Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitizen Comment 05-13-2019 - Robert Steele 2Dow Constant) W I(ing County Executivj 401 Flfth Avenue, Sulte 80Q Seattle, WA 98104 208-296-9600 Fax 206-296-01941 T7Y Relay: 71 A www.kingcounty.gov September 24, 2010 The Honorable Ryan Zinke Secretary U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. MS: BPHC 5275 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary U.S. Department of Commerco National Marine Fisheries Service! Office of Protected Resources) 1315 East-West Highways Silver Spring, MD 2091 a Re: Proposed Changes to Endangered Species Act Regulations Docket Nos: FWS-HQ-ES- 2018-0006, FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007, FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Dear Secretary Zinke and Secretary Rossi I am writing to express King County's strong opposition to several proposed changes to regulations that implement the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the proposed changes: 1) narrow the scope of ESA protections in a manner that will harm species; 2� undermine a precautionary approach to species and habitat protection;3) contradict well reasoned court decisions pertaining to the scope of ESA consultation; 4) invite the - politicization of decisions about listing and delisting of_ shies: and 51 fail to honor and address the treaty reserved rights and trustee interests of Indian tribes King County, with a population of 2.2 million in the heart of Puget Sound, places a high] priority on the protection of natural resources. We invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year to keep our waterways clean, restore habitat, preserve working farms and forests, fi� legacy environmental harms, and protect open space through acquisitions. We know what it1 means to live with ESA -listed species in our midst as our county is home to several of them, including Killer Whale, Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, Northern Spotted Owl, and] Sea Otter. These ESA listings have helped to bring an urgent focus to our work to save imperiled species and their habitats, and King County has one of the fastest -growing populations and economies in the country. The desire for economic growth is not a valid reason to weaken the ESA. To the contrary, our local employers frequently cite our clean water and healthy natural environment as essential to recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce. In King County, a healthy environment is essential to our economic prosperity) W2 The Honorable Ryan Zi* The Honorable Wilbur Rosd September 24, 2014 Page A My primary comments are outlined here and more detailed technical comments are attached) Narrowing the sg= of protection: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively "Services' propose to limit the scope of ESA consultation to those effects on species and their critical habitats that are within the jurisdiction of the regulatory agency (50 CFR 402.03). We oppose this change. All effects of� an action on the species and its habitat must be considered, regardless of where on the landscape those effects take place. Many listed species in the Pacific Northwest, likd Chinook salmon, range over huge distances during their lives; species and the habitats they depend upon transcend jurisdictional boundaries. The Services also proposes to expand the circumstances under which they can determine that designating critical habitat is 'hop prudent" (50 CFR 412). The effect, limiting critical habitat to areas where most or all activities fall under Section 7 consultation greatly diminishes the scope of species protection Designation of critical habitat serves an important role in informing the public about conservation needs, and also provides an opportunity for state and local planners and] regulators to identify opportunities for habitat protection through incentives and regulations) This is common practice in King County and Washington State The Services also propose to make it easier to exclude habitat from designation if it 4 currently unoccupied by the species. If habitat is critical, it should be protected, even if the current, low abundance of the species means that its range is smaller than it should bed Habitat restoration projects, such as re -opening historic floodplain habitat and replacement ofj fish passage blocking culverts, can reopen historic habitat that may be essential for specio recovery. Finally, the Services propose to designate such unoccupied areas where restoration] t is needed as `hot prudent" for the needed restoration when current landowners are unwilling to participate in restoration. This is very shortsighted. -Laud ownership changes over time and species recovery is often a decades -long effort, as is the case with Chinook salmon in our] regions ----- _ _ Kjadg mr sung rnrecauti.onary a ach: The precautionary principle is a bedrock foundation of] conservation science and it states in part that when faced with imperfect information, wd need to err on the side of caution. Several proposed changes turn this key principle on itd head. The Services propose to not require consultation when the effects of the action can't bd "reliably predicted" due to factors such as climate change (50 CFR 402.03). The Serviced also propose to narrow the definition of "foreseeable future" for purposes of making 0 Threatened listing determination by arguing that taking into account natural variability inherently reduces the reliability of predictions (50 CFR 424.11). Waiting until we and absolutely certain that a species will become endangered is simply too late to begin foeusingl on recovery. Finally, the Service agencies propose to redefine "destruction or adversd modification" of critical habitat in such a way as to weaken the ability to take into account) cumulative effects, making it more likely that species will go extinct due to death by d thousand small cuts (50 CFR 402.02). All of these proposed changes should be withdm s+n� I� ' v The Honorable Ryan Zinkel The Honorable Wilbur Rosh September 24, 2010 Page I Contradicting well -reasoned court decisions: Courts have repeatedly ruled that in order fort consultation to include the consideration of proposed beneficial activities that minimiej offset, or mitigate the primary adverse action, such beneficial actions need to be backed byl "specific and binding plans" or "clear, definite commitment of resources." The Serviced argue and propose to clarify that no such assurances are needed (50 CFR 402.14). WO strongly disagree. If the proponent agency is to meet its obligations to serve the public] interest when it expects credit for prospective beneficial actions, it is most reasonable and) prudent that the agency provide assurance that those actions will take place) Politicization of hating decisions: Two proposed changes invite factors into the listing an4 delisting process that undermine the reliance on science under the ESA. First, the Serviced propose to allow economic information to be presented as part of a listing or delisting decision (50 CFR 424.11). The Services are required to make ESA determinations "solely onl the basis of the best scientific data." The U.S. Supreme Court supported this position, ruling in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill that "it is clear from the Act's legislative history thatl Congress intended to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction whatever the cost."l Despite assurances to the contrary, this change would open the door to the use of economic) factors by project proponents to limit or eliminate listings. Moreover, unless the Serviced were to hire numerous staff with advanced expertise in economic analysis, they would bd compelled to rely on the economic analysis of project proponents. We believe this is wholly] inconsistent with the purposes of the ESA Second, the Services propose to be allowed to delist a species by simply reinterpreting data) that were used to make the original listing determination (50 CFR 424.11). Under current) practice, delisting based on original data could be warranted if the data were found to be * error. The proposed change eliminates that requirement and allows for delisting based onl "new analysis of existing information." This change undermines the scientific underpinning of listing_decisions-andon-to-reverse-such-decisions response to political pressure, disguised as `hew analysis.'] �Fa m to address Treaty reserved rights and trustee interests of Indian Tribes: King Countyl has forged strong government -to -government relationships with Indian Tribes in the Pugo Sound region, most of which have reserved rights in endangered species pursuant to the Treaty of Point Elliott. The proposed rule only generically refers to Indian Tribes and does] not reference their Treaty reserved rights and trustee interests in endangered plant and animal) species. This omission leaves the Services' proposed rule incomplete and insufficient. Inl particular, its proposed changes regarding referencing economic impacts, defmingl environmental baseline, and determining critical habitat are devoid of any meaningful consultation with Tribes and assessment of Tribal rights and values that are inherent * endangered species and their habitat. The proposed rule should be withdrawn until such time] as the agencies fully address these deficiencies) ar The Honorable Ryan Zmko The Honorable Wilbur Rosd September 24, 2018� Page M Exvedited consultation for habitat restoration projects: If the rolemaking does move forward the one provision we would support is the creation of a pathway for expedited consultation for habitat restoration projects that have an overall beneficial impact on species, but may) have.a small incidental adverse impact during construction. King County constructs] numerous habitat restoration projects to benefit threatened salmon runs every year, and the Section 7 consultation process currently does not acknowledge a difference between restoration and actions that have a net adverse impact) In summary, I respectfully request that the Services withdraw the proposed, harmful changed that undermine the foundations of the ESA and failure to. honor treaty rights and trustco interests of Indian tribes. This proposal is based on a false choice between economic growth and species protection. It breaks the trust of future generations and undermines their ability to enjoy and be inspired by the diverse plants and animals that make each region of this grea4 country uniquel Sincerely) Dow Constantind King County Executivo cc: Lorraine Loomis, Chair, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission) Barry Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region NOAA — National Marino Fisheries Servicd Robyn Thorson, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pacific Region