Folks,
I don't have all the details yet, but this just came in:
SAN DIEGO - A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to designate critical habitat for eight imperiled plant species in San Diego, Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo and Mono counties of southern and eastern California listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. The California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) and the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) sued FWS November 15, 2001 asking that the agency designate
critical habitat.
The eight imperiled plants for which critical habitat will be designated in
California:
Lane Mountain milk-vetch - Astragalus jaegerianus (Endangered)
Location: Only known to occur at four western Mojave Desert sites north to northeast of Barstow CA, near the Army's Ft. Irwin tank base, in San Bernardino County. The plants at each site are widely scattered.
Threats: Proposed U.S. Army Ft. Irwin expansion and related tank training, military vehicle trespass on to off-limits BLM lands, dry wash recreational gold mining, off-road vehicle use, increasing fire frequency and associated fire suppression activities.
Coachella valley milk-vetch - Astragalus lentiginosus var.coachellae (Endangered)
Location: Loose wind-blown or alluvial sands on dunes or flats in the Coachella Valley area of the Sonoran Desert, near Palm Springs CA, Riverside County.
Threats: Urban sprawl in the Coachella Valley which directly destroys lands on which they occur or reduces the source and transport of blow sands that maintain its habitats. Roads and off-road vehicle use.
Peirson's milk-vetch - Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Threatened)
Location: Algodones Sand Dunes, Sonroan Desert of eastern Imperial County CA.
Threats: Intensive off-road vehicle use. Pipelines and water projects.
Fish slough milk-vetch - Astragalus lentiginosus var.piscinensis (Threatened)
Location: Great Basin Desert northwest of Bishop CA, Inyo and Mono Counties.
Threats: Trampling and grazing by cattle, roads and off-road vehicle use, modification of wetlands, alteration of slough hydrology, the Red Willow Dam and related expansion of Fish Slough Lake.
Munz's onion - Allium munzii (Endangered)
Location: 13 populations in Western Riverside County CA, including the Gavilan Hills, Harford Springs County Park, Paloma Valley, Skunk Hollow, Domenigoni Hills, Bachelor Mountain and the Elsinore Mountains.
San Jacinto Valley crownscale - Atriplex coronata var. notatior (Endangered)
Location: In 1998, 11 population centers were known, primarily associated with the San Jacinto River and Old Salt Creek tributary drainages in the San Jacinto, Perris, Menifee and Elsinore Valleys of western Riverside County CA.
Thread-leaved brodiaea - Brodiaea filifolia (Threatened)
Location: In 1998, 37 populations were known in southern California. 15 populations in the cities of Vista, San Marcos and Carlsbad in northern San Diego County. The remaining 22 populations are scattered within Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego and San Bernardino counties.
Threats (includes the 3 inland species above): One or more of the following: habitat destruction and fragmentation from agricultural and urban development, pipeline construction, alteration of wetland hydrology
by draining or excessive flooding,hannelization, off-road vehicle use,livestock grazing, weed abatement, fire suppression practices (including discing or plowing) and competition from invasive weeds.
spreading navarretia - Navarretia fossalis (Threatened)
Location: In 1998, fewer than 30 populations existed in the U.S., primarily in vernal pool ecosystems.
Nearly 60% are concentrated in three locations: Otay Mesa in southern San Diego County, along the San Jacinto River in western Riverside County, and near Hemet in Riverside County.
Threats: On-going degradation of vernal pools and their destruction due to urbanization, agricultural practices, off-road vehicles, flood control and widespread habitat loss.
Full Version: Critical Habitat Designations
I got a call from a reporter today asking for some comments on this. Surprisingly it was the first I heard of this lawsuit and I try to keep track of all the legal dealings regarding our desert.
From what I was told by the reporter (who had the CBD press release in hand) the above report is not 100% accurate. I was told that the ruling does not requite the FWS to designate anymore critical habitat - it only requires them to study wether or not critical habitat designations are required for the listed species.
What's funny is that the groups calling for this base their opinion that the plants are in danger mainly on their own studies - but they yell and scream that it's unfair and not right for the ASA to fund a private biologist to study one of the plants in question.
Hmmm - the CBD and CNPS prepare studies declaring a plant is in danger - then get it listed - then sue for critical habitat - then sue for more closures when the FWS is unable to meet the deadlines because they're too streatched from fighting all the lawsuites - then they sue to cover their costs in the whole thing because the FWS wasn't able to meet the deadlines. They end up with taxpayer money to fund more bogus studies but it's OK.
The ASA raises money from private sources to cover an independant firm to study one of the plants. The ASA has no way of making any kind of profit out of this and it actually costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars. But it's NOT ok because apparantly they're biased...as if the CBD and CNPS aren't.
But you want to really talk about a waste of taxpayer money - at least one of these plants is currently under study for delisting with a lot of good research behind the petition to delist. If the plants status is in question to the point where respectable biologists and the BLM question wether it should have been listed in the first place would it not be prudent to save the money that these CH studies will cost until the final determination is made as to wether the plant is indeed in danger of extinction?
In fact, the PMV isn't even endangered! It's only listed as threatened.
I'm very interested in more details but the groups behind this aren't exactly know for making this kind of move public. Specifically I've been trying to find out what court, what judge, and the specifics of the case all afternoon but to no avail.
From what I was told by the reporter (who had the CBD press release in hand) the above report is not 100% accurate. I was told that the ruling does not requite the FWS to designate anymore critical habitat - it only requires them to study wether or not critical habitat designations are required for the listed species.
What's funny is that the groups calling for this base their opinion that the plants are in danger mainly on their own studies - but they yell and scream that it's unfair and not right for the ASA to fund a private biologist to study one of the plants in question.
Hmmm - the CBD and CNPS prepare studies declaring a plant is in danger - then get it listed - then sue for critical habitat - then sue for more closures when the FWS is unable to meet the deadlines because they're too streatched from fighting all the lawsuites - then they sue to cover their costs in the whole thing because the FWS wasn't able to meet the deadlines. They end up with taxpayer money to fund more bogus studies but it's OK.
The ASA raises money from private sources to cover an independant firm to study one of the plants. The ASA has no way of making any kind of profit out of this and it actually costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars. But it's NOT ok because apparantly they're biased...as if the CBD and CNPS aren't.
But you want to really talk about a waste of taxpayer money - at least one of these plants is currently under study for delisting with a lot of good research behind the petition to delist. If the plants status is in question to the point where respectable biologists and the BLM question wether it should have been listed in the first place would it not be prudent to save the money that these CH studies will cost until the final determination is made as to wether the plant is indeed in danger of extinction?
In fact, the PMV isn't even endangered! It's only listed as threatened.
I'm very interested in more details but the groups behind this aren't exactly know for making this kind of move public. Specifically I've been trying to find out what court, what judge, and the specifics of the case all afternoon but to no avail.
quote:Well, let's look at it this way.
But it's NOT ok because apparantly they're biased...as if the CBD and CNPS aren't.
Do the duners represented by the ASA have an economic interest in the outcome? Of course they do! without the public's land to shred, there is less demand for high-end machines--this came out in the "California Connections" interview with Grant of Funco.
Does the CBD and CNPS have an economic interest in the outcome? Are they planning on selling the milkvetch? What's in it for them? They're trying to protect the ecosystem that supports all life on this planet including yours and mine. If it can be shown that there is no significant impact to the land, I for one will be glad to get off my soapbox and let you shred away!
quote:Blu, the CBD does have an economic reason to close down land. If they don't continue to sue the government and close down lands, their existence isn't wanted. Thus no more income from Ted Turner and our court system. The CBD has many employees that need the income to support their families. Daniel Patterson needs the money to support his Hummer. So, if the CBD decided to change their approach and stopped suing the government, they would be out of jobs.
Does the CBD and CNPS have an economic interest in the outcome? Are they planning on selling the milkvetch? What's in it for them? They're trying to protect the ecosystem that supports all life on this planet including yours and mine. If it can be shown that there is no significant impact to the land, I for one will be glad to get off my soapbox and let you shred away!
But none of us on the off road side of the arguement is fighting because of economic issues, we are fighting because we want the land to be free for generations to come. Of course some peoples business's would be impacted if the dunes were closed down, but the bigger picture is the freedom issue. I believe we have a right to the land as much as you, so don't stand on your soapbox and tell me that closing is the only option.
Blu, you and most enviro's are very short sighted to believe that closing down lands is the answer. The answer to protect critical species is through education, not closure!!!!
BlueSky
In your personal opinion, when think of, 1) the best use of, or protection of our land, or 2) the best use of, or protection of the current and future quality of life, where on a list of priorities would you place a plant in the desert vs. other environmental issues?
I could make an extended list of issues that not only effect our earth, but more important human health, and life. If you really want to have your eyes opened, read and study the economics of groups or agencies that fight to save a tree or weed. There is one very interesting factor of government grants. Look at how much the government funds groups that go after big business, on topics of pollution, and destruction of habitual land.
Read and study the economics, and tell me how you feel time and money over this weed has a priority over so many issues that really have a valid meaning, and impact our health and lifestyle.
How about the recent news of a radioactive waste dumpsite proposed for Nevada, and about the impact this will have? Study just how much of this waste is a by product of materials that have been sold for use outside the USA, with conditions that we (USA) return the waste to dispose of it?
In your personal opinion, when think of, 1) the best use of, or protection of our land, or 2) the best use of, or protection of the current and future quality of life, where on a list of priorities would you place a plant in the desert vs. other environmental issues?
I could make an extended list of issues that not only effect our earth, but more important human health, and life. If you really want to have your eyes opened, read and study the economics of groups or agencies that fight to save a tree or weed. There is one very interesting factor of government grants. Look at how much the government funds groups that go after big business, on topics of pollution, and destruction of habitual land.
Read and study the economics, and tell me how you feel time and money over this weed has a priority over so many issues that really have a valid meaning, and impact our health and lifestyle.
How about the recent news of a radioactive waste dumpsite proposed for Nevada, and about the impact this will have? Study just how much of this waste is a by product of materials that have been sold for use outside the USA, with conditions that we (USA) return the waste to dispose of it?
Folks,
Here's the article from the LA Times:
U.S. Ordered to Reconsider Plants' Status
Court: Activists had sued after agency decided not to set aside protected areas for eight threatened species.
By TONY PERRY, TIMES STAFF WRITER
SAN DIEGO -- In response to a lawsuit by environmentalists, a federal judge here has ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider within three years its decision not to set aside protected areas known as "critical habitat" for eight imperiled plant species.
The plants are found in scattered spots across the state, ranging from Otay Mesa near the U.S.-Mexico border to Inyo and Mono counties in the Sierra Nevada.
"Critical habitat is essential to species survival and recovery," said Daniel Patterson, desert ecologist with the Idyllwild office of the Center for Biological Diversity. The center and the California Native Plant Society have sued the Department of Interior seeking protection for the eight plants. Although the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Irma Gonzalez was hailed as a victory for environmentalists, it does not require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to grant any of the plants habitat protection.
The agency could determine that it is still "not prudent" to declare critical habitat for "some, if not all, of the species," the decision said.
Still, Geoff Hickcox, the Durango, Colo., lawyer who represented the environmental groups, said he doubts that the Fish and Wildlife Service will again decide that it is not prudent to provide habitat protection for the eight species.
He said the government voluntarily agreed to reconsider its determination on the eight plants, and the only issue before Gonzalez involved the timeline.
"They know that if they make a 'not prudent' decision again without any additional information, they'll just land back in court," Hickcox said. "We feel good about the results. We've got them to go back and reconsider the rules, which they would not have done otherwise."
Under Gonzalez's decision, the government has until 2004 to determine whether three plants deserve critical habitat designation and until 2005 to make the same decision on five others.
The plaintiffs had wanted all the determinations made more quickly--on the theory that some of the plants are rapidly nearing extinction. But the Fish and Wildlife Service had argued that it needed until 2005 and 2006 because of its substantial workload.
Jane Hendron, spokeswoman for the Carlsbad office of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the decision will add to the "staggering amount of litigation-driven" work at the wildlife service.
"This work has hindered our ability to set our own priorities, to determine for ourselves which species need protection and where," Hendron said.
She added that, in some cases, determining that a certain area provides critical habitat actually can hasten the destruction of a plant or animal species because it will lead to "collecting" and unauthorized use of the area.
Gonzalez gave the Fish and Wildlife Service until 2004 to make final determinations on the Peirson's milk vetch, the Lane Mountain milk vetch and the Fish Slough milk vetch.
The Lane Mountain milk vetch is found in four western Mojave Desert sites near the Army's Ft. Irwin in San Bernardino County. Environmentalists are concerned that expansion of the Army's tank training and civilian off-road vehicles will damage the plant.
The Fish Slough milk vetch is in the Great Basin Desert region of Inyo and Mono counties, where cattle grazing and off-road vehicle use have sparked debate.
The Peirson's milk vetch arguably is the most controversial of the eight plants covered by the ruling. The plant is found in the Algodones Sand Dunes of Imperial County, where environmentalists and off-road enthusiasts are disputing motorized use of the desert.
The Bureau of Land Management is developing rules for use of the area, under legal and political pressure from both sides. Hendron said it is unclear how the decision will affect the rules' development.
Gonzalez gave the wildlife service until 2005 to decide about the Coachella Valley milk vetch, the Munz's onion found in western Riverside County, the San Jacinto Valley crownscale, the thread-leaved brodiaea found predominantly in northern San Diego County, and the spreading navarretia in Otay Mesa and in western Riverside County.
"It's imperative that scientists and conservation advocates work with governments to conserve our remaining species and their habitats," said Illeene Anderson, Southern California botanist with the California Native Plant Society.
Here's the article from the LA Times:
U.S. Ordered to Reconsider Plants' Status
Court: Activists had sued after agency decided not to set aside protected areas for eight threatened species.
By TONY PERRY, TIMES STAFF WRITER
SAN DIEGO -- In response to a lawsuit by environmentalists, a federal judge here has ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider within three years its decision not to set aside protected areas known as "critical habitat" for eight imperiled plant species.
The plants are found in scattered spots across the state, ranging from Otay Mesa near the U.S.-Mexico border to Inyo and Mono counties in the Sierra Nevada.
"Critical habitat is essential to species survival and recovery," said Daniel Patterson, desert ecologist with the Idyllwild office of the Center for Biological Diversity. The center and the California Native Plant Society have sued the Department of Interior seeking protection for the eight plants. Although the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Irma Gonzalez was hailed as a victory for environmentalists, it does not require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to grant any of the plants habitat protection.
The agency could determine that it is still "not prudent" to declare critical habitat for "some, if not all, of the species," the decision said.
Still, Geoff Hickcox, the Durango, Colo., lawyer who represented the environmental groups, said he doubts that the Fish and Wildlife Service will again decide that it is not prudent to provide habitat protection for the eight species.
He said the government voluntarily agreed to reconsider its determination on the eight plants, and the only issue before Gonzalez involved the timeline.
"They know that if they make a 'not prudent' decision again without any additional information, they'll just land back in court," Hickcox said. "We feel good about the results. We've got them to go back and reconsider the rules, which they would not have done otherwise."
Under Gonzalez's decision, the government has until 2004 to determine whether three plants deserve critical habitat designation and until 2005 to make the same decision on five others.
The plaintiffs had wanted all the determinations made more quickly--on the theory that some of the plants are rapidly nearing extinction. But the Fish and Wildlife Service had argued that it needed until 2005 and 2006 because of its substantial workload.
Jane Hendron, spokeswoman for the Carlsbad office of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the decision will add to the "staggering amount of litigation-driven" work at the wildlife service.
"This work has hindered our ability to set our own priorities, to determine for ourselves which species need protection and where," Hendron said.
She added that, in some cases, determining that a certain area provides critical habitat actually can hasten the destruction of a plant or animal species because it will lead to "collecting" and unauthorized use of the area.
Gonzalez gave the Fish and Wildlife Service until 2004 to make final determinations on the Peirson's milk vetch, the Lane Mountain milk vetch and the Fish Slough milk vetch.
The Lane Mountain milk vetch is found in four western Mojave Desert sites near the Army's Ft. Irwin in San Bernardino County. Environmentalists are concerned that expansion of the Army's tank training and civilian off-road vehicles will damage the plant.
The Fish Slough milk vetch is in the Great Basin Desert region of Inyo and Mono counties, where cattle grazing and off-road vehicle use have sparked debate.
The Peirson's milk vetch arguably is the most controversial of the eight plants covered by the ruling. The plant is found in the Algodones Sand Dunes of Imperial County, where environmentalists and off-road enthusiasts are disputing motorized use of the desert.
The Bureau of Land Management is developing rules for use of the area, under legal and political pressure from both sides. Hendron said it is unclear how the decision will affect the rules' development.
Gonzalez gave the wildlife service until 2005 to decide about the Coachella Valley milk vetch, the Munz's onion found in western Riverside County, the San Jacinto Valley crownscale, the thread-leaved brodiaea found predominantly in northern San Diego County, and the spreading navarretia in Otay Mesa and in western Riverside County.
"It's imperative that scientists and conservation advocates work with governments to conserve our remaining species and their habitats," said Illeene Anderson, Southern California botanist with the California Native Plant Society.
Bluesky lives on some fantasy planet where OHV users are mindless lemmings, directed by powerful sand-rail builders and OHV manufacturers. That's complete and utter nonsense! I've never met Grant or any other sand-rail builder. The manufacturer of my ATV and motorcycle (Honda) is so worried about their position as official automaker of the Sierra Club that they've done nothing to support the OHV community.
Get a grip, Bluesky (rhetorical comment to someone who's way off the deep-end, beyond the point of no return). We're real people who ride in the dunes because we love it. There is no "economic" issue behind our desire to see the dunes remain open. It's common sense. There are no legitimate reasons for the closures; they're based on the hatred of OHV users by holier-than-thou freaks like bogus "Desert Ecologist" Dan Patterson.
[ 07-10-2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: jkp ]
Get a grip, Bluesky (rhetorical comment to someone who's way off the deep-end, beyond the point of no return). We're real people who ride in the dunes because we love it. There is no "economic" issue behind our desire to see the dunes remain open. It's common sense. There are no legitimate reasons for the closures; they're based on the hatred of OHV users by holier-than-thou freaks like bogus "Desert Ecologist" Dan Patterson.
[ 07-10-2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: jkp ]
That's correct. Our "keep the desert open and free" movement is not economicly based at all. The ASA is a grass roots orginization of duners who want to dune.
But you have misconstrewed our gathering of businesses and other orginazations in our defense as the reason behind the movement because that's where our money comes from.
Typical of your leftist, closed minded attitude.
The fact is that a grass roots orginazation organized its people and collected money from those people and from the businesses that support those people in order to fight back.
Grant at Funco didn't start the ASA... Vince and others did.
Get your crap straight.
Vor
But you have misconstrewed our gathering of businesses and other orginazations in our defense as the reason behind the movement because that's where our money comes from.
Typical of your leftist, closed minded attitude.
The fact is that a grass roots orginazation organized its people and collected money from those people and from the businesses that support those people in order to fight back.
Grant at Funco didn't start the ASA... Vince and others did.
Get your crap straight.
Vor
what about you Vor? do you have a dunes related business?
What about you Bluesky, do you have a dunes related business?
All I wanna do is zooma zoom zoom zoom & a vroom vroom....
[ 07-10-2002, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: 5thgearpinned ]
All I wanna do is zooma zoom zoom zoom & a vroom vroom....
[ 07-10-2002, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: 5thgearpinned ]
Bluesky wake up!!!! But I will illustrate how closures would affect business's. Let me give you an example, follow some logic for a moment, many of the outdoor stores, that I am sure you frequent(REI, Sport Chalet, A-16) stand to lose a lot of business if land is closed. Glamis included. Everybody that goes to the desert buys camping related products. Whether it be a sleeping bag, coleman stove, or just an ice chest. Did you follow that?
I work in the outdoor industry ( I won't tell you which company because I can see you sending e-mails to my superiors), and many of the products I sell get used by the hardcore backpacker and the OHV user. So know that I have proven a point for you (which you couldn't do), do you see any of those companies standing on either side of this political mess?? NO, they take the nuetral approach. You know why??? They something to lose finacially.
I (as do others) fight because I believe I have the same rights to that land as you do. I have a right to go camp and enjoy the outdoors with the recreation I choose, of course without damaging the land for future generations. There is a quote you can attack! Nothing has been proven that OHV are damaging the land for future generations at the ISDRA.
Off topic a little, last night my father brought over some old home movies from the mid 1970's of me riding my 80cc at Dove Springs. I looked at the background and didn't notice any more trails now than there was 25 years ago. And you tell me off roaders are out of control??![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Open your eyes and realized we are fighting for our rights, not pocket books. We are not about power, we are about keeping land open for our generations to come.
Blu, on another note....you complain that off roaders are using up monetary resources at hospitals and law enforcement agencies. You know what, I would rather see my tax dollars saving a life than saving a single spotted owl. If you want land to be closed, buy it and put a fence around it and create your own little zoo. Don't expect the government to protect everything for you, do it yourself!!!!!
I work in the outdoor industry ( I won't tell you which company because I can see you sending e-mails to my superiors), and many of the products I sell get used by the hardcore backpacker and the OHV user. So know that I have proven a point for you (which you couldn't do), do you see any of those companies standing on either side of this political mess?? NO, they take the nuetral approach. You know why??? They something to lose finacially.
I (as do others) fight because I believe I have the same rights to that land as you do. I have a right to go camp and enjoy the outdoors with the recreation I choose, of course without damaging the land for future generations. There is a quote you can attack! Nothing has been proven that OHV are damaging the land for future generations at the ISDRA.
Off topic a little, last night my father brought over some old home movies from the mid 1970's of me riding my 80cc at Dove Springs. I looked at the background and didn't notice any more trails now than there was 25 years ago. And you tell me off roaders are out of control??
Open your eyes and realized we are fighting for our rights, not pocket books. We are not about power, we are about keeping land open for our generations to come.
Blu, on another note....you complain that off roaders are using up monetary resources at hospitals and law enforcement agencies. You know what, I would rather see my tax dollars saving a life than saving a single spotted owl. If you want land to be closed, buy it and put a fence around it and create your own little zoo. Don't expect the government to protect everything for you, do it yourself!!!!!
Very well put alxcook!
Bluesky pounds sand![[Grenade]](graemlins/grenade.gif)
Bluesky pounds sand
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.