Mexican Spotted Owl Entangled In Endangered Species Debate

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, October 3, 2003 (ENS) - A legal motion filed by conservationists that aims to force the federal government to designate critical habitat for the endangered Mexican spotted owl is threatening efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic wild fires, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But the plaintiff in the lawsuit says this characterization is "complete bunk." The clash reflects increasing controversy over the Bush administration's interpretation and implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Last month the Center for Biological Diversity filed a motion in a long running lawsuit to hold Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton in contempt of court for not designating critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. The organization says the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is overseen by the Interior Department, has missed court mandated deadlines to designate habitat for the owl.

But in a release issued Wednesday the Fish and Wildlife Service says this motion, is designed to stop fuel reduction programs on federal lands that would reduce the risk of wildfires and would ultimately protect the Mexican spotted owl.

Logging has caused the population of the Mexican spotted owl to plummet to some 2,000. (Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service )

"Wildfires are also the single greatest threat to the Mexican spotted owl," Hall said. "The Center's motion also puts the owl at great risk."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "is lying through its teeth," said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.

The Center has "clearly told the Interior Department that the terms of the injunction request ... will allow legitimate fire reduction and forest restoration projects to proceed," Suckling said.

The organization has always supported "legitimate thinning projects," Suckling says, and is carrying out its own thinning projects on three national forests in Arizona and New Mexico.

The Bush administration is "seeking political cover" for not complying with the law, Suckling says, and is trying to use the situation to undermine the ESA.

The battle over federal protection for the Mexican spotted owl stretches back to 1989, when Center filed a petition with the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the owl under the ESA.

At that time, biologists estimated that only 2,000 Mexican spotted owls remained in the wild. Habitat loss - largely from logging of old growth forests in Arizona and New Mexico - has been the key cause of the species' decline.

Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton has drawn sustained criticism from conservation groups for policies that they believe favor industry and developers over environmental protection. (Photo courtesy U.S. Department of Interior)

In July 2000, the Clinton administration proposed to designate 13.5 million acres of critical habitat for the species in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. Critical habitat refers to specific geographic areas considered essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species that can be afforded additional regulations to carry out the goals of the ESA.

But in February 2001 the Bush administration revised the plan and proposed a critical habitat designation of 4.6 million acres - excluding all national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. This move would facilitate logging in these forests, but 90 percent of known owl territories exist on these lands, which are administered by the Forest Service.

A federal judge called the plan "nonsensical" and ruled it a clear violation of the ESA.

Interior Secretary Norton "knew or should have known that their decision not to designate critical habitat in Arizona or New Mexico on the basis that it would provide no 'additional' protection was unlawful," wrote U.S. District Court Judge David Bury in his January 2003 ruling.

Bury ordered the administration to fix the plan by October 13, 2003.

In May 2003, the administration said the agency was running out of funds to complete a backlog of court orders to designate critical habitat and asked for extensions for 32 species. The Center agreed to give the agency an extension until April 2004 to designate critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl - with an interim deadline for a proposed designation on October 13, 2003.

In July 2003, the administration sought another extension to move the final deadline back to January 2005.

The Center agreed, but on the condition that the Interior Department agree to also complete long delayed recovery plans and listings for a number of other imperiled species. The administration balked at the offer and filed papers with the court on August 27, 2003 asking that the critical habitat designation until January 2005.

The owl needs habitat like that found here in the Gila National Forest. There is no federal monitoring of the species, so biologists are uncertain what trends dominate Mexican spotted owl populations. (Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service )

The Center says this is an admission that the agency made no attempt to comply with the court order - and this is what prompted it to file contempt of court charges last month.

Suckling adds that the administration's filing includes a request to allow the agency to delay the designation beyond January 2005 if it does not have the funding to get the work done.

"The Bush administration has no intention of ever designating critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl," said Suckling. "To ask the court to link the spotted owl's fate to the administration's continuing budget manipulations is outrageous."

The Fish and Wildlife Service says "lean budgets and a backlog of designations" justifies its request to push back the deadline - a familiar excuse for the agency.

There is little question the agency has funding issues. The $9 million the Bush administration asked for and received for the Fish and Wildlife Service to carry out its duties under the ESA in 2003 is well known to be far from adequate - so is the $12 million it has requested for 2004.

Internal reports by the agency find that addressing the backlog of these duties would require some $153 million.

That backlog is largely the result of the agency's disregard for the critical habitat provision until the mid 1990s when legal action began to force it to comply - only one third of the 1,250 species on the ESA list have designated critical habitat.

Administration officials say they did not request supplemental funding this year, despite Congress offering funds, because it would not solve the long term process of designating critical habitat.

The process of designating critical habitat is too time consuming and expensive, Bush administration officials say, because of litigation and because it requires the agency to prepare detailed maps of species habitats, provide time for public comment and complete economic analyses of the critical habitat designation. Officials say the average cost of designating critical habitat for a species is $400,000 and contend that they could list two species for that same sum.

Recovery of listed species, officials say, will come through voluntary cooperative partnerships, not regulatory measures such as critical habitat.

There is no federal monitoring of the species, so biologists are uncertain what trends dominate Mexican spotted owl populations. (Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service )

The agency has not "given it a chance to work on the ground," he said, even though it acknowledges that habitat protection is key to protecting endangered species.

Habitat loss is the primary threat to 85 percent of endangered species.

"If we are not going to protect habitat, we are not going to accomplish the goals of the ESA," he said. "The agency has to come to terms with that and start making a good faith effort."

Suckling says the case of the Mexican spotted owl is a clear illustration that the Bush administration has little interested in make the law work.

"The administration torpedoed a simple agreement because has no interest in negotiations or peaceful resolution," said Suckling. "Its one and only goal is to cause a political train wreck in order to justify attacking the Endangered Species Act. It does not care how many endangered species get hurt."

The Center will file the final terms of its injunction request on October 9, 2003.