From High Country News: http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.22/firebrand-ways

‘Firebrand ways’

A visit with one of the founders of the Center for Biological Diversity

by Tony Davis

Twenty years ago, they were Earth Firsters, living in tepees, trying to save spotted owls and grafting together a shoestring budget from their unemployment checks. Today, the Center for Biological Diversity has a budget of $7 million, 62 full-time staffers and 15 offices nationally, in locations from Washington, D.C., to Silver City, N.M. By filing 600 lawsuits and countless petitions against the federal government, the center has won the listing of 380 species as threatened or endangered. It also says it has secured 110 million acres of critical habitat and proposed another 130 million acres. CBD has won a reputation as the country’s most militant large environmental group, one that seldom shrinks from controversy.

From its Tucson headquarters, it’s expanded its species-saving tactics to protect rivers, stop sprawl, battle overgrazing and even tackle climate change. Last year, the group helped get the polar bear listed as a threatened species. Here, one of CBD’s founders, 45-year-old director Kieran (pronounced Keer-Onh) Suckling, looks back at how the group got where it is and explains how it differs from the “Big 10″ green groups
….

HCN What role do lawsuits play in your strategy to list endangered species? 

SUCKLING They are one tool in a larger campaign, but we use lawsuits to help shift the balance of power from industry and government agencies, toward protecting endangered species. That plays out on many levels. At its simplest, by obtaining an injunction to shut down logging or prevent the filling of a dam, the power shifts to our hands. The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of releasing the injunction.

New injunctions, new species listings and new bad press take a terrible toll on agency morale. When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed — and they are. So they become much more willing to play by our rules and at least get something done. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning. …

More…

The Tucson based Center for Biological Diversity has been waging a nation-wide war against ranchers, mines, military bases and other land uses.

In a form filed with the IRS for 2008 the Center for Biological Diversity repoprted the following salaries for its top officials:

Peter Galvin, Director $94,922
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313

The Center for Biological Diversity is also one of the targets in federal efforts to stop litigious environmental groups from soaking US taxpayers with a tsunami of law suits.

According to the 2008 IRS filing, the Center received $1,398,161 for its legal fees and costs from suing the government. That dropped to $ 1,173,517 in 2009 and to $ 685,981 in 2010 according to its annual reports for a toital of $ 3,257,659 over a 3 year period.

The CBD received $ 1,423,127 in foundation grants in 2009 and $ 1,876,800 in foundation grants in 2010.

The CBD received $ 4,795,424 in memberships and donations in 2009 and $ 5,389,003 in memberships and donations in 2010.

Total revenue from legal fees, foundations and memberships was $7, 392,068 in 2008 and $ 7,951,784 in 2010.

Obviously fighting for the environment is a serious business financially.

______________________________

Here is some publicly available financial information about the Center for Biological Diversity:

From the IRS 2008 form 990 posted at http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/850/850420285/850420285_200812_990.pdf

Cost recovery for environments litigation $1,398,161

List all states in which the organization is registered or licensed to solicit funds or has been notified it is exempt from
registration or licensing.
AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WI

Compensation of Officers , Directors , Trustees , Key Employees

Peter Galvin, Director $94,922
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313

Center for Biological Diversity 2009 2010 from annual report

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/reports/AnnualRpt2010.pdf
SUPPORT AND REVENUE 2009   2010

Grants and donations

Foundation grants $ 1,423,127   $ 1,876,800

Membership and donations 4,795,424 5,389,003

Revenue

Legal returns $ 1,173,517    $ 685,981

Contracts    5,780     7,354

Miscellaneous 15,162 52,017

Investment income 69,531     14,104

EXPENSES

Program services

Endangered Species 1,261,075     1,339,726

Climate 987,648     1,118,601

Public Lands 1,368,117 1,586,664

International 207,108     171,880

Oceans 638,570     735,379

Urban Wildlands 369,136     528,052

General and administrative 284,064 414,437

Fundraising 675,408      445,361

_____________________________
More

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Besides burying US Fish and Wildlife with petitions to list endangered species, and filing lots of lawsuits over the Endangered Species Act, litigious environmental groups make sure the media knows about their efforts.

At least in Tucson, the press release is the only story published (for example: KGUN Group says threatened frogs at AZ mine site

Here is a listing of recent press releases issued by Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project:

From Center for Biological Diversity’s web site:

May 25, 2011 New Orleans Court Hearing Will Include Arguments on $19 Billion Lawsuit Against BP Over Gulf Oil Spill

May 25, 2011 Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Boreal Toads

May 24, 2011 Deadly Bat Disease Arrives in Maine

May 19, 2011 Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Puts Fragile Pronghorn Population at Risk From Motorized Mayhem

May 18, 2011 Senate Rejects Massive Expansion of Dangerous Offshore Drilling

May 18, 2011 New Habitat Protections Finalized for California Desert Plant Threatened With Extinction

May 18, 2011 State Politician Holds Farce “Science” Panel on Endangered Species Act Protection for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard

May 17, 2011 Oregon Kills Imnaha Pack Wolf, Gunning for a Second

May 17, 2011 New Federal Plan to Tackle Bat-killing Disease Inadequate to Stop Epidemic

May 17, 2011 Judge Halts Settlement Over Hundreds of Endangered Species, Orders Parties Back to Negotiations

May 16, 2011 Years of Advocacy to Protect Kaua’i's Imperiled Seabirds Pay Off

May 16, 2011 Federal Pumps in Delta Are Killing Huge Numbers of Critically Imperiled Salmon and Other Native Fish

May 13, 2011 Center for Biological Diversity Statement on Shell’s Submission of Its Chukchi Sea Exploration Plan for 2012-2013

May 12, 2011 More Wolf-killing Legislation Proposed

May 12, 2011 Government Urged to Increase Habitat Protection for Chiricahua Leopard Frog

May 11, 2011 Groups Call on Government to Finally Kill Proposed Dam

May 6, 2011 United Nations Report Projects 10 Billion People by Century’s End

May 5, 2011 Pearce Asked to Immediately Release Data Said to Support Claims About Imperiled Lizard

May 5, 2011 U.S. House of Representatives Approves Dangerous Measure Expanding Offshore Drilling

May 5, 2011 Lawsuit Challenges Constitutionality of Anti-wolf Rider

May 4, 2011 Obama Administration Prematurely Lifting Wolf Protections in Great Lakes, Northern Rockies

May 4, 2011 Congressional Proposals Aim to Eviscerate Environmental Laws Along U.S. Borders, Coasts

May 4, 2011 Report Debunks New Mexico Congressman Pearce’s Claims About Protection for Rare Lizard

May 3, 2011 Lawsuit Filed to Stop Unlawful Killing of Endangered Wolves in Oregon

April 29, 2011 Activists Confront AES Over Damaging Dam Project, Broken Promises in Panama

April 28, 2011 Group Calls on New Mexico Congressman to Recant False Statements about Dunes Sagebrush Lizard

April 28, 2011 Lawsuit Launched to Protect Alabama Shad Under the Endangered Species Act

April 28, 2011 Lawsuit Launched to Speed Recovery of Imperiled California Amphibians

April 27, 2011 Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Sierra Nevada Red Fox

April 21, 2011 Lawsuit Seeks to Rescue Pacific Walrus From Indefinite Wait for Endangered Species Protection

April 21, 2011 Lawsuit Launched to Protect 400-plus Freshwater Species in Southeast Under Endangered Species Act

April 20, 2011 Conservationists Intervene in Lawsuit That Aims to Take Away Polar Bear Habitat

April 20, 2011 Conservation Groups Appeal Ruling on Failure to Designate Critical Habitat for Endangered Florida Panther

April 20, 2011 One Year After Gulf Disaster: Reforms Left Unaddressed, New Offshore Drilling Must Be Halted

April 19, 2011 Lawsuit Seeks to Protect U.S. West Coast Waters for Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtles

April 19, 2011 Forest Service’s New Mexico Road Plan a Financial Boondoggle That Puts Wildlife, Watersheds at Risk

April 18, 2011 Lawsuit Launched to Force EPA to Study Oil-dispersant Impacts on Endangered Wildlife

April 15, 2011 Proposal Would Prematurely Strip Endangered Species Act Protections From Gray Wolves in Great Lakes Region

April 14, 2011 Congress Approves Wolf-killing Rider in Budget Act to Aid Montana Democrat’s Re-election

April 14, 2011 –One Year After Gulf Oil Disaster, Significant Dangers Remain Unaddressed

April 14, 2011 –Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Iconic Plains Bison

April 13, 2011 –Southern California Butterfly Denied Endangered Species Protection

April 13, 2011 –Fast-spreading, Bat-killing Disease Arrives in Kentucky

April 13, 2011 –Lawsuit Launched to Protect Disappearing Miami Blue Butterfly

April 13, 2011 –Legal Action Filed to Defend Habitat Protections for Imperiled Green Sturgeon

April 12, 2011 –Tester, Simpson Sneak Wolf-killing Rider Into Budget Bill

April 12, 2011 –A Year After Gulf Oil Spill, New Report Tallies Full Cost of Wildlife Disaster

April 11, 2011 –Two Arizona Springsnail Species Proposed for Federal Protection

April 11, 2011 –Upper Klamath River Chinook Salmon One Step Closer to Endangered Species Act Protection

April 8, 2011 –More than 22,000 Pledge Support for Saving Imperiled Bluefin Tuna

April 8, 2011 –Endangered Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Gains Nearly 2 Million Acres of Protected Habitat

April 8, 2011 –Three New Scientific Studies Confirm Lead Poisoning of Wildlife Due to Hunting Ammunition

April 7, 2011 –House Passes Legislation to Gut America’s Most Important Pollution Law

April 6, 2011 –Senate Rejects Back-door Moves to Roll Back America’s Most Important Air Pollution Law

April 6, 2011 –Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Nation’s Smallest Seahorse

April 5, 2011 –Georgia Wildlife Officials Criticized for Rattlesnake Roundup Permit

April 4, 2011 –Obama Administration Fails to Protect Rare Glacier National Park Insect Threatened With Climate-caused Extinction

March 31, 2011 –National Campaign to Boycott Endangered Bluefin Tuna Coming to Las Vegas Sushi Restaurants

March 31, 2011 –Rare Alabama Fish One Step Closer to Endangered Species Act Protection

March 30, 2011 –Bat-killing White-nose Disease Spreads to Ohio, New Brunswick

March 28, 2011 –Court Gives Endangered Status Back to West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel, Rules That Recovery Plans Must Be Followed

March 24, 2011 –Winter Sea Ice Hits Historic Low

March 24, 2011 –New Protests Filed Against Water-rights Applications to Protect Rare Nevada Wildlife

March 22, 2011 –Harmful New Mexico Forest Road Plan Blocked in Response to Conservation Groups’ Appeal

March 22, 2011 –New House Bill Would Exempt National Forest Logging From Environmental Laws

March 22, 2011 –Lawsuit Withdrawn After Minnesota Legislature Exempts Iron Range Resources From Environmental Review

March 21, 2011 –Western Snowy Plover to Get Critical Habitat Protection Doubled

March 21, 2011 –First Deepwater Drilling Plan Approved for Gulf of Mexico; Feds Claim No Significant Environmental Impacts

March 21, 2011 –Obama Administration Denies Protection to Knoxville Area Salamander

March 20, 2011 –Center for Biological Diversity Statement on Possible New Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

March 18, 2011 –Settlement Reached on Wolf Recovery in Idaho and Montana

March 17, 2011 –U.S. Government Fails to Protect Loggerhead Sea Turtles by Legal Deadline

March 11, 2011 –More Than 11,000 Acres of Critical Habitat Proposed for Rare Chiricahua Leopard Frog in Arizona, New Mexico

March 11, 2011 –As Congress Takes Aim, New Numbers Show Declining Wolf Population in Northern Rockies

March 10, 2011 –Arizona Regulators Risk Damage to Water, Air Near Grand Canyon With Uranium Mine Permits

March 9, 2011 –Senate Rejects House Attempt to Roll Back America’s Most Important Environmental and Public Health Laws

March 9, 2011 –Forty-eight Conservation Groups Call on Sen. Barbara Boxer to Oppose Legislation Removing Protection for Wolves

March 7, 2011 –Obama Administration Denies Protection to Nevada Butterfly

March 3, 2011 –New Bill Would Cripple America’s Most Important Pollution Law

March 2, 2011 –Eastern Cougar Declared Officially Extinct; Florida Panther Still Has a Chance If Reintroduced to Okefenokee

March 2, 2011 –San Francisco Sued for Killing Endangered Species at Sharp Park Golf Course

March 1, 2011 –New EPA Report Debunks Congressional Attacks on Clean Air Act, Demonstrates Law’s Public Health and Economic Benefits

February 28, 2011 –North Carolina’s Golden Sedge Plant Receives Critical Habitat Protection

February 24, 2011 –Statements by Conservation Groups on San Francisco’s Change of Position on Sharp Park Golf Course Management

February 24, 2011 –Report: Nation’s Best Pollution Law Should Combat Global Warming

February 23, 2011 –Obama Administration Denies Protection to Plains Bison

February 23, 2011 –Lawsuit Filed to Increase Habitat Protection for Nebraska’s Vanishing Salt Creek Tiger Beetle

February 22, 2011 –Campaign to Stop Consumption of Endangered Bluefin Tuna Is Heading to Streets, Sushi Restaurants of San Francisco

February 22, 2011 –Obama Administration Denies Protection for Three More Endangered Species

February 22, 2011 –Southern Rockhopper Penguins Listed as Threatened Species; Climate Change Protections Needed

February 18, 2011 –U.S. House Votes to Repeal Clean Air Act Protections

February 18, 2011 –Rare Texas Cave Species Get Big Increase in Protected Habitat

February 18, 2011 –Obama Administration Delays Protection for Yet Another Endangered Species

February 17, 2011 –Statement of Center for Biological Diversity on the Comment by Representative Denny Rehberg that Federal Judge Donald Malloy Should be “on the Endangered Species List”

February 17, 2011 –Federal Plan Announced to Protect Grand Canyon From Uranium Mining

February 17, 2011 – Government Urged to Finalize Habitat Protection for Sonoma County’s California Tiger Salamander

February 16, 2011 – Obama Administration Denies Endangered Species Act Protection for Dwindling Alabama Shad

February 16, 2011 – House Republicans’ Bill Would Gut Decades of Environmental Protections

February 15, 2011 – Settlement Sets Deadlines for Cleaning up Particulate Air Pollution

February 15, 2011 – New Bill Would Protect Bats, Other Species From Wildlife Diseases

February 15, 2011 – Center for Biological Diversity Statement on Proposed Confirmation of Dan Ashe as Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

February 14, 2011 – Lawsuit Filed to Save Lake Tahoe Wildlife Habitat From Logging

February 11, 2011 – Statement From Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director Kierán Suckling on House Republicans’ Continuing Resolution Bill

February 11, 2011 – As World’s Human Population Approaches 7 Billion, Global Species Extinction Crisis Accelerates

February 11, 2011 – Forest Service Plan Threatens More Than 900,000 Acres of Public Lands Near Grand Canyon

February 10, 2011 – President Obama’s Forest Service Tries to Weaken Wildlife Protections in National Forests

February 10, 2011 – Lawsuit Launched to Protect Endangered Whales From Gulf of Mexico Oil Exploration

February 10, 2011 – Florida Panther Reintroduction to Okefenokee Needed for Recovery

February 10, 2011 – First Peer-reviewed Study of Sharp Park: Removing Golf Course, Creating New Public Park Is Least Costly, Best Option

February 9, 2011 – Appeal Filed to Save Tejon Ranch, Condor Habitat

February 9, 2011 – Killer Bat Disease Reaches North Carolina as Swath of Epidemic Widens Rapidly

February 8, 2011 – Pacific Walrus Found Imperiled by Global Warming But Left Without Protections

February 8, 2011 – Arroyo Toad, Rare Southern California Lily Get Big Increases in Habitat Protection

February 7, 2011 – Lawsuit Asks Federal Court to Ensure Public Interest Is Represented in Rosemont Mine Process

February 7, 2011 – Endangered Sea Turtles Saved From Capture in Hawaii Swordfish Fishery

February 4, 2011 – Lawsuit Launched to Protect Pacific Waters for Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtles Threatened by Fishing Gear, Climate Change

February 3, 2011 – Shell Halts Plans to Drill in Heart of Polar Bear’s Alaska Habitat

February 3, 2011 – Arctic Sea Ice Hits Historic Low Just As Congress Moves Against Controls on Global Warming

February 3, 2011 – After Closed-door Meeting With Major Polluters, Upton Moves to Repeal Clean Air Act Protections

February 2, 2011 – Endangered Mexican Wolves Increase in Southwest

February 2, 2011 – Deadly Bat Disease Expands in Midwest

February 2, 2011 – Feds Will Reevaluate Endangered Status of Longfin Smelt

February 1, 2011 – Livestock Growers, Counties Withdraw Lawsuit to Eradicate Gray Wolves From New Mexico

February 1, 2011 – Agencies Refuse to Raise Paltry Fee for Destructive Cattle Grazing on 258 Million Acres of Public Land

January 31, 2011 – Court Orders Redo of Federal ORV Plan for Millions of Acres in California’s West Mojave Desert

January 31, 2011 – Lawsuit Filed Against Interior Department Over San Juan River Coal Pollution

January 31, 2011 – Wyoming Senator Moves to Gut Long List of Environmental Protections

January 27, 2011 – Endangered Species Act Protection Sought for Klamath River Chinook Salmon

January 26, 2011 – Plan for Delta Water Use Should End Big Agriculture Takeover of State Water Project, Groups Say

January 26, 2011 – Report: Federal Land Managers’ Failure to Close Caves Leaves Millions of Bats in West Vulnerable to Fast-moving, Deadly Disease

January 26, 2011 – Study: Peril From Fort Huachuca/Sierra Vista Groundwater Pumping Nears San Pedro River

January 25, 2011 – Obama Plan to Eliminate Oil Subsidies a Good First Step, But “Clean Energy” Shouldn’t Include Coal, Nuclear, Biofuels or Natural Gas

January 25, 2011 – Suit Filed to Protect One of Nevada’s Largest Bat Roosts, National Park

January 25, 2011 – Two Georgia Counties Asked to Enforce State Wildlife Laws at Rattlesnake Roundups

January 25, 2011 – Lawsuit Seeks Protections for 82 Corals Facing Extinction

January 21, 2011 – Environmental Report Card: Obama Gets “C-” for First Half of Term

January 20, 2011 – Landmark Lawsuit Filed to Protect Hundreds of Rare Species From Pesticides

January 19, 2011 – Snowmobile Plan Challenged to Protect Wildlife, Quiet Recreation

January 19, 2011 – Coalition of Clean Air Groups Brings Actions Against Federal Government for Its Failure to Reduce Air Pollution in Iconic National Parks

January 19, 2011 – Two Colorful Mussel Species Proposed for Federal Protection

January 19, 2011 – Obama Administration Refuses to Reform Public-lands Grazing Fee

January 18, 2011 – Lawsuit Filed to Stop Release of Toxic Metals at Wisconsin’s Flambeau Mine

January 18, 2011 – Two Public-land Grazing Plans Dismissed to Protect Arizona Wildlife

January 18, 2011 – World-renowned Chefs Join Call to Boycott Bluefin Tuna

January 14, 2011 – Lawsuit Filed to Block Minnesota Agency’s $4 Million Loan to PolyMet Mining Company

January 13, 2011 – Lawsuit Seeks to Protect Polar Bear Critical Habitat From Oil Development

January 13, 2011 – Habitat Protection Sought for Endangered Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel

January 13, 2011 – EPA Vetoes Permit for Largest Mountaintop-removal Mine Ever Proposed in Appalachia

January 12, 2011 – EPA Capitulates to Timber, Biomass Industries on Global Warming Pollution

January 11, 2011 – In Memory of Federal Judge John M. Roll (1948-2011)

January 11, 2011 – Oil Spill Commission Releases Safety Recommendations

January 11, 2011 – Court Blocks Federal Effort to Cut San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Habitat Protection

January 11, 2011 – Emergency Protection Sought for Disappearing Miami Blue Butterfly

January 7, 2011 – San Francisco River Would Be Protected From ORVs in Proposed Gila National Forest Plan

January 5, 2011 – New Report: Sierra Nevada Among Top 10 Places Whose Species Are Threatened by Climate Change

January 5, 2011 – New Report: Southwest Deserts Among Top 10 Places Whose Species Are Threatened by Climate Change

January 5, 2011 – New Report: Arctic Sea Ice Among Top 10 Places Whose Species Are Threatened by Climate Change

January 3, 2011 – Lawsuit Opposes Wildlife Agency’s Approval of Massive Newhall Ranch Project

Press Releases from WildEarth Guardians:
Rare Texas Lizard Could Gain Endangered Status
Monday, May 23, 2011
Government Issues Positive Finding on Guardians’ Petition

Groups Formally Call Upon New Mexican Officials to Ban Traps
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Cruel, Indiscriminate, and Harmful to Wildlife and Recreationists

Government Report: Less Than 1% of Cattle Killed by Native Carnivores and Domestic Dogs
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Taxpayers Fleeced by Federal, Predator-Control Program

Coalition Offers Reward in Case of Wolf Illegally Poisoned in Colorado
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Offering a reward of as much as $4,500 for information leading to the identification

Hope for Endangered Species Act Candidates
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
WildEarth Guardians and Interior Reach Settlement on Endangered Species Listings

Cattle Growers Fight Clean Water Rules in New Mexico
Monday, May 9, 2011
Hearing in Santa Fe to Consider a Stay of Outstanding Waters

Conservation Groups Challenge Wolf Delisting Rider
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Lawsuit Seeks to Restore Federal Protection to Gray Wolves in Northern Rockies

Group Charges Pearce with Perpetrating Hoax over Lizard Listing
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Drilling would be Unaffected by Species’ Conservation in More than 99 Percent of Permian Basin

Interior Withdraws Illegal Endangered Species Memo
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Group Urges Obama Administration to Leave Flawed Bush Policies Behind

Lawsuit Challenges Uranium Development in New Mexico
Friday, April 29, 2011
WildEarth Guardians demands transparency in Forest Service Permitting.

Arapahoe Snowfly on the Brink of Extinction
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
USFWS Initiates Endangered Species Act Status Review

Conservation groups oppose “Scorched Earth” Border Patrol plan for Rio Grande
Monday, April 25, 2011
Mowing Plan Would Eliminate Wildlife Habitat Along 91 Miles of the Rio

Easter Bunny: Hopping Toward Extinction?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Group Presses Forward on Protection for Rare Southwestern Jackrabbit

A Step Up for Wolves in the Southwest, on the Heels of Setbacks Up North
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Legal Settlement Reached for Wolf on Gila National Forest

Conservation Groups Set for Showdown Over West Fork Wolves
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Small Group of Wolves Living in Remote Area Is in the Crosshairs

All Press Releases

Press Releases from Western Watersheds Project:

April 19, 2011
News Release BLM Temporarily Halts Fence Construction On The “Fast Tracked” Ivanpah Solar Power Plant

April 14, 2011
News Release WWP Wins Court Ordered Deadline For Removal of Livestock From 450,000 Acres of Sage-Grouse Habitat On Public Lands in Southwest Idaho

March 1, 2011
News Release WWP Wins A Federal Court Injunction Stopping Livestock Grazing on over 450,000 Acres of Public Land in Southern Idaho

January 25, 2011
News Release Suit Filed to Protect One of Nevada’s Largest Bat Roosts, National Park

January 18, 2011
News Release Obama Administration Refuses to Reform Public-lands Grazing Fee

January 17, 2011
News Release WWP Sues to Stop Fast Tracked Power Plant in CA

January 7, 2011
News Release Federal Court Tosses BLM Grazing Decisions

December 30, 2010
News Release Livestock Grazing Halted to Protect Steelhead On a Quarter-million Acres of the Malheur National Forest

December 13, 2010
News Release Tortoise Takes Place in Line For Federal Listing

Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians are suing the the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in federal court over two decisions the BLM’s Bishop Field Office made to reauthorize cattle grazing on four public land allotments in the Bodie Hills just north of Mono Lake despite their impacts to imperiled Bi-State sage-grouse.

News Release Conservationists Challenge Grazing in Bodie Hills to Protect Mono Basin Sage-Grouse

_________________________________

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm”and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Most people probably see the Endangered Species Act as being all about saving polar bears, bald eagles, and so on.

Go to any one of the web sites of groups seeking to protect endangered species and you will see pictures of polar bears, wolves, pretty birds and so forth.

But underneath all those pretty pictures and the good idea of saving polar bears and pretty birds the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has a dark side.

The ESA has become a major weapon in a war between litigious environmental groups and virtually everyone attempting to continue existing uses of land for such things as ranching, or do anything new with land such as mining, power plant construction, building new electric or natural gas transmission lines, constructing solar arrays, land development and road construction.

Virtually all human activity is seen at odds with protecting endangered species by litigious environmental groups.

Given a choice between a new land development or a new power plant or potentially threatening a mouse, the mouse must always prevail.

The ESA in tandem with the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has also become a major revenue source to litigious environmental groups that exploit structural flaws in the Endangered Species Act to generate millions of dollars in legal fees for their organizations.

ENDANGERED SPECIES, SUB-SPECIES AND “DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENTS”:

The term “endangered species” means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man.

The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

The Endangered Species Act is not just about protecting “species”. The way the law is worded, protection can also be sought for “subspecies” and for “distinct” populations of species of plants or animals.

Contrary to the belief that a mass extinction of “species” is occurring, of course caused by human activity, new “subspecies” are being discovered almost daily.

It is a sure bet that wherever there is a new project that will disturb the environment being proposed, a species, sub-species or distinct population of a species will be “discovered” to only live at the site of that project.

Virtually every population of a plant or animal that lives in a particular habitat can be claimed as a “subspecies” because it lives where it lives.

The desert tortoises that live in the Mohave Desert are claimed to be a different subspecies than the ones that live in the Sonoran Desert.

The squirrels that live on top of Mount Graham are claimed to be a different subspecies than the squirrels living on adjacent mountains.

The pygmy owls that live in southern Arizona are clauimed to be a different subspecies than the ones that live across the border in Sonora.

The wolves that live in the northern Rocky Mountains are claimed to be a different subspecies than the ones that live in Arizona.

Arguably the tree lizards that live at your house could be claimed to be a new subspcies if they are a different color than the same species of tree lizard that lives across the street.

The “distinct population” argument expands the scope of the Endangered Species Act.

The squirrels that live on one mountain top are “distinct” from the squirrels on the nearby mountain..

The Chiricahua Leopard Frog that lives in a stock pond over by Arivaca is “distinct” from the frogs that live in a stock pond 30 miles away.

The pygmy owls living near Tucson are “distinct” from their kin in Mexico…and anyway…we all know Mexico could care less about protecting endangered species so even though there are lots of pygmy owls in Mexico, we must protect the Tucson owls just in case.

Thus all those “distinct” populations must also be protected.

MASS LISTING PETITIONS

A species is added to the list when it is determined to be endangered or threatened because of any of the following factors:

the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

disease or predation;

the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;

the natural or manmade factors affecting its survival

 

To the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving the petition of an interested person under section 553(e) of title 5, United States Code, to add a species to, or to remove a species from, either of the lists published under subsection (c), the Secretary shall make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. If such a petition is found to present such information, the Secretary shall promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned. The Secretary shall promptly publish each finding made under this subparagraph in the Federal Register. (B) Within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found under subparagraph (A) to present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make one of the following findings: (i) The petitioned action is not warranted, in which case the Secretary shall promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register. (ii) The petitioned action is warranted, in which case the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a general notice and the complete text of a proposed regulation to implement such action in accordance with paragraph (5). 6 (iii) The petitioned action is warranted, but that— (I) the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation implementing the petitioned action in accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6) is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species….

 

Under the Endangered Species Act a petition to list a species or subspecies gets filed with US Fish and Wildlife.

US Fish and Wildlife has 90 days to respond and act on a listing petition.

So what happens when US Fish and Wildlife doesn’t have the budget to deal with petitions asking for 215 species or subspecies to be listed? They fail to act within the 90 day period.

And here is where the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) jumps in. The petitioning group sues US Fish and Wildlife when it fails to act within the 90 day window…and of course the petitioning outfit is right…and thus entitled to legal fees.

That’s not the first shot at legal fees under EAJA.

If, after the 90 day decision is made US Fish and Wildlife doesn’t meet its 12 month deadline…bingo another lawsuit.

And then if the species is listed and US Fish and Wildlife does not immediately declare a “critical habitat”…here comes the third lawsuit.

So how do you generate a lot of EAJA legal fees…file listing petitions for hundreds of plants and animals and force US Fish and Wildlife into default.

The litigious environmental groups claim mass petitioning for species is necessary because of global warming. Thousands of species will vanish tomorrow if the federal government doesn’t act right now!

Sounds great doesn’t it?

Open up your checkbook as well and save all those thousands of insects and whatever that are included in the mass listings petitions.

It used to be they passed the basket in church and you gave to save your soul.

Now you can give to save the Earth from those Satanic humans who want to build homes and other stuff.

Was that what the Endangered Species Act was all about?

_________________________________________________

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm”and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Endangered Species Act —  Critical or Protected  Habitat Designation

The next step in using the Endangered Species Act as a weapon to throttle virtually all human activity in the country is the designation of critical or protected  habitat.

If the species or subspecies or “distinct” population is endangered oe threatened…obviously the plants or animals need a “place” to live without being harmed. That  is the “critical or protected habitat”.

But first one must understand the definition of “harm” that threatens or endangers the plant or animal.

After a convoluted process US Fish and Wildlife will issue a “biological opinion” defining what it believes is threatening or endangered the plant or animal.

This is mostly a non-scientific exercise in speculation….this “may” that “might’ harm the plant or animal.

When you look at petitions for listing in the first place, you will see the alleged “harm” type activities that must be stopped…cattle grazing, global warming, road construction, obstructing natural migratory paths,  wind turbine blades turning, whatever.  If you really want to read some good science fantasy, read this stuff.

Here is just one example from the Sonoran Desert Tortoise decision from US Fish and Wildlife to make the turtle a candidate for listing as an endangered species:

Development as a Barrier

Urban development, canals, and transportation infrastructure, such
as roads and railroads, disrupt ecological processes, increase
mortality in animals, promote the degradation, loss, and isolation of
wildlife habitat, and cause fragmentation of populations (Sonoran desert tortoise populations are island-like in their distribution, meaning they are generally concentrated on the bajadas and hillsides of mountains, and less-
distributed within the valleys between these areas. As a result, they
may be particularly vulnerable to large-scale disturbances that affect
the suitability of intervening habitat.Factors that affect inter-population dynamics in Sonoran desert tortoises include distance between populations, physical size of habitat areas, sizes of source populations, and the ease of which intervening areas can be crossed by dispersing individuals.

The effect of potential barriers to inter-population movements of
Sonoran desert tortoises (discussed above in the Species Information
section) is not equal across their range. The ability for the Sonoran
desert tortoise to move among populations is also important for
allowing shifts in their range in response to climate change, and to
promote recolonization after fire or other regional disturbances. Dispersal of Sonoran desert tortoises between populations through sparse desertscrub is less likely in very hot, dry valleys in the Lower Colorado subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub and populations in mountain ranges, such as the Eagletails, Maricopas, and Sand Tanks, have likely been existing in isolation for a long time.

Genetic analysis of blood samples collected from Sonoran desert
tortoises in Saguaro National Park in Pima County, Arizona, suggest
that intermediate gene flow still occurs, or occurred recently, among
isolated populations at the rate of at least 1 migrant per generation
(12-15 years). However, thousands of acres of tortoise habitat have been recently lost to large residential developments in the foothills of the Santa Catalina, Tortolita, Rincon, and Tucson Mountains in the greater Tucson metropolitan area.

The importance of allowing movement of individual tortoises between
populations is observable by evaluating historical gene flow. Edwards
et al. (2004, p. 485) used seven microsatellite DNA markers to examine
the genetic relationships of tortoises in eight populations in southern
and central Arizona, in the vicinity of Tucson and Phoenix. They also
calculated migration rates among these populations to estimate
historical rates of gene flow, and, therefore, the importance of
individuals moving between populations (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 485).
Edwards et al. (2004, p. 496) found no evidence of recent loss of
genetic diversity that would indicate genetic bottlenecking that could
occur from lack of mixing among Sonoran desert tortoise populations in
southern Arizona. However, the authors acknowledged that a small sample
size and small number of genetic markers (alleles) used in their
analyses would likely not detect this genetic effect. Despite reduced
mixing among populations, Sonoran desert tortoises may be capable of
maintaining small effective population sizes (still viable populations,
despite small size), even with a low degree of genetic diversity
(Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). However, Edwards et al. (2004, p. 496)
also stated, “Because effective population sizes of Sonoran desert
tortoises are small, dispersal events probably play an important role
in the long-term maintenance of these populations.” This suggests that
while dispersal and movement of tortoises may be rare, they may be
important events. Therefore, barriers that prevent this movement could
result in significant genetic impacts, by preventing mixing of
populations over the long term.

The effect of urban barriers limits inter-population movements of
Sonoran desert tortoises resulting in “closed” populations. Experts
believe that an isolated population of Sonoran desert tortoises that
experiences significant declines in population size could not overcome
losses simply through an increase in reproduction, based on evidence of
past gene flow (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). Therefore, if a
population were to experience a catastrophic decline as a result of a
stochastic event such as drought, the immigration of new tortoises from
adjacent populations would be necessary for population recovery
(Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). Urban barriers effectively prevent this
immigration of new tortoises, resulting in closed, or isolated, Sonoran
desert tortoise populations, which are now evident within the
metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson. Mountains and associated
foothills with Sonoran desertscrub habitat occur in these urban areas,
and although development within this habitat has been restricted by
zoning laws, development is still allowed to virtually surround the
bases of the mountains, isolating tortoise populations. Examples of
this development include the Union Hills, White Tank Mountains,
McDowell Mountains, Black Mountains, and South Mountain Park in the
Phoenix metropolitan area and Tumamoc Hill, Tucson Mountains, and
Saguaro National Park West in the Tucson metropolitan area (Edwards et
al. 2004, p. 496). Zylstra and Swann (2009, pp. 10-11) remarked that
the increasing negative effect of human-made barriers on Sonoran desert
tortoise movements between populations may require translocation
(moving animals out of harm’s way into more secured areas of suitable
habitat), or occasional augmentation of populations with tortoises from
other populations, to remain viable.

Translocation has been considered an option, and implemented to
some degree for Mojave desert tortoise conservation and recovery. In
assessing the viability of translocation as a recovery and conservation
tool for the Mojave population, concern has been expressed for
potentially moving tortoises into areas where threats to desert
tortoise populations remain, which could negate any conservation value
associated with the action. Our (Mojave) Desert Tortoise Recovery
Office stresses that translocation of tortoises should not occur under
such circumstances, emphasizing the need to address threats which
impact all tortoises regardless of origin.

Translocation of desert tortoises has received mixed reviews in the
scientific literature and, as noted, may not be a viable option for the
Sonoran desert tortoise. There are several factors that must be
considered in deciding whether or not to translocate tortoises into new
areas, including temporary or longer-term holding conditions of
tortoises; the propensity for post-release, long-distance movements;
drought; the status of receiving population; and disease screening,
among other factors (Berry 1986a, p. 113; Field et al. 2007, pp. 232,
237, 240, 242; Martel et al. 2009, p. 218). Translocated Mojave desert
tortoises have been shown to settle at release sites, travel in
straight lines for substantial distances, or disperse up to
approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) (Berry 1986a, p. 113). Translocated
desert tortoises may disrupt social hierarchies in receiving
populations by displacing residents or they may be displaced themselves
(Berry 1986a, p. 113). Howland and Rorabaugh (2002, p. 341) suggest
that translocation of Sonoran desert tortoises may not be a viable tool
for conservation because most intact Sonoran desert tortoise
populations in Arizona are currently considered relatively healthy, and
likely occur at or near carrying capacity. Mullen and Ross (1997, pp.
145-146) found that translocated Mojave desert tortoises have a lower
survivorship than resident individuals (especially when moved during
the summer versus during the spring), but that negative effects
commonly associated with translocations are generally short-lived (1-2
years).

A 2004 population viability analysis for the Mojave desert tortoise
recommended that a minimum of 50,000 individuals are required for a 50
percent chance of persistence for 500 years, yet extrapolation of
Sonoran desert tortoise population data from southern Arizona suggest
that most populations number less than 20,000 individuals, with some as
low as several hundred (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). Because the
average generation time of a Sonoran desert tortoise is approximately
12-15 years and much of the urban development is relatively recent, the
full effect of developments as barriers to genetic exchange among
Sonoran desert tortoise populations cannot be fully assessed at this
time (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 486). Edwards et al. (2004, p. 495)
further cautioned that their estimates of gene flow are contingent on
what occurred pre-settlement, and should not be taken as evidence that
natural immigration or emigration still occurs.

In conclusion, the literature documents that urban development and
population growth, roads and highways, canals, railroad tracks, and
other types of development threaten the Sonoran desert tortoise by
creating barriers to movement in Arizona and, perhaps to a lesser
extent, in Sonora, Mexico. The creation of barriers affects the
tortoises’ genetic exchange capacity within and between populations,
which in turn affects their ability to recolonize habitat in the event
of population declines or extirpations, and may lead to isolation and
eventual genetic bottlenecking. This threat acts synergistically with
other factors as discussed above.

[Federal Register: December 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 239)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78093-78146]

The litanty of threats to plants and animals containined in petitions for endangered species listings and in US Fish and Wildlife decision to list…read like sermons on the evil of huamn activity.

The next step in the process is to throw the net as far and as wide as possible to define where the threatened or endangered plant or animal lives, could live, or once lived.

For prime example, Center for Biological Diversity is pushing for a “critical habitat” designation of most of southern and eastern Arizona for the jaguar.

Not coincidentally all efforts to designate “critical habitat”  or “protected habitat” seem to intersect with proposed projects or existing activities the litigious environmental groups don’t like.

The “critical habitat” of many species pursued for listing and habitat protection cover all the riparian areas of the state, all grazing lands, and so forth.

Right now there is a fight going on about a protected habitat designation for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog, and the Center for Biological Diversity is pushing to have the proposed Rosemont Mine site designated as frog habitat.

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Why…because once a “critical habitat” or “proitected habitat” is designated, no one can do anything inside that declared “critical or protected habitat” without permission from US Fish and Wildlife.

You think you own your land or water? Not really if your land and water serves as designated critical or protected habitat for a threatened or endangered species, subspecies or  distinct population.
_________________________________________________
The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation 

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Delhi Sands Fly

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

The third part of the use of the Endangered Species Act in the war against the American economy is Section 9 …. Which makes it a felony to “take” an endangered species.

The Endangered Species ActBy Virginia S. Albrecht and James N. Christman of Hunton & Williams LLP

Section 9: “Take” of Endangered or Threatened SpeciesESA § 9 prohibits everyone, private person and federal agency alike, from “taking” endangered wildlife. The regulations extend this to threatened animals (see e.g. , 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.31, 17.21). “Take” includes “harming” a listed species, [12] and “harm” is defined by FWS regulation to include habitat alteration:
Harm in the definition of “take” in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impacting essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

50 C.F.R. § 17.3. See Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon , 515 U.S. 687 (1995). Section 11(b) of the ESA makes it a crime knowingly to “take” an endangered species without a permit or violate a regulation implementing the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(b)(1). You are permitted, however, to defend yourself of others from bodily harm. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(b)(3).

This prohibition against “take” covers fish and wildlife but not plants. Cf . 16 U.S.C. § 1532(8) and § 1532(14). It is, however, illegal to remove an endangered plant from federal land and reduce it to possession, and federal law also federalizes state law prohibitions on the taking of plants.

The Secretary may issue a permit for an “incidental take” of listed species that are incidental to and not for the purpose of a proposed activity (ESA § 10). Permits may be issued only after the landowner submits a “habitat conservation plan” (HCP), including proposed mitigation measures and an explanation of why alternatives were rejected. If FWS finds that the “take” will be incidental, will be satisfactorily mitigated, and will not appreciably reduce the species’ chances for survival or recovery, it must issue the permit. There has been a move afoot recently to incorporate a “recovery” standard into HCPs, which would mean that HCPs would have to contribute affirmatively to the recovery of affected species, whereas under present law an HCP can be approved so long as it does not degrade the species further. HCPs can be very expensive to prepare and are especially burdensome for small businessmen and small landowners.

In 1996 the FWS and NMFS issued a joint Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process (HCP Handbook), which explains that HCPs may be processed under three models. 61 Fed. Reg. 63,854 (December 2, 1996); see also notice of draft addendum, 64 Fed. Reg. 11,485 (March 9, 1999). It created a “low-effect” HCP category for small landowners and other low-impact projects that have only minor or negligible effects on listed species or other environmental resources. A low-effect HCP is exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and does not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. “Moderate” HCPs require an environmental assessment, and “high-effect” ones require an environmental impact statement.

FWS’s and NMFS’s “no surprises” rule, 63 Fed. Reg. 8859 (February 23, 1998), allows an applicant for an incidental take permit to negotiate long-term assurances that no additional mitigation of impacts will be required, even if circumstances change. The rule provides some assurance that no additional land use restrictions or financial compensation will be required from the permit holder if unforeseen circumstances arise indicating that additional mitigation is necessary. It has been challenged in court by environmentalists.

In mid-1997 FWS and NMFS published a series of proposals having to do with their Safe Harbor Policy and Candidate Conservation Agreements. [13] The final version was published in June 1999. 64 Fed. Reg. 32,706, 32,717, 32,726 (June 17, 1999). Safe Harbor agreements are an attempt to soften the rule that no good deed goes unpunished. Landowners are often willing to manage their properties so as to improve habitat but may fear that if they are too successful and endangered animals colonize their land, they will then be prohibited from using the land in the future because of the § 9 “take” prohibition. In return for voluntarily undertaking land management activities that will provide a “net conservation benefit,” the landowner receives assurances that he will be allowed to alter or modify the property even if the alteration will result in an incidental “take” that would return the species back to originally agreed-upon “baseline conditions.” 62 Fed. Reg. 32,180 col. 1-2 (June 12, 1997).

Candidate Conservation Agreements, as their name suggests, apply to species that are not yet listed as threatened or endangered but are being considered for listing. They provide assurances that, if the covered species are eventually listed, the property owners or state or local land managing agencies will not be required to do more than the agreement calls for. 62 Fed. Reg. 32,183 col. 3 (June 12, 1997).

More…

Once you have a plant or animal designated as threatened or endangered, and you have gotten the critical habitat or protected habitat designated as widely as possible….the teeth in the Endangered Species Act is the “take” provision.

You cannot harm the plant or animal because if you do…you go to jail.

If you have lots of time and money and still want to go ahead with your protect that might cause a “taking” of an endangered species…you have to make a deal with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The deals are often called “habitat conservation plans”.

This often means modifying the design of your project or setting aside a portion of your project site as protected or critical habitat for the endangered species.

A prime example of how this works is the Delhi Sands Fly which lives near San Bernadino, California.

When the Delhi Sands Fly was first listed as an endangered species, serious consideration was given to shutting down Interstate 10 for the two week period when the Delhi Sands Fly is breeding.

Here is a very recent example of the impact of the Delhi Sands Fly…a “fly perserve” was created:

To minimize and mitigate incidental take of the Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly within the project area, the Applicant proposes to set aside
approximately 20 ac (8 ha) as a permanent, on-site conservation area.
The Applicant would fund the restoration and management of the
conservation area for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly through an
agreement with the Riverside Land Conservancy, a nonprofit land trust.

A couple of other items of interest on the Fly going back to the 90s. At one time I10 was almost closed down for the fly.

Also construction on a hospital was delayed for over a year and about $3 million in cost was added all for the fly.

(Friday, May 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29260-29261]

Incidental Take Permit; San Bernardino County, CA; Proposed
Habitat Conservation Plan, Draft Implementing Agreement, and Draft
Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have
received an application from Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
(Applicant), for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We are considering issuing a 25-year
permit to the Applicant that would authorize incidental take of the
endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly incidental to activities
related to operations and maintenance of storage and distribution
facilities for petroleum products within the Colton and Colton North
Terminals, and with habitat restoration and management on a proposed
on-site conservation area located in the cities of Rialto and Colton,
San Bernardino County, California. We request public comment on the
proposed HCP, draft Implementing Agreement, and draft Environmental
Assessment for the Applicant’s proposed activities.

DATES: Send written comments on or before July 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to Jim Bartel, Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011.You also
may send comments by facsimile to (760) 431-5902.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Corey, Assistant Field Supervisor,
at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office address above; telephone (760)
431-9440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have received an application from Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (Applicant), for an incidental take permit
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We are
considering issuing a 25-year permit to the Applicant that would
authorize take of the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
(Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) incidental to activities
described in the Applicant’s proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
The permit, if issued, would authorize incidental take of the species
associated with proposed site preparation, future construction, and
routine operations and maintenance of storage and distribution
facilities for petroleum products on approximately 20 acres (ac) (8
hectares (ha)) within the Colton and Colton North Terminals, and with
habitat restoration and management on a proposed approximately 20-ac
(8-ha) on-site conservation area, located in the cities of Rialto and
Colton, San Bernardino County, California.

Background

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations prohibit the “take”
of fish and wildlife species Federally listed as endangered or
threatened. Take of Federally listed fish or wildlife is defined under
the Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect listed species, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). “Harm” includes significant habitat
modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns such
as breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). To “harass”
includes the carrying out of an intentional or negligent act or
omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying
it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral
patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Under
limited circumstances, we may issue permits to authorize incidental
take, which the Act defines as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activities.
Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and
endangered species are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The incidental take permit, if
issued, would confer assurances to the Applicant regarding the
endangered Delhi Sands flower-

[[Page 29261]]

loving fly under the Service’s “No Surprises” regulation at 50 CFR
17.22(b)(5). Take authorization for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
would become effective upon permit issuance.

Project Location

The Applicant is proposing site preparation (vegetation clearing
and grading), future construction, and routine operations and
maintenance of storage and distribution facilities for petroleum
products on approximately 20 ac (8 ha) within the existing Colton and
Colton North Terminals and their respective pipeline easements in San
Bernardino County, California. The Colton Terminal is located in Rialto
and Colton, on the east side of Riverside Avenue, south of Slover
Avenue, and north of Santa Ana Avenue. The Colton North Terminal is
located in Colton, on the east side of Sycamore Avenue, and north and
south of Slover Avenue. The pipeline easements for the terminals
traverse the cities of Ontario, Fontana, Rialto, and Colton, from the
western end of Ontario International Airport to the Santa Ana River.
Land uses surrounding the terminals include petroleum facilities, city
streets, vacant lands, a flood control channel (Rialto Creek), and the
Colton Dunes Conservation Bank (operated by Vulcan Materials Company as
a conservation bank for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly).

Project Information

The Applicant is proposing a variety of projects located both on
and off the terminals. These projects are as follows:
(1) Clearance of all vegetation for future developments on several
of the vacant parcels located on the Colton and Colton North Terminals.
(2) Construction of the Calnev Expansion Project, a new 16-inch-
(41-centimeter-) diameter multiple-product pipeline in Colton. This
project also includes the construction of a new electrical transmission
line located just east of the Colton North Terminal.
(3) Future development of approximately 6.19 ac (2.5 ha) in the
westernmost area of the Sycamore North Parcel.
(4) Routine operations and maintenance of all facilities, including
excavations, inspections, and repairs to all the Applicant’s pipelines
and facilities located within the species’ habitat. The combined total
length of pipeline to be covered under the permit would be
approximately 26 miles.
(5) Inspection, repair (if necessary), and permanent reburial of
the exposed portion of Line Section 111, which is located on lands
owned by Union Pacific east of the Colton North Terminal.
(6) The placement of Southern California Edison (SCE) substation
facilities (i.e., electrical transmission line tower, access roads,
etc.) off site, within lands owned by the Union Pacific Railroad
Company, just outside the northeastern boundary of the Colton North
Terminal.
Based on the results of focused surveys, we consider undeveloped
portions of the proposed project area, which contain habitat of varying
suitability, as occupied by the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly.
Therefore, we have determined that the Applicant’s proposed activities
would result in incidental take of the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly.
No other Federally listed species are known to occupy the site.
To minimize and mitigate incidental take of the Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly within the project area, the Applicant proposes to set aside
approximately 20 ac (8 ha) as a permanent, on-site conservation area.
The Applicant would fund the restoration and management of the
conservation area for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly through an
agreement with the Riverside Land Conservancy, a nonprofit land trust.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have prepared the draft Environmental Assessment under the
National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), to analyze the impacts of authorizing incidental take of the
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, based on the Applicant’s application for
an incidental take permit and the proposed HCP included with the
application. The proposed HCP describes the Applicant’s proposed
development activities and the measures the Applicant will undertake to
minimize and mitigate the effects of incidental take to the maximum
extent practicable. The proposed issuance of an incidental take permit
is a Federal action requiring Service compliance with NEPA and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6. Our draft Environmental
Assessment analyzes the environmental consequences of three
alternatives: (1) The “Proposed Action,” which would result in
Service issuance of an incidental take permit and implementation of the
Applicant’s proposed HCP; (2) an “Other Compensation Lands”
alternative, which would involve permit issuance and implementation of
a HCP based on the purchase of credits at the Colton Dunes Conservation
Bank; and (3) a “No Action” alternative, which would not involve
Service issuance of an incidental take permit or the Applicant’s
implementation of a HCP, would not result in impacts to the Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly, and would not establish any additional conservation.

One could argue that endangered species have more rights in America than do people.
____________________________________________________
The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

A nice summary article about the Endangered Species Act from FindLaw:

The Endangered Species Act
By Virginia S. Albrecht and James N. Christman of Hunton & Williams LLP

Overview
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973  ^[1]     protects plants and animals that are listed by the federal government as “endangered” or “threatened.”  ^[2]     Two sections, § 7 and § 9, are central.ESA § 9 makes it unlawful for anyone to “take” a listed animal, and this includes significantly modifying its habitat.  ^[3]     This applies to private parties and private land; a landowner is not allowed to harm an endangered animal or its habitat on his property.

Section 7 applies not to private parties but to federal agencies, but it covers their issuing permits for private activities, such as § 404 permits issued by the Corps of Engineers to people who want to do construction work in waters or wetlands. Specifically, § 7 imposes an affirmative duty on federal agencies to ensure that their actions (including permitting) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species (plant or animal) or result in the destruction or modification of critical habitat. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(a). Both § 7 and § 9 allow “incidental” takes, but only with a permit.

The ESA is enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS).  ^[4]     In the Act, “Secretary” refers to the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the NMFS for marine species listed in 50 C.F.R. § 222.23(a) (endangered) and § 227.4 (threatened),  ^[5]     or to the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for other plants and animals (see 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.2(b), 402.01(b)). Also, the Secretary of Agriculture has some authority over the importing and exporting of plants.

The ESA has so much potential to affect private property that it provokes heated debate and, sometimes, alarming newspaper headlines. Three cases in particular have become famous. The first was the Tellico Dam, which was begun before the ESA was enacted in 1973. The project came to a halt when the Secretary of the Interior declared a small fish called the snail darter to be endangered. Its habitat was thought to be limited to the part of the Little Tennessee River that was to be inundated by the reservoir behind the dam. The case reached the Supreme Court, which concluded that the ESA required it to stop construction of the dam, even though $53 million had already been spent. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill , 437 U.S. 153 (1978). Eventually Congress directed  ^[6]     that the Tellico Dam be completed, and President Carter declined to veto the bill. Meanwhile populations of the snail darter had been transplanted  ^[7]     to other nearby rivers, and evidence of other natural populations of them had been discovered as well. The snail darter was upgraded to merely “threatened” in 1984.

The second famous case was the 1990 listing of the northern spotted owl as endangered, with the result that millions of acres of Pacific Northwest forests became protected habitat. See Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society , 503 U.S. 429 (1992). The timber industry was alarmed at the loss of millions of acres of timberlands, labor unions worried about the loss of jobs, and homebuilding and real estate interests argued that there would be even wider economic harm. President Bush, campaigning for his second term as President, said “[i]t is time to make people more important than owls.”

The third case was that of an immigrant who found that his farm near Bakersfield, California, was listed as habitat for the Tipton kangaroo rat and could not for that reason be plowed. He plowed anyway and was jailed, reportedly, for five months. In a related story, it was reported that restrictions on clearing brush in rat habitat had prevented firefighters from plowing a firebreak, causing more than a dozen houses to burn. The facts about these cases, however, were disputed, and it is hard to know where the truth lies.

The ESA retains its power to alarm people and business interests, especially when the economic costs are high and the species unglamorous. The statute, after all, protects insects such as the Delhi sands flower-loving fly and Hungerford’s crawling water beetle as well as the bald eagle and grizzly bear. In August 1999 Colton, California, made the news because the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly was interfering with plans to develop an industrial park. Although the law contains some provisions for considering the economic cost of protecting plants and animals, Congress wrote the most important ESA provisions in sweeping and near absolute terms.  ^[8]     In the Tellico Dam case, the Supreme Court said that Congress had intended endangered species to be afforded the highest of priorities. 437 U.S. at 169.

More…

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

From: The Endangered Species ActBy Virginia S. Albrecht and James N. Christman of Hunton & Williams LLP

The ESA protects only plants and animals that have been officially listed as “endangered” or “threatened.” The procedures for listing a species are in § 4 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1533, and the regulations in 50 C.F.R. Part 424. The actual lists are in 50 C.F.R. Part 17.
An “endangered” species is one that is “in danger of extinction” throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6). A “threatened” species is one that is “likely to become endangered” within the foreseeable future. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20).

Congress refined these definitions into five criteria, any one of which will justify listing: impacts to the species’ habitat or range; overuse of the species by humans; disease or predators; inadequacy of existing legal protections; or “other natural or man-made factors” affecting the species’ continued existence. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1). More detailed criteria for listing are in 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(2). Importantly, the decision to list is made “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.” 50 C.F.R. § 424.11(b). It is made solely on biological grounds, without consideration of economic or other issues.

The listing process starts either with nomination of a species by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service or by a petition from anyone or any agency. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A). How the FWS manages listing petitions is described at http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp/petman.html . Once the FWS or NMFS decides that a petition for listing is warranted, it undertakes a “status review” and within a year must decide to list the species, reject the proposal or petition, or give itself more time. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B). If the agency rejects the petition, its decision is subject to court review. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(C)(ii).

If it decides to list the species, it must propose a rule under the informal rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(4). After it publishes notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, the agency has one year to make a decision. Notice of the proposal is distributed to fish and wildlife experts and state and local governments, and a hearing must be held (if one is requested) within 45 days of publishing the proposed rule. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(5)(E); 50 C.F.R. § 424.16(c)(3).

Because of “serious backlogs” of listing actions, FWS has proposed guidance for assigning relative priorities to them. 63 Fed. Reg. 10,931 (March 5, 1998). The guidance divides listing actions into Tiers 1, 2, and 3, with the highest priority being Tier 1, which is for listings under the emergency listing provision of § 4(b)(7) of the ESA for species that face a significant and imminent risk to their well-being.

When the agency determines that a species is endangered or threatened, it is also supposed to designate the species’ “critical habitat” (16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3)). Critical habitat includes the areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species” and which may require special management considerations or protection. It also includes other specific areas, not presently occupied by the species, that are essential for its conservation; this means that a person’s land might be designated critical habitat for an endangered kangaroo rat even if no such rat had ever been found on the property. The agency must use the “best scientific data available” to designate critical habitat (id. § 1533(b)(2)), but the economic impact must also be considered: an area can be excluded from “critical habitat” on a cost-benefit basis, unless excluding it would “result in the extinction of the species.” Nevertheless, the Services often decline to examine economic impact when they designate critical habitat because, they argue, the impacts of critical habitat designation over and above the impacts of the listing itself are only “minimal.” See 64 Fed. Reg. 5741 col. 2 (February 5, 1999) (proposed designation of critical habitat for steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California).

The lists of threatened and endangered wildlife and plants are 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.11 and 17.12. Critical habitats are found in 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.95 and 17.96 and 50 C.F.R. Part 226. The official FWS list is at http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp/vertdata.html . [9]

If a species recovers and gets out of danger, it can be delisted, after notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 424.11(d). A species may also be upgraded from endangered to merely threatened, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(2)(B)(ii), although in practice there is little difference either to the species or to affected landowners. The bald eagle, to name the most famous example, was listed as endangered in 1978, [10] was reclassified as “threatened” in 1995, and may be delisted entirely by the end of 1999.

Listing decisions are subject to judicial review and can be overturned if, for example, the agency failed to articulate a rationale for the listing or failed to follow procedures. See Northern Spotted Owl (Strix Occidentalis Caurina) v. Hodel , 716 F. Supp. 479, 481 (W.D. Wash. 1988); Idaho Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt , 839 F. Supp. 739 (D. Ohio 1993).

“Candidate” species are species that FWS or NMFS is considering listing as endangered or threatened but which are not yet the subject of a proposed rule. From time to time FWS publishes a notice in the Federal Register listing “candidate or proposed” species. See, e.g. , 62 Fed. Reg. 49,397 (September 19, 1997). Candidate species are afforded no protection under the ESA, but § 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires the agencies to monitor the status of certain candidate taxa “to prevent their extinction while awaiting listing.” See 58 Fed. Reg. 51,146 col. 2 (September 30, 1993). If a petition to list a species is warranted but listing is “precluded by other actions to revise the lists,” the species is declared “warranted but precluded”; these require a new finding within a year.

More…

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

From Findlaw:

The Endangered Species Act

By Virginia S. Albrecht and James N. Christman of Hunton & Williams LLP

Section 7 Consultation

ESA § 7 regulates federal agencies, requiring them to ensure that their activities are “not likely to jeopardize” listed species or their habitats:

Each federal agency shall . . . ensure 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 of such species . . . .

16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). To make this decision, the federal agency “consults” with FWS or NMFS. The “consultation” process is described in 50 C.F.R. Part 402, and the federal agencies have published an Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. See 64 Fed. Reg. 31,285 (June 10, 1999).

Consultation has several steps.  ^{[11]   First the agency asks the FWS (or NMFS) whether a protected species “may be present” in the area. If so, the agency prepares a “biological assessment” to determine the impact. (A biological assessment is mandatory, under 50 C.F.R. § 402.12(b)(1), for federal actions that are “major construction activities.”) Next FWS reviews the information and prepares a “biological opinion” (16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A)). If it finds the proposed action “not likely to jeopardize” the plant or animal (a “no jeopardy” opinion), it must specify the impact of any “incidental take” of the species, necessary mitigating measures, and conditions that should be imposed on the activity.}

If the FWS or NMFS issues a “jeopardy” opinion, it must also propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that would not violate the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(d); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(3). The applicant then has several choices. He can take the “reasonable and prudent alternative” offered by FWS. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(3). He can appeal to the Endangered Species Committee, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(g), which is expensive and time-consuming. Or he can seek judicial review in federal court.

More…

Put simply whenever a federal agency wants to do something that might impact an endangered species, it must have a Section 7 Consult which gives US Fish and Wildife a shot at the other agency’s project and an opportunity to hold that other agency hostage for money from their budget to be transferred to US Fish & Wildlife’s budget via what is called an “InterAgency Agreement”.

For prime example: Highway robbery federal style …how US Fish & Wildlife gets funds to study bats because US Customs and Border Protection built a fence on the border
____________________________________________
Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions