WASHINGTON, DC, May 22, 2013 (ENS) – The Obama Administration’s plan to remove the gray wolf from the protections of the Endangered Species Act, as detailed in a draft Federal Register notice released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER, is temporarily on hold.
The reasons for the indefinite delay announced this week were not revealed nor were the records of closed-door meetings to craft this plan that began in August 2010.
Today a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain the records from those meetings was filed by PEER, a nonprofit national alliance of local, state and federal resource professionals.
The draft Federal Register notice would strike the gray wolf from the federal list of threatened or endangered species but would keep endangered status for the Mexican wolf. No protected habitat would be delineated for the Mexican wolf, of which fewer than 100 remain in the wild.
This step is the culmination of what officials call their National Wolf Strategy, developed in a series of federal-state meetings called Structured Decision Making, SDM. Tribal representatives declined to participate.
On April 30, 2012, PEER submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for all SDM meeting notes, handouts and decision documents. More than a year later, the agency has not produced any of the requested records, despite a legal requirement that the records be produced within 20 working days.
Today, PEER filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to obtain all of the SDM documents.
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp’s Frenchtown pulp mill west of Missoula. Photo: Missoulian.
On March 12, 2011, the Missoulian reported that “Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. officials say they’ve already cleaned up their Frenchtown paper mill.” The article went on to quote Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. spokeswoman Lisa Esneault:
“When we discontinued operations at the Missoula mill more than a year ago, we developed a detailed strategy for removing all residual process materials subject to environmental regulation. We discussed our plans with the (Montana Department of Environmental Quality) at that time and have since implemented all activities as promised. This work is now complete and we believe all environmental issues at the mill have been appropriately addressed.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed placing Frenchtown’s old paper mill site on the National Priorities List, a step closer to triggering a Superfund cleanup effort.
The former Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. mill has evidence of dioxin, furan, arsenic and manganese contamination on portions of its 3,200-acre grounds. An NPL listing would allow more testing to confirm the extent of the problem and research of the plant’s history to determine which former or current owners might bear financial responsibility for fixing it.
“This isn’t a taxpayer-paid program,” Missoula County environmental health supervisor Peter Nielsen said Tuesday. “It’s paid for by the parties that profited from the operation, sale or closure of that mill. They’re brought back to the table to pay for the messes they’ve left behind. That’s where we’re headed, and that’s what we felt all along is what should happen.”
Current property owners Frenchtown Technology and Industrial Center did not respond to phone and email requests for comment on the EPA announcement. Previously, company redevelopment manager Ray Stillwell told the Missoulian he hoped the site could avoid a federal listing by managing its own cleanup efforts.
It’s worth remembering that the Smurfit-Stone Container Corp was one of the original “timber partners” (along with Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and Montana Trout Unlimited) that was part of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership’s proposal for 100,000 acres of politically mandated national forest logging, which later became part of Sen Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
It’s also worth remembering that the Smurfit-Stone Container paper mill closed on December 31, 2009, the very same day the Black Liquor Tax Credit loophole expired, which was much more than a coincidence. During 2009, Smurfit-Stone Corporation collected $654 million from US taxpayers utilizing this “black liquor tax credit” boondoggle. All told, the U.S. Pulp and Paper industry took $6.5 billion from U.S. Taxpayers in 2009 under the black liquor boondoggle.
Well, it’s looking like the boondoggle will continue, since Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation executives apparently lied to Missoula County citizens and left Missoula County with a toxic mill site that will likely require federal EPA Superfund clean-up. But, hey, at least the Smufit-Stone executives got $50.4 million in bonuses during 2009, right?
Note: On May 27, 2011 Rock-Tenn Co completed it’s $3.5 billion takeover of Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. Rock-Tenn Co CEO and Chairman James A. Rubright is with the American Forest & Paper Association. Also, word has it that Smurfit-Stone was bankrupted and restructured before Rock-Tenn acquired and Rock-Tenn’s envio counsel became Rock-Tenn’s enviro VP. In other words, the assets, profits and subsidies are continuous, but not the liabilities.
An article from E&E News today says that a “House farm bill offers NEPA exclusions to combat beetle infestations.” The text of the article is here.
“Projects within those areas that are consistent with forest management plans would be categorically excluded from a NEPA review if they are smaller than 10,000 acres. Projects would also be exempt from the administrative review process under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.”
I think it highly unlikely that this will end up in the final bill, but it may be worthy of some discussion. Would it even be legal?
Given our recent discussions about ESA, I thought this article here by Bob Berwyn was very interesting.
Federal wildlife agencies are under intense pressure from states to turn over wolf management. Congress has already set the stage for political interference in the wolf recovery process, and that step has put the the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service at the edge of a very slippery slope. Any proposal to de-list wolves is likely to face significant opposition and legal challenges from conservation advocates.
Congress has “set the stage” for “political interference”? But isn’t when and where species should be managed open for public (“political”) discussion? Didn’t Congress, in fact, determine what is in ESA?
Here’s a quote from the scientists’ letter..
“The gray wolf has barely begun to recover or is absent from significant portions of its former range where substantial suitable habitat remains. The Service’s draft rule fails to consider science identifying extensive suitable habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast. It also fails to consider the importance of these areas to the long-term survival and recovery of wolves, or the importance of wolves to the ecosystems of these regions.”
So it sounds like the scientists (which I’m not sure tracks with the ESA legislation) think recovery means they need to go back everywhere there’s “suitable habitat”. I would argue that the “ecosystem” I live in seems to be doing OK without wolves.. and who would judge that? Since ecosystems are a human idea imposed on the planet, I guess it’s up to anyone to argue one way or another and I would think wolf biologists might not be the folks to ask about how an “ecosystem” is doing. And it also seems like they if they are not everywhere, in the long-term wolves cannot survive. I don’t know what the rationale is for that but if they are doing fine, and expanding their ranges now… I just don’t get why designating suitable habitat everywhere is necessary..
With Endangered Species Act protection, states like Oregon and Washington could decide they don’t want any wolves at all. Utah, Colorado, and California and Northeastern states could decide never to pursue wolf restoration, foreclosing the possibility of recovery in large parts of gray wolves’ historic range.
“The Obama administration is giving up on gray wolf recovery before the job is done. How can they declare ‘Mission Accomplished’ when gray wolves still face significant threats throughout their range,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife and a former Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
“Wolves in the Pacific Northwest have only just begun to recover, and there are no wolf populations in Utah and Colorado. Places like the Olympic peninsula in Washington state and the Colorado Rockies would benefit both ecologically and economically from the return of wolves. We shouldn’t be closing the door on an incredible opportunity to revitalize some of America’s best remaining suitable wolf habitat by bringing back these important iconic animals,” she said.
“Gray wolves once ranged in a continuous population from Canada all the way down to Mexico, and we shouldn’t give up on this vision until they are restored … But now, politics has been allowed to trump sound science, and the future recovery of America’s wolves is being tossed up in the air once again. It is truly sad that the Obama administration has chosen this path and short-circuited what could and should have been a tremendous conservation success for our nation,” she concluded.
Wow! “Science” tells us that wolves and grizzlies have to be reintroduced everywhere they used to be? Doesn’t sound like a science question to me..sounds to me like plain old preference and values, which generally tends to be mediated through.. our elected officials.
sAre these people going to use a bathroom? Who is going to ask them?
As I go about my outdoor recreation, I go to Jefferson County Open Space (free bathrooms). when it gets warmer I go up to the local State Park ($7 per day or Park Pass for $70 a year). When it gets hotter, I may have to go to Brainerd Lake (host program, mildly ratty,pay to enter the site on National Forest) or to Rocky Mountain National Park (first class, good bathrooms but no dogs).
I’ve been to the Bells many times with out of town guests. Like Mt. Evans, I’ve never heard “we shouldn’t pay ” from folks. Both places have a nice (not second-class recreation) feel to them. I bet many folks (social scientists, want to do a survey?) don’t even know they’re in a National Forest and not a National Park.
And if it was a National Park, we would probably pay more, but not be able to take our dogs..less desirable on both counts.
But this bathroom stuff is quite silly, in my opinion. See this article from the Aspen Times
Benzar and the Forest Service have different interpretations about the application of the fee at Maroon Lake, 10 miles southwest of Aspen. The No-Fee Coalition contends that those who want to hike Buckskin Pass or West Maroon Pass and want to park a vehicle at Maroon Lake shouldn’t have to pay the $10 fee if they have no intention of hitting the bathroom before they hit the trail. Likewise, sightseers in cars shouldn’t have to pay the fee if they don’t use the bathroom or other facilities at any of the six developed recreation sites, she said.
Here’s the deal to me..yes, folks could install “pay to poop” card readers at the outhouses, but that contributes to the Forest Service “ratty second-class recreation” vibe. Not to speak of all the folks who won’t pay $10 and leave the nearby forest looking and smelling like a giant outhouse (not to speak of the ecosystem integrity when all that extra nitrogen is applied!)
Which is part of the reason people want to transfer FS land to the Park Service- because somehow the Parkies appear to not allow rattiness. It seems like that is the obvious trail we’re going down, any area with lots of folks gets transferred because then there can be money to take care of them. Try “I am just driving through and not using Park facilities” at a National Park.
Since we’re all about following the law, and the recreation fee legislation is up before Congress, let’s see how many different ideas there are about alterations to the legislation to make it more common-sensical.
Here are some other excerpts from the story:
Officials at the Aspen Ranger District and the White River National Forest Supervisor’s Office have countered over the years that collecting the fee is vital to operating the necessary facilities at Maroon Lake. Without the fee, the Maroon Bells would soak up all the recreation funds available through the regular budget process. Instead, funds collected don’t go back to the treasury. They are used at Maroon Bells for operations and maintenance.
The Forest Service and the predecessor to the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority started bus service to the Maroon Bells 35 years ago. The federal agency also worked with Pitkin County to limit traffic on Maroon Creek Road, a county route. When the fee was adopted formally through federal legislation, cyclists fought the Forest Service for an exemption. Bikes and pedestrians get free passage past the entrance station.
The federal agency’s total collection from Maroon Valley visitors was $231,364 last year. That is a 50 percent increase from the collections in 2008, according to Forest Service figures.
Without the fee, Maroon Creek Road would be overwhelmed with traffic and the agency wouldn’t have adequate funds for operations, officials have said.
“Having that fee collection keeps it world-class,” said Martha Moran, a longtime veteran of the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District who helps oversee recreation programs. “If you want trash picked up and toilets cleaned, you can’t use volunteers.”
Maybe with the current legislation, this recreation is “unsustainable” based on the planning directives definition of within budget. I wonder what Aspen folks would think of the FS shutting it down when their plan is revised?
Writing for the majority on 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Justice Samuel Alito rejected the groups’ arguments that there was an “objectively reasonable likelihood” that their communications would be intercepted. Further, he noted that the law requires the government to take several administrative steps before issuing the wiretaps.
Consequently, he wrote, the groups’ arguments rest “on a speculative chain of possibilities that does not establish that their potential injury is certainly impending or is fairly traceable” to the law.
Legal experts said the words “certainly impending” are new to standing precedent and are especially problematic for environmental groups bringing lawsuits.
The ruling “underlies a shift to a stricter standing doctrine with links to the causal chain viewed with skepticism,” said Amanda Leiter of American University’s Washington College of Law.
Simply put, it is hard for environmentalists to prove what is “certainly impending” after an agency action.
Moreover, Alito’s focus on the “speculative chain of possibilities” could also pose new hurdles, said Justin Pidot of the Sturm College of Law at the University of Denver.
Pidot, a former litigator in the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, proposed a hypothetical in which an oil company applies for and receives a lease and permit to operate on federal land from the Bureau of Land Management. Environmentalists sue BLM, alleging that the drilling will harm them in a variety of ways, ranging from the destruction of hiking trails to negative impacts on waterways.
The rub under Alito’s reasoning, Pidot said, is that the environmentalists are actually injured by what the mining company may do in the future and not by BLM issuing the permits.
“All of those injuries flow from the drilling activity itself, not from the granting of the permit,” Pidot said. “But if you’re seeking the permit, you are actually going to engage in the permitted activities.
“That hasn’t been something that has troubled courts in the past,” he continued. “But the language of ‘certainly impending’ injury is the kind that a lower court judge hostile to environmental plaintiffs could seize on to kick it out of court.”
I like how folks in the legal world use these colorful terms like “hostile” “kick it out” when the judges could legitimately think that a precedent was set by the Supreme Court decision. It makes me think it might not be about the law so much as the courts being a venue for promoting agendas with “hostile” and, possibly, “friendly” judges. Maybe that’s what leads to the observed “crapshoot” nature of cases..
‘Even in protected areas, the influence of humans might be greater than we previously thought … ‘
FRISCO — As much as we’d like to believe in nature unbound, a new Canadian study suggests that human impacts are more widespread than we realize, even extending well into protected areas.
The five-year study by University of Calgary ecologists, included monitoring wolves, elks, cattle and humans. The resarchers concluded that human activities dominate all other factors, even in protected areas.
“Our results contrast with research conducted in protected areas that suggested food chains are primarily regulated by predators. Rather, we found that humans influenced other species in the food chain in a number of direct and indirect ways, thus overshadowing top-down and bottom-up effects,” said lead author Dr. Tyler Muhly.
In one sense, the findings are a “well, duh”. As many have stated previously, air pollution, climate change, effects of neighbor’s fire policies, and invasive species aren’t limited by “protected area” designation. Here’s a link to the university press release.
I wish there were a rule that every time a press release says “different from what was previously thought” they refer to at least one publication that asserts what they are refuting.
When I went to a website to find this I also found this study
“New research challenges assumptions about effects of global warming on mountain tree line” here. Here’s my unrefutable science about treelines; we don’t know what the H. will happen because it’s too complex to predict. We can study it until the cows come home but no one knows. It makes me wonder if there mightn’t be something more useful to study.
But I guess utility is a bad word, to a fellow named Phil Plait from Boulder who wrote an op-ed here in the Denver Post critiquing Canada’s R&D policy.. (you and I both wonder if there isn’t something more relevant for the Post to publish than a critique of a neighboring country’s science policy). The title of the piece was simply “Canada Sells Out Science.”
And that’s OK, because it’s not like the money is wasted when invested in science. For one thing, the amount of money we’re talking about here is tiny compared to a national budget. For another, investment in science always pays off. Always, and at a very high rate. If you want to boost your economy in the middle and long run, one of the best ways to do it is invest in science.
But the Canadian government is doing the precise opposite. If proposed and immediate economic benefits are the prime factors in choosing what science to fund, then the freedom of this human endeavor will be critically curtailed. It’s draining the passion and heart out of one of the best things we humans do.
By doing this, the Canadian government and the NRC have literally sold out science.
I don’t mean to pick on the “tree line modelers” here, it’s a gig and we all need them. But it’s good to know that somehow that this and future investments in modeling will “pay off” because Phil Plait says so..
Here’s another quote:
John MacDougal, president of the NRC, said, “Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value.” Gary Goodyear, the Canadian Minister of State for Science and Technology, also stated “There is [sic] only two reasons why we do science and technology. First is to create knowledge … second is to use that knowledge for social and economic benefit. Unfortunately, all too often the knowledge gained is opportunity lost.”
I had to read the Toronto Sun article two or three times to make sure I wasn’t missing something, because I was thinking that no one could possibly utter such colossally ignorant statements. These two men — leaders in the Canadian scientific research community — were saying, out loud and clearly, that the only science worth doing is what lines the pocket of business.
Really? Doing something to improve our society is doing something for “business”? I guess I am “colossally ignorant” too. I know there is a school of scientists who believe that research should be “of the scientists, by the scientists and for the scientists” but they’re usually not that vitriolic.
This was in the Denver Post business section today. here’s the link and below is an excerpt.
Xcel Energy wants to pursue a demonstration project that would deliver electricity made from forest waste, according to a filing made Monday to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
The demonstration-scale biomass plant would convert dead trees and wood waste to an energy-rich gas in a process known as gasification. The produced gas would be ignited to spin turbines for power generation in the state.
Xcel said it will seek bids from independent power producers who would build the plant at a yet-to-be determined location.
In its filing to the PUC, Xcel said it would agree to buy up to two megawatts of generation for 10 years. Two megawatts serves the electricity needs of about 1,500 homes.
Colorado has an abundance of forest waste, resulting mostly from pine beetle-killed trees and drought. More than 6.6 million acres of Colorado forest have succumbed to beetle kill.
“Since 2007, Xcel Energy has been investigating small, forest biomass project opportunities,” said David Eves, president and chief executive of Public Service Co. of Colorado, an Xcel subsidiary. “Because the overall health of Colorado forests has degraded due to drought and infestation, there has been increasing interest among various stakeholders to pursue this type of demonstration project.”
One of the commenters asked why not convert directly… and linked to the Savannah River Cogen Plant site here.
Andy posted this link yesterday in our discussion of the lynx and how ESA works.. I thought it was fascinating as a glimpse into the agendas- scientific information- personality combinations and permutations involved in some of these decisions.
It’s also interesting that it was pointed out that Ms. Macdonald released “private information to public sources.” This seems to happen as a daily occurrence within the FS and EPA, at least. Sometimes employees use this tactics to promote their agendas on both sides. I like that this gives a glimpse into the real world of trying to base decisions on “science”.. your science or my sciences or the “best” science?
Another reason, as Bob Z. suggested, that all the scientific arguments used should be published with an opportunity for the public to review and comment.
Well worth a read and you can learn something about the ESA process.
I wonder if this is available somewhere as a text document so that we could quote from it.
The USFS’s proposed 2014 budget includes “a decrease of $116 million for hazardous fuels” but says “non-Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels work will occur within the Integrated Resource Restoration line item in order to accomplish work more efficiently.” Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) has a proposed line item of $757 million.
However, the IRR, which was a pilot program in three regions, had a proposed budget for 2013 of $793,124 (I don’t know what was actually allocated — anyone know?). So the 2014 IRR program gets $36 million less, but is expanded.
My question is this: Is the decrease of $116 million for hazardous fuels actually a bigger decline that is obscured by the shift to IRR?
Here are two sections from the 2014 Budget Overview, (http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/).
Integrated Resource Restoration. We propose extending the Integrated Resource Restoration Program from the current pilot program in three regions to cover all National Forest System lands. By folding together funds from six budget line items (Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Vegetation and Watershed Management, Forest Products, Non-Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels, Rehabilitation and Restoration, and Legacy Roads and Trails), we will gain administrative efficiencies and increased flexibility for multiple activities across a single landscape. We propose a national Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item of $757 million. As part of this funding, we propose $3.9 million in spending to generate 3.1 million green tons of woody biomass and $800,000 for the USDA Wood to Energy Initiative in support of community and business efforts to convert wood to energy.
Hazardous Fuels. We propose $201 million, a decrease of $116 million for hazardous fuels from the FY 2013 annualized continuing resolution level. As proposed in FY 2013, non-Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels work will occur within the Integrated Resource Restoration line item in order to accomplish work more efficiently. We also propose allocating $10.5 million to support wood-to-energy initiatives including $6 million for Woody Biomass Utilization Grants; $2.5 million for State Wood to Energy Teams; $1 million for Biomass Air Quality Improvement; and $1 million for Development of Financial Instruments for Wood Energy efforts.
This kind of stuff makes my head hurt, especially on Mondays.
