D.C. District Court Rules Against Recovery of Endangered Species in Habitat Plans

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION – Breaking News

U.S. Courts, Environment, Science, Politics, Business



CONTACTS –

Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council (910) 947-5091, (626) 676-4116

SKYPE – leeona.klippstein email- leeona [at] earthlink.net http://www.myspace.com/sagecouncil http://www.sagecouncil.com

Katherine Meyer, Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal (202) 588-5206

Jon Lovvorn, Humane Society of U.S. (202) 955-3669



D.C. District Court Rules Against Endangered Species Recovery

Conservation Plans Nationwide Allow Permits To Kill & Destruction of Millions of Acres



On Thursday afternoon, Judge Emmett Sullivan, D.C. District Court, released his Decision and Order regarding the biggest legal challenges to the federal Endangered Species Act in the law's 22-year history. (Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. v. U.S. Interior Secretary Kempthorne).



For over a decade, several nonprofit conservation groups, led by Spirit of the Sage Council have filed numerous lawsuits against the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, over Rule Makings that effect hundreds of various endangered species. The two federal Rules are referred to as No Surprises and Permit Revocation. Each Rule are vital aspects in how federal government agencies implement the Endangered Species Act.



The Sage Council, including the Humane Society of the U.S., contended that the No Surprises Rule was in violation of the Act and prevented the recovery of endangered species that the Services were issuing Incidental Take Permits for. No Surprises gives an assurance to nonfederal landowners that once a permit is issued to them, the federal government will not ever require them to provide additional conservation habitat or measures. Sage Council contended that this sort of permit guarantee could effect a species ability to recover if it was found that a Habitat Conservation Plan was inadequate to where species were declining in numbers. Since 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has approved over 500 Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) with Incidental Take Permits (license to kill) over 500 listed endangered species, including No Surprises guarantees, that destroy over SIXTY MILLION HABITAT ACRES.



“While the American public has been sleeping and lulled by the idea that the Endangered Species Act protects our nation’s plants and wildlife, the reality is that a biodiversity time-bomb has exploded.” Said Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director of the Sage Council. “Yes, a tree does fall in the forest when you can’t hear it! In this case, hundreds of various rare and endangered species are being killed and millions of habitat acres gone through so-called Habitat Conservation Plans that are created for the sole purpose of allowing development, timber, mining industries to continue on and profit. It’s the loophole exemption in the law that acts as a noose on biodiversity.”



Interveners of the lawsuit, supporting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries use of No Surprises in Incidental Take Permits, included numerous building and timber industry interests. Defendant’s contended that Section 10 of the Act, Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits only had to meet survival standards, otherwise referred to “jeopardy.”



Ruling in favor of the defendant government agencies, Judge Sullivan’s decision presumed, “that the Services will faithfully execute their duties” when they determine whether the conditions of the Incidental Take Permits are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. Judge Sullivan’s decision runs counter to other recent court decisions of other districts.



“If Incidental Take Permits are to be permitted to undercut the recovery of endangered species, then it is vitally important that Congress revisit this provision of the Act -- the whole idea beyond this amendment to the statute was to allow the rare taking of an already extremely imperiled species, in exchange for a guarantee that the taker would do something to protect the species as a whole - a meaning that has been completely forsaken by the FWS and the district opinion” stated Katherine Meyer of the D.C. public interest law office, Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal.



In California (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Bartel, 2006 )and Alabama (Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 1998), District Courts upheld that Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits have to provide for species recovery as defined by the word “conservation.” Judge Sullivan reasoned that the other district courts had made their decisions without “closely scrutinizing” the text of Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. Judge Sullivan stated, “Thus, while applicants must submit a “conservation” plan, the statutory text makes clear that the ITPs [permits to kill] can be granted even if doing so threatens recovery of a listed species. To the extent that there is a conflict between the general definition of “conservation” and the specific criteria in [the law], the “specific statutory language should control more general language when there is a conflict between the two.” (quoting Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n, Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., 2002).



Whether the Sage Council will appeal the D.C. District Court decision or not is presently being considered. “This is, undoubtedly, the biggest and most important endangered species case in history. The recovery of endangered species is vital to life on Earth. The loss and paving over of more than 39 million acres of habitat and vegetation is detrimental to not only the species, but to the Earth’s climate. I can only pray that all those millions of people that went to Live Earth concerts on Global Warming will throw their support behind the Sage Council to continue our fight for endangered species and the Earth. We will be discussing an appeal with our legal counsel at Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal. My feeling is that we could win at the Court of Appeals.,” stated Klippstein.



###











leeona [at] earthlink.net