Bush Appointee Said to Reject Advice on Endangered Species

LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Bush Appointee Said to Reject Advice on Endangered Species

Bush Appointee Said to Reject Advice on Endangered Species

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 30, 2006; Page A03

A senior Bush political appointee at the Interior Department has rejected staff scientists' recommendations to protect imperiled animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act at least six times in the past three years, documents show.

In addition, staff complaints that their scientific findings were frequently overruled or disparaged at the behest of landowners or industry have led the agency's inspector general to look into the role of Julie MacDonald, who has been deputy assistant secretary of the interior for fish and wildlife and parks since 2004, in decisions on protecting endangered species.

The documents show that MacDonald has repeatedly refused to go along with staff reports concluding that species such as the white-tailed prairie dog and the Gunnison sage grouse are at risk of extinction. Career officials and scientists urged the department to identify the species as either threatened or endangered.

Overall, President Bush's appointees have added far fewer species to the protected list than did the administrations of either Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush, according to the advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity. As of now, the administration has listed 56 species under the Endangered Species Act, for a rate of about 10 a year. Under Clinton, officials listed 512 species, or 64 a year, and under George H.W. Bush, the department listed 234, or 59 a year.

The dispute is the latest in a series of controversies in which government officials and outside scientists have accused the Bush administration of overriding or setting aside scientific findings that clashed with its political agenda on such issues as global warming, the Plan B emergency contraceptive and stem cell research.

Interior spokesman Hugh Vickery said the agency has added fewer plants and animals to the list because it has been mired in lawsuits over existing listings and was more focused on ensuring their recovery than in identifying new ones.

MacDonald said she does not make the decision on whether to federally protect a species, because the head of the Fish and Wildlife Service has that responsibility. But she said she had made her feelings clear in an array of documents; overruled scientists' conclusions in areas where she has authority, such as designating critical habitat; and mocked rank-and-file employees' recommendations.

MacDonald said she sees her job as protecting "the public face of the Fish and Wildlife Service" by carefully scrutinizing listing documents that often seem vague or unsupported by evidence.

"A lot of times when I first read a document I think, 'This is a joke, this is just not right.' So I'll ask questions," said MacDonald, a civil engineer by training who worked at the California Resources Agency before joining the Interior Department in 2002. "These documents have tremendous economic and social implications for people."

Since the act's inception in 1973, the government has identified 1,337 domestic species as threatened or endangered, of which 1,311 remain on the list. At any given time the government is evaluating hundreds of candidate species: Officials and scientists review all the available scientific literature on a plant or animal before awarding it protection.

The process can take several years, even though under law it should take no more than two years and three months.

Hundreds of pages of records, obtained by environmental groups through the Freedom of Information Act, chronicle the long-running battle between MacDonald and Fish and Wildlife Service employees over decisions whether to safeguard plants and animals from oil and gas drilling, power lines, and real estate development, spiced by her mocking comments on their work and their frequently expressed resentment.

Two advocacy groups, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Center for Biological Diversity, provided the documents to The Washington Post. Francesca Grifo, who directs the union's scientific integrity program, said MacDonald's actions are "not business as usual but a systemic problem of tampering with science that is putting our environment at risk."

In a few instances, federal judges have overturned decisions that MacDonald had influenced. After she declared that the endangered Santa Barbara and Sonoma salamanders were no longer "distinct populations" entitled to protection, William Alsup, a judge on the U.S. District Court for Northern California, ruled that MacDonald had arbitrarily instructed Fish and Wildlife scientists to downgrade the two species even though an agency scientist concluded that "genetics state otherwise."

"This is not to suggest that the Secretary of Interior has no role in the ultimate decision," Alsup wrote. "If the Secretary wants to re-assess the evidence, he may choose to do so, but, in doing so, he must set forth a discernible rationale."

In several instances, MacDonald wrote sarcastic comments in the margins of the documents, questioning why scientists were portraying a species' condition as so bleak. When scientists raised the possibility that a proposed road might degrade the greater sage grouse's habitat, which is scattered through 11 Western states, MacDonald wrote: "Has nothing to do with sage grouse. This belongs in a treatise on 'Why roads are bad'?"

MacDonald acknowledged that her comments appeared harsh at times.

"Mea culpa," she said of the roads comment. "I read so many of these I get frustrated sometimes. I shouldn't be flippant. I shouldn't be sarcastic."

MacDonald has repeatedly urged employees to consider the position of industry officials more seriously when weighing whether to declare a species threatened or endangered. During a discussion of greater sage grouse populations in the first half of the 1800s, she wrote, "This paragraph completely ignores the comments received by the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association and the Idaho Cattle Association." The organization opposed the listing on the grounds that it would limit their use of land where the birds live.

During a separate rulemaking concerning the threatened bull trout's habitat on the Klamath River, Fish and Wildlife officials debated via e-mail on how to respond to MacDonald. Her questions, they believed, reflected the concerns of Ronald Yockim, a lawyer representing three Idaho counties opposing a pending decision to protect nearly 300 miles of the river. After MacDonald's intervention, Fish and Wildlife officials opted to protect 42 miles instead.

John Young, a Fish and Wildlife biologist, wrote to several colleagues: "Yockim is an attorney representing various interest groups. It appears that Julie has shared our responses to her comments with Yockim, which have generated additional comments from Yockim. It seems to me it would be inappropriate to essentially continue the public comment period (it is closed) by contacting and responding to his follow-up questions/comments that he did not provide during the comment period."

MacDonald said that she was following up on a letter Yockim had sent and that the solicitor's office had approved such contacts.

MacDonald said that on occasion she told officials they did not have to heed her advice. In documents concerning the white-tailed prairie dog, an e-mail from her on Oct. 25, 2004, stated, "None of these changes are final or a directive."

But on Nov. 1, an official in the Denver regional office, Seth Wiley, sent a follow-up e-mail that said: "Just spoke with Chris Nolan and Kurt Johnson. Julie McD and the Department want to go with a not-warranted listing."

Before issuing that memo, MacDonald changed how the agency characterized the threats facing the species. Staff scientists wrote in a summary that "both documents clearly identify current and projected threats to the species, including mortality and habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation. We believe further evaluation of the extent of leasing and current and projected oil and gas development is necessary."

MacDonald eliminated the reference to energy leases and added: "The identified threats are speculative, and neither document provides substantial scientific information supporting the speculation."

Amid the complaints, Interior officials have privately contacted the ranking Democrat on the House Resources Committee, Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (W.Va.), who plans to hold oversight hearings into the matter if his party retakes the majority in next month's elections.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Anyone with any

Anyone with any understanding of cause-effect relationships can see that the ESA is a very bad law. It's not motivation for owners and potential developers of land to preserve the endangered species. If they see an endangered species on their property, the ESA would have them cease development. Hence, they're more likely to kill it, bury it, and not tell anyone about it. "Shoot, shovel, and shut up." Which certainly isn't any good for preserving the species.

If they're not enforcing the law, they're probably saving a lot of animals' lives in the process. The habitat? Maybe not, but animals will move elsewhere.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
to assume animals can just

to assume animals can just go anywhere, is not right. It's about ecological niches. Some animals need home ranges that are hundreds of miles in diameter. Others are so specialized to an area that the destruction of the environment would be exactly what they would need to become extinct. But this has much more to do with animals. One of the most basic fundamental ecological points is that certain ecological systems are fundamental for filtering out pollutants, erosion, disease etc...destruction of many of these systems inevitably increases the risk of disease, polution and erosion etc... The ESA is designed to protect not only the species but the ecosystems. Developers: 1 don't understand this and 2 are blinded by $$$$$$$$$$$$$ But I'm assuming as an anarchist you don't beleive in any form of governmental oversight over the stewardship of this earth. However, I find it that individual developers aren't exactly the "stewards" of the envoronment, that's why I believe in governmental oversight over this specific purpose.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote:to assume

Quote:
The ESA is designed to protect not only the species but the ecosystems.

Intention and actual results frequently depart. Even a law with the best of intentions that has negative consequences should be repealed. It doesn't matter what message it sends.

Quote:
Developers: 1 don't understand this and 2 are blinded by $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Yes. But that doesn't change the effect it has on them. Excuses do not change the facts. ESA makes developers shoot/shovel/shut up. It doesn't matter if they're evil selfish environmentally unaware capitalist pigs. Go ahead and blame them for it, instead of blaming the law, but you won't be able to change the fact that they're doing it because the law is there.

If you want to protect the habitats, buy the land before a developer does.

Quote:
But I'm assuming as an anarchist you don't beleive in any form of governmental oversight over the stewardship of this earth.

Government is the worst landlord in history. If you like the environment, keep it away from government.

Quote:
However, I find it that individual developers aren't exactly the "stewards" of the envoronment, that's why I believe in governmental oversight over this specific purpose.

Developers have motivation to keep the land at least in good shape. Government doesn't. Who's the better landlord? The guy that bought the land or the guy that stole it?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'd be more in favor of

I'd be more in favor of making the penalties against doing such a thing so harsh that they wouldn't just "kill it and bury it." ie - 25 years in prison instead of just a fine. And I do think if someone can't do something with land because of an endangered species being there, the government should buy the land at a fair price.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I'd be

MattShizzle wrote:
I'd be more in favor of making the penalties against doing such a thing so harsh that they wouldn't just "kill it and bury it." ie - 25 years in prison instead of just a fine.

That's stupid. First of all, the people that do that don't get caught. Second, you can kill someone and get a shorter sentence than that. Just because some bird is rare doesn't mean it's worse to kill the bird than the human.

If you care so much, why don't you buy a bunch of land specifically not to develop it?

Quote:
And I do think if someone can't do something with land because of an endangered species being there, the government should buy the land at a fair price.

That "fair price" is never fair. By it's nature, it cannot be fair, because it is not allowed onto the market where it's price could be determined. They just assess it and pull a number out of their ass. And they don't get paid to appraise it at a high price.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I don't buy land for that

I don't buy land for that purpose because I'm not some rich motherfucker that can afford to buy land.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
To be honest, I hate

To be honest, I hate capitalism even more than I hate religion. If I had one wish it would be to destroy the entire free market system - and execute those who are the foremost in promoting it.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Well you're letting your

Well you're letting your hate blind you to reason, so stop hating it so much and start thinking about it instead.