21st Century Problems

Feds on Track for Record in BAER Spending?

by

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt.

Nearly $25 million has already been spent to prepare for the immediate aftermath of this year’s wildfires, putting the U.S. Forest Service on track for another possible record year of spending on burned-area recovery efforts.

The formula for recovery is just as complicated as the factors — drought, decades of fire suppression and climate change — giving rise to more severe fires in the West, experts say.

“With the kinds of intensity we’ve seen on some of the recent fires, there is, for all practical purposes, permanent impairment of the ecosystem,” said Wally Covington, director of the Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University.

He pointed specifically to last year’s Las Conchas Fire near Los Alamos, which burned through hundreds of square miles of tinder dry forest, destroyed dozens of homes and threatened one of the nation’s premier government laboratories.

Flooding from the Las Conchas burn scar still remains a concern.

On Wednesday night, a wall of water rushed down Santa Clara Canyon, washing away months of restoration work done by Santa Clara Pueblo and government contractors.

“Our prayers are that it does not get any worse than what it is,” Pueblo Gov. Walter Dasheno said.

In the canyon, post-fire flooding has moved car-sized boulders and toppled trees as if they were toothpicks.

“Until you’re on the ground and you see it, you can’t gauge how much stress it’s placing on our families,” Dasheno said, explaining that the pueblo sits at the mouth of the canyon.

Sherman was aware of the flooding near Santa Clara, but said there have been no reports of major flood damage related to the recent string of fires in New Mexico and Colorado.

Aside from those two states, Sherman said burned-area response specialists are working in Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. Contracts are being finalized for seeding and mulching, roads and trails are being stabilized, culverts are being prepped for higher flows of water and warning signs are going up.

On the massive Whitewater-Baldy Fire in southwestern New Mexico, seeding started Thursday on more than 26,000 acres and straw mulch will be spread over another 16,000 acres.

Black sludge coats Poudre River after High Park Fire- Denver Post

by

From this piece in the Denver Post:
Here’s a video.

Excerpt below.

“The ash will be disappearing soon, but erosion along the river will continue — through summer 2013. We’ll see lower erosion rates by 2014,” said MacDonald, who specializes in watershed science.

It could take three years for relief in the harder-hit spur canyons, engineers told Solley. Rebuilding should wait, they said.

While the ash in the river is not harmful to rafters or even swimmers, except for its power to obscure potentially dangerous debris, the fish have much more serious problems.

The 2002 Hayman fire caused the loss of 70 percent of adult fish in the the South Platte River, said Colorado Parks and Wildife aquatic biologist Ken Kehmeier . The South Platte still hasn’t responded well to efforts to repopulate the fish, he said.

“We still hear complaints from anglers on the South Platte. The Poudre fire will be that bad or worse,” Kehmeier said, partly because there are no large reservoirs filtering out heavy sediments to the benefit of the river downstream.

“We know we’re losing fish now, but the impacts could last more than 10 years,” Kehmeier said. “It’s a devastating thing. It’s a lengthy recovery process, and we will be continually working for years to bring the fishery back.”

One of the early efforts to save fish was made during the fire, when officials evacuated 100,000 small fish over two days from the Watson Lake Rearing Unit in Bellvue. The fish left the hatchery in a semi truck outfitted with seven 500-gallon tanks. Some were released in Horsetooth, Carter and Flatiron reservoirs. Others went to Chatfield State Park’s hatchery, Kehmeier said.

Now as storm runoff from burned areas hits the river, some sediment and ash is carried along and some settles, dropping into the small spaces between river rocks and gravel, smothering insects and other invertebrates that are food for fish.

The river’s pH changes, Kehmeier said. Ash makes it more basic. Yet in some parts of the river researchers are seeing the water become more acidic, possibly because of decomposing pine needles. The shifts in pH are one more stress on fish.

Note from Sharon: I’m not trying to say that we shouldn’t have fires, which are “natural” and we couldn’t stop ’em if we tried. My point is that we ought to be clear-eyed about their costs and benefits when we manage them, which we will always do, as long as there are people in the woods and people using the water from the woods. I wonder if seeing them through the “timber wars” lens keeps us from seeing clearly.

Poisons on public lands killing rare forest creatures

by
UCD researcher Mourad Gabriel with a sedated fisher. Poisons being used on public lands are killing rare animals. (Courtesy UC Davis)

Here’s the link to the story. I wonder if this poison also impacts other carnivorous avian and mammalian species?
Below is an excerpt.

Rat poison used on illegal marijuana farms may be sickening and killing the fisher, a rare forest carnivore that makes its home in some of the most remote areas of California, according to a team of researchers led UC Davis veterinary scientists.

Researchers discovered commercial rodenticide in dead fishers in Humboldt County near Redwood National Park and in the southern Sierra Nevada in and around Yosemite National Park. The study, published July 13 in the journal PLoS ONE, says illegal marijuana farms are a likely source. Some marijuana growers apply the poisons to deter a wide range of animals from encroaching on their crops.

Fishers in California, Oregon and Washington have been declared a candidate species for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Fishers, a member of the weasel family, likely become exposed to the rat poison when eating animals that have ingested it. The fishers also may consume rodenticides directly, drawn by the bacon, cheese and peanut butter “flavorizers” that manufacturers add to the poisons. Other species, including martens, spotted owls, and Sierra Nevada red foxes, may be at risk from the poison, as well.

In addition to UCD, the study involved researchers from the nonprofit Integral Ecology Research Center, UC Berkeley, United States Forest Service, Wildlife Conservation Society, Hoopa Tribal Forestry, and California Department of Fish and Game

Fuel Treatments : Both/And not Either/Or :The Waldo Canyon Experience

by
An aerial photo, Thursday June 28, 2012, of the Waldo Canyon fire in Colorado Springs shows the destructive path of the fire in Mountain Shadows Subdivision area. RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post

It’s interesting that some have portrayed treating 100 feet from homes “all that’s needed” to protect homes from fires. Some have even claimed that “the science” supports that, hence fuel treatments further than 100 feet are unnecessary. Clearly either “the science” people selected to promote their views is not complete (did not address the right question, or from the right disciplinary perspectives to be predictive in this case), or not reflective of conditions in nature. If different things work (as seems to be lived experience) at different times, in different situations, why not use all the tools in the toolbox?

Here’s the link:
Below is the excerpt:

COLORADO SPRINGS — For a decade, the Colorado Springs Fire Department has worked aggressively to protect more than 36,000 vulnerable homes from wildfire in the foothills of Pikes Peak.

When the fire everyone feared roared into the city last month, those efforts failed to save nearly 350 houses in one neighborhood — but succeeded spectacularly in another.

In Cedar Heights, a hillside neighborhood that the fire approached from three directions, many homes were rated as “extreme” risks in a wildfire, the worst possible rating. Yet not one house burned, thanks to a forest-thinning mitigation project that stopped the fire a half-mile away.

“We had one community that was threatened … and didn’t lose
anything,” Fire Marshal Brett Lacey said, “and then we had one that in one afternoon got creamed.”

In the Mountain Shadows neighborhood, 71 of the houses destroyed by the Waldo Canyon fire were rated “high” or “very high” fire risks by the city fire marshal’s office.

Most had been built in dangerous terrain and had little defensible space around them. At least 20 also had wood roofs or siding, which posed a huge problem because the shingles flew off and spread fire to other houses.

But the fire marshal’s house-by-house risk map also shows many Mountain Shadows homeowners were just unlucky. More than 270 houses rated as moderate risks were destroyed when the Waldo Canyon fire roared down a ridge, incinerating entire streets.
The victims included Dick and Francine Hansen, who had led neighborhood efforts to reduce wildfire risks in Mountain Shadows and labored to make their own home more defensible.

The fire left nothing but the brick archway entrance to their house standing.

“When a fireball came downhill at 65 miles an hour, blew open the garage doors, engulfed the house and burned it down in seven or eight minutes — they said there wasn’t a thing we could have done to save it,” Dick Hansen said.

Fair Grazing Fee Bill Introduced

by

What follows is a press release from Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson:

 
July 11, 2012 —Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson introduced a taxpayer fairness bill to end the substantial federal subsidies that an elite number of livestock producers receive, saving American taxpayers about $1.2 billion. His bill requires that the Secretary of the Interior work in conjunction with the Secretary of Agriculture to set livestock grazing fees on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Forest System public rangelands at rates comparable to those found on nearby private grazing lands.

“The facts are clear. Two percent of ranchers are getting a benefit that 98 percent of other grazing ranchers have not been able to get. They pay far less than the market value for the right to graze on public lands,” said Senator Nelson. “This isn’t fair to the taxpayer, and this isn’t fair to the other 98 percent of cattle grazers who have to compete in the marketplace.

“The State of Nebraska charges over $20 dollars a head of calf to graze on state land. Why should the federal government charge $1.35?”

The senator has also offered his grazing fee bill as an amendment to the Small Business Tax Credit Bill currently before the Senate. If adopted, the amendment would help defray the legislation’s costs.

The Government Accountability Office has estimated that just two percent of American ranchers hold animal grazing rights to National Forest System public rangelands. The grazing fees charged by the federal government on the rangelands are far below market value, at times up to 95% lower than the market fees charged for grazing on state- and privately-owned lands, fees that 98% of grazing ranchers have no choice but to pay.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture Statistics Service, the State of Nebraska charged a state land grazing fee of $27.30/animal in 2011. The $1.35 figure cited by Nelson was published in a United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Livestock Grazing-Related Federal Expenditures. Among the GAO report’s findings are:

• In 1934, the monthly public rangeland grazing fee was $1.23/animal.
• In 2007, the monthly public rangeland grazing fee was $1.35/animal.
• From 1980 to 2004, BLM and Forest Service grazing fees fell by 40 percent.
• From 1980 to 2004, the market price on grazing fees rose by almost 80 percent.
• The government collects nearly $21 million/year in grazing fees on public rangelands.
• The government puts about $144 million/year into the maintenance of public rangelands.

“Let’s go through some numbers. All the grazing fees on federal lands add up to about $21 million dollars,” said Nelson. “But it costs the federal government $140-some million dollars to take care of those lands. In other words, there is a shortfall of $120 million dollars coming from two percent of ranchers. If I’m one of the 98 percent, I’m going to say ‘that’s not fair.’ That’s why this is a matter of tax fairness.”

Nelson noted that the suppressed grazing fees deny Nebraska funds badly needed for infrastructure projects and education. He highlighted how a sizeable portion of the Forest Service’s collected grazing fees are allocated back to states that house public rangelands.

“In the Forest Service grazing program, 25% of the grazing fees are remitted back to the affected states for use on roads and schools as a payment in lieu of taxes, since counties and cities can’t levy property taxes on that land,” Nelson said. “So, these artificially-lowered grazing fees mean less money is going to states for roads and schools. This bill ensures that tax dollars currently going towards the two percent are redirected into Nebraska’s roads and schools.”

“I have yet to have heard anybody defend this practice by saying that it’s fair – to the 98 percent, or to American taxpayers,” said Nelson. “$1.35 per cow is too darn low.”

The GAO Grazing Fee Study can be found here.
The USDA State Grazing Fee rates can be found here.

Of all the eye-catching stats and information in that press release, this certainly caught my eye:  “In 1934, the monthly public rangeland grazing fee was $1.23/animal.  In 2007, the monthly public rangeland grazing fee was $1.35/animal.”  If only the 2007 price of gas, price of an automobile or the price of a house was as similar to 1934!

Excerpts from Judge Malloy’s Decision on Colt Summit

by

Guest post by Megan Birzell, The Wilderness Society.

A little more than a month after a leading opponent of the Colt-Summit forest restoration project on the Seeley Lake Ranger District publicly compared Forest Service employees and mill workers to Nazis – and the diverse group of Montanans working to promote forest restoration and much-needed jobs to Nazi sympathizers – Federal District Court Judge Donald Molloy has issued a decision that utterly dismantles the critics’ claims that Colt-Summit is harmful to fish and wildlife including bull trout, lynx and grizzly bears.

The Colt-Summit project, developed by the Forest Service in collaboration with the Lolo Restoration Committee of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee and funded, in part, through the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative (www.swcrown.org) is a proposal that will decommission 28 miles of roads, thin and burn 2,038 acres of forest suffering from a century of fire suppression, and re-route four miles of road away from a bull trout spawning stream. These activities will improve lynx, grizzly bear, and bull trout habitat, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and help restore more natural fire regimes to the area.

The project was appealed and then challenged in court last year by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and a few other groups. The initial appeal of the project included 152 allegations, all of which were rejected. The subsequent lawsuit included 12 allegations, 11 of which were rejected by Judge Molloy in his 46-page decision issued on July 11. The one claim that was upheld by Judge Molloy will likely result in the Forest Service preparing a brief supplement to their extensive analysis, seeking public comment and then moving forward with the project.

Following months of inflammatory rhetoric, name-calling and inaccurate statements by opponents of collaborative forest restoration and the Colt-Summit project, a review of Judge Molloy’s decision is timely, relevant, and highly instructive. Excerpts from that ruling (attached) include the following.

On the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act:

“The plaintiffs suggest that the Forest Service’s analysis for the Colt summit Project violates NFMA, NEPA and ESA in several respects. By and large, though, the analysis is adequate and meets the requirements of the various acts.”

On lynx, streams and wetlands:

“The plaintiffs argue that the Project violates three Forest Service Standards—two related to lynx and one related to streamside and wetland buffers. The record shows the Project violates none of the lynx or streamside and wetland standards.”

On lynx and snowshoe hare:

“[The Forest Service] noted in addition that the Project will actually improve snowshoe hare and lynx habitat. The plaintiffs do not point to any contrary evidence. There is no record evidence that the Project will ‘reduce snowshoe hare habitat.’”

On Forest Service rules regarding vegetation management:

“The plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of proof…They have not shown the Forest Service made a ‘clear error of judgment…’”

On concerns regarding lynx habitat connectivity:

“

None of these arguments is viable in my view. The Forest Service did consider how the Project would impact lynx travel.”

“A more fundamental problem with the plaintiffs first argument is that the Project does not appear to be in a linkage area. The plaintiffs rely on a large-scale map from the Northern Rockies Lynx Management FEIS to show that the Project is within a linkage area…The map does not lend itself to a precise determination of where the linkage areas are located. As the Service explained, it is only a beginning point and is subject to refinement with additional data.”

“The most recent data from Dr. Squires’ research—which was relied on in the EA—show that lynx are not using the Project Area as a travel corridor…The most recent research shows…there are no linkage areas in the Project Area.”

“The plaintiffs second argument—that the Service applied the standard incorrectly, is also lacking.”

On wetlands and streamside buffer issues:

“Here, the plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service shrank buffers in the Project Area without first conducting the requisite analysis. They also claim that the Service plans to log timber directly within wetlands, in violation of the INFISH standards. The allegations are incorrect.”

“The plaintiffs similarly object that the Project violates INFISH because the record has no site-specific ‘analysis, data, or rationale for shrinking the INFISH buffers.’ Their argument is futile because the Forest Service explained why it shrank the buffers.”

“There is no showing how the Project, as amended in the EA Addendum, violates the INFISH standards for wetlands.”

“The plaintiffs assert the Forest Service plans to cut trees and conduct prescribed burns directly within wetlands…Yet, the plaintiffs claim, the Forest Service did not consider the Project’s impact on wetlands in the FONSI. They write that the FONSI ‘neglects to mention wetlands at all.’ A closer reading of the FONSI shows: ‘The modified proposed action will not impact…wetlands…’ As set forth in its briefs, the Service is not going to conduct any cutting or burning in wetlands. Furthermore, buffers will be created around the wetlands.”

On the Endangered Species Act, lynx, and grizzlies:

“The plaintiffs next insist the Forest Service violated Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act by inadequately analyzing the Project’s effects on lynx and grizzlies and by failing to include the Summit Salvage Project Area in its analysis. This concern also misses the mark.”

“Here the plaintiffs reason the Forest Service failed to comply with ESA Sec. 7(a)(2) because it did not analyze whether the Colt-Summit Project would adversely modify lynx critical habitat The assertion is belied by the record. The Forest Service went beyond its obligations under ESA Sec. 7(a)(2) in drafting both a biological assessment that addresses lynx and lynx critical habitat and in engaging in informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.”

“Both the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service found that the Project ‘is not likely to adversely affect’ lynx or lynx critical habitat.”

“The plaintiffs question at length the proposition that the Forest Service can use Forest Plan standards—such as the lynx standards—as a surrogate for the requirements under ESA Sec. 7(a)(2). While interesting, the thesis misses the point.”

“Neither the Forest Service nor the Fish and Wildlife Service ignored the effects that the Project might have on lynx or lynx critical habitat. There has been no showing of convincing argument or evidence that the agencies’ analysis is flawed.”

“The Forest Service did not explain why it included the Summit Salvage area from its analysis. But it did not have to. It does not need to explain why it excludes every imaginable area subject to possible analysis. It only needs to explain why it selected the units of analysis that it chose. In this case it did so with respect to both lynx and grizzlies.”

“The plaintiffs argue, only in passing, that the Project will have the potential to adversely affect grizzly bears. They make no specific argument as to how the Forest Service’s analysis about grizzlies somehow violates ESA Sec. 7(a)(2). Instead, they make sparse, blanket allegations that grizzly bears will be harmed. The record is binding and it shows the Forest Service’s analysis of grizzly bear impact does not violate ESA Sec. 7(a)(2).”

“The plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service did not adequately consider the impact of the Project on lynx critical habitat or the lynxes’ use of the Project Area as a corridor for travel between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountains…the Forest Service did, in fact, discuss the impacts that the Project would have on lynx crucial habitat. The Service offered a long discussion of the impacts but it concluded that the Project will not have any significant impacts…The plaintiffs do not offer any reasoned explanation for why the Forest Service’s analysis is inadequate and they have not explained how the project would have a ‘significant effect’ on the lynx critical habitat.”

“Critical habitat aside, the plaintiffs maintain that lynx use the Project Area as a travel corridor and that the Forest Service did not consider the impacts that the Project would have on that corridor….The Forest Service, however, argues that the Project Area is not a corridor for lynx travel and that there is therefore no need to consider how the Project will impact lynx travel. The Forest Service has the better argument.”

“The Forest Service relies on GPS tracking data from Dr. Squires which shows detailed information about how lynx use the area. Dr. Squires’ data tends to show that lynx do not use the Project Area as a corridor to travel between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountains. What the data tends to show is that lynx cross Highway 83 south of the Project Area. This means the Project Area is probably not an ‘ecologically critical area’ based on its use by the lynx as a linkage corridor. Moreover, the Forest Service explained in the EA why the Project would not have any impact on corridors or linkages for grizzly bears, gray wolves, and lynx.”

“As discussed above, the Service adequately considered the impacts on lynx, lynx habitat and grizzlies.”

On the National Environmental Policy Act:

“The plaintiffs next argue the Forest Service violated in several respects…all but one of these arguments fail.”

“Here, the plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service predetermined that the EA would result in a FONSI…In this case, there was no predetermination to issue a FONSI.”

On bull trout:

“As to bull trout, the only part of the project that will have an impact is culvert removal and decommissioning of Road 646. Both the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service recognize that the culvert removal and road decommissioning will have a short-term impact on bull trout. But, in its Biological Opinion, the Fish and Wildlife Service explained that those actions will ‘reduce long-term sediment delivery by 77 percent’ and ‘improve access to spawning and rearing habitat and thermal refugia.’ As a result, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined the actions will help ‘restore’ the Upper Clearwater sub-watershed. The plaintiffs have apparently abandoned their argument regarding bull trout as they did not offer any response to the Forest Service’s discussion of bull trout and the Biological Opinion in their reply brief.”

“For all the reasons stated, the Forest Service adequately considered the Project’s impacts on listed species and critical habitat.”

Opinion on Colt Summit Published

by
Here are the actual acreages and treatments from the Colt Summit documentation.

Judge Molloy’s opinion on Colt Summit link here.

Article in Missoulian here.

Here’s an excerpt:

“The plaintiffs in this case insist the Forest Service’s cumulative effects analysis for lynx is inadequate. On this point they are correct. On remand the Forest Service must prepare a supplemental (environmental assessment) that adequately addresses the cumulative effects for lynx, and if necessary after that review, an (environmental impact statement).”

The project was heralded earlier this year as the model for a new kind of collaborative forest management, where lumber mills and conservation groups work in concert with the U.S. Forest Service on tasks everyone agrees are needed.

Colt-Summit’s backers included Pyramid Mountain Lumber, the Wilderness Society, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and two retired chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service.

Molloy’s decision blocked the 2,000 acres of logging and 17 miles of roadwork, but Megan Birzell of the Wilderness Society, a supporter of the plan, told the Missoulian last month that the judge’s finding was not a major setback because of his concurrent finding that the project passed muster under the Endangered Species Act.

“The judge said it won’t have an impact on lynx, but the Forest Service needs to beef up their analysis to better document that,” she said.

The plaintiffs argued that the project area serves as a corridor for lynx that move between the Bob Marshall Wilderness and the Mission Mountains. Molloy said this does not appear to be the case.

The Forest Service relies on GPS tracking data that show lynx do not use the project area as a corridor to travel between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountains, he wrote, but instead cross Highway 83 south of the project.

“This means the project area is probably not an ‘ecologically critical area’ based on its use by the lynx as a linkage corridor,” according to his opinion.

The Forest Service now must prepare a supplemental environmental assessment, and is enjoined from implementing the Colt Summit project while the assessment is pending.


Note from Sharon: I’m going to take a look at the decision because it should be interesting exactly what kind of more cumulative impacts the judge is looking for.

This article says there are 2,000 acres of “logging”; again I have posted above the table that shows the acres. 1200 are “understory slashing with underburning”. Now it’s true I’m not from Montana but usually, where I’m from, “understory” is not merchantable, hence not “logging” as defined in the dictionary. Commercial thinning (selective logging) seems to be on about 600 acres.

One piece of evidence that this is confusing is that the reporter said:

The National Environmental Policy Act has been a regular stumbling block for Forest Service timber projects. It requires a variety of scientific reviews to ensure a project doesn’t hurt the environment.

This isn’t really clear that NEPA “allows” the project to hurt the environment; ESA here is the statute that protects the environment. NEPA requires documentation that you have considered the impacts; it’s a procedural statute. That’s what’s confusing, yet illuminating, about this decision (it seems to be saying, “you have made the case you’re not in violations of any environmental statutes but you haven’t documented as much as NEPA requires”).

It could be that the plaintiffs are hoping that the FS will provide additional documentation so that they can make the case that there is really an ESA violation. Because it seems like it raises the question “is this about not following ESA, or about making people do more documentation, and to what end?”

Video: Wyoming’s Noble Basin – Too Special to Drill

by

The Center for American Progress and the Sierra Club have released a series of three short video documentaries, “Public Lands, Private Profits,” outlining threats to public lands.  Today, we’ll highlight “Too Special to Drill,” which looks at how proposed natural gas drilling would impact the pristine Noble Basin section of the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

U.S. FWS Director: Lawsuits not hurting Endangered Species Act

by

I don’t have a link to the story, but the following article comes from Greenwire. I’m posting it here as a sort of companion piece to the ESA piece Sharon just posted regarding the House Resources Committee Hearing.

Lawsuits not hurting Endangered Species Act – FWS director
By Laura Petersen, E&E Reporter

The House GOP’s campaign against environmental groups that sue the federal government over endangered species management is not the way to improve the Endangered Species Act, according to Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe.

“On the scale of the challenges that we face implementing the Endangered Species Act, litigation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen,” Ashe said in an interview this week marking his one-year anniversary as director.

Invasive species, habitat fragmentation, water scarcity, climate change and availability of reliable scientific information are all much more pressing issues than lawsuits, Ashe said.

In an effort to overhaul the Endangered Species Act, House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) has focused particularly on the high number of lawsuits brought against the government under the law’s provision that allows citizens to sue if they disagree with a listing decision or a delayed decisionmaking process and have their legal fees paid for if they win.

Hastings has characterized the environmental groups that file suits regularly as “lawsuit-happy organizations that make a living off of suing the federal government” and called litigation costs “one of the greatest weaknesses” of the Endangered Species Act (E&E Daily, June 20).

Ashe dismissed the attacks as a “good sound bite,” noting that the amount of money the agency has paid out in legal fees is a small fraction of the $200 million a year it spends to implement the ESA and hardly enough to support entire nonprofit organizations.

“Can I get frustrated at [Center for Biological Diversity] and WildEarth Guardians, or my good friend Jamie Clark at Defenders [of Wildlife] when they decide to sue us? Yeah, I can,” Ashe said. “But on balance, I think it’s a strength for the Endangered Species Act, and not a weakness.”

The provision has been especially beneficial during presidential administrations that “did not have a friendly view” of implementing the law and protecting imperiled plants and animals, he said.

Last year, FWS struck a massive settlement agreement with environmental groups that set a six-year timeline for the agency to make decisions on 251 candidate species and initial findings on hundreds of other species. In exchange, the groups promised to not file more lawsuits.

The settlement has been “quite a success,” with both sides being “faithful” to the bargain, Ashe said.

Asked how he would reform the Endangered Species Act, Ashe said “reform is too strong of a word.”

However, he said the law can be better. The biggest improvement he would like to make is to increase financial incentives for endangered species conservation.

House Natural Resource Committee Examines ESA Litigation

by



Millions of Taxpayer Dollars Spent on Endangered Species Act Litigation and Attorney Fees

Here’s the link.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 2012 – According to data recently obtained from the Department of Justice (DOJ) in response to document requests, the federal government has defended more than 570 Endangered Species Act (ESA)-related lawsuits costing U.S. taxpayers more than $15 million in attorney fees – in just the past four years. This data provides further evidence that the ESA has become litigation driven, where money and resources are spent addressing endless, frivolous lawsuits instead of species recovery.

Environmental groups are filing the vast majority of litigation, with the Center for Biological Diversity and the WildEarth Guardians leading the charge.

These groups, and their lawyers, are making millions of taxpayer dollars in profit by suing the federal government. According to DOJ, some attorneys are reimbursed up to $500 an hour and two lawyers have each received over $2 million in attorney fees from ESA cases.

The hearing can be found here:

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON:

“Taxpayer-Funded Litigation: Benefitting Lawyers and Harming Species, Jobs and Schools

This hearing follows a number of transparency request letters (3/19/12) and (5/31/12) sent by Chairman Hastings to help determine the cost and impact of taxpayer-funded attorneys fees and time spent on Endangered Species Act (ESA) litigation. The goal of the ESA is to conserve key domestic species, yet it’s increasingly being used by special interest groups to file lawsuits – or file petitions threatening lawsuits – to drive federal agencies to make agenda-driven decisions not based on verifiable data or sound science or priority, but to block economic and job-creating activities. With a one percent recovery rate, and hundreds of more species being forced onto the ESA list, federal taxpayers and existing endangered species deserve better. Transparency and accountability are helping shed light on how ESA is being abused by litigation and the facts distorted by advocacy groups.