Sen. Wyden to meet with enviro CEOs to discuss NEPA, ESA

by

I would love to be a fly on the wall for this meeting..I wonder if it is open to the public..
From the E&E here. Below is an excerpt.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) tomorrow is scheduled to meet with the CEOs of major environmental groups to discuss his pending legislation to resolve decades-long disputes over timber management in western Oregon.

The meeting will come roughly a week after the leaders of seven groups sent a letter to Wyden requesting a meeting to discuss their concerns over how his bill will address the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act, statutes that have hindered timber harvests on the roughly 2.5 million acres of so-called O&C lands.

“The ESA and NEPA are essential elements of a legal framework that has proven highly successful in maintaining the full range of values provided by the O&C lands,” the groups’ leaders wrote in their letter. “We are deeply concerned, however, that irreplaceable contributions of these public lands will be lost if review of federal forest management under the ESA and NEPA is constrained or eliminated as part of your effort to ‘modernize existing federal laws as they apply to O&C lands.'”

Signing the letter was Jamie Rappaport Clark of Defenders of Wildlife, Trip Van Noppen of Earthjustice, Philip Radford of Greenpeace, Gene Karpinski of the League of Conservation Voters, Frances Beinecke of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Michael Brune of the Sierra Club and Jamie Williams of the Wilderness Society.

They were referring specifically to a legislative framework Wyden released in May for a bill that seeks to increase timber harvests on O&C lands while ensuring old-growth protections, wilderness designations and river protections on an equal amount of lands.

Concern was also raised over a separate provision in the framework proposing logging projects at a “steady, sustainable, and uninterrupted rate once an initial review of all lands set aside for management is completed and as long as subsequent timber sales comply with the legislation” (E&E Daily, May 24).

“A single high altitude review followed by decades of timber harvests would be fundamentally incompatible with the ESA, which requires a determination of whether such harvests are likely to jeopardize a species’ existence or adversely modify its critical habitat and a determination of the number listed species that are likely to be incidentally taken by that logging,” the groups’ leaders wrote.

Really? Fundamentally incompatible?The problem is that we can’t tell what is posturing and what is not..We can all see ways that you could try some things- pick the best design criteria you can and review success at 5 years? Does anyone think that something will go extent in 5 years? Or a certain acreage of projects would require public review by a, say, FACA committee?

Planning Rule Committee Meeting- August 2013

by

Sounds like all will be able to participate via conference call or webinar. Here’s the link to the story.

The National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule has scheduled a three-day meeting for late August. The U.S. Forest Service announced the meeting on Thursday, Aug. 1. You can read the agenda at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-08-01/html/2013-18469.htm.

The meeting, the committee’s fifth, takes place between 8 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 27 and 11:30 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 29 Mountain Time at the Embassy Suites Salt Lake/West Valley City, 3524 South Market St., West Valley City, Utah, 84119. The public may attend. If you can’t make it to Utah, you may listen in or participate by conference call or webinar.

You can also send written comments.

In addition to discussing standard administrative matters, the committee will discuss its working group findings and develop advice on the Proposed Land Management Planning Directives.
The committee last met in June. It first met in Washington, DC last June. You can find background at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/committee.

Will Enviro ‘Collaborators’ Support Rep Daines Mandated Logging Bill?

by

Senator Jon Tester’s (D-MT) mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, has certainly been discussed and debate on this blog, and elsewhere, since it was introduced in the summer of 2009. See here, here and here for some of the past posts and discussions.

Back in December 2009 I had the honor of representing the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign (a coalition of organizations, small-business owners, scientists, educators, 5th generation Montanans, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials and former loggers and mill workers dedicated to wildlands protection, Wilderness preservation, and the sound long-term management of our federal public lands legacy) before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The fact that I was invited to deliver testimony by the Committee Chair, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) obviously didn’t sit very well with Senator Tester, who was hoping for more a rubber-stamp dog-n-pony show hearing, not a hearing based on the substance of the bill. (For an interesting account of the hearing read award-winning outdoor writer Bill Schneider’s piece, “What Tester’s Outburst Tells Us.”

Fast-forward to May of this year when Missoulian opinion columnist wrote a piece titled, “Tester’s Forest Jobs Bill Plus Daines Bad for Conservation.” Ochenski, certainly one of the greatest conservationists and environmental, tribal lobbyists in Montana history, ended his piece with this prophetic statement:

“It’s a mystery why the conservation collaborators failed to understand these elementary principles of the legislative process. But if Tester’s bill ever clears the Senate – and Congressman Daines (R-MT) has his way in the House – they are about to learn a very hard and environmentally costly lesson. And more’s the pity for Montana.”

Much of the “support” for Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill is being manufactured and orchestrated by the Montana Wilderness Association with the ample assistance of over 1/2 million dollars from the Pew Foundation’s Campaign for America’s Wilderness. That amount of money goes a long ways in a state like Montana, with collaborator environmental groups like the Montana Wilderness Association spending the money on internal focus groups, one-sided internal polling (which is presented to the public as independent and unbiased), “public” presentations where only supporters of the bill are allowed to present and plenty of TV, radio and newspaper ads flooding the state. All the while, MWA has engaged in a pattern of censorship and removal of any substantive comments on their social media sites which mention anything critical about Tester’s mandated logging bill.

Well, here we are a few months following Ochenski’s dire warning to the environmental “collaborators” supporting Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill. This summer, MWA staff have been heavily courting Rep Steve Daines (R-MT) to introduce Tester’s bill in the House. People may have noticed that the Montana Wilderness Association has been actively getting their members to submit glowing Letters to the Editor about how great Steve Daines is and how he should join Sen Tester and Sen Baucus to support mandated logging of national forests in Montana. In fact, this website was recently launched by MWA.

Yesterday’s Missoulian article, “Daines makes additions to U.S. House bill to speed timber harvests” gives people in Montana and across the country (especially those who value Wilderness and public lands) an indication of 1) just where Rep Daines wants to take national forest policy; and 2) just how irresponsible and naive the environmental “collaborators” are if they think Rep Daines will be their big Wilderness and public lands protection champion.

According to The Wilderness Society, which also ironically supports Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, Rep Daines and Rep Hastings (R-WA) “Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act” would establish “Forest Reserve Revenue Areas” as a replacement for the current Secure Rural Schools (SRS) county payments program, simultaneously creating a legally-binding logging mandate with no environmental or fiscal feasibility limits, and reestablishing the discredited 25% logging revenue sharing system that was eliminated over a decade ago with the creation of SRS.

Furthermore, under Rep Daines and Rep Hasting’s bill, public participation and Endangered Species Act protections would be severely limited. The bill creates huge loopholes in NEPA and such biased ESA requirements that in practice these laws would almost never meaningfully apply. For example, any project less than 10,000 acres (that’s 15.6 square miles) would be categorically excluded from environmental analysis and public participation, and the Forest Service would be required to submit a finding that endangered species are not jeopardized by any project, regardless of its actual effect on the species.

Obviously, while politically mandated logging of America’s national forests is a terrible, dangerous precedent for the environmental community to push for, it goes without saying that Rep Daines and the GOP would make the bad provisions within Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill that much worse. It will also be interesting to see if any of the environmental “collaborators” supporting Tester’s mandated logging bill will actually rise up and speak out against Rep Daines mandated logging bill, or if they will continue to generate favorable Letters to the Editor about Rep Daines on public lands issues.

Research rejects past fire suppression & “unnatural” fuel build-up as factors in the size & occurrence of large fires in So Cal

by

The following press release and new scientific review arrived in my in-box yesterday via the California Chaparral Institute. If you have questions about the press release, or the new scientific review, please direct them to the California Chaparral Institute’s Director or Conservation Analyst listed below. Thank you. – mk

For Immediate Release, August 1, 2013

Contact:  Richard W. Halsey, Director, (760) 822-0029
Dylan Tweed, Conservation Analyst, (760) 213-3991

Fire Service Unfairly Blamed for Wildfires
 
Research rejects past fire suppression and “unnatural” fuel build-up as factors in the size and occurrence of large fires in southern California

SAN DIEGO, Calif. – A new scientific review and five major studies now refute the often repeated notion that past fire suppression and “unnatural” fuel build-up are responsible for large, high-intensity fires in southern California. Such fires are a natural feature of the landscape. Fire suppression has been crucial in protecting native shrubland ecosystems that are suffering from too much fire rather than not enough.

The research has also shown that the creation of mixed-age classes (mosaics) of native chaparral shrublands through fuel treatments like prescribed burns will not provide reliable barriers to fire spread; however, strategic placement may benefit fire suppression activities.

The research will be presented during a special California Board of Forestry hearing, August 8, 2013, 8am, at the Four Points Sheraton Hotel, in Ventura, California.

Advocates of the fire suppression/mosaic view often misinterpret the research and ignore contrary information. For example, the recent Mountain fire near Idyllwild in the San Bernardino National Forest was blamed on 130 years of fire suppression. More than half of the area had burned in the 1980s. A 770 acre portion had burned five years ago. The 2007 fires in southern California re-burned nearly 70,000 acres that had burned in 2003. The majority of southern California’s native habitats are threatened by too much fire rather than not enough. This is especially true for chaparral, sage scrub, and desert habitats. Fires less than ten to twenty years apart can convert native shrublands to highly flammable, non-native grasslands.

“All of us need to take responsibility in making our homes and communities fire safe,” said Richard Halsey, director of the California Chaparral Institute. “Political leaders also need to find the courage to prevent developments from being built in high fire hazard locations. Blaming the fire service for large, intense fires because of their past efforts to protect lives, property, and the environment from wildfires is counterproductive and contrary to the science.”

The scientific review can be found here

Additional Information

1. August 8, 2013 Board of Forestry Meeting Agenda

2. The five key research papers refuting the fire suppression/mosaic perspective:

Keeley, J.E. and P.H. Zedler. 2009. Large, high-intensity fire events in southern California shrublands: debunking the fine-grain age patch model. Ecological Applications 19: 69-94.

Lombardo, K.J., T.W. Swetnam, C.H. Baisan, M.I. Borchert. 2009. Using bigcone Douglas-fir fire scars and tree rings to reconstruct interior chaparral fire history. Fire Ecology 5: 32-53.

Moritz, M.A., J.E. Keeley, E.A. Johnson, and A.A. Schaffner. 2004. Testing a basic assumption of shrubland fire management: Does the hazard of burning increase with the age of fuels? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2:67-72.

Keeley, J.E., Fotheringham, C.J., Morais, M. 1999. Reexamining fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science Vol. 284. Pg. 1829-1832.

Mensing, S.A., Michaelsen, J., Byrne. 1999. A 560 year record of Santa Ana fires reconstructed from charcoal deposited in the Santa Barbara Basin, California. Quaternary Research. Vol. 51:295-305.

3.  The Science Basics on Fire in the Chaparral

New Project to Watch: Iron Springs Vegetation Project

by

iron springs mpaInteresting how this project is characterized in Courthouse News here…I think the write of the article said “4890 acres of commercial logging.” But in the next paragraph quoting the plaintiffs it says that there are 381 acres of precommercial thinning. So I think you need to subtract that to get a total of commercial. But as we see below the commercial distinction is fairly fine.

SALT LAKE CITY (CN) – Uncle Sam refused to prepare an environmental impact statement before approving a 5,000-acre logging project in southern Utah that threatens rare and endangered species, including spotted and flammulated owls, goshawks, and three-toed woodpeckers, environmentalists claim in court.
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystems Council sued the U.S. Forest Service and Dixie National Forest Supervisor Angelita Bulletts, in Federal Court.
The Forest Service in March approved the Iron Springs “vegetation improvement and salvage project,” authorizing 4,890 acres of commercial logging in Dixie National Forest.
“Among other things, the Forest Service’s decision notice authorizes 3,603 acres of spruce/fir commercial logging utilizing ground-based skidders, at least 1,927 acres of which will occur in old-growth stands, 366 acres of commercial sanitation and salvage logging, 381 acres of precommercial thinning, 152 acres of regeneration logging, and 388 acres of ‘aspen cleaning’ in aspen stands, for a total of 4,890 acres of logging,” the complaint states.
“The decision notice also authorizes road reconstruction and maintenance activities on 36.16 miles of existing roads and 9.61 miles of new, temporary road construction to facilitate logging activities.”
The plaintiffs claim the Forest Service approved the project without preparing an environmental impact statement, “instead finding that the authorized activities would not significantly affect the quality of the environment.”

Sensing that this will be an interesting project to consider (since we’ve never analyzed ones in Utah that I recall), I went to the project website here and found this explanation of why they were doing it.

Treatments within Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir stands Within the project area, there are 5,240 acres of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir. Approximately 3,603 of these acres would be commercially thinned to reduce stand densities while maintaining a variety of tree sizes. Individual tree marking would designate trees that would be harvested. In addition to the commercial thin, there would be salvage and sanitation harvest of pockets of Engelmann spruce killed or infested with spruce beetle.
Approximately 381 acres of the 3,603 acres of treated spruce/fir stands would also be precommercially thinned to remove trees less than 5-inches diameter that exceed stand density objectives or species mix. Trees greater than 5-inches diameter would be removed commercially.

Trees between 5- and 7.9-inch diameter size class that cannot be sold commercially will be included in the pre-commercial treatment. Approximately 388 acres of scattered aspen clones
within spruce/fir stands would receive aspen cleaning through hand felling of conifer. Within aspen clones commercial-size conifer would be removed; non-commercial-size conifer and some
aspen would be cut and left on site to discourage browsing by larger ungulates, primarily deer, elk, and livestock.

Under the criteria in “Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region” (Hamilton et al. 1993) and a 2007 Regional Office letter (USDA 2007) clarifying meaning and
intent in Hamilton et al. 1993, 2,058 acres of spruce/fir within the project area have old growth characteristics. This determination was made based on an evaluation of existing stand data and new data collected during field surveys. These data and findings are included in the project record. Thinning is needed in these stands to reduce the risk of timber loss due to beetle kill and to forestall the spread of beetle activity to additional trees. Thinning in these areas will be done from below, and will be restricted to trees between 5- and 18-inches diameter.
Of the 2,058 acres with old growth characteristics, 131 acres would not receive treatment. Of the 1,927 acres treated, approximately 1,541 acres would retain old growth status following treatment. Thus, of the 2,058 acres with old growth characteristic, approximately 1,672 acres would retain old growth characteristics. The Forest Plan requires that 7 percent to 10 percent of each drainage be managed as old growth. Retention of 1,672 acres as old growth exceeds the Forest Plan requirement in each drainage within the project area. Details are provided in the Forest Vegetation Report.

Spruce beetle-infested or killed trees throughout the project area would be removed using sanitation/salvage timber harvest and commercial removal. Some stands that contain infested or killed subalpine fir would also be commercially removed. Merchantable, dead standing, and down spruce and fir would be harvested.
Approximately 366 acres in the spruce/fir stands are currently at the desired density. These 366 acres would receive commercial sanitation/salvage treatment only.

Finally, approximately 154 acres would be planted with Engelmann spruce seedlings using hand tools or augers. These areas are conifer strips in the south half of the project area that were
clearcut in the 1960s and that do not contain the desired tree stocking.

I’m sure all the regular followers of this blog will spy a number of interesting things.

1) Is the 152 acres the same as the 154 that they are planting due to not enough stocking. If so, is planting trees the same thing as “commericial logging”.

2) Everyone loves aspen, but if you try to get more by cutting conifers, that’s bad. Or only if you sell them? What difference could it make? 388 acres of hand felling?

3) “Trees greater than 5-inches diameter would be removed commercially.” That’s a good market.

The “issue” with the plaintiffs is that “they should have done an EIS”. Somehow I don’t believe that is really their goal. Plaintiffs are being represented by the Northern Rockies Justice Center here. I think it’s interesting that their mission is in the NW, but they are doing work in southern Utah.

I wonder if a simple statute were passed that required cases (say, as a trial run, FS cases involving vegetation management) to go to mediation prior to litigation, and the mediation record was available to the judge when ruling, and the mediation documents were also publicly available. This could be tried as a pilot anyway.. perhaps starting with this case? Rider, anyone?

The Black Hills:They’ve Got it Figured Out II

by
Black Hills FACA Committee: key to success?
Black Hills FACA Committee: key to success?

Here is some information that was given to me by Blaine Cook, Forest Silviculturist on the Black Hills National Forest.

1) Per 1997 Forest Plan (Preface-9) “The Black Hills are unique in that there are few other uplifted geologic formations completely surrounded by prairies. Furthermore, the Black Hills and its surrounding plains probably were never glaciated. The nearest glaciation occurred in the Big Horn Mountains to the west as a result of the Wisconsin ice advances to the east. The closest glaciation to the east would have run approximately parallel with the Missouri River, about 150 miles from the Black Hills, and occurred about 13,000 years ago during the late Pleistocene.” So, the question remains how the Black Hills (Island in the Plains) got very small portions of trees and plants. The Forest blends north to south to east to west.

2) Attached are forest health report on rcsc_02_13-Harney_Limber_2012 and rcsc_02_12_blackhillslodgepole.

3) White spruce is approximately 5% of the Forest.

4) As for statements on forest volume, the number stated of 6.5 billion bd.ft. is an exaggeration. In year 1999, the FIA report stated 6.1 billion bd.ft (Int.1/4 rule). Since year 2000 there has been large wildfires, tree mortality from insects and timber harvests contributing to removals of the Forest. My opinion of forest volume is around 5.1 billion bd.ft. The Forest is realizing more aspen through wildfires, pine tree mortality and hardwood enhancements by removing pine.

If you’re curious about the black backed woodpecker and other bird monitoring you might want to check out this link. Bird monitoring is done in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.

The Forest Monitoring Report has a section on black backed woodpecker as well as other MIS (management indicator species). The link is here.

Information on the FACA committee can be found here, as well as their recommendations since 2003, when they were established. Here’s their recommendation on the MPB project from 2012:

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project
The Board reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project and recommended the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor make the following determination:
1) The proposed activities and alternatives address the issues, respond to national policy, guidance and law and Forest Plan direction, and meet the purpose of and need of action in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
2) The information in the analysis is sufficient to implement proposed activities.
3) Alternative C of the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project be adopted as the Preferred Alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project.
4) There is a need for a one-time, site specific amendment to existing Forest Plan direction to address the public’s concerns about Spearfish Canyon.

How to Save Countless Trees in 10 Minutes or Less | Conservancy Talk

by

How to Save Countless Trees in 10 Minutes or Less | Conservancy Talk.

by Faith Campbell of the Nature Conservancy

We Americans love our trees – whether they are in our yards, in nearby parks, or in the wilderness.

Unfortunately, many of our iconic trees are threatened by non-native insects and diseases that have been accidentally brought to America. Dozens of tree-killing pests have entered the U.S. as unintended hitchhikers on imported plants or décor items or in the crates and pallets that package a wide range of goods.

Trees under threat from these non-native, tree-killing insects and diseases include the maples, elms, ash, and oaks that shade our homes and parks and provide habitat to birds, squirrels, and other wildlife. One of the most damaging of the insects is the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB), a large, shiny, black and white beetle from Asia. The Asian longhorned beetle attacks dozens of species of trees belonging to 15 plant families, most often maples, elms, and willows.

At greatest risk are the Northern hardwood forests that reach from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes and beyond – approximately 48 million acres in the United States plus the majority of Canada’s hardwood forests.

Also at risk are shade trees along city streets and in our backyards all across the country. Nationwide, the ALB could kill a third of urban trees, which have a compensatory value of $669 billion. In some cities, two-thirds of the trees would be killed if the Asian longhorned beetle became established.

The ALB has been introduced to North America several times over the last 20 years because larvae can live in wooden crates and pallets. Regulations put in place in 1998 are helping prevent this from happening again, but beetles that snuck in before that have caused seven known North American outbreaks: New York City, Chicago, New Jersey (2 separate outbreaks), Massachusetts, Ohio, Toronto. Every one of these outbreaks was detected first by homeowners who noticed that trees in their neighborhood looked poor.

What Can You Do?

1.Don’t move firewood. Larvae of the Asian longhorned beetle or other tree-killing pests can be deep inside the wood. When the wood is transported to a new location, mature beetles can emerge and start new infestations. Please – use only local or heat treated firewood when you go camping or traveling. Visit dontmovefirewood.org
2. Urge your friends, your coworkers, and your family not to move firewood. Explain that it can carry invasive insects that will emerge and ruin their favorite forests.
3. Educate yourself on how to spot the symptoms of pest infestations. When everyone is on the lookout, we can detect infestations earlier – when it is easier to minimize the damage and control the infestation.
4. Make looking for pests and tree damage part of your regular activities, like taking walks around the neighborhood or visiting playgrounds and parks. August is a good time to look for the Asian longhorned beetle. It is a large insect – an inch or more long; shiny black with white spots. But often you won’t see the beetle itself, since it might be high in the leaves of the tree. Look for tell-tale symptoms: the best are the dime-sized holes in the branches or trunk – out of which adult beetles emerge. Other signs include shallow pits in the bark chewed by female beetle in which they lay their eggs; and sawdust collecting in branch crotches or on the ground at the base of the tree. To see training videos about detecting Asian longhorned beetles or other tree-killing pests, visit HealtyTreesHealthyCities.org.
5. And finally, be sure to take photos and report anything you find to your state agricultural, natural resources, or forestry agency.

Whatever Happened to Public Access to EAJA Fees?

by

I had thought that Congress has asked for this; one of my colleagues said that that had never passed. Yet, if agencies are true to the President’s transparency order, then it shouldn’t take a bill from Congress to obtain that information.

As the veteran of many FOIAs, I wonder why it couldn’t be FOIA’d unless the information doesn’t exist already. Which would seem odd because any payments should be documented (like a timber sale contract). Maybe it’s the tables adding them up that don’t exist?
Or maybe they’ve been released and I didn’t hear about it?
. if anyone can help me understand this, I would appreciate it.

Also, Steve Wilent posted this Journal of Forestry article by Mortimer and Malmsheimer in a comment today and I felt it worthy of including in a post for those not following that thread. It talks specifically about EAJA and the Forest Service.

Below is the abstract to the paper:

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) provides for attorneys fees and court costs to be awarded to parties prevailing in litigation against US federal agencies. We examined EAJA awards paid by the US Forest Service from 1999 to 2005, finding more than $6 million awarded to various plaintiffs. Awards were most commonly paid to environmental litigants, although all categories of litigant stakeholders made use of the law. Although it remains uncertain whether EAJA provides an incentive to sue the US Forest Service in any specific instance, because litigation against the US Forest Service generally has a low probability of success, EAJA one-way fee shifting does alter litigation risks among potential plaintiffs. Frequent EAJA claimants often possess considerable financial resources calling into question
how the purposes of the law have evolved in the last 20 years.

ESA: “sue and settle” listings

by

An article from E&E News, posted for (polite?) discussion. One point to discuss: Should the FWS and other agencies be required to open proposed settlement agreements for public comment? I say yes, if only for transparency. What is legally required?

 

Natural Resources panel to explore ‘sue and settle’ listings

Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E reporter

Published: Monday, July 29, 2013

House Republicans this week will again take up one of their favorite issues: supposed closed-door legal settlements between environmental groups and regulatory agencies.

The Natural Resources Committee will meet to discuss how “sue and settle” practices influence endangered species listings.

Republicans have charged that sue-and-settle cases — where an environmental group sues to force an agency to take action — permeate several areas of environmental law. They contend that the groups collude with agencies such as U.S. EPA to craft settlements sympathetic to environmentalists’ concerns.

They also say conservationists have taken advantage of the practice on endangered species protection, filing lawsuits that require the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider hundreds of species for endangered or threatened status.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee marked up H.R. 1493, which would force agencies to open proposed settlement agreements for public comment.

Democrats and environmentalists steadfastly oppose the legislation and Republican efforts. They claim that the lawsuits, which are permitted by the law, are a way for citizens to force agencies to carry out their mandated responsibilities. They also note that the rulemaking process is open to the public.

The Judiciary panel nevertheless sent the legislation to the House floor (E&E Daily, July 25).

Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, Aug. 1, at 10 a.m. in 1324 Longworth.

Witnesses: TBA.

Should Wolves Stay Protected Under Endangered Species Act?

by

Little Bird’s question about the black-backed woodpecker reminded me of this opinion piece in Yale 360 by Ted Williams that I had in my to-be-posted pile. I am still wondering how ESA got from protecting endangered species, to requiring that they be recovered everywhere in their historic range. For wide-ranging species it seems like a leap. And it seems like that idea is only applied intermittently; like not to grizzlies in central California.

Here’s the link.

By 2008 the recovery goal for the northern Rockies – 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs in each of the three states (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho) – had been exceeded by at least 300 percent. But there are some environmental groups that want nothing delisted ever. Leading the pack is the Center for Biological Diversity which sues to list or keep listed everything that traversed Noah’s plank, studied or unstudied, then collects attorney fees from taxpayers. Amos Eno, who worked at the service’s Endangered Species Office crafting the amendments that strengthened the act, contends that the federal government could “recover and delist three dozen species” with the resources it spends responding to the center’s litigation.

and

Under ESA protection, Minnesota wolves colonized Wisconsin and Michigan until, in 2007, the recovery goal for the three-state population had not only been met but had nearly tripled, requiring delisting. But the Center for Biological Diversity and its allies got a court order blocking this needed, mandated action. So the service fought back, again turning up the politics; and in 2011 it succeeded with delisting. By doing so it preserved ESA integrity, credibility, and funding.

Today, thanks to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and no thanks to the perennial plaintiffs, there are an estimated 1,674 wolves in the northern Rockies and 4,432 in the Lake States. That’s the greatest success story in the history of wildlife restoration.