Oregon conservation groups intend to sue over protection of red tree vole

Four conservation groups including Cascadia Wildlands, the Bird Alliance of Oregon, Oregon Wild and the Center for Biological Diversity, released a notice of intent to sue the US Fish & Wildlife Service in June for failing to protect the red tree vole.

The red tree vole is a small, hamster-like species native to Oregon’s coastal old-growth forests. In 2011, the federal agency determined that the animal’s protection was warranted, but didn’t extend its endangered or threatened status due to higher priority species. That designation was reviewed and repeated yearly until 2019 when the vole’s protection status was abruptly changed to “not warranted.”

In 2022, the Center for Biological Diversity sued over this decision, which resulted in an agreement to reassess the species’ protection status. However, in February of 2024, the protection of the red tree vole was again designated as “not warranted.”

Noah Greenwald from the Center for Biological Diversity joins us to share more about this multi-party lawsuit against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Note: The following transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer.

Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. We end today with the red tree vole. It is a small hamster-like species. It’s native to Oregon’s coastal old growth forests. In 2011, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the animal’s protection was warranted, but didn’t extend it endangered or threatened status because there were higher priority species. Eight years later, the agency abruptly changed course, finding that the vole’s protection status was not warranted at all. That led to a lawsuit, but the agency stuck with that decision. That brings us to last month when four conservation groups including the Center for Biological Diversity announced that they intend to sue the agency once again for failing to protect these tree mammals. Noah Greenwald is the endangered species director for the nonprofit. He joins us now. It’s great to have you on the show.

Noah Greenwald: Thank you, Dave.

Miller: Can you describe these small rodents, these red tree voles?

Greenwald: Yeah, I sure can. Hamster is a reasonably apt description. They’re about that size, red in color, very cute I would say. One thing that’s interesting about them is that they’re really closely associated with old growth forests in Western Oregon and a little bit of Northern California. And one of the most arboreal mammals in North America, a mammal that lives almost its entire life in trees. Its primary source of food is conifer needles, which is something that most animals can’t eat. It manages to do that by eating the needles around the resin ducts, which have some chemicals in them that are hard to digest. So it’s uniquely adapted to our forests.

Miller: So it makes its home up in trees and gets its food from up in trees. That’s its life.

Greenwald: Exactly.

Miller: How much habitat do they still have?

Greenwald: We’ve lost anywhere from 80% to 90% of our old growth forests in Western Oregon. So their habitat has been much reduced. The Northwest Forest Plan was a real lifeline for tree voles because it protected so much old growth forest on federal lands. But that didn’t help the tree vole in one part of its range, and that’s the north coast of Oregon. Tree voles are a bit different right there, they were actually thought to be a subspecies that’s somewhat in question. But no one disagrees that they’re distinct on the north coast. They’re a little bit darker, and they also feed on Sitka spruce and western hemlock, which they don’t do in any other part of their range, they mostly feed on Douglas fir elsewhere. So it’s that population, the north coast population, that we’re concerned about, that Fish and Wildlife Service agreed was distinct, and only has about 20% of its range that’s covered by federal lands.

Miller: Just to repeat a little bit about what I said in my intro, in 2011 the US Fish and Wildlife Agency said that red tree voles warranted, deserved federal protections. But basically, there were so many animals ahead of them that they were not a high enough priority. And then eight years later, the agency said that that listing was not warranted at all. What changed in those eight years?

Greenwald: Really nothing changed from the tree voles’ perspective. And if anything, things got a little bit worse because, besides logging of old growth forests, the other threat is increased fire related to climate change. And in those eight years, that was a window where we could have done something to address our emissions and really didn’t. And it’s become increasingly clear how much warmer it’s getting, and how much more fires are becoming a danger.

Miller: You were among a group that sued to get the agency to reconsider that decision. They did not. And then in February of this year, they once again said that the red tree vole, that listing it was unwarranted. What’s different about this new lawsuit? Or are you asking them to reconsider this once again?

Greenwald: That’s the strange thing. We challenged that 2019 decision in court. They didn’t fight it out in court, they agreed to make another decision. One would think that they would take another look, and the science had only become more clear. In fact, there was some modeling that was done of their population status by academic scientists that found they had a really poor chance of survival. But they doubled down again. So we’re having to sue again, which is really unfortunate. We first petitioned for protection in 2007. And so we’re already looking at 17 years, we sue again, we win hopefully, takes a few more years to get a new decision.

This happens with other species. Wolverine is another example where they denied, we had to sue, they denied. Finally, it’s gotten listed, but it took over 20 years. And it’s just really frustrating. Listing of species under the Endangered Species Act is supposed to be based solely on the best available science, and political and economic factors are not supposed to come into play. And from our perspective, that’s exactly what’s happened here. There’s folks at Fish and Wildlife Service who don’t want to upset the timber industry. 61% of the tree voles’ range is on private timber lands, so they just don’t wanna have to deal with that controversy.

Miller: I should say that we did reach out to the agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, who told us as we basically always hear, that they do not comment on pending litigation.

Is it possible that we could be looking at a kind of repeat of what happened in 2011? That one version technically of your success in this latest suit would be that they’d say “OK, we will list it, but it’s low enough priority that we will say that it deserves protections, but we’re not going to actually give it those because it’s just not high enough up on the list.” Is that a possibility?

Greenwald: It’s possible. That’s a loophole that’s allowed in the Endangered Species Act. They can declare a species what they call warranted but precluded. They’ve been doing it a lot less in recent years. So I think if this challenge is successful and we get another decision, I think we’ll get a warranted finding, and I think we’ll get protection for the tree vole at that point. I think the question then becomes are there any left on private timber lands? And can we come up with a recovery strategy that gets them some old forest habitat.

And I should mention state forests too. This range includes the Tillamook and the Clatsop State Forests, which have a habitat conservation plan that they’re developing, which does include the tree vole and has some protections for them in there. But they haven’t done any surveys to figure out where tree voles survive on state land. So it’d be nice to see the state step up and do work towards recovery of the tree vole as well.

Miller: Whether we’re talking about private, state or federal land, how much would logging practices have to change if the last remaining red tree vole habitat were protected to the extent that you’re calling for?

Greenwald: It’s an open question whether there’s any left on private lands. If there are, if there’s some old forest left there, it would be great to see that protected. And not just for the tree vole, but for our climate, for clean water, for the hundreds of species that depend on old forests.

On state forests, their habitat conservation plan doesn’t protect all the mature and old forests that’s left on those state forests. Federally, the Biden administration is moving to protect old growth forests. It’s hard to see why the state of Oregon isn’t doing that in their habitat conservation plan. That’s certainly something we’d like to see.

Miller: Noah Greenwald, thanks very much.

Greenwald: Thanks, Dave.

Miller: Noah Greenwald is the endangered species director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.