and National Audubon Society (NAS) are tax-exempt corporations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and

Whereas, MAS has a substantial staff, membership and program in Maine to advance the Audubon mission, and

Whereas, NAS has a substantial staff, membership and program in Maine to advance the Audubon mission, and

Whereas, both MAS and NAS have local chapters in Maine, and

Whereas, MAS and NAS operations have in the past been conducted independent of each other with the potential for inefficiencies, conflict, and confusion, and

Whereas, NAS wishes to establish a state office in Maine as it is establishing in other states pursuant to the NAS 1995 Strategic Plan, and

Whereas, MAS and NAS wish to combine operations in Maine to create a seamless Audubon presence in Maine to accomplish a common Audubon mission, and

Whereas, MAS will than serve as the state office for NAS in Maine; and

Whereas, it is expected that MAS and NAS will enter into an agreement setting forth the steps necessary to combine operations and pursuant to which MAS will serve as the NAS state office in Maine; and

Whereas, it is a point of discussion that MAS, as NAS's state office, would operate the Hog Island and Borestone Mountain Sanctuaries, including the camp operation at Hog Island, on an ongoing basis.

NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the President to negotiate and enter into an agreement on behalf of NAS which includes any or all of the following provisions related to the operation by MAS of the Hog Island and Borestone Sanctuaries:

A. Hog Island Sanctuary

1. The transfer to MAS of title to the buildings and other capital assets at the Hog Island Sanctuary and the leasing to MAS of all land associated with the Sanctuary subject to conditions to be negotiated.

2. The absorption by NAS of any operating costs and deficits incurred through the 1999 camp season.

3. The reimbursement of MAS by NAS of approximately $300,000 for actual startup costs associated with an expanded operation at Hog Island (such as the hiring of a full-time executive director and a capital campaign director and costs associated with undertaking a fundraising campaign to stabilize and expand operations, with particular intent to establish an Audubon Seabird Restoration Center consistent with the vision of Dr. Steven Kress).

B. Borestone Mountain Sanctuary

1. The transfer of title to the Sanctuary land and capital assets to MAS, subject to conditions to be negotiated.

2. The reimbursement of MAS by NAS of approximately $80,000 for actual operating deficits incurred by MAS during its first year of operations.

Audubon Council Meetings
Event Coordination Timeline

One Year Prior:

• Discuss location, contact local chapter in that area to assist in finding a place for the conference. State Park facilities are usually good places to start. The pricing is reasonable and they present a good atmosphere for the meeting allowing for early morning bird walks. If not available, state conference centers, museums, colleges, and Hotels are other choices. Chamber of Commerce's are very helpful or if you have a visitors center in the area.
• Call/visit suggested locations and coordinate arrangements for meeting spaces, overnight accommodations, food/beverage. Request contract information, floor plans for meeting rooms, housing, menu choices, cocktail hour prices, overall prices broken down by meals, housing and any extra charges including breaks, etc.
• Sign contract and put down deposit for location.

Six Months Prior:

• Request field trip information: Trails in state park, guides, prices, other events, maps to the facility as well as of trails. Chapters may also know of local spots for birding.
• Discuss what speakers may be fitting to the event. Contact them to see if willing, follow-up with invite.
• Call the conference center to update on progress.

Five Months Prior:

• Discuss/draft agenda.
• Discuss when first mailing is to go out and what will be included.
  • Cover note from BOD Chair (for Council Meetings), announcing the meeting with location/timing/outline.
  • Draft Agenda
  • Registration Form
  • Directions to location/overnight accommodations
  • Field Trip Information/Sign-up Sheet
  • Current events of the State Office (i.e. Press Releases/brochures)
  • New information for State Program Coordinators/Sanctuaries
• Other -Call the conference center to update on agenda/room needs/set-up/etc.

Four Months Prior:

• Create registration forms/Flyers to be sent out in first mailing.
• Get feedback from all regarding field trips researched/choose three-four.
• Collect information for Program/Sanctuary Staff for mailing.

Three Months Prior:

• Copying of items for first mailing - mail out on decided upon date.
• Meeting to discuss any awards that will be given and coordinate creation and final production of the awards.
• Meeting to discuss mailing for dinners if inviting individuals from the community.
  • Create invitation and have printed.
  • Gather names and databases necessary for mailing.
  • Also discuss future mailings if this doesn't bring in enough people.
  • Call local Chapters to discuss ways they can help to promote dinners.
• Call the conference center to update on agenda/room needs/set-up/etc.
• Arrange for Field Trip Leaders.

Two Months Prior:

• Send invitations to dinners as planned.
• Set up database for data entry to handle registrations and to provide reports for executive director on counts.
• Meeting to discuss second mailing.
  • Cover note from Board of Director's Chair with update on progress of meeting planning
  • Final Agenda information on speakers/workshops/dinners.
  • Registration Form
  • Directions to location/overnight accommodations
  • Field Trip Information/Sign-up Sheet
  • Current events of the State Office (i.e. Press Releases/brochures)
  • New information for State Program Coordinators/Sanctuaries
• Other -Create flyers/copy all for second mailing which will go out about 1 1/2 months prior to the event.

1 1/2 Months Prior:

• Second Mailing to go out.
• Call to chapters who have not yet signed up for conference to find out if someone from their chapter will be attending the meeting.
• Call Field Trip Chairs to update on finalized agenda.

One Month Prior:

• Weekly reports to go to Executive Director on counts.
• Review returns of registrations/send checks to accounting for processing.
• Call Speakers for AV/Equipment needs.
• Call the Conference Center to update on AV/Equipment needs, room set-up, menus, housing, etc.
• Coordinate 2nd dinner mailings if necessary/cold calls.
• Discuss what will go into Meeting Packet.
• Order folders, labels, nametags.
• Set up and create labels and nametags.
• Meeting to discuss information to be put in packets.
  • Final Agenda information on speakers/workshops/dinners.
  • Field Trip Information/Sign-up Sheet
  • Current events of the State Office (i.e. Press Releases/brochures)
  • New information for State Program Coordinators/Sanctuaries
  • Special Notices
• Gather information for packets and start copying process.
• More calls to chapters if not heard from yet.
• Contact field trip leaders to finalize arrangements.

Two Weeks Prior:

• Packets to be completed.
• Call the Conference Center to update on current counts/setup/agenda changes.

One Week Prior:

• Call the Conference Center with final counts and final arrangements plus any changes that have occurred. Be sure they have a Tax exempt form for billing purposes.
• Organize and send any checks to accounting.
• Tally registrations/payments and create report on outstanding payments to use at meeting to collect registration fees. "Put together any final odds and ends for the meeting.

At the Meeting:

• Set-up/registration.
• Liaison to Conference Center.
• Keep eye on clock to keep meeting on schedule.
• Room set-up/breaks/meals/details watched for timeliness/accuracy.
• Handle requests/etc.
• Handle final review of bill/payment.
• Clean-up.

Week after Meeting:

• Send out thank you's from Executive Director.
• Send invoices or reminders to those who have not yet paid for Council Meeting.

Essential Elements of a State Program

1. Administrative and Management Capacity:

• integrate, coordinate and oversee all NAS activities within the state.
• be responsible for budget and fiscal management.
• implement strategic planning.
• develop and maintain a state governing board.

2. Development Capacity:

• raise funds to support the program.
• develop and maintain state stewardship committee (if separate from state board).
• assist chapters in their efforts to raise funds.
• assist in identifying support for campaigns in other states and at the national and hemispheric levels.

3. Science and Bird Conservation Capacity:

• develop and implement Important Bird Areas program.
• develop and implement Citizen Science programs such as BirdSource, WatchList, FeederWatch, CBC, Audubon Refuge Keepers, etc.
• advocate public and private land conservation, restoration, and management activities where they advance our efforts to conserve birds, wildlife, and habitat.
• using our system of Audubon sanctuaries and centers, engage people in conservation initiatives including backyard bird habitats.

4. Chapter and Member Services:

• provide services necessary to build, nurture, and sustain a network of strong and vibrant chapters that will help them "create a culture of conservation" in their communities, including:
  • chapter development programs
  • volunteer leadership training
• advance membership promotion and retention activities within the state in cooperation with chapters.

5. Communications and Education Capacity:

• develop a network of Audubon Centers in communities or other locations, (i.e., refuges), within the state.
• develop and/or distribute Audubon education products and programs (local, state, national) within the state.
• develop and maintain communications that strengthen the effectiveness of the Audubon network of members, supporters, chapters and staff.
• build external communications and outreach programs that advance our goals as well as enhance our name, reputation and brand.

6. Conservation Advocacy and Campaigns:

• develop and sustain effective conservation programs organized around birds, wildlife, and habitat.
• design and implement campaigns, legislative programs and policy initiatives at the state level.
• assist in identifying, building support for and serving as a delivery vehicle for national and hemispheric campaigns.
• assist chapters in developing and implementing local campaigns.

NAS Field Committee March 21, 1998

HORSESHOE CRABS: SERIOUS BUSINESS

Executive Summary

Horseshoe crabs may be ugly, but they are good business for Virginia.

The horseshoe crab plays an important role in one of the fastest growing recreational industries in Virginia and in the country - bird and wildlife watching. Tourism is already Virginia's largest industry. Horseshoe crabs are not only good for business, but they are vital for the biomedical industry. The blood of the horseshoe crab is an essential tool relied on by Virginia hospitals and clinics to ensure pharmaceuticals and other medical devices are free from bacteria.

The State of Virginia's failure to put reasonable limits on the landings of horseshoe crabs puts tens of millions of dollars of Virginia business income at risk and threatens the viability of these creatures. More than a million migratory shorebirds depend on horseshoe crab eggs as a food source during the spring migrations. Significant declines in migratory shorebirds have accompanied the overfishing of horseshoe crabs that has occurred during the 1990s.

Irresponsible action by Virginia is threatening hundreds of millions of dollars of business income in other Mid-Atlantic seaboard states that have taken tough action to restrict the landings of horseshoe crabs. A strict limit on the landings of horseshoe crabs is good for all segments of Virginia business - ecotourism, the biomedical industry, and commercial fishing interests.

The Impact of Bird and Wildlife Watching on Virginia's Economy

More than two million people spent a total of almost $700 million in Virginia on birdand wildlife-watching activities in 1996, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. According to a study by Southwick Associates, $108.3 million in retail sales alone were generated in Virginia by nonconsumptive bird use (non-hunting activities), supporting more than 3,000 jobs. These activities generated more business in Virginia than in Delaware ($11.5 million), Maryland ($83 million), and New Jersey ($87.5 million).

The State of Virginia itself has recognized the importance of birding and ecotourism to the state's economy. The Virginia Department of Natural Resources has a campaign underway to promote birding and other ecotourism activities as good investments for Virginia business. The following item is from the Virginia Department of Natural Resources Web page www.state.va.us/~dcr/dnh/songfact.htm

Recently, more and more localities are learning how conservation of biodiversity can lead to economic benefits. In Northampton County, local citizens encourage tourism focused specifically on the area's ecological resources. The Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge and Kiptopeke State Park conserve biodiversity and attract toorists. The Eastern Shore Birding Festival, held in Northhampton County every year during the second weekend in October, draws nature enthusiasts from around the state and around the country to birdwatch and experience fall migration. Such events have been shown to be a significant boon for area businesses and provide examples of how conservation enhances rather than diminishes economic opportunity. [emphasis added]

Governor Gilmore trumpeted the importance of Virginia tourism in a recent radic program, saying, 'Tourism is a major accomplishment of this Administration. We can expand tourism dramatically."

As other parts of the nation have recognized, promoting birding and eco-tourisrm activities makes good business sense. The Virginia Tourism Commission has even advertised in Audubon magazine to promote tourism during the past year.

Chincoteague, Virginia -- Where Dollars, Birds and Horseshoe Crabs Converge

Chincoteague, Virginia provides a good example of the direct link between horseshoe crabs, shorebirds, and economic prosperity. In Chincoteague, what is good for the horseshoe crab is good not only for migratory shorebirds, but also for Virginia business.

The importance of birding to Chincoteague's economy was documented in a recent tourism survey, 'The Economic Impact of Birding Ecotourism on the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge Area, Virginia." The report notes that the average visitor to the refuge was worth between $62 and $101 for the Eastern Shore economy. This is a significant amount, particularly considering that Chincoteague receives between 1.3 and 1.5 million visitors annually, making it one of the most visited refuges in the United States. According to the tourism study, over 95,000 birders visited the refuge from 32 states (not including VA or MD). The report declares, "Birders and other ecotourists are an important economic factor in the Chincoteague economy."

The Master Plan for the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge draws the direct connection between the horseshoe crabs and migratory birds. The Master Plan states that, "Intertidal sand and mud flats on the cove side of Toms Cove Hook abound with horseshoe crab eggs and other high quality food during the entire shorebird season." It also states that, "Horseshoe crab availability makes Toms Cove second only to Delaware Bay as a popular feeding area for ruddy turnstones, red knots, dunlin, semipalmated sandpipers, and sanderlings."

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study Banking on Nature, nonconsumptive-use visitors to Chincoteague spent over $30 million in the region. The study further points out that non-Virginia residents spent over $20 million in the area and created 545 jobs directly related to wildlife activities. Banking on Nature concludes, "Chincoteague's visitation is highly important to the local economy."

Horseshoe Crab Blood: $50 Million Biomedical Industry -- relied on by Hospitals and Clinics in Virginia

The blood of the horseshoe crab is a life-saving tool used by the biomedical industry. Hospitals and clinics in Virginia rely on horseshoe crab blood, whether they know it or not. A substance known as Limulus Amoebocyte Lysate (LAL) is obtained from the blood of living horseshoe crabs. According to a report from a University of Delaware forum on horseshoe crabs, "The animals are bled (approximately 20% of blood volume) and returned unharmed to the ocean, as prescribed by Food and Drug Administration regulations."

LAL is then used to detect the presence of dangerous bacteria in injectible drugs and surgical implants such as pacemakers and prosthetic devices. LAL has become the worldwide standard screening test for bacterial contamination. Batches of drugs leaving a pharmaceutical company are first tested for purity with LAL.

This life-saving, non-consumptive use of horseshoe crabs supports a $50 million LAL industry worldwide, according to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 'This estimate," the commission observed, "is based on bleeding 250,000 horseshoe crabs per year, generating approximately $200 per crab in revenue for the biomedical industry." The value of pharmaceuticals protected by LAL is estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars.

One of the major suppliers of LAL is Bio-Whittaker, which has a major facility located in Chincoteague, Virginia.

Overfishing of the horseshoe crab could seriously affect the supply of this vital substance. The Washington Post accurately noted in August 1997, that, "Ironically, the crab is becoming imperiled just as scientists are fully realizing its potential for improving human health."

Saving Business: New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland Act

The overfishing of horseshoe crabs in the 1990s posed a serious dilemma for th Governors of New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. While concerned for the plight of watermen and commercial fishing interests, there was clear evidence that overfishing was threatening the horseshoe crab, the migratory shorebirds, the local businesses that thrived on the millions of eco-tourism dollars, and the long-term livelihood of the watermen.

The Governors of these states, after weighing the evidence, took decisive action to restrict the harvest of the horseshoe crab. Governor Whitman (NJ) imposed a ban on trawling. Governor Carper (DE) worked with the Delaware legislature to impose severe restrictions on hand-harvest and landings, while Governor Glendening (MD) issued emergency regulations reducing Maryland's horseshoe crab landings by 75%. The combination of these actions reduced the allowed take of horseshoe crabs from l.7 million to 676,000 horseshoe crabs.

When presented with the serious business and ecological importance of horseshoe crabs New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland Governors acted to save business and horseshot crabs. Virginia's horseshoe crab policy is a bad business decision that allows the destruction of the valuable horseshoe crab resource.

Strip Mining Horseshoe Crabs

From the early 1990s to the present, there has been an explosion in the number of horseshoe crabs landed. The primary use of horseshoe crabs is to provide bait for the eel and conch fisheries. Virtually the entire catch of the eel and conch fisheries is exported to Asia and Europe. The Richmond Times-Dispatch noted that there are about 50 full-time boats fishing for conch in the lower Chesapeake Bay and Virginia's Atlantic Coast.

The commercial fishing industry continually fights efforts to limit the overfishing of horseshoe crabs. The commercial fishing industry and many regulators have ignored the scientific evidence of increased landings, declining horseshoe crab egg counts, declining migratory bird populations, and abundant anecdotal evidence of horseshoe crab decline. At a recent Virginia Marine Resources Commission public hearing, a commissioner declared that horseshoe crab landings should be based on demand, not on supply! They have maintained a shoot-all-the-buff alo mentality.

Restricting horseshoe crab fishing would preserve the long-term economic viability of the horseshoe crab fishery for the commercial fishing industry. Without restrictions, the horseshoe crab, like so many other fisheries, is being strip-mined without regard to the long-term viability of the resource.

Virginia: Loophole State or Good for Business?

While New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland have acted to restrict the landings of horseshoe crabs, Virginia has emerged as the "loophole state." According to the Baltimore Sun, the commercial fishermen "have taken advantage of Virginia's giant loophole in the state's protection: crabs caught in other states' waters are being landed through Virginia ports." Additional crabs are being caught in federal waters (before they come into a given state's jurisdiction) and also landed in Virginia.

Indeed, between 1997 and 1998, the increase in landings of horseshoe crabs in Virginia jumped 20-fold. The horseshoe crab landing levels set by the VMRC for 1999 are a 2600% increase over 1997 landings. This action by the VMRC codified and enlarged the loophole through which horseshoe crabs that other states are trying to protect are landed in Virginia. The very horseshoe crabs that other states made a sound business and ecological decision to protect are being brought to Virginia. Virginia's failure to restrict landings of horseshoe crabs threatens tens of millions of dollars of business not only in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, but in Virginia as well.

Sources

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Horseshoe Crab. December 1998.

"Crash of Delaware Bay Shorebirds Linked to Overfishing of Horseshoe Crabs," Living Oceans News. National Audubon Society, Fall, 1997.

Horton, Tom. "Virginia Rejects Chance to Shield Horseshoe Crab." Baltimore Sun. August 21,1998.

Latane, Lawrence. "Demand for Crabs Presents Dilemma." Richmond Times-Dispatch. February 21,1999.

Southwick Associates. The Economic Contributions of Bird and Waterfowl Recreation in the United States During 1991. Arlington, VA, March 1995.

"Status of the Resource, Proceedings of the Horseshoe Crab Forum." University of Delaware. February 23,1996.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Visitation . July 1997.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce. 1996 National Survey of Fishing. Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. November, 1997.

Warrick, Joby. "Ugly Horseshoe Crab May Have a Future to Match on Delaware Bay." Washington Post. August 4, 1997.

Virginia Department of Natural Resources Web Page - "Migratory Songbird Habitat in Virginia's Coastal Plain." www.state.va.us/~dcr/dnh/songfact.htm

Virginia Governor James Gilmore. "Ask the Governor." WTOP Radio 1500 AM. March 23.1999.

Quarterly Litigation Report

Marlyn Twitchell

Roadless Area Timber Sales - Oregon Natural Resources Council v. U.S. Forest Service.

Background - In February 1999, National Audubon, along with several other local and national conservation organizations, filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service challenging its decision to authorize three timber sales in the Winema National Forest in southern Oregon. These timber sales, located on the south and west slopes of Pelican Butte (an 8,000 foot peak in the southern Cascades) will log 2,110 acres, 471 of which are currently roadless, and thus function as wilderness.

The roadless area is part of a large unprotected wilderness area situated south of Crater Lake National Park and between the Sky Lakes and Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area and Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. This unprotected wilderness area, surrounded by protected wilderness and refuges, provides important old growth habitat for several wildlife species including the northern spotted owl, bald eagles, and the California wolverine. In addition, the Klamath Bald Eagle Habitat Management Area, just northeast of the proposed timber sales, is home to the largest concentration of bald eagles in Oregon. The proposed logging would begin fragmentation of what is now 350,000 acres of protected and unprotected wild lands. (The timber sales are not the only development proposed in the area. A ski resort on Pelican Butte is also planned. Together, the timber sales and ski resort would have a substantial adverse effect on the old-growth habitat on and surrounding Pelican Butte, and on the surrounding National Park, Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness area.) Fragmentation would destroy the ecological integrity of the area.

The Forest Service authorized the timber sales after completing an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. However, according to a 1990 case in which National Audubon was the lead plaintiff the Forest Service must prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before first entering a roadless area that analyzes "the consequences of timber sales on the roadless and undeveloped nature of the lands." Accordingly, the complaint alleged that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it failed to prepare an EIS which, according to the federal district court in the 1990 case, NEPA requires before logging begins in a roadless area.

Recent Action - Before even formally answering our complaint, the Forest Service withdrew the timber sales because it concluded it was inconsistent with the 18-month ban on new road building that was announced by Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck in March. Although Chief Dombeck's policy specifically exempts such forests as the Winema that are governed by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, the agency was "uncomfortable" with defending the timber sales, according to the District Ranger. The Forest Service decided the proposed timber sales were inconsistent with the "spirit" of Chief Dombeck's policy and thus should not proceed.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna - Tutein v. Daley.

Background - In August 1998, National Audubon moved to intervene in a lawsuit, filed by commercial bluefin tuna fishermen, challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS), definition of "overfished," and its designation of Atlantic bluefin tuna as an "overfished" stock. NMFS' action was taken in accordance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. Fish stocks designated as "overfished" trigger a series of requirements under the Act designed to rebuild the stocks. The fishermen object to any rebuilding efforts even though the bluefin tuna population has declined by nearly 90% since 1975.

On March 19, 1999, the federal court denied National Audubon's motion to intervene, on the ground that Audubon had not met the applicable test for intervention. Unfortunately, the court's ruling rests largely on its assumption that National Audubon and Massachusetts Audubon are the same organization. Massachusetts Audubon is currently involved in separate case challenging NMFS's management of bluefin tuna. Audubon filed a motion with the court explaining that National Audubon and Massachusetts Audubon are separate organizations, and asked the court to reconsider its decision in light of this fact.

Leg-hold Traps - National Audubon Society v. Davis and Glichnan.

In December 1998, National Audubon, along with the Golden Gate Audubon Society, Marin Audubon Society, and Muir Beach Enviro, Inc., filed a federal court lawsuit to prohibit the State of California and the Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture and Interior from enforcing part of California's Proposition 4, which passed in the November 1998 election. Proposition 4 effectively ends commercial fur trapping m California. It also prohibits local, state and federal government officials from using leg-hold traps for any purpose, including predator control. This last provision is the subject of this suit.

Leg-hold traps are an appropriate and necessary means of predator control to trap animals, such as coyotes and non-native red fox that prey on threatened and endangered bird species in certain areas in California, including the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. According to predator control experts, the padded leg-hold trap the most selective, most humane and most effective trap in use today, and is the trap of choice in efforts to protect endangered species.

Not only is the leg-hold trap portion of Proposition 4 contrary to sound predator control, it is also unconstitutional. That portion of the proposition is so broadly worded that it covers federal officials and action taken pursuant to federal statutes. Consequently, it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the lawsuit alleges that enforcement of Proposition 4 with respect to predator control actions taken by government officials to protect federally protected species is pre-empted by the Supremacy Clause because it directly conflicts with the Endangered Species Act and frustrates the purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

National Audubon has obtained interim relief in the case, stopping enforcement of the leg-hold trap prohibition while the lawsuit proceeds. In February, the court entered a preliminary injunction which allows padded leg-hold traps to be used on federal or nonfederal land by federal employees or their contractors, for the purpose of protecting endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Briefing on the merits of the case is now under way.

Summer Flounder - Natural Resources Defense Council v. Daley.

In January 1999, National Audubon, on behalf of the Living Oceans Program, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) 1999 commercial and recreational harvest level for summer flounder. The Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and the Center for Marine Conservation are also plaintiffs in this case.

Summer flounder, also known as fluke, is a commercially and recreationally valuable fish that ranges from Nova Scotia to Florida. It is most abundant within the Mid-Atlantic region, from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Summer flounder was severely overfished in the 1980s, with the stock undergoing a precipitous 72 percent decline from 1983 to 1989. In response to plummeting stocks, in 1992 NMFS amended its Summer Founder Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to establish a harvest reduction program that it claimed would aid overfishing of summer flounder and rebuild the stock to healthy, sustainable levels within ten years. However, the harvest reduction program did not work and the stock did not rebuild as NMFS had anticipated. Rather than imposing fishing restrictions that would protect summer flounder populations, NMFS has allowed overfishing to continue.

In late July 1998, the Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee, a group of scientists charged with monitoring the rebuilding of this species, recommended a fishing quota for 1999. In August, this recommendation was rejected by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the two government-appointed groups (dominated by industry representatives) that have joint jurisdiction over summer flounder. These groups recommended a much higher quota. NMFS adopted a quota at a level between the two recommendations it received. NMFS also recommended states take certain actions to reduce the level of incidental catch of summer flounder.

NMFS's quota will not protect summer flounder from continued overfishing. According to the Federal Register notice, NMFS's quota has only an 18 percent chance of ending overfishing and of meeting the target fishing mortality rate set in the FMP. And, while NMFS recommended that states adopt certain measures that it argues improve the chances of meeting the target rate, these measures are purely voluntary.

The complaint alleges that NMFS's 1999 summer flounder quota violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act, specifically the fishery conservation requirements that were added when in the Act was amended in 1996. Summer flounder was officially listed by NMFS in 1998 as an "overfished" stock pursuant to new requirements in the amended Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Act requires NMFS to take action to rebuild stocks that are "overfished." Because, as NMFS admits, the quota has only an 18 percent chance of ending overfishing, it will not ensure rebuilding of the "overfished" stock as required by the Act. If successful, this case will establish an important precedent that can be used to ensure rebuilding of the one-third of U.S. fish stocks that are overfished or are approaching an overfished condition.

Wolf Reintroduction -Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, et al., v. Babbitt.

In January 1995, National Audubon joined three wolf conservation groups in a lawsuit challenging the Fish & Wildlife Service's (FWS) plan to reintroduce gray wolves into central Idaho. The FWS planned to manage the introduced wolves as an "experimental population" under the Endangered Species Act. The groups argued that the FWS's plan failed to provide full endangered species protections to "naturally occurring" wolves that might migrate into the experimental population area. Shortly thereafter, the Wyoming Farm Bureau filed a separate lawsuit challenging the validity of the FWS's reintroduction plans for central Idaho and for Yellowstone National Park. Over the wolf conservation groups' objections, the two cases were consolidated. In December, 1997, the federal district court in Wyoming issued an order in which it agreed with both the Farm Bureau and the wolf conservation groups. However, rather than remanding the case the FWS to allow the agency to change the program to comply with the court's ruling, the court set aside the entire reintroduction program and ordered that all the experimental wolves and their offspring be removed from Yellowstone and Idaho. The FWS appealed the decision; the wolf conservation groups are defending the district court's resolution of their claims, but objecting to the court's order to remove the wolves.

After reassessing the law and facts in this case. National Audubon concluded that the FWS's implementation of the reintroduction program fully complies with the ESA. The wolf reintroduction has been, without question, a huge success. The wolves have settled into the areas in which they were released and have begun to successfully breed, increasing the populations. Audubon agrees with every conservation group with an interest in this case that to remove the wolves now — four years after the wolves were released into Yellowstone and central Idaho — would be huge step backward in the wolves' recovery. Accordingly, on August 21, 1998, National Audubon filed a motion with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that it be allowed to realign its status in the case and join the arguments made by the federal government and several other conservation groups that are supporting the FWS. In October 1998, the Tenth Circuit ordered Audubon to file a separate motion to join other briefs.

After all briefs were submitted to the court, Audubon filed a motion on January 20, 1999 to join in the briefs of the federal government and the conservation groups supporting the wolf reintroduction program.

Grizzly Recovery Plan - National Audubon v. Babbitt.

In 1994 National Audubon and several other conservation groups filed suit against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for failing to prepare an adequate recovery plan for the grizzly bear as required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In September 1995, the federal district court ruled in Audubon's favor, holding that FWS's Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan failed to identify adequate recovery criteria by which to assess whether the Recovery Plan would indeed lead to a recovery of the species. The plaintiffs argued that the Plan must analyze how much and what type of habitat is necessary to sustain a recovered population of grizzly bears. The court also ordered the FWS to reconsider the methodology used to count bears in order to assess whether they are "recovered" for purposes of the ESA. The court remanded the Plan to FWS for reconsideration and required the FWS to submit a timetable for revising the plan. The FWS submitted a compliance schedule, but then failed to meet the deadlines set in that schedule.

In February 1999 the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Show Cause requesting that the court issue a revised compliance schedule and order the FWS to meet the deadlines in that schedule so a revised Recovery Plan will finally be completed.