Sage CouncilBlog MySpace de |

0 Compliments

jeudi, février 26, 2009

Global Warming - Save Habitat

The Tyee (Vancouver) February 25, 2009

http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/02/25/Eco-V-Eco/

How the Carbon Casino Pits Ecologist Against Ecologist

Robert Falls helped create the David Suzuki Foundation. Now he calls it an obstacle to restoring degraded ecosystems.

By Chris Wood

If NASA's James Hansen is right, the task ahead isn't simply to stop adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. It's to take them out. Hansen and nine other prominent scientists warned recently that the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, now 385 parts per million and rising by ~2.5 ppm a year, is already over the tipping point of ~350 ppm that implies a degree of warming greater than our civilization can tolerate.

There's only one way to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. It's called photosynthesis and only plants do it, building wood, flowers and leaves from solar energy and minerals.

For that reason, and because a fifth of human greenhouse gas emissions globally come from felling trees, few climate wonks doubt that forests are critical to forestalling climageddon.

And few places in the world have more room to grow forest than British Columbia.

So it's odd to hear a forest restoration ecologist accuse the province and its leading environmental group of holding back the capture of carbon in growing trees.

"What's the asset of British Columbia in climate change mitigation?" asks North Vancouver's Robert Falls. "It's not technology. It's our ecology. Yet between Suzuki [Foundation] and the provincial government, ecosystems have taken it on the chin, because they will not accommodate the reality that ecological systems take time."

'Not friendly to what we do'

Falls has spent half a career studying how plants take carbon out of the air. In the other half he's helped industry get to grips with what's now an $100 billion a year trade in GHG emission permits, reduction credits and offsets, a global market to reach $3 trillion forecast by 2020.

"I was in David Suzuki's kitchen when we founded the Suzuki Foundation," he says. "Climate change wasn't even on the horizon."

The big issue was the loss of ecosystems that support both wildlife and people. So when Falls hit on a way to tap the new flood of emission-reduction funds to restore lost coastal forests on public land in British Columbia, he envisaged a win-win-win for taxpayers, the climate and his consulting firm Ecosystem Restoration Associates.

He doesn't say he expected a medal; but neither did he expect what he got from the province and the environmental think-tank he helped found. "These guys have really not been friendly to what we do," Falls gripes.

ERA's business

Here's what Falls' company does -- so far with the district of Maple Ridge, the Township and City of Langley and Metro Vancouver. (It's the same arrangement the province, the way Falls tells it, blew off):

The deals target parcels of land, cleared in the last century with no thought to reforestation, that are now in public hands as a result of municipal purchases or as green space given up to pave the way for development.

Many of these parcels in the congested Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island are in critical riparian zones. Others form essential corridors for wildlife movement. Most are overgrown with invasive gorse, English Ivy, knotweed or Himalayan blackberry vines, at best with native alders approaching the end of their life.

What they also have in common is that they are too far from surviving fragments of coastal forest for native successors to the alder -- hemlock, spruce, cedar, cottonwood or fir -- to reseed naturally.

Since 2006, ERA has planted more than 75,000 of those tree species on more than 200 hectares of degraded land in Maple Ridge parks and greenbelts alone, at no cost to the municipality. The tree mix is tuned to the location of each parcel, and to include more drought-resistant strains in anticipation of climate change.

ERA is contractually committed to hand-clear invasive competitors for sunlight and senescent alder until the seedlings reach 'free-to-grow' stature of a few feet, (an operation that attracted controversy last fall when a contractor removed more trees than ERA had intended to cut from one location). The new trees and the land remain public property.

"In return for that, we get the right to sell what we call a carbon offset," explains Falls, based on the carbon the growing forest will lock in for a century or more. "The landowner, in this case the district of Maple Ridge, gets its degraded riparian green belts and park lands restored for free. So no tax burden. We take the risk, because we undertake the work, we have it validated, we have it verified, then it's our challenge to sell it into the voluntary offset market."

Suzuki's complaints

ERA has sold its offsets (so-called because they are designed to neutralize the impact of releasing GHGs to the atmosphere somewhere else) to clients like the B.C. Lung Association, the Pemberton Music Festival and Vancouver Film Studios, that wish to promote their 'carbon-neutral' ethic.

"It would have been very difficult for us," to find municipal funds for the same work, says Mike Murray, general manager of Maple Ridge Parks and Recreation. "Tree planting is one of those things we always want to do and never have enough money to do as much as we'd like."

So what's not to like? A lot, the David Suzuki Foundation managed to find in a paper the influential organization released last year that seemed to shred the very idea of capturing carbon in forests as inherently unreliable, ineffective and impermanent.

"Tree-planting... cannot be considered as effective as projects that reduce fossil-fuel use in reducing the net buildup of greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere," it concluded. "If individuals or companies are unable to reduce their own fossil-fuel-related emissions, the best alternative is... [e]nergy efficiency and renewable energy offsets."

Forests take too long?

Lee Thiessen, director of the provincial Climate Change Branch, insisted in an e-mail that "biosequestration" credits are eligible for sale to the Pacific Carbon Trust, the agency created to buy carbon offsets the government says will make it carbon-neutral within two years.

But Falls disputes the practical effect of that claim. Criteria released last month require the carbon in question to be removed from the atmosphere by 2012, not over the century of a forest's life. "I don't see any potential for [carbon] removal under the PCT," Falls says. "Because they will not accommodate the reality that the biological takes time."

In an interview, Suzuki Foundation director of science Faisal Moola backed away from its categorical thumbs-down on forest carbon offsets.

He acknowledged a fact glossed over in the earlier study: that the efficiency and renewable energy projects that the Foundation favours also suffer from the same "common set of limitations" as forests. A wind plant, for example, may simply free up fossil fuel for another use rather than keep it in the ground.

"I am not opposed to forest-derived offsets," Moola insisted. "Trees are the only way we have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It can be done right." Carbon captured in trees can be accurately calculated; care taken that forests growing in one place aren't offset themselves by logging elsewhere; a portion of new forest set aside as insurance against future losses to fire or insects.

Reliable standards debate

The trouble, Moola argued, is an absence of reliable standards to assure purchasers that a particular offset is legitimate. "I'm just waiting for some retailer to step up and develop a standard but right now they're not on the market."

The only offset standard the foundation recognizes is one it established itself with the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. The modestly named Gold Standard snubs carbon captured in forests.

But Moola is mistaken to assert an absence of other standards. A variety of these address the Suzuki laundry-list of reservations. The "Voluntary Carbon Standard," for example, requires projects to set aside half their acreage or more as a buffer against future loss. Another popular standard, the "Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard," (CCBS) obliges projects to show that wildlife will gain. A standard developed by California's Climate Action Registry (CCAR), and likely to prove influential in the horse-trading to create a North American carbon market, last year approved credits for a project in the state's Garcia Forest.

ERA (like the government's PCT) uses an ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standard http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38382 to validate the carbon part of its claimed offset. It's in the process of adopting the CCBS standard for community and biodiversity cred. And Falls says the company will be able to meet the tougher requirements anticipated by a new North America cap-and-trade carbon market.

'Bean counting' won't work

Falls doesn't like to diss the foundation he helped start, but he fears that a fixation with "accounting procedures" is distracting from its ultimate environmental objectives. "It isn't a matter of whether on Dec. 31st a ton, or a million tons, of carbon have been removed from the atmosphere," he contends. "This problem is going to last a century, maybe two. The bean-counting approach ain't gonna work."

"It's more like: are we taking meaningful measures that are going to have a long term, large net impact on atmospheric concentrations of CO2? I'm looking at a landscape that's been ravaged by decades of agricultural use and then abandonment, and could be a huge sink for carbon."

Jeff Calvert leads Borealis Carbon Ltd., a consortium of small landowners and idled forestry workers from the northern Interior that sells credits similar to ERA's based on returning low-quality pasture to forest. "What's different about what Rob [Falls] and we do," he said, "is that what we're doing is actually good for the environment, it's not just less bad. Even if we got our doing bad down to zero -- and I doubt that will happen -- we'll need some doing good too."

And when it comes to pulling CO2 back out of the air, there's still only one way to do that good, or do it well: grow more trees.

6:57

0 Compliments

mardi, janvier 27, 2009

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA - Restore the Endangered Species Act
Humeur actuelle :

plein d’espoir

I'm posting this letter to President Obama here to share with friends that might be inspired to write and send one also. YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO CUT AND PASTE THIS LETTER TO USE AS YOUR OWN if you find it helpful. I've removed some personal info about myself to make it generic and easy on you. - Leeona
____________________________________________________________
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
FAX: 202-456-2461 comments@whitehouse.gov
January ___, 2009
RE: Restoring the Endangered Species Act via Executive Order and/or Directives
Dear Mr. President,
I am writing to ask you to please consider restoring the Endangered Species Act through an Executive Order and/or Directives. I hope you will find my request helpful, if not persuasive.
Our Nation’s plants, fish and wildlife could be better protected and conserved if the Obama Administration would repeal policy and regulatory changes made to the Endangered Species Act under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Specifically, please repeal the Clinton era's so called "Ten “user friendly" policy changes to the Endangered Species Act." The ESA is meant to be "friendly" to listed endangered species, not just the industry "users." These policy and regulatory changes were not science based, just a concession to industry and lobbyists that funded Clinton's political campaigns. There was no “win win” solution or stopping a train wreck, actively promoted by Secretary Babbitt. Simply a big tasty carrot was given to industry and their lobbyists, while the Clinton Administration put down the “stick” – of enforcing the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act became a toothless tiger and the Section 10 exemption clause used incessantly for political reasons.
The Obama administration should repeal the Clinton era - "No Surprises" assurances to landowners (under section 10 of the ESA) and "Safe Harbor" (under Section 11 of the ESA) to begin with. The repeal of these two policies and regulations could be included in a Presidential Executive Order or Direction to Dept of Interior, possibly called, "Recovery of America's Natural Resources" emphasizing the need to "recover" our nation's endangered plants, fish & wildlife by increasing their populations in numbers and habitat acres. That from this day forward U.S Dept of Interior, Agriculture and NOAA will use only the best scientific methods and data to ensure that their agencies, including staff, prepare and implement recovery plans for listed endangered species. No longer shall these government departments and agencies base decisions on the desires of corporations or individuals that seek to profit from the destruction of nature. No longer shall these government department and agencies issue permits, on a regular basis, that "take,” harm, kill, bother, harass or kill a species that is endangered.
To "conserve" endangered species, we must "recover" them. We cannot do one without the other, nor can we allow the species individual numbers to dwindle through exemptions from the law. The Endangered Species Act is to be restored to the original intent and purpose as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court (TVA v. Hill) ..."to halt and reverse the trend towards species extinction, whatever the cost."
Our government departments and agencies must emphasis real recovery of endangered species, not untested concepts or those that have failed or are obviously failing. No exemptions to the Endangered Species Act shall be given when a listed species does not first have a recovery plan that is being implemented.
For those hundreds of species of plants, fish and wildlife that are known to be declining in population numbers, they must be given the protection of the law through listing them as “endangered.” No longer will politics hold back the government departments and agencies from moving forward with listing. Let science dictate what is needed. We must get rid of the backlog, implement “listing” and “critical habitat” designation for Nature’s bounty of life-forms as soon as possible to end extinction.
It is not a matter of putting the economy over environmental care of America’s Natural Heritage or vice versa. Our country can do better than the past decade. We must be good stewards. When we protect and conserve endangered species, we also protect and conserve their habitat. One cannot be done without the other. It is a scientific fact that the primary reason for species becoming endangered is loss of habitat. It is also known that loss of habitat is a major contributor to climate change/global warming. America cannot not address the issue of green house gases (GHGs) alone, in seeking a solution to global warming. America must also address the damages caused by habitat loss. We cannot point a finger at other countries failures in protecting imperiled forests, grasslands, deserts, wetlands and other habitats, without taking appropriate steps right here at home. Through placing an emphasis on the "recovery" of endangered species -- through increasing species individual and population numbers -- more habitat can be conserved that also helps the global climate crisis.
In closing, it is my intention and hope that you make these changes as desperately needed. Please call on me if you have any questions or I can be of service.
Sincerely,

Actuellement j'écoute:
Keys to the World
Par Richard Ashcroft
Date de publication : 2006-02-21

3:47

0 Compliments

mardi, décembre 04, 2007

DECADE LONG BATTLE FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ENDS

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION – ..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />U.S. Courts, Environment, Science, Politics, Business

CONTACTS –

Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council (910) 947-5091, (626) 676-4116

SKYPE – leeona.klippstein

Eric Glitzenstein, Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal (202) 588-5206

Jon Lovvorn, Humane Society of U.S. (202) 955-3669

A DECADE OLD COURT BATTLE FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ENDS

Today, the lead plaintiff in a legal challenge of the U.S. Governments questionable implementation of the Endangered Species announced that they were not going to pursue an appeal in Washington, D.C.

Spirit of the Sage Council, a nonprofit wildlife conservation organization based in Pasadena, CA and co-founded by First Nations leaders of the Shoshone Gabrielino tribe, began a series of legal challenges in 1996 to regulatory policy changes made to the federal Endangered Species Act.

Known as "No Surprises" – User Friendly Assurances to Non-Federal Landowners, the policy change to the Act was announced in 1994 by U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and hailed as a "win win" compromise to developers, loggers and mining industry that wanted to kill endangered species in habitat they desired to use for profit. Once given a "No Surprises" guarantee with an Incidental Take Permit, no additional land, water or funding for conservation would be required by the holder of the permit. Prior to the Clinton era "No Surprises," only 18 Incidental Take Permits had been issued. Since 1994, over 700 permits to kill or harm endangered species have been applied for or issued.

"When we began our series of legal challenges nearly thirteen years ago, the make up of the D.C. Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court were different. Prior to the George W. Bush administration the make up of judges were more balanced." stated Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director of Spirit of the Sage Council.

Although Judge Emmet Sullivan, D.C. District Court had previously ruled on the side of the endangered species, his ruling on August 30^th of this year found that it was difficult to make a decision that would effect all 700 Incidental Take Permits and Habitat Plans on more than 140 Million Acres nationwide. "It seems the slippery slope downward for endangered species began when the law was amended in 1984. I bet if you were around then, you would have tried to stop it." Said Sullivan from his bench during the hearing of arguments."

In 1984, the Endangered Species Act was amended by Congress to include an exemption process from the strict prohibitions of killing an endangered plant, fish or animal. Section 10 of the Act "Habitat Conservation Plans & Incidental Take Permits" allows a non-federal landowner to receive a license to kill or "take" listed species after a habitat plan to protect some of the species has been approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. In many instances more than 50% of the endangered species population and habitat are destroyed, known as a ratio of 1:1, for every one acre of habitat destroyed, one acre will be conserved.

"The entire premise is nonsense and criminal" said Klippstein. "If the reason a species has become endangered is loss of habitat, there is no way destroying 50% more of its habitat is going to protect it. The purpose of the Act is to conserve endangered species, yet the Section 10 exemption clause is a loophole. It should very rarely be used and only for small landowners. Clinton and Bush administrations have allowed its use every time and for industry, entire Counties, States and now a 7 Statewide plan. The cherry on top of these permits for Industry is "No Surprises." It's corporate greed over species needs."

According to Judge Sullivan's decision on the "No Surprises" case, a Habitat Conservation Plan is not required to conserve a species, but at a minimum it should provide for survival of the species.

Leaving the door open to future challenges of individual Incidental Take Permits and Habitat Conservation Plans with "No Surprises" guarantees, Judge Sullivan found that "The terms and conditions of each of the permits would need to be reviewed" and " It is assumed that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would revoke a permit if the species were not surviving."

According to Klippstein, the Sage Council consulted with their legal counsel, Eric Glitzenstein, and also sought a second opinion from Joel Reynolds, legal counsel for Natural Resources Defense Council, as to whether they should proceed with an appeal of Judge Sullivan's decision. "Apparently, continuing with the case would be too risky. While we do not agree with Sullivan's conservative opinion, the D.C. Court of Appeals would likely come up with a worse decision. We would rather continue our defense of endangered species by challenging individual Incidental Take Permits & Habitat Plans with "No Surprises" to ensure their recovery. Other courts in California have ruled against "No Surprises" in a Habitat Plan."

"Overall we had successes and gained some additional provisions for endangered species in our case. One of the reasons we lost before Judge Sullivan was because we succeeded over the last ten years in at least mitigating some of the worst aspects of No Surprises. When we started this case in 1996, the government was not even saying that it would revoke permits when they were causing jeopardy to species. As a result of our lawsuit, the government has at least acknowledged a duty to revoke permits before they caused species extinction (i.e., the Permit Revocation Rule). In addition, in direct response to the lawsuit, DOI issued the "five-point" plan, which contains commitments (renewed by the Bush Administration) for adaptive management, biological goals, monitoring and other important safeguards.

We remain convinced that, despite these reforms, No Surprises will prove to be one of the most disastrous and misguided policies ever adopted in the field of wildlife law and management. This is especially true as global climate change (one of the "surprises" that is unaddressed in the hundreds of ITPs/HCPs previously adopted) underscores the sheer absurdity of a policy that freezes mitigation efforts in time and forecloses reliance on new data and developments. Nonetheless, we are proud of the herculean effort we undertook to bring this irrational policy into the bright light of public scrutiny and to at least win some valuable regulatory reforms that would never have occurred without the pressure of litigation." Said Klippstein

FACTS ABOUT THE D.C. COURT OF APPEALS

7 out of the 10 active members of the D.C. Circuit are now very conservative, pro-corporate Republican-appointed judges, including three recent George W. appointees (Janice Rogers Brown, Brett Kavanaugh, and Thomas Griffith). Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit has become (not coincidentally) extremely hostile to claims by environmental organizations in recent years. This is illustrated by the fact that the D.C. Circuit ruled against the State of Massachusetts and environmental groups in the celebrated global warming case (in which the Supreme Court reversed on a 5-4 decision because Justice Kennedy is a strong states-rights advocate).

Some of the other very bad ESA and other environmental decisions to emerge from the D.C. Circuit in the last few years are:

Oceana v. Gutierrez (2007): rejecting a challenge to a Biological Opinion allowing bycatch of endangered and threatened sea turtles; the Court held that it didn't matter that NMFS prior predictions of compliance by the fishing industry had proven to be wrong

Fund for Animals v. Hogan (2005): rejecting challenge to FWS's rejection of emergency listing petition for trumpeter swan; holding that conservation groups have no right even to seek emergency listing of a species under the ESA

The Wilderness Society v. Norton (2006): throwing out on standing grounds a case by Wilderness Society challenging DOI's mismanagement of wilderness lands and failure to designate new wilderness areas

Fund for Animals v. BLM (2006): throwing out on various jurisdictional grounds a challenge to BLM's mismanagement of wild horses on public lands.

Nevada v. Dep't of Energy (2006): rejecting NEPA challenge to Department of Energy decision on building high level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Suggesting that the generally protective CEQ regulations implementing NEPA are generally not binding.

Humane Society of the U.S. v. USDA (2007): although district court held that the Department of Agriculture violated NEPA in allowing horse slaughter operations to continue over Congress's objection, the court of appeals (Brown and Kavanagh) issued an indefinite stay with no explanation whatsoever, allowing the illegal operations to continue.

XXXXXX

MORE BACKGROUND

In 1996, Spirit of the Sage Council and co-plaintiffs challenged the way in which the Clinton administration implemented the "No Surprises" policy. Under the Administrative Procedures Act government agencies must provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on regulatory changes. Since the "No Surprises" policy effected the Endangered Species Act and was being used on a regular basis by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service when negotiating Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits, the Sage Council claimed that there needed to be an official rule making process that included the public. Represented by the D.C. public interest law firm of Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal, Spirit of the Sage Council succeeded in their demand and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service settled out-of-court agreeing to provide formal public notice in the Federal Register and consider public comments.

However, U.S. Fish & Wildlife had already implemented "No Surprises" guarantees to numerous developers and timber companies, mainly in California. This may have been the reason why Secretary Babbitt approved the continued use of "No Surprises" regardless of more than 800 scientists, conservationists and tribes providing comment letters in opposition. Babbitt approved the continued use of "No Surprises" with the explanation that it was "the desire of landowners" and "a deal is a deal."

Spirit of the Sage Council filed another lawsuit, claiming that Babbitt's decision was not based on science and was arbitrary. After this case was filed, Interior came out with yet another rule – Permit Revocation Rule in an attempt to effect to new "No Surprises" lawsuit. Sage Council amended their legal challenge to include both the "No Surprises" rule and "Permit Revocation" rule. After reviewing Interior decision making documents and email in-camera, Judge Sullivan agreed that the rules were "intertwined" and remanded both rule making back to Interior for a decision that was science based.

Industry intervening in each of the cases, had private meetings with Interior and the government appealed Sullivan's decision. However, the timeline that Sullivan had given Interior to come up with a new decision on the No Surprises and Permit Revocation Rule was approaching before the appeal hearing date. Interior announced the new "5 Point Plan" to improve Habitat Conservation Plans and Interior released a new decision on No Surprises and Permit Revocation. Interior continued with the appeal asking the court to block the Sage Council from continuing to legally challenge to new Rules. Sage Council won the appeal and continued to legally challenge "No Surprises," claiming that it's use would not "conserve" endangered species. Judge Sullivan ruled that Section 10 of the Act does not require conservation and that the word "conservation" in Habitat Conservation Plans is not defined by the dictionary, but by the reading of the text of the law itself (Sections 10 and 7) – requiring only "survival." However, if the Terms & Conditions of an individual Habitat Plan requires "conservation" then more than "survival" would be required for the species.

11:10

0 Compliments

dimanche, septembre 02, 2007

Stop the Government from Killing Endangered Species
Humeur actuelle :

occupé

Please read our other blogs and understand why it is vital that you support our conservation work and lawsuits. It's your opportunity to give to a worthy cause that you care about.

Our prefered method of receiving is by check or money order. You can donate online through PayPal (leeona@earthlink.net) or www.Change.org (see below), JustGive or Network for Good. However, they all will take a percentage. So go ahead and send a check by snail mail if you live in the U.S. :)

Please make your check payable to THE HABITAT TRUST FOR WILDLIFE and in the memo write SAGE COUNCIL. The Habitat Trust is our 501c3 fiscal sponsor unitl we receive our own tax exempt standing. Your donation will be tax deductible this way. Send your check to;

The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Attn. Sage Council, 439 Westwood SC 144, Fayetteville, NC 28314. USA

Thank you!!

Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director

5:55

0 Compliments

samedi, septembre 01, 2007

AP Story on Court Ruling Against Endangered Species
Humeur actuelle :

agacé

Judge OKs rule that may endanger species .. END HEADLINE -->

.. BEGIN STORY BODY -->

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 4 minutes ago

A federal judge has upheld the government's practice of allowing development to proceed even if it is discovered after a project begins that the work could endanger protected species.

The National Association of Home Builders praised the ruling Friday, saying its members might have had to delay some projects if U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had not agreed with the "no surprises" approach to development.

"The vast majority of endangered species exist on private property, and there is no way to protect endangered species unless sufficient incentives are given to private landowners," said Duane Desiderio, the trade group's vice president for legal affairs.

The case affects a pair of rules which allow landowners and developers to obtain a permit that lets them off the hook for incidentally killing, injuring or harassing rare animals, and damaging or killing rare plants. Development projects must be accompanied by a plan for addressing protections for the natural places where plants and animals live.

But the government reserves the right to revoke a permit if killing a plant or animal makes it more likely the species will go extinct in the wild.

Environmental groups that had sued the government to overturn the two rules expressed disappointment Friday but said they had not yet decided whether to appeal Sullivan's ruling. On Thursday, he found the two rules consistent with federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

Sullivan also wrote that "it is appropriate for the court to presume" that the government will protect endangered species, despite issuing 379 permits authorizing the killing of rare plants and animals between 1994 and 2002.

"We're very disappointed," said Leeona Klippstein, executive director of the California-based Spirit of the Sage Council, which represents American Indians and environmentalists. "This means that over 39 million habitat acres will be lost, and over 200 species included in 500 conservation plans will never see recovery."

Later Friday, she noted that in the past two years those numbers have grown to 60 million acres and 458 species included in the 500 conservation plans, based on newly revised government figures.

Katherine Meyer, a lawyer for the firm that represented the groups, said that Congress ought to rewrite the law to strengthen protections for endangered species, especially since two previous U.S. district court rulings had contradicted Sullivan's ruling.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service adopted the "no surprises" policy in August 1994, then cemented it in a pair of rules in 1998 and 1999.

After the council and other groups sued, Sullivan agreed in 2004 to halt them for six months while the agencies gathered more public comment. He found the Clinton administration had not given people enough opportunity to weigh in.

In December 2004, the Bush administration reissued the rules, saying the government must be able to give home builders, timber and mining companies and other developers some immunity against unforeseen twists in providing species protections.

___

On the Net:

Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov

Spirit of the Sage Council: http://www.sagecouncil.com

National Association of Home Builders: http://www.nahb.org

.. END STORY BODY -->

.. END MAIN CONTENT -->.. BEGIN FOOTER -->

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

12:38

0 Compliments

vendredi, août 31, 2007

D.C. Court Rules Against Endangered Species Recovery
Humeur actuelle :

mécontent

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION – ..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />U.S. Courts, Environment, Science, Politics, Business

CONTACTS –

Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council (910) 947-5091, (626) 676-4116

SKYPE – leeona.klippstein

Katherine Meyer, Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal (202) 588-5206

Jon Lovvorn, Humane Society of U.S. (202) 955-3669

D.C. District Court Rules Against Endangered Species Recovery

Conservation Plans Nationwide Allow Permits To Kill & Destruction of Millions of Acres

On Thursday afternoon, Judge Emmett Sullivan, D.C. District Court, released his Decision and Order regarding the most controversial legal challenges to the federal Endangered Species Act (Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. v. U.S. Interior Secretary Kempthorne).

For over decade, several nonprofit conservation groups, led by Spirit of the Sage Council have filed numerous lawsuits against the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service over Rule Makings that effect hundreds of various endangered species. The two federal Rules are referred to as No Surprises and Permit Revocation. Each Rule are vital aspects in how federal government agencies implement the Endangered Species Act.

The Sage Council, including the Humane Society of the U.S., contended that the No Surprises Rule was in violation of the Act and prevented the recovery of endangered species that the Services were issuing Incidental Take Permits for. No Surprises gives an assurance to nonfederal landowners that once a permit is issued to them, the federal government will not ever require them to provide additional conservation habitat or measures. Sage Council contended that this sort of permit guarantee could effect a species ability to recover if it was found that a Habitat Conservation Plan was inadequate to where species were declining in numbers. Since 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has approved over 500 Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) with Incidental Take Permits, including No Surprises guarantees, that impact over THIRTY-NINE MILLION HABITAT ACRES.

"While the American public has been sleeping and lulled by the idea that the Endangered Species Act protects our nation's plants and wildlife, the reality is that a biodiversity time-bomb has exploded." Said Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director of the Sage Council. "Yes, a tree does fall in the forest when you can't hear it! In this case, hundreds of various rare and endangered species are being killed and millions of habitat acres gone through so-called Habitat Conservation Plans that are created for the sole purpose of allowing development, timber, mining industries to continue on and profit. It's the loophole exemption in the law that acts as a noose on biodiversity."

Interveners of the lawsuit, supporting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries use of No Surprises in Incidental Take Permits, included numerous building and timber industry interests. Defendant's contended that Section 10 of the Act, Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits only had to meet survival standards, otherwise referred to "jeopardy."

Ruling in favor of the defendant government agencies, Judge Sullivan's decision presumed, "that the Services will faithfully execute their duties" when they determine whether the conditions of the Incidental Take Permits are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. Judge Sullivan's decision runs counter to other recent court decisions of other districts.

"If Incidental Take Permits are to be permitted to undercut the recovery of endangered species, then it is vitally important that Congress revisit this provision of the Act -- the whole idea beyond this amendment to the statute was to allow the rare taking of an already extremely imperiled species, in exchange for a guarantee that the taker would do something to protect the species as a whole - a meaning that has been completely forsaken by the FWS and the district opinion" stated Katherine Meyer of the D.C. public interest law office, Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal.

In California (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Bartel, 2006 )and Alabama (Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 1998), District Courts upheld that a Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits have to provide for species recovery as defined by the word "conservation." Judge Sullivan reasoned that the other district courts had made their decisions without "closely scrutinizing" the text of Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. Judge Sullivan stated, "Thus, while applicants must submit a "conservation" plan, the statutory text makes clear that the ITPs [permits to kill] can be granted even if doing so threatens recovery of a listed species. To the extent that there is a conflict between the general definition of "conservation" and the specific criteria in [the law], the "specific statutory language should control more general language when there is a conflict between the two." (quoting Nat'l Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n, Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., 2002).

Whether the Sage Council will appeal the D.C. District Court decision or not is presently being considered. "This is, undoubtedly, the biggest and most important endangered species case in history. The recovery of endangered species is vital to life on Earth. The loss and paving over of more than 39 million acres of habitat and vegetation is detrimental to not only the species, but to the Earth's climate. I can only pray that all those millions of people that went to Live Earth concerts on Global Warming will throw their support behind the Sage Council to continue our fight for endangered species and the Earth. We will be discussing an appeal with our legal counsel at Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal. My feeling is that we could win at the Court of Appeals.," stated Klippstein.

1:22

0 Compliments

lundi, mai 28, 2007

FEDERAL COURT HEARS THE TICKING OF BIODIVERSITY TIME BOMB
Humeur actuelle :

empreint de gratitude

PRESS RELEASE NEWS DESK EDITOR PRESS RELEASE ENVIRONMENT POLITICS ..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

CONTACTS

Leeona Klippstein, Exec Director – Spirit of the Sage Council -- (626) 676-4116 mobile

leeona@sagecouncil.com

Eric Glitzenstein – Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal -- (202) 588-5206 office eric@meyerglitz.com

Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ecologist -- (530) 756-4598 puma@davis.com

FEDERAL COURT HEARS THE TICKING OF A BIODIVERSITY TIME BOMB

On May 30^th, a decade old battle over the fate of our nation's endangered plants, fish and wildlife will be heard by ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />D.C. Federal District Court, Judge Sullivan. At stake is the future of over 850 various listed species and 135 MILLION habitat acres nationwide subject to guaranteed "Incidental Take Permits" that are issued by U.S. Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.

Since 1984, the Endangered Species Act has had an exemption clause that allows non-federal landowners a process to obtain permits to harass and kill federally listed endangered species. Between 1984 and 1994, less than 30 permits to kill endangered species were issued. However, in 1994, the implementation of the Endangered Species Act was overhauled by former U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt who began giving a "No Surprises" assurance to private landowners that their permits to kill endangered species would not be revoked or changed by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service without the land owner's permission.

A grassroots non-profit group of Native Americans and wildlife conservationists, Spirit of the Sage Council, witnessed the "No Surprises" assurances being given to a multitude of Southern California developers and counties. "It was alarming! Instead of endangered species receiving the guarantee of recovery under the law, it was turned upside down. Developers were calling the shots. Whole counties had teamed with the building industry and conservation had become voluntary instead of required. They were creating maps and plans to allow more than 50% of endangered species habitat to be bulldozed and paved.," Stated Leeona Klippstein, executive director of the Sage Council.

In 1996, Klippstein and the Sage Council challenged U.S. Interior's "No Surprises" policy. U.S. Interior settled, agreeing to provide public notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment. In response, over 800 scientists, educators, conservationists and tribes wrote their opposition to giving "No Surprises" guarantees to land owners. Renowned conservation biologists, Dr. Reed Noss, Dr. Michael Soule and ecologist, Dr. Kenneth "Shawn" Smallwood, all agreed that the use of "No Surprises" could push endangered species further towards extinction. "Nature is full of surprises" stated Dr. Smallwood.

Regardless of scientist's concerns over "No Surprises", the Interior Secretary required U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to continue using the new rule in every Incidental Take Permit and Implementation Agreement given to cities, counties, developers, timber companies, mining companies and water districts throughout the United States. American bald eagles, salmon, bull trout, California gnatcatcher, spotted owl, pygmy owl, red-legged frogs, Mission blue butterflies, Quino checkered spot butterflies, San Bernardino and Stephen's kangaroo rats, Delhi-sands flower loving fly, Slender horned spine flower, dolphins, fairy shrimp and Red cockaded woodpeckers, along with more than 800 others were given the back seat to industry profiteers. All endangered creatures, great and small, no longer were given a guarantee of recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Spirit of the Sage Council sued U.S. Interior a second time.

Again, the Sage Council prevailed and Federal District Court, Judge Sullivan, remanded the "No Surprises" rule and the entwined "Permit Revocation Rule" (PRR) back to Interior to make a new rule that considered the scientific needs of the species, rather than just the "desires" of private landowners. During this time, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service could no longer give "No Surprises" guarantees. Industry groups and others including; Western Urban Water Coalition, the National Association of Home

Builders, the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, the Irvine Ranch Water District, and the American Forest & Paper Association, continued to intervene in the case and support the federal government.

The agencies then reissued the "No Surprises" Rule and also the "Permit Revocation Rule" (PRR). The PRR was issued in an effort to buttress the government's legal defense of No Surprises -- by "clarifying" that it could at least revoke Incidental Take Permits where they were causing the imminent extinction of a species. However, this approach was clearly inadequate because (1) the revised rule does not allow the Permit to be revoked when long-term recovery is being impaired, (2) revocation is useless when modification is what is necessary, e.g., with regard to an already built housing development, revocation will not save the species, but additional habitat conservation and acquisition may; and (3) even with regard to Incidental Take Permits that must be revoked to avoid immediate extinction, the PRR irrationally says that the Fish and Wildlife Service may revoke the permit, not that it must do so.

For over a decade, the public interest law firm of Meyer, Glitzenstein and Crystal has challenged the No Surprises and Permit Revocation rules, on behalf of the Spirit of the Sage Council, which has offices in Pasadena, CA and Carthage, NC. "As is now obvious from the massive ecological changes being wrought by global warming, the No Surprises Rule is perhaps the most misguided policy ever to be adopted in the history of implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The concept that holders of permits to kill, injure, or otherwise harm imperiled species should receive decades long guarantees that their permits will never change -- and that they should receive such guarantees without even helping to ensure the long-term recovery of affected species -- is one that should have long since been relegated to the scrap heap of history. We have been battling for so long in the courts over this issue because so much is at stake -- literally the fate of the hundreds of listed species that depend on private lands for their survival and recovery" stated legal counsel, Eric Glitzenstein.

"I see this case and the issue of land owner guarantees as a Biodiversity Time Bomb" said Klippstein. "The Earth is in crisis. There's a great focus on global warming and climate change right now.

If, in ten years, it is clear that a Plan for a particular species is useless because the species' habitat needs have shifted in response to global climate change, No Surprises guarantees ensure that there is nothing that can be done about that; the useless mitigation measures are locked into place for the length of the Permits to kill the species, regardless of what the scientists say based on the best available data. That is not what Congress intended when it passed the Endangered Species Act."

Actuellement j'écoute:
Gold
Par Tears for Fears
Date de publication : 08 August, 2006

4:53

0 Compliments

vendredi, mai 18, 2007

..>..>

Congress investigates Bush Admin on Endangered Species

..> ..> ..>..>

House Panel Spotlights Political Interference with Endangered Species

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, May 10, 2007 (ENS) – ..Body starts here -->Bush administration officials at the Interior Department have repeatedly manipulated science in order to weaken protections for endangered species, former agency officials and environmentalists told the House Resources Committee Wednesday.

The hearing prompted a key Democrat to call for the resignation of the department's deputy secretary, who endured several hours of heated questioning from the committee.

"Under your leadership we have got negligence, incompetence and political hackery," Representative Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat, told Interior Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett. "It would be helpful to have your resignation because you refuse to recognize how sick this situation is,"
Inslee

Congressman Jay Inslee has represented the northeastern Seattle area since 1999. (Photo courtesy Office of the Congressman)

The committee held the oversight hearing in the wake of the resignation of Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald – a recent Interior Department inspector general report found MacDonald pressured federal wildlife scientists and leaked confidential information on species decisions to industry and private property groups.

The report detailed interference by MacDonald with scientific reports on a slew of endangered and threatened species, including sage grouse, prairie dogs, the California tiger salamander and Delta smelt fish. MacDonald repeatedly pressed scientists to downplay risks to species and in several instances simply ignored their findings.

MacDonald's "reign of terror" may have ended, said Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat, but "she left behind a lot of baggage."

Rahall

House Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall has represented southern West Virginia in Congress since 1977. (Photo courtesy Office of the Congressman)

Rahall and other Democrats on the committee called on the administration to commit to reviewing decisions influenced by MacDonald.

"You owe it not just to your employees and not just to us, but to the country to do everything you can to restore the environment of good science there," said Russ Holt, a New Jersey Democrat. "And that would include making sure that any errors in science, any manipulation of science that occurred for any reason are corrected."

Scarlett declined to commit to such action.

Scarlett

Lynn Scarlett has been deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior since November 2005. (Photo courtesy Office of the Deputy Secretary)

The administration is responding to the concerns by putting in place some 80 new ethics guidelines and setting up an accountability board, she said.

"We do not promote, tolerate or support the suppression of scientific information," Scarlett told the panel. "Where there is evidence of scientific manipulation, we will act upon it."

"We have been over these last months assuring what I believe is a process of integrity," Scarlett said, adding that MacDonald "strived to do what she thought was her duty."

That drew a sharp rebuke from California Democrat George Miller.

Miller

Congressman George Miller of California has represented San Francisco's East Bay area since 1975. (Photo courtesy Office of the Congressman)

"Give me a break," Miller said. "If you believe that then we are in very serous trouble here and the underpinnings of the integrity of this department are in very serious trouble."

MacDonald's actions have created "a serious, serious ethical and legal problem for the department," Miller said.

Federal judges have already rejected decisions influenced by MacDonald, including a move to downgrade protections for the endangered Santa Barbara and Sonoma salamanders.

Critics argue the administration appears to have not just tolerated, but has encouraged MacDonald's actions as part of a larger effort to ignore the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

"[This] is not some rogue employee that has run countercurrent to this administration and this leadership," Inslee told Scarlett. "And you have shown a stunning lack of awareness of that or willingness to deal with this situation."

Jamie Rappaport Clark, who served as the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service during the Clinton administration, called the political interference of the Bush administration "unprecedented."

Clark

Biologist Jamie Rappaport Clark, former director fo the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, now serves as executive vice president of the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife. (Photo courtesy Defenders)

"No one is arguing that science alone should dictate policy," Clark told the panel. "Science is the foundation on which sound policy decisions depend. But when political interference tries to force a scientific process towards a particular answer, that foundation is undermined and ultimately you end up making very bad policy decisions."

The department's code of science ethics contains "a glaring omission," Clark said.

"Political appointees were specifically excluded," Clark said. "If you create this wall for career employees to behave one way and political appointees to behave another then it is ripe for the problems that we are seeing now."

Rahall further criticized the administration for draft regulations, leaked last month to the press, which would reduce the federal government's responsibility to protect endangered species by making regulatory changes to implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

The Bush administration has not provided Congress with a copy of the draft, said Rahall, who called it "evidence of a systematic effort" to undermine the law and species protection.

"This is an agency that seems focused on one goal – weakening the law by administrative fiat and it is doing much of that work in the shadows, shrouded from public view," Rahall said.

Scarlett defended the administration's commitment to protecting endangered species and said it is interested in improving the law.

salmon

The summer run of Lake Sammamish Kokanee salmon in Washington state is believed to have gone extinct this year. (Photo courtesy UBC Zoology)

The draft regulations are still being developed and defended, she added, and the agency held 25 listening sessions across the country to hear ideas about how to revise implementation of the statute and how to encourage greater cooperation with states and private property owners.

"Our fundamental and central goal is to enhance recovery and to do so by enhancing the opportunity for cooperative conservation partnerships," she said.

The most controversial part of the draft – a revision of how the agency determines risks to a species – has been removed, Scarlett said.

Republicans on the committee expressed support for regulatory changes to the Endangered Species Act, arguing that the 34 year old law is poorly crafted and does little but breed litigation.

The law has been used "to smash the dreams of millions of Americans … and to disturb the lives of millions of property owners," said Idaho Republican Bill Sali.

"The Act has been implemented and used by groups not to try and preserve species but to impede any kind of development or growth and that is the unfortunate thing," added Representative Don Young, an Alaska Republican.

Young

Congressman Don Young has served as Alaska's only Representative in the House since 1973. (Photo courtesy Office of the Congressman)

The law encourages landowners to "shut up and shovel" rather than work to protect species, Young said.

"This committee, instead of just pointing the finger at the administration, should, come up with some alternatives," Young told colleagues. "We must save the species if that is what we are seeking to do but let's not forget that we have the human factor involved also."

But Jeff Ruch, an attorney who serves as executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said the administration's implementation of the law is a major reason for much of the litigation related to endangered species.

Ruch

Jeff Ruch is executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national association of employees in natural resources agencies. (Photo courtesy House Committee on Science and Technology)

The reason that environmental groups "consistently win these suits is because the agency's own information has been manipulated," he said.

Ruch added that his organization has found manipulation of science "routine and widespread."

"Julie MacDonald was not a lone rogue," Ruch told the panel. "She was merely following orders to keep the administration's friends comfortable."

..middle content end / begin bottomhtml-->

..cellpadding table end-->

.. Ad Zone R1 -------->.. type=text/javascript>..google_ad_client = "pub-5395331695908966";google_ad_width = 120;google_ad_height = 600;google_ad_format = "120x600_as";google_ad_channel ="";google_ad_type = "text_image";google_color_link = "333399";google_color_url = "0800";google_color_text = "000";google_color_border = "33660";google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";//-->..>.. src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type=text/javascript>..><[[[[iframe]]]] name=google_ads_frame marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-5395331695908966&dt=1179511546578&lmt=1179511546&format=120x600_as&output=html&correlator=1179511546546&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ens-newswire.com%2Fens%2Fmay2007%2F2007-05-10-10.asp&color_bg=FFFFFF&color_text=000&color_link=333399&color_url=0800&color_border=33660&ad_type=text_image&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ens-newswire.com%2F&cc=250&flash=9&u_h=800&u_w=1280&u_ah=738&u_aw=1280&u_cd=32&u_tz=-240&u_his=1&u_java=true" frameBorder=0 width=120 scrolling=no height=600 allowTransparency>..GOOGLE END------------->

.. Ad Zone R2 -------->.. Ad Zone R3 -------->.. Ad Zone R4-------->..end right cellpadding table not in use-->

..end main table-->

.. -->

Questions or Comments:
news@ens-news.com

To Subscribe
To Unsubscribe to ENS daily headlines:
Click Here

Actuellement j'écoute:
Retrospective 1995-2005
Par Natalie Merchant
Date de publication : 27 September, 2005

6:16

0 Compliments

jeudi, mai 03, 2007

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2007

For all of you wonderful legal eagles and activists, Spirit of the Sage Council is RINGING THE ALARM BELL

..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You are all doing such great work and I do understand the difficulty of stopping what you're doing in order to address another issue. However, I must.

A bill was introduced in the House (H.R. 1422) and Senate (S.700) a couple of months ago, under the misnomer of "Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2007." The bills are slowly gaining co-sponsors from both sides, including Larry Craig.

There are some relatively good things in the bill regarding restoration of habitat on private lands in exchange for tax credits. Sage Council doesn't have any real problem with tax credits. However, the BIG PROBLEM is Section 8 of the bill (see below)

"`(8) REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION OF INCIDENTAL TAKINGS- The Secretary shall request the appropriate Secretary to consider whether to authorize under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 takings by an eligible taxpayer of a qualified species to which an agreement described in subsection (c) relates if the takings are incidental to--

`(A) the restoration, enhancement, or management of the habitat pursuant to the habitat management plan under the agreement, or

`(B) the use of the property to which the agreement pertains at any time after the expiration of the easement or the specified period described in subsection (c)(4)(A), but only if such use will leave the qualified species at least as well off on the property as it was before the agreement was made."

As you can read for yourself, this bill would turn recovery actions into only maintence. A private or federal landowner (bill includes Military) could at some point – after receiving tax credits for entering into an agreement – reduce the number of species in their planning area back down to the baseline number that they began with.

I hope you will agree that this is not true recovery and that this bill most be killed ASAP.

I asked Eric Glitzenstein to give me his interpretation of the bill. The following is his commentary on the Section 8 "Incidental Taking".

"In my view, section 8 is the only really problematic part of the bill, in part because it is not even clear what it means. It says that the Secretary of the Treasury "shall request the appropriate Secretary to consider whether to authorize under the [ESA] takings by an eligible taxpayer" under two specified circumstances. One basically involves activities "incidental" to carrying out the "habitat management plan" for which the tax credit is provided and seems unobjectionable, particularly since such activities could almost surely qualify for an enhancement permit under section 10(a)(1) of the ESA as presently written. The other circumstance – set forth in proposed section 8(B) applies to takings "incidental to the use of the property to which the agreement pertains at any time after the expiration of the easement or the specified period [the agreement is in effect] . . . but only if such use will leave the qualified species at least as well off on the property as it was before the agreement was made."

This provision is, at the least, confusing. It appears to place a burden on the Secretary of the Treasury to ask the Secretary of the Interior (or Commerce) to "consider whether to authorize" an incidental taking in these circumstances, but imposes no obligation on the Secretary of the Interior (or Commerce) to actually do anything in response. Arguably, the FWS's only responsibility when getting such a "request" would be to process it in accordance with the agency's existing "safe harbor" regulations.

On the other hand, while I don't think its quite accurate to say that this "codifies" Safe Harbors – again, since it does not even say what the FWS must do with a "request" from the Secretary of the Treasury – it certainly could be read as lending, for the first time, a legislative imprimatur to the Safe Harbors concept, including the most controversial element of that concept, under which a landowner can take species until the habitat returns to a "baseline" condition. I see no reason why this provision should be in this legislation, since it has no discernible relationship to the tax credit for recovery concept and, moreover, as a process and legislative matter I believe there should be Congressional hearings and objective evaluations of the safe harbor agreements already in effect before Congress takes any step that could be viewed as ratifying the FWS's current approach to such agreements. Moreover, as a policy matter, it is not clear to me why someone should be permitted to get a substantial tax benefit for helping to recover species if the species can ultimately be left no better off than before (even assuming that that is indeed the case; in the absence of careful monitoring and oversight, it will be difficult to insure that species are not in fact left in worse condition).

In sum, I do not see why section 8(B) should be in this bill and there seem to be good policy and legal reasons for its removal."

So, it's not little ol' me, that sees a real problem with this bill.

Unfortunately, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife have all given their public support for the bill! In addition, these groups have been able to get the Endangered Species Coalition (ESC) to support it and ask the public to do so! Yikes!!!

I'm asking that each of you do something to help us stop this bill from receiving any additional co-sponsors. Also, if you are a member or associated with any of the D.C. groups that are supporting, please contact their President and Legislative staff to voice your concern and displeasure with Sect.8 of the bill.

This has to become an individual and grassroots uprising. Your participation is needed.

If you use www.thomas.gov reference H.R. 1422, as the S.700 is not complete.

Thank you!

Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director

Spirit of the Sage Council

(626) 676-4116 (910) 947-5091

4:51

0 Compliments