Massachusetts considering dropping Spotted Turtle protected status

A spot of hope for developers
By Jon Brodkin
Wednesday, April 12, 2006

A vote tomorrow could remove spotted turtles from government protection, a decision that might please builders but has some area conservationists up in arms.
Builders of golf courses and housing developments have long dreamed of the day when projects are not delayed or halted by the presence of the hard-shelled reptiles. They may soon get their wish because state wildlife officials have proposed removing spotted turtles from the list of species that are endangered, threatened or of special concern. The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Advisory Committee will vote on the proposal tomorrow, and a final decision could be made next month.

The turtles are often found on land eyed by developers because they are easy to spot and more common than other listed species, occurring in most cities and towns in Massachusetts.
But their seemingly robust numbers mask the vulnerability of the species, according to the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions (MACC), which is urging state officials to reconsider the proposal.
"All the developers think we should have done this 10 years ago, and the conservation organizations think we should never do it at all," said Tom French, head of the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program at the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.

Seven spotted turtles found on the Fruit Street property in Hopkinton caused developers to pull the plug on a $50 million golf course proposal a few years ago. And now, a planned 300-unit housing project in Natick is being altered to accommodate the species.
The spotted turtle was first listed as a species of special concern in 1986, when records showed just 32 locations in the state where they existed. Now there are 954 records of spotted turtle habitats, state officials say.
But the increase is due mainly to better reporting, not a change in population. There is disagreement over how healthy the turtle populations are, and a lack of good data may be fueling the controversy, one expert says.
"It's a very complicated issue because there is a lot of missing data," said Sudbury's Stephen Meyer, a member of the state advisory committee scheduled to vote tomorrow on the proposal.
Getting sufficient data would require following the turtles until they reach the reproductive age of 15, and then tracking the next generation of turtles for about 10 years, he said.
French said at least one thing is clear. Out of 448 species listed in the state for protection, the spotted turtle "is far and away the most widespread of all of them."

"To keep a species on the list if it doesn't truly deserve it is an abuse of the (Massachusetts Endangered Species) Act for ulterior motives. The question is does it deserve it or not," French said.
The Home Builders Association of Massachusetts said it believes endangered species laws are sometimes "inappropriately deployed to stop new development."
The MACC argues that few of the areas with spotted turtles have healthy populations, and says research has found increases in adult mortality of just 1 percent to 2 percent can lead to "serious population declines."
The long period required to reach reproductive age, small clutch sizes, and high mortality rates for eggs and hatchlings all make it difficult for the species to prosper, the group says.

"There is no evidence that threats to the spotted turtle have abated; they may be increasing," the group wrote in an "action alert." "Some known threats (such as road traffic rates and development) are certainly increasing."
Despite concerns over the spotted turtle's future, Meyer contends taking it off the list will not affect development rates, because the turtles live primarily in or around wetlands that will be protected anyway.
"The Wetlands Protection Act already protects the wetlands these turtles live in," said Meyer, who is also a professor teaching environmental policy at MIT. "In that sense, it's not going to lead to a rash of wetlands being filled and houses going up."
Tomorrow's planned vote is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. at the MassWildlife headquarters in Westborough on 1 Rabbit Hill Road. After the vote, Fisheries and Wildlife Director Wayne MacCallum will decide whether to move on with the proposal. The Fisheries and Wildlife board has the final say and will likely vote on the proposal next month, French said.

The public will have a chance to comment at a hearing on the spotted turtle and other species undergoing status changes at 1 p.m. on Thursday, April 27, at the Nashua River Watershed Association on 592 Main St. (Rte. 119), Groton.

http://www.milforddailynews.com/loca...rticleid=89735

WESTBOROUGH -- Spotted turtles should not be removed from the state list of species that are endangered, threatened or of special concern based on evidence available today, a scientific advisory board concluded yesterday.
Because data is lacking in both quantity and quality, it's impossible to determine whether the turtle is suffering a decline that could threaten the species' existence, the committee said in a 5-1 vote. The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Advisory Committee urged the state to conduct more extensive research.

"The weight of this information is zero," said committee member Stephen Meyer, who also serves on Sudbury's Conservation Commission.
The spotted turtle was first protected as a species of "special concern" in 1986, when there was even less data on the species' distribution in Massachusetts.
While the committee said there is not enough scientific evidence to support taking the turtle off the list, it also said there would not be enough evidence to support adding the species to the list if it wasn't already included.

The final decision rests with the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife board, which can vote however it wishes but has never taken a species off the list against the advice of its advisory committee.
The board could decide to remove spotted turtles from the list based on factors other than scientific ones, advisory committee members said. For example, the board could determine that the cost of enforcing the Endangered Species Act to protect the turtle is too great a burden, and that resources should be reassigned.
The state Fisheries and Wildlife staff's proposal to take the turtle off the list was the fourth such request since 1991. The state has recorded 966 spots where the turtle lives in 259 cities and towns. At least 30 of those sites have more than 15 turtles and eight have 50 or more.

"The sheer force of volume does mean something," said Tom French, head of the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program at Fisheries and Wildlife. "There's more out there than we thought there were."

In 1986, there were only 32 records of the turtle in the state. Today it is found frequently, sometimes forcing developers to abandon or scale down building projects.
Mark Pokras, a non-voting member of the scientific advisory committee, said he worries that a lack of evidence supporting the turtle's inclusion on the list could give developers grounds to sue.
"I can't help feeling in my gut this would be difficult to defend in court," Pokras said.
The advisory committee's report will be forwarded to Fisheries and Wildlife Director Wayne MacCallum, who must decide whether to bring it to the agency's board for a final vote. The board meets next month.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/lo...ticleid=127381