Judge OKs Rule That May Endanger Species

[Snazzy]

Source: AP

Judge OKs Rule That May Endanger Species

Aug 31, 6:12 PM (ET)

By JOHN HEILPRIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge has upheld the government's practice of allowing development to proceed even if it is discovered after a project begins that the work could endanger protected species.

The National Association of Home Builders praised the ruling Friday, saying its members might have had to delay some projects if U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had not agreed with the "no surprises" approach to development.

"The vast majority of endangered species exist on private property, and there is no way to protect endangered species unless sufficient incentives are given to private landowners," said Duane Desiderio, the trade group's vice president for legal affairs.

The case affects a pair of rules which allow landowners and developers to obtain a permit that lets them off the hook for incidentally killing, injuring or harassing rare animals, and damaging or killing rare plants. Development projects must be accompanied by a plan for addressing protections for the natural places where plants and animals live.

....


Read more: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070831/D8RC95A00.html

[Mojorabbit]

1. I just keep telling myself

just a little bit longer and all this can be overturned....I hope. Everything is upside down between this and the judge that is letting the navy use their sonar.

[okoboji]

2. I hope your right

I fear the day, I open the paper and read ... "Bush says, "Fuck it, kill all the people, animals and plants if it means making money."

[Snazzy]

3. says that everyday

if you read between the lines.

[ladjf]

4. The human race has unwittingly create a complex global death

machine. It is highly unlikely that they will have the intelligence and will to dismantle it before it carries out its mission.

[SageCouncil]

5. Judge OKs Rule

Thank you Snazzy for posting this story. 

Spirit of the Sage Council has led this fight for endangered
species since 1996 in the courts, with the help of Eric
Glitzenstein - his partners and staff - Meyer, Glitzenstein
& Crystal. We won the first three legal challenges and got
some improvements i.e. HCP guidance measures, clarification
that a permit could be revoked etc. But I can publicly state,
that I am not satisfied with just those things. Especially, if
they are without mandates. During the court hearing, Judge
Sullivan discussed the issue of the Endangered Species Act
having an "exemptions" section (Section 10 Habitat
Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits). This is
generally what he said "This is where the slippery slope
began, back in 1984." He looked at me in the courtroom
and said "If you were around then, you would have brought
a legal challenge?" I nodded in agreement. Unfortunately,
the Sage Council was not formed and I wasn't an
activist/conservationist in 1984. We didn't enter into the
theater of War on the Wild till 1991. Back in 1984, when the
Endangered Species Act was up for reauthorization by Congress,
several big D.C. national orgs, along with Congress, allowed
this travesty to happen -- gutting protections for endangered
species. Then in 1994, the Act was up for reauthorization
again (every ten years). Clinton/Babbitt made 10 "user
friendly" changes to the Act, without Congress. The
changes were made through an announcement, with public notice
and comment via the Federal Register. These "user
friendly" changes to the Act are also referred to as
"landowner incentives". *Note "user
friendly" mean friendly to users/industry.

Sage Council sued Secretary Babbitt for failing to provide
public notice and comment on the "No Surprises"
guarantee (policy) to landowners. Govt agreed and issued the
No Surprises rule. Over 800 scientists, conservationist,
tribes and others provided comments that opposed the use of No
Surprises Rule in the Endangered Species Act. 200 Scientists,
in a joint letter, found that the Rule would "push
endangered species towards extinction..." and that
"Nature is full of surprises." Regardless of the
scientists warnings, Secretary Babbitt approved the No
Surprises Rule, that it was desired by landowners to have this
incentive. *Note - landowners are nonfederal landowners -
States, Counties, Cities, Water Districts and Timber,
Development, Mining industries (users or takers).

Sage Council sued Babbitt again for approving the No Surprises
Rule. During the lawsuit, the Clinton Administration created a
Permit Revocation Rule (PRR). This was done to effect our
legal challenge to the No Surprises Rule. So, we sued on No
Surprises and the PRR. Judge Sullivan found that the PRR was
intertwined with No Surprises and told the govt to go back and
revise the rules to consider and explain how the revised Rules
would benefit endangered species. The govt didn't want to, so
they appealed the decision and motioned the Court to prevent
the Sage Council from legally challenging the revised Rules.
Judge Sullivan ruled against the govt and allowed Sage Council
to continue our legal challenge to the revised Rules. During
this time (more than 6 mos), the govt wasn't allowed to give
No Surprises guarantees to those who wanted to kill endangered
species and destroy habitat for development, logging etc.

Finally, in 2007 (11 years later) Judge Sullivan starts making
decisions on the substantial issues of the case. Does the No
Surprises and Permit Revocation Rules weaken the protective
measures for listed species, under the Endangered Species Act,
that are subject to Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental
Take Permits (HCPs/ITPs)
(Section 10 exemption clause). Judge Sullivan basically
believes that the exemption clause only requires the
survival/existence of the species. Whereas, other sections of
the Endangered Species Act require conservation/recovery
(increase in numbers). Therefore, Judge Sullivan's logic (or
lack of) is that it doesn't matter if No Surprises guarantees
to takers/killers (permit holders) threatens recovery of
endangered species, because the exemption section doesn't
require recovery.

What I'd like all of the readers to consider is this - Sage
Council is a small charity. We don't have a lot of funding or
paid staff. We took on this huge and important battle for
endangered species because 1. It is needed, and 2. The big
budgeted D.C. groups and others, with  $millions of funding
annually, were doing NOTHING to stop this attack on the
Endangered Species Act. As a matter of fact, Environmental
Defense, Defenders of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy,Center
for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League,
Endangered Species Coalition are supporting "Landowner
incentives." Just like in 1984, these groups in 2007 are
rolling over to industry and conceding to their desires to
receive assurances of Incidental Take Permits (License to
Kill). 

If you, the public, want the Sage Council to continue to fight
for endangered species then please send a donation. We still
owe over $20,000. to Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal. If we
do appeal this horrible court decision by Judge Sullivan, we
will need to raise at least another $20,000. Please send your
donations to...

Spirit of the Sage Council
439 Westwood SC #144, Fayetteville, NC 28315

Please make your check payable to - The Habitat Trust for
Wildlife
They are our 501c3 fiscal sponsor (Tax ID# 04-3637770)
Please write Sage Council on the memo area of your check

You can also donate on PayPal - send to [e-mail]
(The Habitat Trust) We are also listed on Changes and Network
for Good.

Thank you for caring about our conservation work and the
recovery of endangered species.

Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director
Spirit of the Sage Council
www.myspace.com/sagecouncil  www.sagecouncil.com
Second Life - SongbirdClone Writer

[Snazzy]

7. Welcome to DU!

And sounds like you are up to some important and interesting work. Bookmarked your site and will investigate further, cheers!

:toast:

(Also I'm by no means a DU expert, but topic areas besides the rapidly moving news section might be better to introduce your organization. There's a lot of them, and some cool activist geared stuff, but my time and attention span are limited so I'm usually in LBN personally.)

[Omaha Steve]

6. Mother Nature is running out of tears....

So am I.

[BreweryYardRat]

8. We should be able to appeal it again...

...and hopefully get a judge who isn't grossly corrupt and/or stupid.

Wonder how much the developers bribed him with?

[sofa king]

9. Isn't that cute?

Since the EPA and the Department of the Interior are now run by a bunch of criminal political hacks, there's no chance they can be bribed to look the other way until construction begins.