🚀 go-pugleaf

From: fmshilling@ucdavis.edu (fmshilling)=20
Fraser Shilling


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
Date: Feb 11, 1998                     FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

contact:  Alan Kohn:              206 543 1629=20
          Fraser Shilling:    530 752 7253


SCIENTISTS CALL FOR AN END TO HABITAT DESTRUCTION UNDER THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Presidents of 9 professional scientific societies, with a
combined membership of over 30,000 scientists, have signed a letter
to the Congress and the Clinton Administration outlining
science-based standards for amending the federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA).  Recently proposed legislation by Senator Kempthorne (S.
1180) and Representative Miller (H.R.  2351) would reauthorize the
ESA, but would also keep the controversial Section 10 which permits
destruction of endangered species' habitat.  "On the surface, these
two bills appear to address quite different issues, but a careful
examination suggests several similarities though both are somewhat
flawed.  We applaud the provision of proposed legislation and we
hope we can provide them with the scientific information needed to
perfect this legislation", said James MacMahon, President of the
Ecological Society of America.


The letter represents the first comprehensive vision for ESA reform
endorsed by a significant number of respected scientists.  Their
recommendations outline the changes that Congress must make in
order to correct shortcomings of the current law.  "The Endangered
Species Act will only be effective if it ensures recovery of
endangered wildlife and plants.  Destruction of habitat needed by
endangered species is not compatible with recovery", said Alan
Kohn, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative
Biology.


Washington DC based environmental groups have endorsed the Miller
bill, claiming that, in contrast to the Kempthorne bill, it would
provide for stronger recovery provisions and is not based on
habitat destruction.  However, a close reading of the Miller bill
reveals that it still needs work to meet this goal, especially
insofar at it relates to the issue of destruction of habitat on
private lands.  "We are very concerned about the proposed Miller
and Kempthorne bills which authorize significant habitat
destruction and rely on mitigation techniques, the so-called
habitat conservation plans, that have little or no scientific
support", said Fraser Shilling, of the Society for Integrative and
Comparative Biology.  Under both bills mitigation plans call for
"no further decline" in endangered species populations rather than
the much higher recovery standard endorsed by the scientists'
letter.


The letter from scientists is attached below.  For more
information, contact any of the co-signers, the President of the
lead Society, Alan Kohn of the Society for Integrative and
Comparative Biology (SICB), or the Conservation Chair of SICB,
Fraser Shilling (fmshilling@ucdavis.edu; 530 752 7253).

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3


America Needs an Endangered Species Act based on Science and
Recovery, not Habitat Destruction


     We, the undersigned Presidents of scientific Societies present
to the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government
the following recommendations for reauthorizing the Endangered
Species Act (1973) and development of guidelines for its use based
on biological science.  The collective membership of our societies
is more than 30,000 scientists.  Our expertise is in marine,
terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems, studying a wide variety of
plant and animal species.
     The Endangered Species Act will be effective only if the
strategies for habitat conservation, recovery planning, and
protection from harm for listed species are based on sound
scientific information.  The majority of the American public has
indicated a desire for conservation of threatened and endangered
species and their habitats through a strong Endangered Species Act.
It is our professional opinion that this goal can best be
accomplished if the reauthorization incorporates the following
principles and recommendations.


 1) Reduce Extinction
     The rate of human-caused extinction is from 100 to 1000 times
higher than the natural rate.The purpose of the Endangered Species
Act is to contain human actions that could threaten extinction of
a species and to proactively plan for recovery of the listed and
candidate species.


 2) Critical Habitat
     The federal government should declare and describe the
critical habitat for threatened and endangered species at the time
of listing, based upon sufficient scientific information.  Critical
habitat is defined as the specific areas within and outside the
geographical area presently occupied by the listed species
containing features essential to the conservation of the species.


 3) Recovery Area
     Recovery is a priority of the Endangered Species Act.  To
accomplish this, the federal government should designate recovery
area(s) greater than that needed for a minimum viable population.
Recovery plans should be reviewed by independent scientists and the
implementation should take place before experimental efforts, such
as "Habitat Conservation Plans".


 4) Recovery Planning
     Reasonable implemented recovery plans will provide for: a) an
area sufficient to absorb 100% of the recovered population(s) and
b) population goals based upon best available scientific
information.  Implementation of plans should take place within 90
days of listing.  Successful recovery would take place across the
available landscape previously occupied by the species.


 5) Regional Planning
     In order to achieve uniformity in successful endangered
species conservation, the federal government should cooperate with
local governing bodies to ensure that no action preempts the
containment strategies central to the Act.  New and existing
Habitat Conservation Plans developed at the state, regional,
county, and municipal level should follow the guidelines of the Act
as described here.  Habitat Conservation Plans should undergo an
environmental impact analysis with attention paid to cumulative
impacts within and outside the planning area.


 6) No Harm to Species
     To limit risks of extinction, no private or public agency
action should negatively modify habitat occupied by threatened,
endangered, or candidate species or habitat within the recovery
area.  No private or public agency action should threaten recovery
or result in jeopardy, harassment, or harm to a listed or candidate
species.


 7) International Trade in Endangered Species
     The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973) needs support from the federal
government through measures such as restriction of trade with any
country repeatedly found to allow the trade of threatened or
endangered species through insufficient regulation in a manner
found to counteract recovery efforts.


 8) Domestic Trade in Endangered Species
     No listed or candidate species, or parts thereof, should be
imported to, or exported from, the United States of America or its
protectorates or traded between states.  These provisions should
only be preempted for traditional use by Native people of listed
species and for scientific and restoration activities where a minor
portion (<<10%) of the population(s) is affected.

 9) No "Incidental Take" of Endangered Species
     Harming of candidate or listed species through "incidental
take" should be prohibited because it is considered to be
inconsistent with the recovery of these species.  Because of the
risks posed by incidental take, this provision should be removed
in order to decrease the risk that its use poses to listed species.
Habitat Conservation Plans can be developed in the absence of
incidental take and be used to do as their name suggests, plan for
the conservation of ample available habitat for listed species.

10) Ecology and Economics in Planning
     There should be no economic considerations or "cost-benefit
analyses" associated with listing decisions, critical habitat
designation, jeopardy determinations, or recovery plan development
and implementation.  These decisions are well made when based only
on the best scientific information.

signed,

Alan Kohn, President, and
Michael Hadfield, Past-President
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
kohn@u.washington.edu
hadfield@hawaii.edu


James MacMahon, President
Ecological Society of America
scido@cc.usu.edu

Nancy Dengler, President
Botanical Society of America
dengler@botany.utoronto.edu


Alicia Linzey, President
American Society of Mammologists
avlinzey@grove.iup.edu

Doug Dahlman, President
Entomological Society of America
ddahlman@ca.uky.edu


Richard Grosberg, President, and
Mark Denny, Past-President
Western Society of Naturalists
rkgrosberg@ucdavis.edu,
mwdenny@leland.stanford.edu


Alan Savitzky, President, and
Ted Pietsch, Past-President
American Society of Icthyologists and Herpetologists
asavitzk@odu.edu,
twp@fish.washington.edu


Robert Hershler, President
American Malacological Union
hershler.robert@nmnh.si.edu

Diane McKnight, President, and
Tom Malone, Past-President
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography
Diane.Mcknight@Colorado.EDU,
malone@hpl.umces.edu


For more information, or a copy of the full version of this letter,
contact the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, attn.
ESA letter, 401 N.  Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611-4267.  Phone:
312-527-6697, fax: 312-245-1085, email: sicb@sba.com