Please Speak Out To Protect the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act Is Under Assault Yet Again

Dated: 14 Apr 2009

Posted by admin

Please Speak Out To Protect the Endangered Species Act

In the waning days of George W. Bush’s presidency, his Interior Department hastily promulgated new rules that essentially eviscerated the Endangered Species Act. These regulations, if allowed to stand, will have dire consequences.

First, they would dramatically redefine the fundamental premises upon which the ESA rests. The new rules would only consider direct causation or “essential causes”. Rarely, are species wiped out by a single, direct action. Rather, plants and animals are threatened by cumulative impacts that occur over time. Species disappear not because of one action but due to a complex combination of factors – loss or alteration of habitat, pollution, climate change, edge effects, overhunting or fishing, etc. By failing to recognize systemic causation, we are sealing the fate of literally thousands of plant and animal species.

Second, the new rules exempt Federal agencies from the Act’s Section 7 consultation process. The Endangered Species Act states that “Each Federal agency, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, shall insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat. …”. In effect, an executive action overturns a key provision of a landmark law.

Third, the new rules prohibit consideration of greenhouse gas-emitting projects under the Act; specifically banning federal agencies from protecting polar bears through the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, the primary threat to their continued existence.

Plainly, the overarching goal of the ESA is to conserve threatened species. The ESA defines “conserve” to mean “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.” The very intent of the ESA is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species depend may be conserved.” The ESA requires species recovery and not merely species survival as affirmed by the U.S Supreme Court in Babbitt v. Sweet Home and TVA v. Hill. Both decisions upheld that the purpose of the ESA is “to halt and reverse the trend towards species extinction, whatever the cost” and that “this is effectuated not only in the stated policies of the Act, but in literally every section of the statute.”

By shifting emphasis to direct causation and ignoring disparate contributing causes, the end result will be that proposed project developments can contribute significantly to the destruction of habitat and the extinction of species but will be approved unconditionally because they do not directly cause the elimination of a species or directly reduce the population of a species or extent of its habitat. Almost all proposed developments that were previously understood as “cumulative impacts” will no longer be seen as “causes” of habitat destruction or species extinction and will be permitted.

Furthermore, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act explicitly states that Federal agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service must take concrete steps “to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the species”. This give-and-take, consultation process allows projects to go forward while at the same time mitigating harm to protected species. But Interior’s new rule eliminates this vital check and allows department-centric projects to take precedence.

Ten thousand years ago, 80% of all mega-fauna disappeared from North America. Gone are the mastodons, mammoths, giant beavers, ground sloths, short-faced bear, dire wolf, saber-tooth cat, wooly rhino, and giant camel. Today, we are in the throes of a similar extinction event and it’s happening before our very eyes. More than 16,000 species worldwide are threatened with extinction, according to a 2007 report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which compiles an annual “red list” of endangered species. Scientists warn endangered species could become extinct 100 times faster than previously thought. They say methods used to predict when species will die out are seriously flawed and dramatically underestimate the speed at which some will disappear.

But not only the “walking dead” are at risk. Deer herds in the West are declining. Elk herds are a fraction of what they once were. In the Upper Midwest, moose populations are dying off in startling numbers. Here in California, bighorn sheep and pronghorn antelope sightings are rare indeed. Bison in Yellowstone are being slaughtered by the hundreds. Large-bodied predators are suffering similar fates throughout North America.

The ESA has served this Nation well. But the Act has been in the crosshairs since its inception. Efforts by the previous administration to undermine the efficacy of one the Nation’s most cherished environmental laws were more than just cynical. They were clearly a parting shot designed to inflict as much damage to the law as possible.

If you feel as I do, please urge President Obama and Secretary Salazar to do what is right, and take the first steps in repairing the environmental damage of the Bush Administration by immediately rescinding these hurtful regulations. Your responses should be made by May 9.

If you have questions or need more information, please email me at fschiavone@verizon.net

By Frank Schiavone