posted 05-18- 11:03 AM            

House Panel Slams Endangered Species Act

- By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

(05-17) 16:06 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Endangered Species Act has failed to help most threatened and endangered species, according to a report released Tuesday by a Republican lawmaker who has made rewriting the law a top priority.

Environmentalists and Democrats quickly criticized the report prepared for Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chairman of the House Resources Committee, as politically motivated and misleading.

The report by the panel's oversight and investigations staff doesn't include independent investigations, but draws on existing federal agency data to highlight the record of the landmark 1973 law.

Among its findings:

_Only 10 of nearly 1,300 domestic species of plants and animals listed under the act have recovered.

_Of the listed species, 77 percent have met 0 percent to 25 percent of the Fish and Wildlife Service's recovery objectives for them. Only 2 percent have met 76 percent to 100 percent of recovery objectives.

_The recovery status of 60 percent of listed species is classified as either "uncertain" or "declining," while 30 percent of species are stable and 6 percent are improving. Of the listed species, 3 percent — 35 in all — are classified as possibly extinct.

"No reasonable individual can conclude that the ESA is sustainable in its current form," Pombo said.

Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, the Resources Committee's top Democrat, disagreed, saying the Endangered Species Act has spared the more than 1,200 listed species from extinction.

"Measuring the law's success by the number of recovered species to date is like measuring the scope of human history by the last two minutes," Rahall said.

Susan Holmes, senior legislative representative with Earthjustice, said centuries of species decline can't be reversed in a matter of years.

"What Congressman Pombo is attempting to do is manipulate data, manipulate science to fit his political agenda to undermine and undo the Endangered Species Act," Holmes said.

Pombo is working with other GOP lawmakers on amending the law to increase involvement by states, add incentives for private landowners, and strengthen scientific reviews.
__

On the Net:

House Resources Committee:
resourcescommittee.house.gov/

posted 05-20- 10:30 AM            

Pombo panel cites lack of progress in protecting species
By Bob Brownne
San Joaquin News Service

A Congressional committee is criticizing the Endangered Species Act in a possible prelude to legislation to overhaul the landmark environmental law.

Created in 1973 to help bring endangered plants and animals back from the brink of extinction, the Endangered Species Act is hailed by environmentalists as an effective tool for protecting sensitive plants and animals.

But a report released Tuesday by the House Committee on Resources, chaired by Congressman Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, states that the law's modest successes are overshadowed by the lack of progress in recovery from endangered status for most plant and animal species covered by the act.

"The intent of the Endangered Species Act is recovery," said Brian Kennedy, consultant with the Resources Committee. "There's one fact that's out there, and that is that only 10 of 1,300 species in the act's history have recovered. What has been less clear is the question of the status of those that remain on the Endangered Species Act list."

He noted that the committee's staff investigated Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service records and Federal Register reports to see if the act has been working as intended.

New legislation based on the report is likely to follow, Kennedy said, meaning committee leaders and environmental groups are preparing to battle over the future of the law.

"It sounds like the typical bunk we've come to expect from Congressman Pombo," said Bart Semcer, wildlife specialist with the Sierra Club's Washington, D.C., office. Semcer said that the bald eagle, just to name one species, has recovered its endangered status because of habitat protection required under the act.

"There are success stories all around the country we can point to," he said. "But it would take some time to get these species to the point where they can recover. They're not going to rebound overnight."

Kieran Suckling, policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said the argument outlined in the report -- that few species have been delisted because of policies based on the act -- is familiar to environmentalists and biologists alike.

"That claim has been rebutted by over 3,000 university, academic and federal biologists who have produced recovery plans for these species," Suckling said.

He added that the scientific community agrees that most recovery plans for endangered plants or animals include a 30- to 50-year period from the time a species is listed until the time it could be declared as recovered.

"Species are making progress on the endangered species list, but it is a long, slow process that requires many decades of work," he said.

Al Donner, assistant field supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Sacramento office, said he couldn't comment on the Resource Committee report, but he did note that recovery plans for endangered species are ongoing efforts.

One such plan under way now in the Central Valley would protect seasonal wetlands, also known as vernal pools, which are habitats for rare water plants and animals.

"It lays out a 60-year time frame for actions proposed in the recovery plan because it takes that time to measure successes and recovery times," he said.

Donner added that habitat plays a role in recovery plans, noting that the Aleutian Canada goose, one of the successes of the Endangered Species Act, would regularly migrate to the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge between Tracy and Modesto.

posted 05-20- 10:47 AM            

WASHINGTON, May 19 /PRNewswire/ — Defenders of Wildlife Executive Vice
President Jamie Rappaport Clark today told the U.S. Senate that the Endangered
Species Act has prevented hundreds of species from tipping over the brink to
extinction and that political interference in the Act's implementation has
wrecked morale within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency she once
headed. Clark's testimony before the Senate Fisheries, Wildlife and Water
Subcommittee noted that of more than 1800 species that have been under the
Act's protection, only 9 have been declared extinct, a phenomenal 99 percent
success rate.

“The Act's opponents have it exactly backwards. The Endangered Species
Act is the alarm bell, not the cause of the emergency,” Clark said. “When
that alarm sounds, it means we are driving species toward extinction,
increasing the risk to the web of life, and therefore to ourselves.”

Clark noted that the Endangered Species Act is the nation's primary tool
to address the growing extinction crisis that virtually all professional
biologists warn has begun. She pointed to a letter to the Subcommittee
leadership yesterday from E.O. Wilson of Harvard and nine other prominent
scientists that outlined the magnitude of the problem. (Letter at: http://www.saveesa.org/letter.pdf ) While mammals get the most attention,
everything is affected: fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and plants
as well. By Duke University professor Stuart Pimm's count, for example, 11
percent of birds, or 1,100 species out of the world's nearly 10,000, teeter on
the edge of extinction; some of these 1,100 are expected not to live far into
this century.

“When the nation rejoiced last month at the return of the Ivory-billed
woodpecker, Interior Secretary Norton said that we rarely have a second chance
to save wildlife from extinction. But the Endangered Species Act is all about
first chances to do that, about preventing wildlife extinction now, just in
case nature is out of miracles,” Clark said.

She testified to the Act's tremendous record of stemming the tide of
extinction, while noting a number of things it was never designed to do. The
Endangered Species Act was never intended to prevent species from becoming
threatened or endangered; that is the job of “other conservation laws — those
that protect our water, air, and land. The Endangered Species Act is meant to
prevent extinction when we have failed at-risk species by not passing, not
enforcing, not implementing, or not funding those other measures.”

She also noted that the Act is still assisting at-risk species, despite
pervasive political interference over the past four years with the science and
implementation of the Act, and that this interference has devastated morale
within the Fish and Wildlife Service.

“Never have I seen so many decisions overturned, so much scientific advice
ignored, and so much intrusion into the daily work of rank and file Fish and
Wildlife Service professionals as I do today — all by political appointees,”
she testified. “I worked side-by-side with these dedicated, professional
people for many years. I know how much they are struggling, how frustrated
they are because they can't do their jobs. They tell me. I talk with these
folks and a picture emerges of an agency under siege from within, an agency,
created and designed to protect our nation's wildlife heritage, now seemingly
more concerned with protecting the interests of those for whom wildlife and
habitat are obstacles to be overcome on the way to a bigger bottom line.”

Clark noted a number of areas in which positive improvements could be made
to the Act, so that it can work better for all stakeholders. But she
cautioned against efforts to undermine the Act under the rhetoric of “reform.”
She noted moves to destroy the nation's ability to protect habitat for species
at risk, as laid out in a bill last year by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Cal.), or
to subject scientific work within the Act to explicit political oversight, as
envisioned in legislation in the last Congress by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.)
and Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)

Defenders of Wildlife is a leading nonprofit conservation organization
recognized as one of the nation's most progressive advocates for wildlife and
its habitat. With more than 480,000 members and supporters, Defenders of
Wildlife is an effective leader on endangered species issues.

Testimony: http://www.saveesa.org/2005/testimony.pdf
Background: http://www.saveesa.org

SOURCE Defenders of Wildlife
Web Site: http://www.defenders.org http://www.saveesa.org/2005/testimony.pdf http://www.saveesa.org http://www.saveesa.org/letter.pdf

posted 05-22- 03:00 PM            

U.S. Endangered Species Act Works, Study Finds
Maryann Mott
for National Geographic News

The longer an animal or plant species is protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the more likely it is to recover, a new study says. The finding contradicts recent criticism that the act has returned too few species to full health.

Researchers Martin Taylor, Kieran Suckling, and Jeffrey Rachlinski compared population trends of 1,095 listed species with three related factors: how long the species were listed, whether their habitat had been protected, and whether specific recovery plans were in place.

Overall, the study found that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is effective, said Suckling, co-author of the study and policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizona. The report is published in the April issue of the journal BioScience.

Three Key Factors

“We were able to identify three aspects that contribute to the act's success: recovery plans, critical habitat [protection], and the listing itself,” he said. “Each of those has an independent contribution, and therefore we need to do more of those things.”

Not everyone agrees that the ESA successfully preserves and protects wildlife. Critics argue that recovery of only 15 animals in 32 years indicates failure.

Suckling counters that the statistic is not a good measure of the act's effectiveness. “That would be like walking into an emergency room and saying, 'Look, everyone is sick. This hospital must be a failure.'”

A better measure, he said, is the extent to which the ESA is moving species toward recovery.

In particular, species that have had dedicated recovery plans in effect for two or more years showed greater rates of survival and recovery. Recovery plans lay out specific steps that need to be carried out to restore species to health.

Suckling adds that all recovery plans are not equal. Single-species recovery plans, for example, perform better than multispecies plans.

Since 2000, researchers noted, 73 percent of all new ESA recovery plans have been multispecies strategies.

“Wildlife agencies should reconsider the growing emphasis on multi-species plans, or at least take care to ensure that multi-species plans include the same level of attention to the needs of single species as is found in dedicated plans,” the researchers write in the study.

Critical Habitat

Protecting “critical habitat”—areas that have biological or physical features essential to conservation—was also found to assist survival and recovery efforts. Such habitats, though, have rarely been designated since 1986, when new regulations restricted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to establish critical habitats.

Suckling explained that the regulations, introduced by the administration of President Ronald Reagan, created a feeling that protection of habitat was a redundant, unnecessary, and expensive procedure. In the last four or five years, however, courts have repeatedly struck down the 1986 regulations.

Recently more than 350 new critical habitats have been designated, the researchers wrote. “Our results suggest that if this progress continues, the proportion of species with recovering trends will increase significantly.”

“Pseudoscience”

Attorney Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a California-based organization that defends private-property rights, isn't convinced that the study shows a positive correlation between species improvement and the designation of critical habitat.

As proof, he points to the Fish and Wildlife Service's online database. The database shows that only 2 of the 15 animal species that have fully recovered have had critical habitats designated for them.

“Just looking at correlations would suggest that species without critical habitat are seven times more likely to recover,” he said. “The type of pseudoscience used in this report adds nothing to the public debate on the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act.”

In March, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed two lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service over the designation of 42 critical habitats

“There is no rhyme or reason why some areas are designated as critical habitat and no meaningful evaluation of the real costs to society of these designations,” Hopper said. “As a result, Californians pay more for their homes, face higher taxes, and have seen their property unnecessarily turned into what amounts to wildlife preserves.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation says that the Fish and Wildlife Service, when determining critical habitats, does little more than guess where species live.

The legal action was filed on behalf of associations throughout California that represent farmers, ranchers, developers, and other business owners.

posted 05-22- 07:10 PM            

By Dan Dessecker
April 22, 2005

CORAOPOLIS, Pa. -- Since the Endangered Species Act was passed more than 30 years ago, more than 1,300 species have been listed as threatened or endangered, yet, only seven have recovered sufficiently to be taken off the lists.

This overriding goal of the Endangered Species Act -- recovering species before they go extinct -- is as important today as it was in 1973. One inescapable conclusion is that the Endangered Species Act must be strengthened if it is to be effective.

One of the basic laws of physics states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is especially true as we assess the effects of habitat management activities, a central focus of the Endangered Species Act. Take, for example, the protection of two seriously imperiled forest songbirds in the eastern United States, both of which could eventually warrant listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The golden-winged warbler requires very young forest habitats. The cerulean warbler, a brilliant blue bird, prefers to breed in relatively mature forests. If we provide habitats for one, we are in essence destroying habitats for the other.

The process outlined in the Endangered Species Act for the identification and conservation of threatened and endangered species has become all but unworkable. Far too much time and money are spent producing paperwork, rather than protecting species. Courts now make decisions best left to professionals.

One problem with the Endangered Species Act is the mandate that critical habitat for a species must be identified "concurrently" with the decision to list that species as threatened or endangered.

It sounds only reasonable; after all, a species can't exist in the absence of required habitats. But this is where the best of intentions runs headfirst into reality. The reality is that identification of critical habitats can be a daunting task, a paper chase that takes limited personnel and funds away from on-the-ground efforts to protect species.

Groups with more money and lawyers than common sense routinely file lawsuits to force the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to spend time and money to designate critical habitat once a species is listed, time and money that could be better spent working to recover species.

This is not a partisan issue. Officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations have singled out the critical habitat conundrum as a primary impediment to the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has a backlog of hundreds of threatened and endangered species for which critical habitats have not yet been identified.

Recovering less than 1 percent of endangered and threatened species over 30 years is a clear indication of the need to improve the Endangered Species Act.

We can and must do better.

-- Dan Dessecker is senior wildlife biologist with the Ruffed Grouse Society (http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org). Readers may write to him the Ruffed Grouse Society, 451 McCormick Road, Coraopolis, Pa. 15108.

posted 05-22- 07:15 PM            

By Nicholas L. Cain
April 22, 2005

OAKLAND — The United Nations' recently released Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a landmark four-year study, found that 60 percent of the natural services sustaining life on Earth have been degraded or are being used unsustainably, and up to 30 percent of all life is threatened with extinction.

Given this gathering storm, eviscerating the Endangered Species Act, which has provided a last respite for American plants and animals on the verge of disappearing, would be a colossal mistake.

Since being signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1973, the act has helped bring America's national bird, the bald eagle, back from the brink, and protected key species like the California gray whale and the American alligator. It has also helped protect thousands of acres of open space and ensured that the web of life, which supports us all, isn't forever shredded.

But some in Congress claim the act is ineffective and doesn't work. This isn't true. In fact, a just-released study finds that the Endangered Species Act is effective.

Putting aside the intangible benefits of seeing a bald eagle soar through the air, why should we protect endangered species? The most straightforward reason is self-interest: The extinction of even a seemingly insignificant animal or plant can ripple through the natural systems that sustain us, threatening human health and well-being.

And it's not just animals that are important. The noted biologist E.O. Wilson has called insects “the little things that run the world” as they are responsible for breaking down dead matter, pollinating plants and doing all sorts of other critical jobs.

Another benefit of preserving what scientists call biodiversity: More than 25 percent of the drugs prescribed in the U.S. are derived from plants. From aspirin to the cancer-fighting drug Taxol, plants provide a cornucopia of cures.

Aside from “enlightened” self-interest, there are, in the words of the act, “aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational and scientific” reasons to protect endangered species. America's unique environment is a living history book for scientists, for our families and for future generations.

To protect animals like the bald eagle, we have saved thousands of acres of open space from being destroyed. These special places are in themselves important — for buffering floods, filtering our air, and giving us a chance to relax and recreate.

Is the Endangered Species Act working? Opponents often argue that since few of the animals listed are “delisted” — that is certified in excellent health — that the act is a failure. But this is wrong: As a study, detailed in the April issue of BioScience has found, even when species aren't totally removed from the list, protection allows the health of the threatened plant or animal to improve.

When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, we must make sure that solid science isn't replaced by knee-jerk politics. As the saying goes, the life you save could be your own.

— Nicholas L. Cain is communications director with the Pacific Institute (http://.www.pacinst.org). Readers may write him at Pacific Institute, 654 13th St., Oakland, Calif. 94612, or e-mail him at ncain@pacinst.org.

posted 05-22- 10:07 PM            

Pombo Releases Oversight Report on ESA Implementation

Review of agency data shows little evidence of progress in species recovery

Washington, DC - Today Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) released a report, Implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, prepared at his request by the House Resources Committee's Oversight & Investigations staff.

“The Endangered Species Act's less than one percent success rate for species recovery is a well-documented and readily-available statistic, but the status of the remaining species on its list has not been as clear until now,” Chairman Pombo said. “This exhaustive review of government data makes it clear the vast majority of these species have not improved under implementation of current law.”

To complete this undertaking, the staff researched and thoroughly reviewed (1) all Federal Register notices for delisted and downlisted species (2) a decade-worth of agency expenditure reports (3) data from Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Reports to Congress (4) dozens of critical habitat designation economic impact assessments, agency regulations and recovery plans and (5) discussed implementation of the act with numerous federal, state and local officials. The committee has never conducted such an exhaustive review of ESA implementation before.

“The ESA has not achieved its original intent of recovering species,” Pombo continued. “In fact, there is little evidence of progress in the law's 30-year history. After reviewing this body of agency information on the Act's implementation over the years, no reasonable individual can conclude that the ESA is sustainable in its current form. It checks species in, but never checks them out.”

Federal agency data highlighted in the report includes:

1. After more than 30 years only 10 of nearly 1300 domestic species have recovered and, in many cases, the ESA was not the primary factor in the recovery. (Report pages 9 - 12)

2. According to the FWS's most recent report to Congress, 77 percent of listed species are classified in the Service's lowest 'recovery achieved' category, having only met 0-25 percent of recovery objectives. Only 2 percent fall into the highest 'recovery achieved' category, having met 76-100 percent of recovery objectives. (Report pages 19-21)

3. According to the FWS's most recent Report to Congress, the recovery status of 60 percent of listed species is either 'uncertain' or 'declining'; 30 percent are classified as stable; 6 percent are classified as improving; and 3 percent (35 species) are classified as possibly extinct.

4. Of the 33 species reclassified by the FWS in the Act's history, only 10 domestic species were downlisted (status from endangered to threatened) because the species had improved. (Report page 12-16)

5. Erroneous data/data error has significantly adversely affected the implementation of the ESA.

At least 15 of the 33 domestic species that have been delisted in the Act's history were removed from the list because of original data error/erroneous data. (Report page 8)

Erroneous data was a contributing factor in at least 10 of 19 (over 50 percent) of the downlisted domestic species. (Report pages 12-14)

Expenditures by federal, state, and private parties on species listed based on erroneous data could total hundreds of millions of dollars. Funds spent on erroneously-listed species could be otherwise directed to species that are actually endangered or threatened. (Report pages 46-51)

6. According to the FWS, in 30 years of implementing the ESA, the service has found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of conservation resources. The Service's present system for designating critical habitat is driven by litigation rather than biology. (Report page 56)

7. The current program clearly costs billions of dollars, but insufficient economic information is collected to reasonably determine the true cost of the law, as all federal, state, and private expenditure reporting cannot be assessed.

8. Given the Act's poor recovery rate, the pool of future possible additions, current agency species data (77% of species having achieved only 0 to 25% of recovery), litigation demands and conservative consideration of cost data, the current program is not sustainable.

In addition to the 1,264 currently listed species, the FWS now recognizes an additional 283 species as candidates for listing. (Report page 29)

The FWS' current litigation workload for listing and critical habitat includes (1) 34 active lawsuits with respect to 48 species (2) 40 court orders involving 8 species and (3) 36 notices of intent to sue involving 104 species. (Report page 29, 66-71)

“The ESA is obviously in need of a legislative update that will focus the law on strengthening results for species recovery,” Pombo said. “This report will be an invaluable guide as Congress considers the best way to do just that. It has certainly become a question of how we improve this law, not a question of if.”

###

Click Here to View the Report: Implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973

posted 05-28- 12:02 AM            

How to 'improve' the Endangered Species Act

Posted: April 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Henry Lamb
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

No law has done more to destroy private property rights or done less to protect endangered species than the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Enormous debate is raging between the environmental activist community and the property-rights activist community. Caught in the middle is Congress, specifically, the House Resources Committee which, has the responsibility of crafting changes to the law that will meet the demands on both sides of the issue.

Environmentalists contend that the law should be strengthened to allow a lower threshold for listing species and by imposing stricter limitations on land use where these species exist – even if the land is privately owned.

On the other hand, property-rights activists correctly report that the law has had less than a 1 percent recovery rate in its 30-year history, while virtually destroying the economic value of private land designated as critical habitat.

There is, or should be, common ground.

Those who believe that the law should be repealed must recognize that a sizable portion of the population have been led to believe the law is important. Those who want to strengthen the law must also realize that the law is imposing severe hardship on fellow citizens, while ignoring the fundamental principle of private property rights.

If, as the environmentalists believe, it is essential for the public to protect and preserve these endangered species, then it follows quite naturally that the public – not private individuals – should pay the costs.

The people who live in Oregon recognized this basic principle after years of creeping regulations that eroded the rights of private landowners. They adopted Ballot Measure 37 – with 62 percent of the vote – which says, simply, that if government regulations restrict the use of private property for the public good, then the public must pay the landowner for his loss. If the government cannot pay, then the regulation must be waived.

This is the common ground on which responsible environmentalists and private property owners should stand.

If, indeed, a species is so vital to the "web of life" that its habitat must be preserved to the exclusions of any other use, then the public, who makes this determination through its government, should pay the cost. There is no reason why the individual landowner should bear the cost for this so-called "public good." Environmentalists cringe at the thought of having to pay for the use of private property. They recognize that the millions of acres set aside as critical habitat is worth gazillions of dollars, which the government can ill-afford to spend. They know that if the government is required to pay for the use of private property, the property will not be used as critical habitat. Rightfully so. There is still no better arbiter of resource allocation than price.

When price is not a factor, environmentalists make all kinds of excuses to list species, sub-species, populations and distinct populations – whether they are actually endangered or not – as a way to block legitimate land use by the owner. When price is a factor, elected appropriators will have to think twice about just how important it is to protect weeds and bugs and insects, compared to all the other demands on the public treasury.

A compelling case can be made that species would be no worse off had there never been an Endangered Species Act. An even more compelling case can be made that a better way to protect species habitat is to provide education and economic incentives, rather than arbitrary regulatory penalties.

Environmentalists have been so successful with their hug-a-tree and kiss-a-wolf campaigns over the years that very few members of Congress are prepared to repeal this dreadful law. All members, however, should readily recognize the unfairness of forcing individual private landowners to bear the cost of providing critical habitat for some obscure species environmentalists say must be saved for the benefit of the public.

The principle established in Oregon's Ballot Measure 37 provides a perfect example of how the two sides of the endangered species debate can find common ground. Once price is allowed to determine the value of these species, the Endangered Species Act will lose much of its sting. In fact, the number of species listed as endangered will likely be dramatically reduced, to the handful of species that may actually be in danger of extinction.

The House Resources Committee should take a good look at Oregon's Ballot Measure 37.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted 05-28- 12:39 PM            

Save protected species

EDITOR,

In 1973, the Endangered Species Act was written and signed into law primarily to save the bald eagle, a symbol of our freedom. In the time since then, there have been more than 1,300 species listed as endangered, and only 10 have species recovered. If those numbers were your baseball statistics, you wouldn't be playing very long.

Moreover, nearly 90 percent of critical habitat, the land upon which the species dwell, is on private land, yet no incentives are given to the landowners.

As stated in a recent Tracy Press article by Bob Brownne , environmentalist groups claim that it would take 60 years to recover most species.

What science are they using, especially when there are no science-based requirements needed to list species?

Under the current framework of the Endangered Species Act the only winners are groups like the Sierra Club and their plethora of lawyers who make money by suing private businesses and taxpayers.

As a community, we need to succeed in strengthening and updating the Endangered Species Act, so that the real winners are the species this law intends to protect.

Sean Robertson, chairman of the Tracy Farm Center , Tracy

posted 06-05- 11:06 AM            

Law Not Working: Endangered Species Act has proven ineffective
June 05, 2005
The Monitor View

Politicians and bureaucrats excel at the art of ju-jitsu; they can flip an argument upside down and turn an opponent’s strength against him. The fact that a federal program has failed to produce results rarely succeeds as an argument for shutting it down or reforming it, as the flourishing of failed federal programs demonstrates.

posted 06-06- 07:17 PM            

Give landowners incentive to save

Published on Saturday, June 4, 2005, in the Tracy Press.

After nearly three years as House Resources Committee chairman, Rep. Richard Pombo remains extremely confident that he will author a reform of the 32-year-old Endangered Species Act. The Tracy Republican has just a little more than three years to do it as chairman of this key committee.

Pombo has been determined to change the act that is supposed to protect about 1,800 plant and animal species ever since he was elected to Congress 13 years ago.

Back then, Pombo was considered a lone voice, barely audible as a backbencher from the minority party. Today as one of the most powerful lawmakers for the majority, his chance of reform is the best yet.

But Pombo is still meeting resistance from environmental movement politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, bureaucrats and fundraising groups who are trying to protect their turf — their jobs and their funding from their organizations’ card-carrying members.

“They” (in Pombo-speak) should, at least, stipulate that the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work. The statistics are glaring: only 10 species out of nearly 1,800 listed as endangered or threatened have been recovered; 35 other listed species have become extinct during the past 32 years. Pombo agrees with the environmentalists that it may take 50 or 60 years to bring species back from near-extinction, but the act is failing, he contends, because so far 77 percent of the at-risk species have declined in population or their status is unknown, and just 2 percent have progressed.

Pombo has the proper perspective on how the Endangered Species Act has been thought of since President Richard Nixon signed it into law: It is an emergency room to save notable species like the bald eagle — which it has.

But the cost of this ER has been staggering: billions of dollars used mostly to react to lawsuits and comply with court orders, with too little left over to assist the plants and animals.

Pombo has a better way of managing the Endangered Species Act, one that he discovered on a southern Africa study trip a few years ago. Since 95 percent of at-risk species are on private property, instead of command and control, government should offer tax breaks and economic incentives to the landowners to protect and increase the numbers of species.

Now owners make sure at-risk plants and animals aren’t on their property. Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, for example, will disc their entire parcel to remove the kangaroo rat’s habitat. Since the animal can no longer exist there, the farmers aren’t punished.

Says the astute but practical Pombo, “We need an Endangered Species Act that works; we need to produce more of a species (not remove them).”

posted 06-08- 01:40 PM            

Should Congress overhaul the Endangered Species Act? Yes.
Date: Thursday, April 28 @ 00:00:30
Topic Opinion

Since the Endangered Species Act was passed more than 30 years ago, more than 1,300 species have been listed as threatened or endangered, yet only seven have recovered sufficiently to be taken off the lists.

This overriding goal of the Endangered Species Act -- recovering species before they go extinct -- is as important today as it was in 1973.

But we have learned a great deal in the past three decades and one inescapable conclusion is that the Endangered Species Act must be strengthened if it is to effectively protect our most imperiled species.

One of the basic laws of physics states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; put another way -- everything is connected to everything else.

This is especially true as we assess the effects of habitat management activities, a central focus of the Endangered Species Act. Take, for example, the protection of two seriously imperiled forest songbirds in the eastern United States, both of which could eventually warrant listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

One, the golden-winged warbler, requires very young forest habitats, sustained today almost exclusively through active forest management. The second is the cerulean warbler, a brilliant blue bird that prefers to breed in relatively mature forests. If we provide habitats for one of these species, we are in essence destroying habitats for the other -- the opportunities for dueling lawsuits are endless.

The process outlined in the Endangered Species Act for the identification and conservation of threatened and endangered species has become all but unworkable. Far too much time and money is spent producing paperwork, rather than protecting species. The courts now make decisions that are best left to trained natural resource professionals.

One well-recognized problem with the Endangered Species Act is the mandate that critical habitat for a species must be identified "concurrently" with the decision to list that species as threatened or endangered.

It sounds only reasonable; after all, a species can't exist in the absence of required habitats. But this is where the best of intentions runs headfirst into reality. The reality is that the identification of critical habitats can be a daunting task, a paper chase that takes limited personnel and funds away from on-the-ground efforts to protect species.

Groups with more money and lawyers than common sense routinely file lawsuits to force the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to spend time and money to designate critical habitat once a species is listed, time and money that could be better spent working to recover species.

This is not a partisan issue. Officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations have singled out the critical habitat conundrum as a primary impediment to the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has a backlog of hundreds of threatened and endangered species for which critical habitats have not yet been identified. Many of these have been the subject of lawsuits that seem to serve little purpose other than to divert attention and resources from other more pressing needs, such as the conservation of threatened or endangered plants and animals.

Recovering less than 1 percent of endangered and threatened species over 30 years is a clear indication of the need to improve the Endangered Species Act.

We can and must do better.

Dan Dessecker is senior wildlife biologist with the Ruffed Grouse Society, a forest wildlife conservation organization.
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page 1.

posted 06-27- 12:55 PM            

Endangered Species Act under scrutiny
Law faces broad challenges as critics say it goes too far to protect wildlife and curtails people's ability to use own land.

By FELICITY BARRINGER
The New York Times

WASHINGTON – More than three decades after the Endangered Species Act gave the federal government tools and a mandate to protect animals, insects and plants threatened with extinction, the landmark law is facing the most intense efforts ever by White House officials, members of Congress, landowners and industry to limit its reach.

More than any previous time in the law's 32-year history, the obligations it imposes on government - and, indirectly, on landowners - are being challenged in the courts, reworked in the agencies responsible for enforcing it and re-examined in Congress.

In some cases, the challenges are broad and sweeping, as when the Bush administration, in a legal battle over the best way to protect endangered salmon, declared western dams to be as much a part of the landscape as the rivers they control. In others, the actions are deep in the realm of regulatory bureaucracy, as when a White House appointee at the Interior Department sought to influence scientific recommendations involving the sage grouse, a bird whose habitat includes areas of likely oil and gas deposits.

Some environmentalists readily concede that the law has long overemphasized the stick and provided fewer carrots for private interests than it might. But some of them also fear that the law's defects will be used as a justification for a wholesale evisceration.

“There's an alignment of the planets of people against the Endangered Species Act in Congress, in the White House and in the agencies,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, a lobbying group based in Washington.

On the opposite side, Robert D. Thornton, a lawyer for developers and American Indian tribes in Southern California, has argued for years that the government goes too far to protect threatened species and curtails people's ability to use their own land.

“I've raised a child and sent him through college waiting for Congress to amend the Endangered Species Act,” he said. “But I do think that a lot of forces are joining now.”

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 set out a goal that, polls show, is still widely admired: ensuring that species facing extinction be saved and that robust populations be restored.

Currently 1,264 species are considered threatened or endangered. Some, like the big horn sheep of the Southern California mountains, have obvious popular appeal and a constituency, while others, like the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle in south Texas, are an acquired taste.

But in the past 30 years, lawsuits from all sides have proliferated. And more private land, particularly in the West, has been designated critical habitat for species, potentially subjecting it to federal controls that could limit construction, logging, fishing and other activities.

The conflicts are becoming sharper as the needs of newly recognized endangered species are interfering more often with the demands of exurban development.

Western governors, who met in San Diego last year in a mini-summit meeting on the act, are also weighing in with Congress, for the most part seeking to explore new means of species conservation while clarifying - or limiting - local and state government obligations under the law.

Even without congressional rewriting, the federal agencies involved have taken a different attitude in the past four years, sometimes raising the bar of scientific proof and giving more weight than before to the economic impact of Endangered Species Act decisions.

Noah Greenwald, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the Interior Department under President George W. Bush has been much less aggressive than under President Bill Clinton in putting species on the endangered list.

Under Clinton, he said, the Interior Department agreed to place a species on the list in 88 percent of the instances in which it made a decision.

Under Bush, the figure is 52 percent, according to Greenwald's analysis of federal data.

The Bush administration has expanded on the Clinton administration's reluctance to delineate critical habitat.

The administration includes a statement in all documents on the subject saying that the designation of critical habitat “provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by litigation rather than biology, forces designations to be made before complete scientific information is available,” and “imposes huge social and economic costs.”

Economic analyses, which the law allows for in decisions on territory, are now the leading reason for reducing the size of species' critical habitat, according to a report by the National Wildlife Federation.

In 2003, the report says, lands proposed as critical habitat by biologists were reduced by one-third; 69 percent of those reductions were based on economic factors, up from less than 1 percent in 2001. Territory can also be removed from proposed critical habitat if higher-ranking officials believe a species does not need it.

Manson, the assistant interior secretary, said in an interview that the interior secretary has discretion to make such decisions, and that guidelines from the Office of Management and Budget are followed in performing economic analyses.

The National Wildlife Federation argues that the administration assigns little economic benefit to habitat designations, to which Manson responded: “The National Wildlife Federation and other groups have a different view of what ought to count as benefits. That's a legitimate policy difference.”

Environmental groups argue that the land-use provisions of the law have been working, because federal data shows that 68 percent of listed species whose statuses are known have stable or recovering populations.

Even so, some environmentalists indicate gingerly that some of their number may have overreached or, more precisely, over-sued.

“Litigation is a hammer, but not every problem is a nail,” said Michael Bean, a co-director of the Center for Conservation Incentives at Environmental Defense. “The good news about litigation has been that it has forced the government to take seriously its obligations.”

In the desert around Palm Springs, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians is suing the government because more than half the tribe's 31,000 acres fall into an area the Fish and Wildlife Service says is critical to the conservation of the endangered bighorn sheep.

The sheep's numbers in the area were down to about 280 when they were listed as endangered in 1998. A recent count put the number above 700.

The tribe says the designation creates “an economic impact of hundreds of millions of dollars” by complicating plans to develop resort condominiums and a golf course near tribal land.

posted 06-28- 02:25 PM            

Endangered Species Act under fire from two directions

Some hope to make it more difficult for plants and animals to receive protections, while others seek to strengthen the law

By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

ASHLAND, ORE. - Nobody's very happy with the federal Endangered Species Act - arguably the most powerful of all environmental protection laws.

Scientists and activists say it fails to protect hundreds of “candidate” species headed for extinction because agencies haven't been able to get to them yet for lack of resources or political support. Property rights advocates say the law unfairly harms farmers, ranchers, and developers who have on their land what some deride as an inconsequential bug or weed.

Western governors of both parties say they should have more influence over how the law is defined and enforced. And congressional critics say endangered species protection is really run by judges who make draconian decisions without considering their economic or social impact. Lawmakers are poised to take action.

Protecting species can be as delicate and complicated as a spider's web.

Scientists have found that the infamous spotted owl here in the Pacific Northwest, listed for years as “threatened” because its habitat had been reduced by logging and other activities, also is under attack by the larger, more numerous barred owl. So they're considering an experiment to “remove” - i.e., kill - some barred owls so that its smaller, spotted cousin will have enough habitat to recover.

On the other hand, the ivory-billed woodpecker - thought to have gone extinct half a century ago - recently has been spotted in an Arkansas swamp.

The politics of species protection has become more complicated as well - particularly as religious groups get involved.

“You can expect to hear from many people of faith as they witness with passion and resolve about the importance of protecting endangered species,” Dorothy Boorse told a recent congressional committee. Dr. Boorse teaches biology at Gordon College in Wenham, Mass., and is an evangelical Christian active with the Noah Alliance, a coalition of religious groups that support species protections.

With help from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), some species have done very well, among them the peregrine falcon, the American alligator, the bald eagle, and the California condor.

But of the more than 1,200 species listed as endangered or threatened since passage of the ESA in 1973, very few have recovered to the point where they no longer need special protections such as limiting activity in a designated habitat. “The vast majority of these species have not improved under implementation of current law,” says Rep. Richard Pombo (R) of California., chairman of the House Resources Committee. “In fact, there is little evidence of progress in the law's 30-year history…. It checks species in, but never checks them out.”

Environmentalists vigorously disagree. Without ESA protections, such as designation of critical habitat, they say many listed species might have fallen into oblivion. Had it not been for the Cache River Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas, for example, the ivory-billed woodpecker might never have survived. Given increasing development, it can take decades and considerable effort to turn a troubled species around, activists and many scientists say.

“Before you can recover a species, you must keep it from tumbling over the final brink to extinction,” says Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife. “That's the act's most important function, at which it has been extremely successful.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Pombo and other lawmakers are pushing for more rigorous scientific studies before a plant or animal can be listed and therefore require protections. They also want to provide more financial incentives to property owners - at least three-quarters of all listed species reside on private land - and to involve state and local governments more in decisions to list species.

Property rights advocates agree. “Landowners must be compensated when they take land out of production to benefit a species,” says Chuck Cushman of the American Land Rights Association in Battle Ground, Wash.

Given the current makeup of Congress, which matches the disposition of the Bush administration to amend the ESA in favor of property rights, such challenges have a good chance of succeeding. Scientists might agree to minor changes to the act. But they often take a much longer view than politicians.

posted 07-04- 01:11 PM            

Threatened-species threat

01:00 AM EDT on Monday, July 4, 2005

The U.S. Endangered Species Act, a key to wildlife protection, did not come into being to save the magnificent ivory-billed woodpecker -- although its enactment memorialized that and all other species believed to be extinct. In 1973, when President Nixon signed the act, the ivory-bill was thought to have met the fate of the passenger pigeon and the dodo; the last ivory-bill sightings had been in the '30s.

This year's sighting of the huge and brilliant woodpecker -- a dramatic resurrection -- makes clear the value of efforts to preserve endangered species. The presumed-extinct ivory-bill appeared in an Arkansas swamp that had been protected from logging as a designated bird habitat.

The Endangered Species Act honors the interconnectedness of all life: It condemns the human destruction of plant and animal species not only as aesthetically and morally wrong, but also as dangerous to the human species. The act has effectively defended all species under threat -- including the Algodones sand jewel beetle and the Shivwits milk vetch, lacking though they may the splendor of the ivory-billed bird.

The strength of the law is its basis in science. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and associated scientists observe plants and animals in the field to determine whether their species are threatened, and, if they are, what to do to save them from extinction. These peer-reviewed data form the policies to protect species.

Yet the law has its detractors. Remember the snail darter and spotted owl, made figures of fun by Endangered Species Act foes? Animals and plants are threatened by development, resource extraction and many other human activities -- not to mention pollution -- but these activities have their advocates in Congress. To weaken the law, these legislators seek to interject economic and political criteria into the scientific ones that are used to formulate Endangered Species Act policy.

Now new legislation -- the protective-sounding Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, of 2005 -- would impose a bureaucratic overlay to reduce the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act.

The chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water is Lincoln Chafee, with one of the strongest pro-environment voting records. But he will be under pressure to produce a "compromise" bill. He should resist all such pressure.

To defend America's wildlife, the Endangered Species Act must stand.

Source

posted 07-10- 09:50 PM            

Endangered Species Act needs an update
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Sunday, July 10, 2005

Once again Congress is trying to do something about the Endangered Species Act, rightly called ``the most sacred of the environmental movement's sacred cows.'' All we can say is, ``Good luck,'' and the comment carries no sarcasm.
    
 All reform efforts of the past 15 years have fallen victim to Washington head-butting. There's a good argument that the 1973 act actually is now hurting the protection of nature's most fragile creatures because some landowners ``shoot, shovel and shut up.'' That is, they kill any species of interest, bury the carcass and say nothing.
     
Many landowners would be proud to cooperate in preserving species, but the deck is stacked against them.
     
Any landowner whose property is found to contain one of the more than 1,200 species on the list of endangered and threatened species maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service - or whose property used to be used by the critter and might be again - can find himself forbidden to do almost anything with his land, even farm it. There's no compensation for such ``regulatory takings,'' the courts have ruled, as long as some economic value remains.
     
Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Resources Committee, is circulating a draft of a new act that contains several helpful provisions. Among other things, he would require that decisions be based on actual population data instead of computer models, limit ``critical habitat'' to areas actually used by the species and permit compensation if land value is reduced by 50 percent.
     
Alas, the environmental lobby is as obstinate as ever. ``A wrecking ball,'' was how Defenders of Wildlife described the draft.
     
Any bill should make clear what Congress really wants, and close the door on regulations masquerading as law. For example, does society want to protect species, or subspecies too? What about separate populations that are identical genetically to more widely dispersed and nonthreatened members?

The status quo is the worst option. The Fish and Wildlife Service is hopelessly backlogged. For 39 percent of the endangered list it can't even say whether things are getting better or worse. Only 30 species have ever been delisted. If there is to be any improvement at all, all parties are going to have to look for areas of compromise.

posted 07-22- 10:22 PM            

Endangered Species Act hasn't hurt SoCal economy

By: Fred M. Roberts Jr.

Michael Pattinson ("At last, property rights outrage," July 10) would like you to believe the Supreme Court decision to allow condemnation of property is all about the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Pattinson's commentary is a thinly veiled attempt to inflame the public with misinformation and exaggerated claims of government abuse on behalf this law. It also appears timed to herald Congressman Richard Pombo's hearings on the Endangered Species Act. These hearings, if anything like the last round, will be orchestrated to put the act in the worst possible light.

Mr. Pattinson's argument is off-base from the start. The Supreme Court ruling is about redevelopment. In the case of the Connecticut decision, the court has determined that the government can condemn property (including occupied property) to make way for a new resort. This is nearly universally seen as a bad decision. People are more understanding if land must be condemned for a new water project, freeway or other public works.

People see this latest decision as an opportunity for car dealers and resort developers to convince city planners that their tax-generating (and pocket-lining) project is really for the public benefit.

The Endangered Species Act is about preserving our diverse natural heritage. Year after year, polls have shown that the public at large agrees that our natural heritage is an important public asset. The act restricts future activities only where certain endangered species occur (animals and plants are treated differently). Often only a small fragment of a once much-broader range is all that remains to work with. The Endangered Species Act may make it more complicated to use certain properties to their fullest, but, unlike the Connecticut case, it is not going to take existing homes.

Mr. Pattinson paints a picture of harsh government regulation costing the building industry here hundreds of millions of dollars, virtually stopping development in places like Murrieta, Temecula, San Diego, Carlsbad and other cities where "property rights have been shut down." The cost to you and me ---- rocketing housing prices, he writes. This simply is not the case. There are more endangered species in Southern California than anywhere else in the continental United States. Has our economy come to a screeching halt? Development has hardly stopped. If anything, it appears to be accelerating.

A record number of housing permits were issued in California last year, many of them right here. A lot of those houses and shopping centers you see from the freeway while crawling in ever-increasing traffic here in San Diego and Riverside counties were endangered species' habitat not all that long ago. If anything, California has prospered alongside the Endangered Species Act, a clear demonstration that economic development and the act can coexist.

Clearly, the Endangered Species Act has had a much more limited impact on private development here than Mr. Pattinson would have you believe. If there is outrage, it should be against those who would needlessly vilify one of the world's most noble laws.

Oceanside resident Fred Roberts is the rare plant coordinator for the San Diego chapter of the California Native Plant Society.

posted 09-10- 11:54 AM            

Endangered Species: A law that works

Sunday, September 11, 2005

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

There can be no slacking. America must continue saving endangered and threatened species.

Despite the claims of Republican congressional leaders, the Bush administration and property rights activists, the country has no need to modernize the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, there's absolutely no need to streamline the law, simplify it or drastically revise it.

To be sure, none of those ideas are completely lacking in merit. But they aren't valid starting points for any revisions to the act.

The one requirement is to maintain an effective deterrent to those in business, industry and government who plunder the environment. In the Northwest, that means, among other things, salmon protection, saving old-growth trees and keeping the orca population of Puget Sound viable.

As President Bush likes to say in many contexts, it is important to set clear expectations. In this country, we don't kill off species. Period.

The Endangered Species Act has provided great help in allowing Americans to live more respectfully with the environment, while continuing to accommodate population growth, greater mobility and an often-dynamic economy.

As the Post-Intelligencer's Robert McClure reported last week, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives look at the fall congressional session as the time when they can finally achieve their goal of revising the law. In fact, some of them, such as U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo of California, have been itching for this fight since at least 1995.

These days, Pombo, the powerful chairman of the House Resources Committee, manages to tone down his rhetoric about the law. He talks more about improving the law than freeing landowners from restrictions. But the only way he can earn trust is with legislation that, no matter what else it includes, provides at least as strong protections to the environment as the current law.

Philosophically, we agree with the idea that government ought to act more in partnership with landowners, companies and local governments. Saving the great and small creatures of the United States' land, air and water is a shared responsibility.

As critics point out, the act hasn't restored many threatened species to robust health. If consensus can be found, it's possible that Congress could craft better ways of restoring endangered species. But the starting point must be to prevent extinction. On that basic responsibility, Congress must not mess with the Endangered Species Act's great success.

© 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

posted 10-15- 09:39 PM            

House Resources Committee Report On Endangered Species Act Shows Less Than 1% Success Rate

Washington, DC - Today Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) released a report, Implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, prepared at his request by the House Resources Committee's Oversight & Investigations staff. “The Endangered Species Act's less than one percent success rate for species recovery is a well-documented and readily-available statistic, but the status of the remaining species on its list has not been as clear until now,” Chairman Pombo said. “This exhaustive review of government data makes it clear the vast majority of these species have not improved under implementation of current law.” 

————————————————————————————————————

To complete this undertaking, the staff researched and thoroughly reviewed

(1) all Federal Register notices for delisted and downlisted species (2) a decade-worth of agency expenditure reports
(3) data from Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Reports to Congress
(4) dozens of critical habitat designation economic impact assessments, agency regulations and recovery plans and
(5) discussed implementation of the act with numerous federal, state and local officials. The committee has never conducted such an exhaustive review of ESA implementation before. 

“The ESA has not achieved its original intent of recovering species,” Pombo continued. “In fact, there is little evidence of progress in the law's 30-year history. After reviewing this body of agency information on the Act's implementation over the years, no reasonable individual can conclude that the ESA is sustainable in its current form. It checks species in, but never checks them out.” 

Federal agency data highlighted in the report includes:

1. After more than 30 years only 10 of nearly 1300 domestic species have recovered and, in many cases, the ESA was not the primary factor in the recovery. (Report pages 9 - 12)

2. According to the FWS's most recent report to Congress, 77 percent of listed species are classified in the Service's lowest 'recovery achieved' category, having only met 0-25 percent of recovery objectives. Only 2 percent fall into the highest 'recovery achieved' category, having met 76-100 percent of recovery objectives. (Report pages 19-21)

3. According to the FWS's most recent Report to Congress, the recovery status of 60 percent of listed species is either 'uncertain' or 'declining'; 30 percent are classified as stable; 6 percent are classified as improving; and 3 percent (35 species) are classified as possibly extinct.

4. Of the 33 species reclassified by the FWS in the Act's history, only 10 domestic species were downlisted (status from endangered to threatened) because the species had improved. (Report page 12-16)

5. Erroneous data/data error has significantly adversely affected the implementation of the ESA.

At least 15 of the 33 domestic species that have been delisted in the Act's history were removed from the list because of original data error/erroneous data. (Report page 8)

Erroneous data was a contributing factor in at least 10 of 19 (over 50 percent) of the downlisted domestic species. (Report pages 12-14)

Expenditures by federal, state, and private parties on species listed based on erroneous data could total hundreds of millions of dollars. Funds spent on erroneously-listed species could be otherwise directed to species that are actually endangered or threatened. (Report pages 46-51)

6. According to the FWS, in 30 years of implementing the ESA, the service has found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of conservation resources. The Service's present system for designating critical habitat is driven by litigation rather than biology. (Report page 56)

7. The current program clearly costs billions of dollars, but insufficient economic information is collected to reasonably determine the true cost of the law, as all federal, state, and private expenditure reporting cannot be assessed. 

8. Given the Act's poor recovery rate, the pool of future possible additions, current agency species data (77% of species having achieved only 0 to 25% of recovery), litigation demands and conservative consideration of cost data, the current program is not sustainable.

In addition to the 1,264 currently listed species, the FWS now recognizes an additional 283 species as candidates for listing. (Report page 29)

The FWS' current litigation workload for listing and critical habitat includes (1) 34 active lawsuits with respect to 48 species (2) 40 court orders involving 8 species and (3) 36 notices of intent to sue involving 104 species. (Report page 29, 66-71)

“The ESA is obviously in need of a legislative update that will focus the law on strengthening results for species recovery,” Pombo said. “This report will be an invaluable guide as Congress considers the best way to do just that. It has certainly become a question of how we improve this law, not a question of if.”

posted 10-15- 09:59 PM            

May 19, 2005
Contact:
Brad DeVries 202-772-0237

FORMER FISH & WILDLIFE HEAD WARNS SENATE AGAINST WEAKENING SPECIES PROTECTION
Clark Says Act Has Rescued Hundreds of Species from Extinction

WASHINGTON — Defenders of Wildlife Executive Vice President Jamie Rappaport Clark today told the U.S. Senate that the Endangered Species Act has prevented hundreds of species from tipping over the brink to extinction and that political interference in the Act's implementation has wrecked morale within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency she once headed. Clark's testimony before the Senate Fisheries, Wildlife and Water Subcommittee noted that of more than 1800 species that have been under the Act's protection, only 9 have been declared extinct, a phenomenal 99 percent success rate.

“The Act's opponents have it exactly backwards. The Endangered Species Act is the alarm bell, not the cause of the emergency,” Clark said. “When that alarm sounds, it means we are driving species toward extinction, increasing the risk to the web of life, and therefore to ourselves.”

Clark noted that the Endangered Species Act is the nation's primary tool to address the growing extinction crisis that virtually all professional biologists warn has begun. She pointed to a letter to the Subcommittee leadership yesterday from E.O. Wilson of Harvard and nine other prominent scientists that outlined the magnitude of the problem. While mammals get the most attention, everything is affected: fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and plants as well. By Duke University professor Stuart Pimm's count, for example, 11 percent of birds, or 1,100 species out of the world's nearly 10,000, teeter on the edge of extinction; some of these 1,100 are expected not to live far into this century.

“When the nation rejoiced last month at the return of the Ivory-billed woodpecker, Interior Secretary Norton said that we rarely have a second chance to save wildlife from extinction. But the Endangered Species Act is all about first chances to do that, about preventing wildlife extinction now, just in case nature is out of miracles,” Clark said.

She testified to the Act's tremendous record of stemming the tide of extinction, while noting a number of things it was never designed to do. The Endangered Species Act was never intended to prevent species from becoming threatened or endangered; that is the job of “other conservation laws” those that protect our water, air, and land. The Endangered Species Act is
meant to prevent extinction when we have failed at-risk species by not passing, not enforcing, not implementing, or not funding those other measures.”

She also noted that the Act is still assisting at-risk species, despite pervasive political interference over the past four years with the science and implementation of the Act, and that this interference has devastated morale within the Fish and Wildlife Service.

“Never have I seen so many decisions overturned, so much scientific advice ignored, and so much intrusion into the daily work of rank and file Fish and Wildlife Service professionals as I do today, all by political appointees,” she testified. “I worked side-by-side with these dedicated, professional people for many years. I know how much they are struggling, how frustrated they are because they can't do their jobs. They tell me. I talk with these folks and a picture emerges of an agency under siege from within, an agency, created and designed to protect our nation's wildlife heritage, now seemingly more concerned with protecting the interests of those for whom wildlife and habitat are obstacles to be overcome on the way to a bigger bottom line.”

Clark noted a number of areas in which positive improvements could be made to the Act, so that it can work better for all stakeholders. But she cautioned against efforts to undermine the Act under the rhetoric of “reform.” She noted moves to destroy the nation's ability to protect habitat for species at risk, as laid out in a bill last year by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Cal.), or to subject scientific work within the Act to explicit political oversight, as envisioned in legislation in the last Congress by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)

###

posted 10-26- 12:32 PM            

Endangered Species Act under attack

By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 22, 2005

posted 11-09- 12:59 PM            

Endangering the Act
Environmentalists say a little-noted rule change could weaken the United States' strongest environmental law.

Clint Hendler
November 08 , 2005

In September the House of Representatives approved a bill that would make the Endangered Species Act (ESA) friendlier to industry and private-property owners at the expense of threatened and endangered species. The bill, championed by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), a real estate developer and rancher who serves as the chair of the House Resources Committee, would change a key provision of the act, Section 7, which requires that government agencies seek the opinion of wildlife experts before launching projects that might harm endangered species. Environmentalists have long seen Section 7 as an important preservation tool, and fear that agencies, left to their own devices, will tend to underplay the likely harm to species. “It becomes like the fox watching the chicken house,” says Jaime Rappaport Clark, a former Director of the National Fish and Wildlife Service.

For now, Pombo's bill is stalled in the Senate. But his isn't the only Republican challenge to Section 7. In June of 2003, long before the bill's drafting, the Bush administration's Interior Department had already issued new regulations under the ESA that allowed much the same thing. In certain cases, important species-protection decisions have been moved from the government's long-time conservation experts to the very agencies that the ESA was meant to regulate, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Forest Service. Pombo's bill, if passed into law, would legislatively enshrine the Interior Department's new rules. But if courts uphold those rules, now under legal challenge, the effect could essentially be the same.

While environmental lawyer Eric Glitzenstein calls the new rules “the biggest regulatory change” to the ESA carried out under the Bush administration, he and other environmental advocates point to many other actions and appointments whose goal at heart, they say, is to gut the Act. According to Clark, under Bush the expert agencies have annually listed, on average, less than 10 new species as endangered or threatened; under Clinton the yearly average was 65, under the first President Bush it was 58. And if past performance is any indication, that number is unlikely to grow under Dale Hall, Bush's new pick to lead Fish and Wildlife, who was confirmed by the Senate last month. When serving as the Service's Southwest Regional Director, Hall “never acted to protect a species unless under court order,” according to a press release from Forest Guardians, a New Mexico based preservation group.

Here's how things worked prior to the rule changes: Before any federal agency, such as Forest Service or the Army Corps of Engineers, could authorize, for instance, logging or dam-building, it would have to determine whether the action was likely to kill or harm any species listed as endangered or threatened. If the acting agency thought that harm was possible, it then had to consult with the National Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service—known as the “expert agencies”—to determine how real of a threat the project represented to the species, and if the action could be modified to minimize or eliminate harm. This process would also be required if one of the expert agencies disagreed with the acting agency's original assessment. Any project that, even after consultation, the expert agencies find short of the ESA's protection standards is essentially stymied, unless overruled by a court or allowed by what is informally known as “the God Squad”—a group of at least six senior governmental officials, including two cabinet secretaries, that has met only three times in the history of the act.

But that process changed with the Bush administration's new regulations. It doesn't take the word of the God Squad to allow a project to go forward without expert agency approval. That's because, in certain cases, the revisions allow agencies to decide for themselves whether or not their actions would harm endangered species, avoiding any potential for formal consultation. The rules were drafted in part by the office of Craig Manson, Bush's Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. (In November 2003, Manson told a reporter that he did not “think we know enough about how the world works to say” that species extinction “in and of itself is inherently bad”.) The government calls the result of the new procedure as an “alternative consultation agreement” (ACA); but environmental lawyers wryly—and perhaps more accurately—characterize the new process as “self-consultation.”

It's the sort of change that excites the industry-funded National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition, which represents farmers, developers, and electric utilities, and has been a major supporter of Pombo's bill. Industry has long been frustrated by the ESA; a decision to protect a single species can lead to the prohibition or curtailment of any activity that might threaten that species. Environmental litigants have found the ESA's broad ability to stop construction, controlled fires, resource extraction, or pesticide—as long as such activities can be shown to harm a listed species—to be among the most powerful weapons in their legal arsenal.

On March 3, 2004, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management entered into an “alternative consultation agreement” allowing these major public landholders, both federal agencies, to determine for themselves—without concurrence from the expert agencies—whether or not certain anti-forest fire projects would leave listed species unharmed. The new procedures were billed as a key wildfire prevention measure in President Bush's “Healthy Forests Initiative,” touted as necessary “to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness” with which National Fire Plan projects were approved.

But the vast majority of Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Directors, seven high-ranking civil servants charged with overseeing many key aspects of the ESA, disagreed that there was any legitimate problem with swift approvals for anti-wildfire projects. Before the regulations were made official, Manson's Washington office, who drafted the changes, asked for the Director's comments. Of the six who responded, all had serious reservations about the proposal that remain unaddressed in the final version. The Director of the fire-prone Mountain-Prairie region wrote that his office was “unaware of cases in which our current consultation procedures have slowed activity implementation.” Another noted that “a concurrence process [with the expert agencies] does not require a long time to prepare. Generally these are done in less than day.”

Mark Bosch, who coordinates the Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive Species Program at the Forest Service, agrees that getting concurrences from expert agencies doesn’t slow down the process at his agency. “We usually don't have to wait,” says Bosch. So far, the Forest Service has only used the ACA—the “self-consultation” option—about 50 times, when Bosch had expected hundreds.

So what purpose, then, do the ACAs serve? Glitzenstein, who is litigating against the Fire Plan ACAs on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, thinks that Manson had another motive. “The political higher-ups wanted to do this to get a foot in the door,” he says, and used the excuse of forest fire prevention to establish a beachhead. He's worried that the Interior Department may eventually act on its own allow any federal agency to act without expert agency consultation on species decisions—the same change that Pombo's bill proposes.

The Regional Directors' internal memos, which commented on draft versions of the new regulations, reflect a similar concern about future alternative consultation agreements. Directors feared that the agreements would pave the way for agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—both of whom “have existing fundamental disagreements with the Service about ESA implementation”—to obtain their own ACAs. They worried that the Service's role in the process—which has always been understood as that of an impartial arbiter and enforcer—was being given away wholesale to agencies that, as Clark puts it, have “competing missions.” As one director wrote, “We cannot discount the overriding conflicts” that the other agencies' scientists who the rule now empowers to make key protection decisions “face from internal pressures to meet quotas for timber salvage harvest, prescribed fire, etc.”

Anne Lindsay, the Deputy Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), acknowledges that her office has to be responsible to both species and industry and farm groups who make, sell, and use pesticides. In 2002, a federal judge ruled that the Endangered Species Act required the EPA to consult with the expert agencies before approving pesticides that might harm species on the endangered list. But five months after the unprecedented Fire Plan rules, the second (and to date, only other) ACA was drawn up between the EPA and the expert agencies. Now, armed with its new ACA, the EPA is again empowered to make making its own decisions about possible effects on species. Williams describes the new pesticide approval process as a “partnership and a collaboration relationship, more than a policing relationship.” It's that new system that worries lawyer Patti Goldman, who has sued the EPA on behalf of EarthJustice, a non-profit public interest law firm. In the past, she says the EPA has certified certain pesticides as safe, despite Fish and Wildlife Service documents indicating that they could neurologically impair protected salmon and steelhead fish, hampering their ability to swim, find prey, or avoid predators.

So far the Fish and Wildlife Service won't comment on whether or not it thinks the other agencies are making their decisions properly. They are withholding judgment until a mandatory review of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management's decisions under the new ACAs is finished. (The review is more than seven months overdue, and is not expected until the end of the year.) Until then, it is hard to tell if the ACAs have been used to approve projects that would not otherwise pass muster under the Endangered Species Act.

But according to Glitzenstein's lawsuit, the Forest Service has already approved, without expert agency oversight, projects that take place where listed species live, including caribou, grizzly bears, the Canadian lynx, and the Mexican spotted owl. According to Bosch “far and away the most common” type of action authorized by the Forest Service under the ACAs has been “mechanical treatment,” a term that the Forest Service defines as thinning, clear cutting or removing matter that could fuel forest fires. Environmental groups have been worried the term could be used to authorize logging unrelated to fire prevention.

Clark thinks it unlikely that the portion of Pombo's bill modifying Section 7 will clear the Senate, and optimistically notes that in past ESA battles, Congress has regarded the section as “sacrosanct.” But at the same time, she admits to being surprised at how “crummy” of a bill Pombo got through the House—his success to date indicates that almost anything could happen. Meanwhile, Manson's changes to Section 7 are only one court decision away from being upheld. Even if Pombo's bill dies, environmentalists are sure the drive to change the Endangered Species Act will live on.

Clint Hendler is an editorial fellow at MotherJones.com

posted 11-19- 12:38 PM            

May 25, 2005

Examiner Editorial - Endangered species, endangered sense

The Bush administration's policy toward science has taken an awful beating lately. The Environmental Protection Agency isn't green enough. Stem cell policy is too restrictive. President Bush won't endorse the global warming treaty. The latest salvo complains that the Bush administration isn't using the most up-to-date genetic science when enforcing the Endangered Species Act.

What the environmentalists now beating the Bushes to save endangered species won't tell you is that the Endangered Species Act itself makes genetic science irrelevant. The Endangered Species Act defines a species for the purposes of the act as a "species," a "subspecies" or a "distinct population segment." If only a "distinct population segment" of a species is in danger of extinction, then the "species" can be listed as endangered.

In practice, the results are silly. Sometimes the only difference between an endangered animal and an unendangered animal is the shade of the spots (maroon is endangered, candy apple red is not). In California, an owl on one side of a highway is endangered while an identical bird on the other side is not. In Michigan, the difference between a "threatened" flatbelly snake and a snake without federal protection is a county line or the measure of latitude.

Of course, minor color variations, roads and political geography have little to do with whether a species is endangered or not. If such ludicrous standards were applied to humans, blacks in South Dakota would be endangered. Taking note of the fact that few humans live in northern parts of Alaska or the Arizona desert, Fish and Wildlife Service scientists could apply for endangered species status for humans.

That's what the ESA tends to leave out. Deserts and tundras are not good places for people to live. Life is hard. There are few resources and many dangers.

The same is true for animals. In some places, it is not so good for certain kinds of animals to live, so mostly they don't. How out of whack are things now? Well, deer, of all things, are protected species. The Columbia white-tailed deer, which lives in the Pacific Northwest, is genetically a white-tailed deer that lives in the mountains - where deer don't do so well. Many of them are simply a cross-breed of white-tails and black-tails.

In Florida, deer don't do so well in swamps, they grow up stunted and there aren't very many of them. Scientists have found the "pigmy" deer genetically identical to the regular deer that Americans slaughter by the millions every year. Pigmy deer are pigmy and sparse because the food they find in swamps isn't so good for them.

Nevertheless, your tax dollars pay to protect the "endangered" deer, while all over U.S. local and state governments pay to kill 'em or, in more dainty places, buy birth control for potential mommy deers. The law requires a recovery plan for swamp deer which is sorta like having a recovery plan fo