[PCA] FW: Join NPCC and Plant Societies in Opposing Anti-endangered species bill

Sat Sep 24 14:42:27 CDT 2005

Hello Plant Conservation Leaders:

Apologies for cross posting. 

This is an invitation to native plant science and conservation organizations
to formally join the Native Plant Conservation Campaign’s testimony to
Congress opposing HR 3824. Our comments are attached and pasted below. 

As you know, the Threatened and Endangered Species  Recovery Act of 2005
(H.R. 3824) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives this week.
The bill would remove most of the key protection for listed plants and
wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. 
It would also make listing imperiled species much more difficult. 

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the bill are its restrictions on the
types of science – and scientists – that would be considered eligible to
participate in decisions about listing and conserving imperiled plants and
other species. Congress is not qualified to legislate science, but HR 3824
would do just that. 

The bill is 74 pages long, but those who want to review it in detail can
find the text at: 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3824: 

Just in case some folks don’t wish to read 74 pages of legislative language,
a summary of the bill developed by Earthjustice, the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Endangered Species Coalition is also pasted below.

We are operating on a VERY SHORT TIMELINE. The bill is being fast tracked to
avoid public scrutiny and comment, because its authors know that it is both
flawed and unpopular. 

HR 3824 is scheduled for a full House vote THIS COMING WEEK!

So please review the NPCC comments and let me know if youR organization can
sign on by close of buisiness TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27.  

That way we can send it to Congress before the vote. Send me the full name
of your group and, if you wish, the name of the President/Chair. 

NOTE!!!!!!!!

If you do not sign the letter – or even if you do - please consider sending
your own letter or making your own phone calls. 

Capitol Switchboard:  (202) 224-3121

Ask for your Member of Congress's office.

You can look up your Representative at:  www.house.gov
(http://www.house.gov/) You can look up your Senators at:  www.senate.gov
(http://www.senate.gov/)

More information on HR 3824 is available at the Endangered Species Coalition
website: www.stopextinction.org <http://www.stopextinction.org/>  

THANK YOU! 

Emily

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.

Director

Native Plant Conservation Campaign

PMB 151 (not p.o.b) 

1459 18th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107

Phone: 415 970 0394 

Email:  eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org

Web:   www.plantsocieties.org  

The NPCC is a project of the Center for Biological Diversity and the
California Native Plant Society.

The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and conservation of
native plant species and communities through collaboration, education, law,
policy, land use and management.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter on HR 3824

Testimony of the Native Plant Conservation Campaign and Plant Science and
Conservation Organizations

Regarding

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (H.R. 3824)

September 22, 2005

Re:      Oppose HR 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act
of 2005

To Whom It May Concern:

The Native Plant Conservation Campaign is a coalition of native plant
societies and other native plant science and conservation organizations,
representing more than 60,000 laypersons and professional botanists in all
50 states. The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and
conservation of native plant species and communities through collaboration,
education, law, policy, land use and management. 

NPCC affiliate organizations and their members work closely with state and
federal agencies to manage and conserve native plants and ecosystems. We
frequently use the Endangered Species Act to protect imperiled plants that
would otherwise be lost to our children and grandchildren. We also work
closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies to provide
botanical and other scientific information to help land managers conserve
this nation’s unique flora. 

The Native Plant Conservation Campaign and the undersigned organizations
oppose H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of
2005. 

The Endangered Species Act is one this nation’s most effective and popular
environmental laws. For over thirty years, the Endangered Species Act has
been the safety net for wildlife, fish and plants on the brink of
extinction. It has been successful in preventing the extinction of 98% of
the species that have been listed, including the American Bald Eagle, the
Robbin’s Cinquefoil, Fremont’s Flannelbush, and countless other beautiful
and unique plants and animals. 

Instead of statutory changes, we recommend that Congress adequately fund and
staff the Act’s implementing agencies. Congress has never budgeted
sufficient resources for execution of the Endangered Species Act. Eighty to
90% of the public consistently express support for the Act in opinion polls;
these polls also show strong support for increased funding for species and
habitat protection. Before changes are made, the law should be given the
resources to work as it was designed to do. This is the only way its
effectiveness can be evaluated.

Protection of our remaining flora and natural heritage is essential to human
society and to our economy. Plants generate the oxygen we breathe, clean the
water we drink, provide the foundation of wetlands as well as the plant
communities which protect us from destructive and deadly floods and erosion.
Plants also provide us with foods, medicines and other indispensable
commodities; many yet to be discovered. The health of native vegetation
controls the quality and quantity of goods, services and enjoyment that
Americans derive from wildlands. Wildland enjoyment and wildlife watching
generate more than $100 billion in U.S. economic activity each year.
Butterflies, bears, eagles and all the wildlife that the public enjoys
requires healthy native plant communities for survival. Extinction leads to
loss of other plant, fish, and wildlife that are connected and
interdependent through the web of life. Each species lost to extinction also
represents the potential loss of life saving therapies, foods, jobs,
industries and economic growth. 

Given (i) the known and potential importance of plants and other species,
(ii) the rates at which we are losing irreplaceable fish, plants, wildlife
and their habitats in the U.S. and around the world, and (iii) the rate at
which we are discovering new uses and values for wild species, it would be
reckless and irresponsible to weaken the law that offers the most effective
protection for our natural heritage.

As Congress recognized when it first passed the ESA:

“From the most narrow possible point of view, it is in the best interests of
mankind to minimize the losses of genetic variations
Who knows, or can say,
what potential cures for cancer or other scourges, present or future, may
lie locked up in the structure of plants which may yet be undiscovered, much
less analyzed?  More to the point, who is prepared to risk those potential
cures by eliminating those plants for all times?  Sheer self-interest impels
us to be cautious.”

-U.S. House of Representatives Report regarding the enactment of the ESA in
the 93rd Congress (1973)  

H.R. 3824 would substantively weaken the ESA and impede our ability to
conserve our natural heritage in several critical ways. The bill would 

*        reduce opportunities for species recovery through elimination of
habitat protections

*        restrict both the type of science that can be used and which
scientists may participate in species listing and conservation 

*        introduce new bureaucratic hurdles to species listing and
post-listing conservation

*        introduce unrealistic time limits for conservation measures to be
developed before destructive projects can proceed 

As scientific organizations we are concerned about the provisions that
restrict protections for the habitat that supports endangered species. A
primary principle of conservation biology is that habitat protection is
fundamental to species conservation. We are also particularly disturbed by
provisions restricting the types of science employed in endangered species
conservation. Surely scientists with appropriate expertise, rather than
Congress, are best qualified to determine what and how scientific
information is used. 

We urge Congress to reject this legislation. Congress should instead fully
fund the existing Endangered Species Act and the agencies that implement it.

Thank you for your attention to these comments, 

Sincerely

YOUR NAME

YOUR ORGANIZATION

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FACT SHEET

H.R. 3824 (Pombo)—An Analysis of Major Provisions

H.R. 3824, a bill introduced yesterday by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), would
drastically scale back this nation’s commitment to conserving its endangered
wildlife and habitat for future generations.  This analysis sets forth some
of its most damaging provisions.

Removes Prohibition Against Killing Threatened Species (Section 8) 

*         Unlike endangered species, species listed as “threatened” under
the Endangered Species Act do not enjoy the prohibitions of the Act’s
statutory prohibition against killing or injuring them.  (ESA § 9).
Instead, the Act requires that the Service issue regulations as necessary to
provide for the conservation of the species.  (ESA § 4(d)).  In one of its
first acts after the law was passed, the Service issued a default regulation
pursuant to  this authority extending the Endangered Species Act’s
protections to all threatened species except those (a small handful) for
whom special rules have been crafted.  

*         HR 3824 removes these protections requiring that any regulation
issued to protect threatened species be issued on an individualized
species-by-species basis.  The Bill also removes language in the Act
requiring that such regulations be promulgated to further the overall
conservation of the species.  Considering the enormous cost that would be
entailed in issuing separate regulations for each threatened species (over
400 threatened species are currently protected by the Act), and the repeal
of the statutory mandate to do so, the Service is unlikely to restore the
necessary protections. 

Eliminates All Critical Habitat Protections (Section 5)

*         HR 3824 ignores the crucial role of protecting wildlife habitat,
repealing all of the critical habitat provisions of the Act. 

*         To justify this repeal, Rep. Pombo claims that he has replaced
critical habitat with a better habitat protection tool, set forth in the
bill’s recovery plan provisions.  However, the Pombo bill merely states that
recovery plans must identify areas of “special value” to the conservation of
the species.  Moreover, the Bill provides that nothing in recovery plans
(including the identification of “special value” habitat) shall be binding. 

Requires Fish and Wildlife Service to Either Allow Unfettered Habitat
Destruction or Make Big Payoffs to Developers (Sections 13 and 14)

*         The Endangered Species Act currently requires a destructive
project cannot proceed until it is reviewed and approved by government
scientists. HR 3824 would allow the majority of developers to proceed with
environmentally harmful projects without carrying out any of the offsetting
habitat conservation measures ordinarily required by the Endangered Species
Act.  Specifically, if the Fish and Wildlife Service cannot review permit
applications within 90 days, it is deemed to have consented to the permit.
Since the Services already cannot meet existing deadlines, the inevitable
result is that the agencies would be completely overwhelmed, allowing myriad
destructive projects to slip through unreviewed. (Section 13) 

*         In those cases where the Fish and Wildlife Service does review a
project within 90 days and request modifications or mitigation, the Service
would then become obligated to pay the developer for any foregone profits.
Thus, for example, if the Service allows a subdivision to be built on all of
a 2,000-acre tract except a 10-acre riparian habitat area used by an
endangered toad, the developer would be entitled to a federal government
check for any profits not earned on the last 10 acres - even if the overall
project is highly profitable. (Section 14) 

*         Furthermore, this provision requires that these payments (labeled
as “aid” in the Bill) be paid from the budget of the Interior Department by
the end of the fiscal year.  “If sufficient funds are not available to pay
an aid award in full, the Secretary shall pay any remaining balance when
funds next become available.”   The Bill also provides that “the Secretary
shall pay the aid required by this section from any funds available to the
Secretary that are not mandated by law to be spent for other activities or
obligations.” These payments would take priority over all other programs not
just of the endangered species program, but the entire Department of
Interior. 

Allows Politicians To Define Best Available Scientific Data (Section 3)

*         The Endangered Species Act leaves the decision of what constitutes
the “best available scientific data” to the scientific community.  HR 3824
requires a political appointee, the Secretary of the Interior, to issue
regulations predetermining the definition of best science.  The proposed new
definition of best science also gives greater weight to empirical data –
ignoring the importance and integrity of scientific modeling. 

*         HR 3824 also includes a restrictive definition of “best available
scientific data” (the standard by which decisions are made pursuant to the
Act) limiting it to the “most” accurate, reliable, and relevant” science,
but does not define what “most” means.  This is a significant departure from
current regulations, which defines “best available science” to be all
relevant scientific information. 

*         Finally, HR 3824 removes the phrase “commercial data” from the
“best available scientific and commercial data,” available for use in
scientific decisions. This could preclude the use of fishing haul data
(landings) in the assessments of fish populations. 

Other Damaging Provisions

*         Weakens recovery plans by allowing key decisions to be made by
“recovery teams” , which must include representatives from each
“constituency” with a direct interest in the species and its “economic and
social impacts”; and removes the Act’s requirement that recovery plans be
prepared for the “conservation and survival of endangered species and
threatened species
” (Section 10). 

*         Imposes a new, weaker, definition of “distinct population
segments” that reduces the likelihood that species will be protected at the
population level, even when such a proactive measure would be the most
effective and least costly conservation strategy.  (Section 4). 

*         Codifies a damaging “no surprises” rule, which limits the ability
to reopen permits for incidental take of listed species, without addressing
the widely-recognized need for monitoring and adaptive management to rescue
species declining toward extinction.  (Section 13). 

*         Weakens the consultation provisions by allowing the Secretary of
Interior to exempt any federal agency action or “categories of actions” from
its requirements.   (Section 12). 

*         Exempts states from the Act’s consultation requirements and
authorizes habitat destruction pursuant to newly-created state conservation
agreements without mitigation requirements. (Section 11).  

*         Requires that numerous new bureaucratic hurdles be imposed on the
Services, despite the already severe shortage of resources and the
likelihood that substantial appropriations increases will not be
forthcoming. 

Contacts:

Susan Holmes, Earthjustice: (202) 667-4500

John Kostyack, National Wildlife Federation: (202) 797-6879

Brian Nowicki, Center for Biological Diversity: (520) 623-5252 x311

Andrew Wetzler, Natural Resources Defense Council: (614) 840-0891

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20050924/fc0bed72/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Pombo NPS Testimony 9.05.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 95744 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20050924/fc0bed72/attachment.doc>