Home

Critical Habitat and Species Protection

This story was initially of only local interest to me, as the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) is one of the more well-known endangered species in Santa Barbara County. The fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service decided to cut (by almost half) the proposed critical habitat designation for the species could actually impact some of the work that I’ve been doing this summer. Even so, I wasn’t thinking about posting the article until I reached the money quote:

"Reserving acreage as critical habitat just makes it more daunting to build housing that's affordable," said Joseph Perkins, CEO of the Home Builders Association of Northern California. "Setting aside habitat is just the least efficient way to protect species."

The emphasis is mine, and highlights what I think to be an alarming bit of rhetoric. What Perkins is actually saying is that setting aside habitat is not efficient for developing housing, but what his quote means to the average layperson is that setting aside habitat is not an effective way to protect species. He manages to avoid outright lying while at the same time spreading misinformation since setting aside habitat is the single most effective way to protect species.

Whether this twisting of the truth is a careful calculation on the part of the development lobby or merely circumstantial diction, I don’t know. What I do know is that the biggest failing of the Endangered Species Act after its inception in 1973 was that it only conferred legal protection on endangered organisms, failing to recognize that habitat modification has as much or more potential to eradicate a species as clearer forms of “take.” This oversight was fixed in the amendments of 1978, which included a provision stating that critical habitat must be designated for a species when it is listed. Faulty as it is (the EPA may consider non-biological factors, such as economic considerations and other impacts when designating critical habitat – exactly what seems to have happened in the case of the tiger salamander), this measure is the only existing U.S. law that allows for the protection of habitat and thus the protection of biodiversity.

Tiger Sal critical habitat

By Alan (not verified) at August 26, 2005 - 9:21pm |

Developers, particulary the home builders, always crow about how they're just providing a "service," that if the didn't build over here, people over there would go homeless (or some other related but specious claim). This is horseshit. I've yet to meet a developer, of homes or industrial parks or anything else who wasn't in the biz for one reason and one reason only: pure, personal greed.

green developers

By chris at August 26, 2005 - 11:34pm |

For the record, I actually have met a few developers who are responsible stewards, many of whom work specifically on attaining LEED certification for their projects. One of them actually provided me with some much needed funding for my graduate program (in environmental science/management).

At the same time, I have to admit that there's a relatively large market in Santa Barbara for green development, wealthy community that it is.

Diction

By Hungry Hyaena at August 29, 2005 - 2:34pm |

Chris,

I'm guessing this developer's statement was not calculated, but you are right to be concerned.

I would point out, however, that while habitat protection is paramount, isolated reserves and private property are only sand bags, buying us time, but not offering solutions. At some point, we must figure out how to marry the burgeoning human population (and the associated demand for housing) with biodiversity. LEED projects are a step in the right direction, but a significant shift in our fundamental environmental philosophy may be called for, too.

I wrote about Japan's curious situation last week over at HH. I've been chewing on this notion of their underlying religious and aesthetic sensibility informing their environmental situtation. Have any of your studies focused on Japan on southeast Asia? I know that seems unlikely, but I figured I would ask.

Habitat Protection Issue in Canada

By Rory Rickwood (not verified) at May 12, 2006 - 11:12pm |

www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=532777#post532777

Habitat Protection Needed in Nananimo

By Rory Rickwood (not verified) at May 30, 2006 - 7:37pm |

BC OMBUDSMAN TO LOOK INTO NANAIMO LAND USE PRACTICES

NANAIMO – Local resident Rory Rickwood has filed a formal
complaint with the BC’s Ombudsman on March 29, 2006
alleging a blatant contravention to the Third Street Land
Use Plan.

Mr. Rickwood is a volunteer wildlife habitat steward
associated with Friends of the Cat Stream and the Buttertubs
Marsh Liaison Committee to the City.

“The filing of a complaint with the Ombudsman is an
opportunity for a much needed review of a Nanaimo land use
plan that has come off its tracks,” said Rory Rickwood.
“We have asked the Ombudsman to specifically review the
contravention of the land use plan when Douglas Fir trees
were planted in the Virginia Rail foraging range at Jingle
Pot Marsh.

The Third Street Land Use Plan does provide provision for a
Virginia Rail report and that no work should happen until a
mitigation report is released. The Ursus Environmental
report was released by the City on March 31, 2006. The
report makes it clear that planting of Douglas Fir trees
over the past year in the Virginia Rail territory is not
appropriate, and that and that Vegetation Management Plan
of “rail-friendly” planting stock should be planted.

“As a remedy to our land use complaint, I have asked that
the conversion of marsh habitat into forest habitat stop
forthwith and that all fir trees be removed,” said
Rickwood. “The inappropriate planting of fir trees in the
marsh was one of the reasons I step outside our conservation
group and independently called Nanaimo an unhealthy place to
visit.”

“I recently contacted the Ombudsman’s office to learn if
complaint of this nature would be accepted and was informed
it would,” explained Rickwood. “To qualify for
consideration, I had to demonstrate I have tried to resolve
this complaint with the City. As the community knows, I
have gone to great effort to resolve our conflict.”