Sen. Boxer none too happy about feds’ attack on ESA 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Green Granny Posted 10:11 pm
   15 Aug 2008

   Not surprisingLittle the Bush admin does surprises me any more.  What surprises me is that Bush was re-elected in 04.  How did that happen?  I still don't get it.

   Permalink

2. 

   Range41 Posted 7:15 am
   17 Aug 2008

   Enviro's need to stop treating the ESA as sacredTo be honest, all I have seen is the rather simplistic media coverage of these rule changes and I reserve ultimate judgement until I can see what changes are proposed.  BUT, I can say that you will be hard pressed to find anyone who actually works with the ESA on a daily basis (I do) who thinks the law does not need some streamlining and reform.  Basically the reforms that are needed are along the lines of what Kempthorne describes along with a shift in focus away from nitpicking projects with mitigations that have little positive benefit towards a focus on active recovery programs that address the specific limiting factors on individual species.
   Also, I think some big enviro groups are REALLY on the wrong track in trying to use ESA to backdoor in greenhouse gas regulations.  The USFWS is simply not equipped to deal with an issue like that and the end result will be a complete elimination of ESA not an improvement in greenhouse gas emissions.
   All that said, as much as reform is needed I am a little dubious of any reform with W and his lackeys at the helm.  

   Permalink

3. 

   Wolverine Posted 12:46 pm
   17 Aug 2008

   No Range41, LIFE Is Sacred, Not LawsBut the Endangered Species Act is a law that's supposed to protect life.  Your comment that it needs "streamlining" belies your real intent, which is to advocate for landowners who want to make money at the expense of the natural environment, including the species who live there.  You work with the ESA "on a daily basis"?  In what way, as a landowner attorney trying to get around it?
   What the ESA needs is strengthening, starting with a repeal of the horrible Habitat Conservation Plan loophole, which itself was an amendment to the ESA.

   Permalink

4. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 4:13 pm
   17 Aug 2008

   Hard pressed...BUT, I can say that you will be hard pressed to find anyone who actually works with the ESA on a daily basis (I do) who thinks the law does not need some streamlining and reform.
   That's 'cause most people who do work with it on a daily basis are developers, electric, and mining companies, etc. who would benefit finacially from seein' the Environmental Impact Statements bein' virtually abolished.
   Kinda like how there aren't many people in the tobacco industry who wish those pesky anti-smokin' legislations would go away.

   Permalink

5. 

   Range41 Posted 5:34 pm
   17 Aug 2008

   In fact...I do not work for a developer, company etc.  I work in natural resource management and I work on projects undergoing consultation all the time.  Currently in fact I am prevented from starting a project to benefit arroyo toad habitat by manually removing invasive species because of the ESA and the delays it causes.   The ESA does not build strategies for recovering endangered species, it instead mandates dubious mitigations that are costly and dont provide any benefit.  Look at the list of listed species that have recovered and 9times out of 10 it is not because of ESA protections that the animal recovered.  I really think that groups trying to defend the current state of the ESA would be shocked if they actually went through the process.  IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to the best we can do to protect endangered species.  And by the way - Environmental Impact Statements stem from a different (and even worse law) not the ESA.  
   Seriously no agenda here other than to try to figure out how to do all this better than we are doing it.  It would be really helpful if the environmental community stopped knee-jerk defense reactions to any attempt to reform ESA and NEPA and instead came to the table with an open mind.  Both of these laws consume an enormous amount of resources and talent with little enviromental benefit.  Working with these laws I am constantly thinking there has got to be a better way.  Again, I am sure the majority of people (wildlife biologists, planners, enviromental consultants) who struggle with these laws would agree.

   Permalink

6. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 2:55 am
   18 Aug 2008

   Questions, please....Currently in fact I am prevented from starting a project to benefit arroyo toad habitat by manually removing invasive species because of the ESA and the delays it causes.
   I understand the privacy concerns of environmental projects (which I've had to deal with myself), but perhaps ya could be more specific.
   Like how would the proposed changes to the ESA streamline your particular project?
   The way I understand it, most of the changes are aimed at projects that would require mitigation and interact with development.
   If your project, which, at first glance, seems to be solely aimed at restoration of habitat, and has nothin' to do with development, then how would the proposed changes streamline your process?

   Permalink

7. 

   Range41 Posted 4:24 am
   18 Aug 2008

   Answers I hopeThe project I am working on may temporarily disturb individual arroyo toads burrowed in the sand (perhaps even crush one).  So we have to consult with the USFWS, which takes up to 180 days to recieve a reply saying basically, "we agree with your assessment that this will may impact individuals but will have a net benefit to the species".  Then we can proceed.  Thats if we get an experienced person at USFWS - otherwise the reply might include mitigations (toad exclusion fencing etc) that makes the project undoable.  The reforms, as I understand them, allows us (another federal agency with biologists on staff) to make that determination ourselves and proceed with the project.  If our biologists (or a consulting firm biologist hired by the developer makes the determination that the project will adversely affect the species then its business as usual with consultation and the like).
   Your question shows the general misunderstanding of the ESA - that it only affects big development projects and the like.  IN FACT, ESA does not stop any development unless the USFWS can justify a "jeopardy" opinion - basically meaning the development (or action) will make a species go extinct.  When you are that point the species is already in serious trouble.  The ESA has no mechanism for looking at the cumulative effects of developments (except the Habitat Conservation Plan admendment that Wolverine wants to throw out).  Each project/development is eventually allowed to proceed with some mitigations until habitat is knicked away to the point of jeopardy.  
   My main point of the ESA is that it focuses attention on the really small potatoes of species protection.  It is not proactive and it does little to plan for active management and recovery of the species.  
   The ESA is all sticks and no carrots, the incentives it creates are completely backward.  In fact, the only incentive to preserve species is to avoid their listing and the black hole of spurious bureaucracy that ensues.  Look at the case of the sage grouse.  Lots of good work and habitat planning is currently occurring to avoid listing of that species.  Once it is listed, I think the outlook for it will be considerably grimmer.   The incentives for private landowners then turns to eliminating all sage grouse habitat on their lands.   Another example, if you are a timber company with private forest land in the northwest - under the ESA the last thing you would want to do is allow your forest to development into something that could support spotted owls.  

   Permalink

8. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 5:49 am
   18 Aug 2008

   Overall net benefit.....I can see how it might inadvertantly effect some projects such as yours, but given the impact from developments, dams, mining, and the like, and the (sometimes piecemeal, but sometimes not, but still important) and what the impact could be if no mitigation or environmental assessments were performed on these projects, then, on the whole, doesn't the ESA create more benefits long-term to wildlife rather than hinderances?
   I don't really buy the "discourages listing" argument.  I know plenty of folks (unfortunately) who would still try to "eliminate" any chance someone would "stumble" across a listed species on their land, even if the proposed changes went into effect.
   Whether or not it is listed, and whatever protection it is under, makes little difference to 'em.  They think somethin' will come of it no matter what (likely bad media coverage), so they think it's best to "head-off" the problem before anyone finds out it's a "problem" to begin with.
   If ya know what I mean.
   I'm also concerned 'cause I don't really think that any potential money "saved" from this streamlining process will actually be put into others areas covered by the ESA, such as conservation and enforcement (at least under this administration's proposal).  I think it'll just turn out to be an overall budget swipe for the ESA.  And with a smaller budget already in place, it will be even easier to widdle it down further, if the politicans deem it so.

   Permalink

9. 

   Wolverine Posted 8:49 am
   18 Aug 2008

   Who's On Which Side HereEven though I'm dubious that Range41's goal here is to advocate for listed species, I'll take his/her word for it.  However, judging by the moniker, it's a good bet that (s)he works for BLM, a totally evil agency whose priority is support of the mining and ranching industries to the detriment of the natural environment.  That all said, let's look at the ESA and what it does and doesn't do.
   First and foremost, the ESA and NEPA have stopped environmentally destructive projects.  So saying that the ESA doesn't stop projects is just false.  You don't need to necessarily show that the species will become extinct if the project proceeds, just that the project would somehow violate the ESA by causing a "taking" of a listed species, which is anything from harassment to killing and includes harming the species' habitat.  When we've won some of these cases, the losing parties sometimes abandon the project, which creates an outright victory for the species and the land.  At the very least, the project is amended so that it won't be as harmful.
   Second, anything that slows down projects is generally good.  While restoration projects like the one Range41 describes are an unfortunate casualty of this, they're a small minority of the projects affected by the ESA.  The vast majority are projects that would be ecologically harmful, so slowing down projects has a net positive effect.
   Third, the foremost environmental group involved in advocating for listed species is the Center for Biological Diversity, which strongly opposes the proposed reforms.  Now why do you think that is?  And please, no lies about wanting to preserve incomes, the people working for this group could make far more in the for-profit sector.  The Center's press release on the issue can be found here.
   Fourth, it's an outright lie to say the ESA has not been successful.  In fact, it's been very successful, which is why developers are trying to get rid of it or greatly weaken it.  Consider from where the push is coming to amend the ESA: it's from right wing property rights advocates and developers, not from environmental advocates.
   Fifth, the agencies that would be allowed to make decisions in lieu of Fish & Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries are advocates for destructive industries: the Deforest Service, which advocates for the timber industry and to a lesser extent the grazing industry, the Bureau of Livestock and Mining, er, I mean the Bureau of Land Management, which advocates for the ranching and mining industries, etc.  Sorry, but I sure don't want these agencies making decisions about species, as bad as Fish & Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries have sometimes been.
   Finally, the Habitat Conservation Plan was a loophole placed in the ESA in order to allow developers to destroy habitat of listed species if they agree to protect other habitat.  It still results in a net loss of habitat, and is worse than the previous situation before the HCP was enacted, which would not have allowed any destruction of habitat containing listed species.  Developers often try to convice lay people that the HCP is a positive environmental law, but those of us who advocate for species and their habitats know otherwise.

   Permalink

10. 

    wendigo Posted 10:04 am
    18 Aug 2008

    one of the worst ever at DOI has stepped downPaul Hoffman has stepped down:
    http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/not-a-moment-too-soon?utm_s ...
    This is the guy who not only did everything he could to undermine the ESA, he also proposed changing the mandate of the National Park Service from conservation to recreation...his version of recreation being dirt-biking and jet-skiing.

    Permalink

11. 

    Tasermons Partner Posted 10:45 am
    19 Aug 2008

    Does that effect anythin'?......it's good that he's steppin' down (though he may have been ousted by the next administration anyways), but does that effect the proposed changes any?
    And who'll be his replacement?

    Permalink