Federal Government Rules on Assurances for Endangered Species

Latest News Services Circuits Contact Us Archives Subscribe Search

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RULES ON ASSURANCES FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES

WASHINGTON, DC, December 13, 2004 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Friday, U.S. Department of the Interior issued a court mandated Rule on how the Fish and Wildlife Service intends to proceed in providing assurances to endangered species. The D.C. federal court case, Spirit of the Sage Council v. Norton, was initiated over seven years ago as a challenge to the "No Surprises" assurances policy that the Service was giving to non-federal landowners who were seeking guaranteed permits to kill or "take" endangered plants and wildlife in order to continue timber logging, development and other such activities.

While the No Surprises policy was deemed a landowner incentive to protect our Nation's endangered wildlife during the Clinton era, there was an enormous outcry by the scientific and conservation community that these policies were unlawful and unscientific.

Spirit of the Sage Council, a grassroots group with offices in Southern California and North Carolina, led a series of successful legal challenges on behalf of hundreds of animal species subject to the Services "take permits" since 1996.

Initially, the Sage Council forced the U.S. Department of Interior to allow public comment on policy changes to the Endangered Species Act. In response over 800 scientists, including renowned conservation biologists wrote to Secretary Babbitt expressing their concerns that the No Surprises rule would limit the ability and need for species recovery.

"Nature is full of surprises," stated Dr. Shawn Smallwood in a letter that was signed by dozens of his peers. Regardless, Fish and Wildlife Service ruled in 1999, that because landowners desired certainty, that a No Surprises assurances clause would be given.

Landowners seeking permits to kill endangered species wanted No Surprises assurances as a guarantee that the government would not require any additional habitat lands or waters for endangered species whether or not a Habitat Conservation Plan was providing adequate conservation measures. Conservationists believe that in doing so, the government was taking away assurances guaranteed to endangered plants and wildlife in the Endangered Species Act.

So, Spirit of the Sage Council sued again with the legal counsel of the law office of Meyer & Glitzenstein, Washington, D.C.

Again, the Sage Council won in Court with an order, for the Bush administration to remand No Surprises and the Permit Revocation Rules back to the Fish and Wildlife Service for further review of public comments and to make a new decision on how to implement the Endangered Species Act.

The Services balked at the Court order and appealed it back to Judge Sullivan, who denied the appeal request.

The Services then filed a second appeal, requesting a Stay, so that No Surprises could continue to be used while the court was going to be deciding on the Appeal request not to have any further public comment. Earlier this week the Court denied the Stay on the temporary use of No Surprises in "take permits."

"This has been a long hard fight for our Nation.s wildlife and their recovery," stated Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director of the Sage Council. "The Endangered Species Act is meant to provide assurances for the conservation of plants and wildlife. The Bush administration appears set on making the law toothless. There's no point placing an endangered species in an emergency room if they are never going to see the Doctor to receive care. The Fish and Wildlife Service goes straight from listing a species as endangered to issuing 'take permits' to kill them."

"There are Plans approved and in process that allow 'take permits' to be issued to over 800 different species on 135 MILLION ACRES. This is a biodiversity time-bomb that has been lit by the Bush administration for industry benefactors."

The new No Surprises and Permit Revocation Rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service today responds to comments. Whether or not the Rule responds to the conservation needs of endangered plants and wildlife is a matter that the Sage Council and others are examining. "My initial impression of it is skeptical at best," said Klippstein. "It still appears that the government is succumbing to corporate interests rather than sound science. We'll be looking at other legal options on how to best address the latest version."

According to Eric Glitzenstein, legal counsel for plaintiffs, "We still believe that No Surprises is and always will be an awful, scientifically bankrupt policy that should be eliminated, it is clear that our lawsuit has been extremely valuable -- when we started this effort seven years ago, the government did not even acknowledge that it could revoke .take permits. in species jeopardy situations, nor had it committed to adaptive management, monitoring, and similar clauses in permit."

CONTACT:

Leeona Klippstein
Spirit of the Sage Council
(910) 947-5091 and (626) 676-4116
leeona@earthlink.net

Eric Glitzenstein (202) 588-5206
Law Office of Meyer and Glitzenstein

World-Wire is a resource provided by Environment News Service
To Unsubscribe or Change Account Settings: Click here