Eric Holst: Growing Returns

There’s never been a more pressing need to set political theater aside and address our fire problems to create a healthier, more resilient future.

The post Why does the West keep burning? Here are 3 key factors. first appeared on Growing Returns.

It was a tough year for the beloved monarch. How did we get here and what can be done?

The post Monarch butterfly population down 53% from last year. Here’s the swift action we need. first appeared on Growing Returns.

The monarch butterfly may be the most famous pollinator, but lesser-known species have the most outstanding performances in the field.

The post The star power of pollinators on the farm first appeared on Growing Returns.

This mutually agreed upon delay creates an opportunity that shouldn’t be missed.

The post The monarch ESA listing is delayed 18 months. Here’s what you need to know. first appeared on Growing Returns.

Building resilient ecosystems and protecting lives and properties will require collaborative solutions that are grounded in reality.

The post Busting Trump mythology on wildfires as more rage in California first appeared on Growing Returns.

While Interior's departmental organization and infrastructure needs are both worthy of administrative attention, there's concern that these could detract from three urgent environmental and public health needs.

The post 3 urgent areas for Zinke to focus beyond departmental reorganization first appeared on Growing Returns.

Two species were removed from the endangered species list this week. Both recovery stories provide important and timely education to policymakers of what successful, collaborative conservation looks like.

When most people think about the Endangered Species Act, they picture the bald eagle, the sea turtle or the grizzly bear. They don’t think as often about the grasses, ferns, flowers and conifers that the ESA also protects.

The post A rare desert wildflower is no longer endangered, but the law that saved it may be first appeared on Growing Returns.

It will be a different kind of horror show – one that will affect people and wildlife here at home.

The post Why Trump should care about the fate of the sage-grouse even more than African elephants first appeared on Growing Returns.

America’s wild turkey population was once estimated to be approximately 30,000 – a number comparable to today’s estimates for polar bears worldwide.

The post The wild turkey may be America’s greatest wildlife conservation success story first appeared on Growing Returns.

The transaction marks a significant milestone in the sage-grouse story, and in America’s conservation history.

The post 10,000-acre deal to protect sage-grouse marks milestone in conservation first appeared on Growing Returns.

"The conditions that are responsible for these fires continue to exist over thousands of acres of California’s populated landscapes."

Today, the Interior Department opened up federal sage-grouse plans to potential changes, despite the concerns of many state, industry, landowner and conservation stakeholders across the country.

Sea turtles, the beloved green jewels of the world’s vast blue oceans, appear to be bouncing back after decades of decline.

It was a sunny, cool morning – a typical September day in Colorado. I pulled up to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge and walked towards a stage where the state flags for Colorado, Nevada, Montana and Wyoming waved in the wind alongside the American flag. It was a good morning. Then-Secretary of the […]

Every year for 15 years, a lone ultralight aircraft took to the skies, tailed by a flock of majestic white and red-capped birds. The young, captive-bred whooping cranes followed their surrogate parent on a migration journey from Wisconsin to Florida, where they spent the winter on the warm Gulf Coast. This was a pioneering project […]

By Eric Holst

The bald eagle was listed as endangered in 1963. It was successfully recovered and delisted by 2007.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of our nation’s bedrock environmental laws, preventing the extinction and helping the recovery of many American icons, including our national symbol – the bald eagle.

The act had the unanimous support of the Senate and a near-unanimous vote in the House when it was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1973. Today, 90 percent of American voters still support the law and want to see it maintained.

The ESA’s ongoing bipartisan history and continued support from the American public sends a clear message to Congress: Protect the integrity of the ESA.

Opportunity for improvements

The leading federal agencies responsible for effectively administering the ESA are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The divisive climate in Washington makes it risky for even well-intentioned proposals aimed at improving the law, but that doesn’t mean policymakers can’t work together to improve ESA implementation through administrative means.

Rather than focusing on legislative changes to the Endangered Species Act, Congress can and should honor the bipartisan history of the ESA by supporting flexible, efficient and cooperative administrative solutions that can improve outcomes for both people and wildlife.

Fortunately, western governors and other stakeholders from the agriculture, energy and conservation sectors have already come together through a series of workshops and roundtables to draw up some recommendations.

No-regrets solutions

The western governors’ policy resolution “for improving the efficacy of the ESA” was released last month. It included a number of innovative and commendable ideas that can and should be pursued, but only through existing administrative channels without changes to the law:

• Increase federal-state collaboration by developing templates and tools to incentivize voluntary conservation. Encourage state participation in recovery planning.
• Encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop Species Status Assessments to help inform listing decisions and, if needed, a recovery plan blueprint to encourage conservation actions.
• Implement recovery plans that provide clearer and earlier guidance for recovery, delisting or downlisting.
• Establish a “playbook” to inform citizens on how to engage throughout various steps of the ESA process.

Areas to proceed with caution 

Several of the western governors’ recommendations included possible changes to the USFWS’s budget. For example, there is a recommendation to allocate funds for a specific line item to assist stakeholders in seeking assurance agreements and other voluntary conservation efforts. Boosting funds for incentive programs is a worthwhile pursuit, but it must be part of a budget that meets all other important functions of the ESA, including listing, delisting and recovery efforts.

The collaborative conservation effort that led to a "not warranted" listing decision in September 2015 received bipartisan support from western governors.

Another set of recommendations that could undermine the ability of the ESA to conserve imperiled species are those that weaken the action-forcing deadlines that have been a part of the law since 1982. Increasing regulatory flexibility around listing timelines with no backstop or accountability would make space for politics to influence or undermine the science of listing decisions, create great uncertainty for stakeholders, and increase the threat of extinction.

Ultimately, for any proposed legislative changes, the devil is in the details. That’s why it is essential that any congressional action on ESA is consistent with the science-based foundation of this law and, as articulated in the western governors' Policy Resolution 2017-11, is “developed in a fashion that results in broad bipartisan support and maintains the intent of the ESA to protect and recover imperiled species.”

Continued bipartisanship is key

The leadership that the western governors, particularly Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, have shown in bringing together multiple and diverse stakeholders to the table to discuss ways to improve conservation efforts through the ESA is praiseworthy and should be continued into the future.

There is certainly opportunity for more innovation and cooperation with regard to the way that we manage wildlife in America. We just have to ensure that the core of the ESA is not only maintained but strengthened so that future generations can enjoy our nation’s treasured wildlife and wild places for many years to come.

Related:

What we've learned from 50 years of wildlife conservation >>

The “dean of endangered species protection” on the past, present and future of America’s wildlife >>

Ranchers and conservationists step up to avert listing of sage-grouse >>

By Eric Holst

Michael Bean is a prominent wildlife conservation expert and attorney. He is also the author of The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, a leading text on wildlife conservation law. Many consider Bean “the dean of endangered species protection.”

Few people know more about wildlife conservation in America than Michael Bean. A renowned expert in wildlife policy and programs, Michael is hailed as an innovative thinker who has consistently found effective ways to protect our nation’s endangered species, pioneering techniques like Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans that have helped many animals at risk of extinction.

Michael started working at EDF in 1977 where he directed our wildlife conservation policy initiatives for several decades, during which I came on board and had the honor of working closely with him. In 2009, Michael went on to join the U.S. Department of the Interior as counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and later as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary.

Today, we are fortunate to have Michael back as an advisor to EDF, and to have him share his insights on the current state of our country’s wildlife programs and policies.

What drove you to dedicate your career to wildlife law, and specifically, endangered species?

Growing up in a Mississippi River town in Iowa, I spent a lot of time outdoors catching snakes, frogs and turtles, and playing in the creek behind my house. I developed a real fondness for nature and wildlife from an early age. At the time that I joined EDF, endangered species struck me as the most important and serious environmental issue for a very simple reason: once species are lost, they’re gone forever. There’s no turning back the clock. There’s no bringing them back.

So, when it came time for me to choose which career to pursue, I looked for something that combined my personal interests in conservation and wildlife protection with my legal training. EDF offered me the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a conservationist.

What would our ecosystems look like without the Endangered Species Act (ESA)?

Well, we clearly wouldn’t have some of the keystone species that have great influence on other wildlife and broader ecosystems. The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone has had dramatic and profound effects on that ecosystem – elk foraging behavior has changed, and, as a result, key vegetation such as willow is flourishing and beaver populations are thriving. Sea otters have influenced the growth of kelp forests and the lively biodiversity that we associate with the California coast. In the Great Plains, black-footed ferrets have helped control prairie dog populations. These are just a few examples of species that are still around and contributing valuable ecosystem services, despite facing almost certain extinction, thanks to the ESA.

Every community has benefited from the ESA because all of us benefit from biological diversity – economically, recreationally, aesthetically and spiritually.

How do you see the ESA being improved, or reformed, if at all?

The absence of positive incentives to engage private landowners as partners in conservation is a critical need. The ESA itself is currently focused on prohibiting harmful conduct, which is certainly important. However, we need to focus on not just keeping things from getting worse, but also actively making things better. And that comes from encouraging positive behaviors to benefit endangered species. The key need here is involving private landowners.

Most, if not all farmers and ranchers want to be good stewards of their land, and most enjoy the presence of wildlife on their land. But there are regulatory consequences and costs that may discourage implementation of species conservation measures – and anyone who wishes to improve the law’s results should start by addressing these needs through positive incentives.

Michael Bean examined the new role of NGOs in species conservation in his 2001 article Safe Harbor Agreements: Carving Out A New Role for NGOs. Safe Harbor agreements were innovative voluntary agreements between private landowners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote endangered species protection.

What are some species that you worked on throughout your career that stand out to you as examples of what works and what does not?

I am particularly proud of the success of Safe Harbor agreements with red-cockaded woodpeckers. These birds occur in ten states in the Southeast, but much of their habitat is on private land. In the late 90s, many landowners were unwilling to manage their land as habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Through our work at EDF, we experimented with Safe Harbor agreements, which encouraged landowners to implement beneficial practices that conserved habitat for the birds and helped to recover populations. Today, there are 2.5 million acres of land on which private landowners are laying out a welcome mat for this endangered bird and there are over 100 new family groups of this endangered species on these Safe Harbor properties.

What are the biggest challenges of creating and maintaining successful wildlife legislation?

The biggest challenge facing wildlife legislation is polarization around environmental issues. It’s easy to forget that when the ESA was passed in 1973, it was passed unanimously in the Senate and almost unanimously in the House. A lot of our cornerstone environmental laws were passed in the late 60s and early 70s – the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, to name a few. There was bipartisan recognition at that time that the environment was in need of attention and there was bipartisan support to address these threats.

Hyper-partisanship has affected not just wildlife legislation, but environmental legislation in general.

Today, it is hard to imagine any environmental legislation getting close to that level of support. Environmental issues have become highly partisan. Even the science underlying the issues is being disputed by some skeptics. This hyper-partisanship has affected not just wildlife legislation, but environmental legislation in general.

When it was first published in 1977, Michael’s book was the only publication to “analyze wildlife law comprehensively as a distinct component of federal environmental law.” The second edition was published in 1983 and the third in 1997 (with coauthor Melanie Rowland). The book remains a standard reference for those seeking to understand wildlife law.

How has federal environmental law and wildlife law changed since the first publication of your book, The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, in 1977?

There is a lot more contention and litigation of late than there was in the earlier years. In part, that’s due to partisanship, but it’s also due to other factors as well. The laws that were passed in the 60s and 70s are in the same basic form today that they were in when they were passed. They have withstood the test of time, but the implementation of those laws has become more contentious. You see that in efforts by both the current administrator of the EPA and the secretary of the Interior, who have both worked to roll back the initiatives of the previous administration. This has never happened on this sort of scale in the past, and it’s disconcerting.

What communities are most affected by the ESA? Are there opportunities to improve the way the law works for people, the economy and the environment?

Every community has benefited from the ESA because all of us benefit from biological diversity – economically, recreationally, aesthetically and spiritually. We can now see our national symbol, the bald eagle, soaring in the wild as one of many species that are no longer endangered. That is a profound benefit to all Americans.

Some communities have been affected more than others, but there are opportunities for the ranching and forestry communities in particular to find ways to compatibly manage their lands for economic purposes and help imperiled wildlife at the same time. This was seen with red-cockaded woodpeckers and it’s happening now as we see ranchers working to prevent the greater sage-grouse from becoming endangered.

With a serious effort to look for compatibility, we will see it’s possible to share spaces with rare species and still meet human needs.

The bald eagle was first listed as endangered in 1963. Due to conservation efforts led by EDF, it was successfully recovered and delisted by 2007, with an estimated 10,000 mating pairs in the wild. (Photo Credit: Dave Soldano.)

Related:

What we've learned from 50 years of wildlife conservation >>

Let’s make ESA listings extinct, not wildlife >>

We need to get creative to protect wildlife in the face of climate risk >>

By Eric Holst

The listing process for the lesser prairie-chicken was tumultuous, with a 2016 ruling that stripped the bird of its previous federal protections and sparked questions about ESA implementation, in addition to what moral obligation humans have to protect wildlife. Photo credit: USDA NRCS

Since the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing two weeks ago to discuss the “Modernization of the Endangered Species Act (ESA),” a new public debate over the act’s effectiveness has begun, even if the arguments on each side haven’t changed much.

On one hand, reform proponents point to the fact that only 47 of 1,652 species have been removed from the Endangered Species List since 1973. On the other, the act’s defenders note that nearly every species on the list has been saved from extinction.

Yet those may be the wrong metrics. Instead, we may want to ask why those species end up on the list in the first place, and whether we are taking common-sense approaches to wildlife conservation before they do.

Wildlife on life support

To use a medical analogy (not uncommon when describing the law), the ESA is a necessary emergency room for endangered wildlife on the brink. The law does a pretty good job at stopping the bleeding and preventing immediate extinction. But as is the case in human health, what’s needed is more preventative care so we don’t have to call the ESA ambulance in the first place.

It just makes sense to focus attention and resources on recovering species before they reach the Endangered Species List. That’s where we can invest dollars more efficiently in advanced conservation and avoid the necessary challenges that come with listings. After all, a visit to the doctor is far cheaper than a visit to the ER.

So who are these wildlife doctors?

Roughly three-quarters of the species listed under the ESA reside on private land, and the vast majority of that private land is used for agriculture. That makes farmers and ranchers to the Endangered Species Act what primary care doctors are to the health care system. They are the first line of defense, the caretakers, the stewards. They know what wildlife need better than anyone, because they know the land. They recognize the trills of the songbirds that fly in their trees.

The ESA’s own Medical Corps

Texas rancher Gene Murph points to the best golden-cheeked warbler habitat on his property. Dr. Murph participated in the Fort Hood Recovery Credit System, earning new revenue for conservation activities that improved the bird's habitat.

That was the case at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas Hill Country where nearby ranchers worked with the Army to offset impacts of their training activities on the golden-cheeked warbler’s stronghold habitat. My colleague David Wolfe worked closely with those local ranchers to ensure that conservation activities were efficient and beneficial, both to the landowners and the songbirds.

The benefits to landowners weren’t trivial. Total revenue to the 21 participating landowners amounted to nearly $2 million.

Because of these benefits to participants and the warbler, the Fort Hood program became the blueprint for an incentive-based conservation program known today as habitat exchanges, which works to change the reflex that private landowners have towards wildlife from “shoot, shovel and shut up" to "protect and preserve." By offering farmers and ranchers a new revenue stream for creating, maintaining and improving wildlife habitat on their property, the exchange is essentially turning them into wildlife doctors, or the ESA’s own Medical Corps.

Supporting wildlife supports landowners

It’s the perfect role for landowners, especially for conservation of a species like the greater sage-grouse. The saying goes, “What’s good for the bird is good for herd,” since many of the conservation activities that benefit sage-grouse are also good for cattle ranching.

The State of Nevada made $2 million in funding available to Nevada landowners, primarily ranchers, who enhance and restore high-quality habitat for greater sage-grouse on their property.

I’ve found that to be the case working with stakeholders in Nevada, Colorado and Wyoming – three sagebrush states that have launched their own versions of a habitat exchange for sage-grouse to attract credit producers and drive investment into projects on the ground, fast. The efficiency with which the Nevada program, for example, was able to allocate over $2 million to about a dozen eager and willing landowners gives me great hope for the future of the bird, and for the program.

By investing more in primary care, we can create more certainty for affected industries and landowners, support the rural lifestyle and economy with new jobs and revenue opportunities, and give wildlife a better chance of recovery.

Ultimately, we can avoid the need to add species to the Endangered Species List altogether.

Related:

Nevada landowners eager to generate conservation credits, help sage-grouse >>

Operation Warbler: Fort Hood and local ranchers team up to save bird >>

Monarch butterflies get help from Texas ranch >>

By Eric Holst

On Tuesday, President-elect Trump vowed to honor "the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt … one of our great environmentalists." How will he make good on this promise with his Interior pick? (Credit: Harvard College Library)

Let’s face it. Over the last 30 years, when a democrat is elected president, the environmental community tends to let out a sigh of relief and cheer the appointment of a conservation-minded Secretary of the Interior. Aggies and industry, meanwhile, prepare to hunker down and fight against more endangered species listings and greater restrictions on public lands.

When a republican is elected president, enviros dust off their armor and prepare for battle against the likes of James Watt and Manuel Lujan – two former Interior secretaries known for their anti-environmental, anti-ESA agendas – while farmers and energy industry staff anxiously await the promised freedom of relaxed regulatory burdens.

Appointees on both sides take office prepared to undo the so-called “overreach” of the previous administration. But the new appointees often overreach themselves, resulting in years of lawsuits and delays in achieving their ideological master plan.

Lawyers prosper, but it’s not clear that anyone else does. Meanwhile, the environment continues to suffer.

Finding balance

We’re in that season again now as we wait for the President-elect to name his Secretary of the Interior, the person responsible for the care of our treasured natural heritage. The environmental community expects the worst and is already preparing to launch defensive campaigns in the media and in the courts.

If President-elect Trump plans to open federal lands to more oil and gas drilling while also protecting wild places for hunters and anglers, he will need an Interior Secretary that’s equipped with a robust mitigation plan.

But imagine if the incoming president decided to avoid the wild pendulum swings that characterize land and wildlife policy in America and appoint a candidate that would seek to find a sustainable balance of environmental protection and economic prosperity.

Given Trump’s promise on Tuesday to honor "the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt … one of our great environmentalists,” here are three things I am looking for in our next Interior Secretary that can help the President-elect make good on his promise.

1. A commitment to cooperative conservation

The recent legacy of the Interior Department under the Obama administration was one of balance and cooperation. Some of the biggest successes of Secretary Sally Jewell’s tenure have included multi-state, bi-partisan, public-private efforts that brought everyone from Nevada ranchers to wildlife biologists together to make conservation history and keep the greater sage-grouse off the Endangered Species List.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was joined by Western governors from Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada and Montana at the September 22, 2015 event to celebrate cooperative conservation efforts on sage-grouse, deeming it "not warranted" for listing. (Credit: U.S. Department of the Interior)

When the decision was made to avoid listing the sage-grouse, an icon of the American West, two democratic governors and two republican governors were on the podium praising the collaborative effort made across 11 states and in partnership with the federal government. No one got everything they asked for, and some pain was shared by all parties at the end of the day, but the multi-year, multi-stakeholder, multi-hundred-million-dollar effort serves as a model for how the incoming administration might change the pendulum-like pattern of the last 30 years.

In fact, President-elect Trump would do well to look at any of the governors who were on that podium as potential Secretaries of the Interior.

2. Strong mitigation standards

On Tuesday, Trump also promised to “conserve and protect our beautiful natural resources for the next generation including protecting lands for anglers and hunters, and all of those who enjoy the outdoors like my sons Don and Eric.”

If President-elect Trump plans to open federal lands to more oil and gas drilling while also protecting wild places for hunters and anglers, he will need an Interior Secretary that’s equipped with a robust mitigation plan.

The cooperative conservation effort to protect the greater sage-grouse is a good place for the incoming secretary to start. That effort included strong regional mitigation planning with the Bureau of Land Management to ensure that impacts to grouse habitat on federal lands are offset with improved habitat elsewhere.

Earlier this month, the State of Nevada made a second wave of funding available to landowners who protect habitat for greater sage-grouse on their property. The additional funds mark $2 million through the state's market-based program.

This offset requirement is already creating a new market opportunity for ranchers willing to protect sage-grouse habitat on their lands, with millions of dollars flowing to landowners’ pockets in places like Nevada.

Mitigation done right doesn’t have to be a burden on the economy. It can be a big boost.

3. Deploy the markets

In the last eight years, the number of conservation tools available to manage our air, water and wildlife has increased twofold. Among them are some innovative approaches that deploy the markets to drive the most impact on the ground for each dollar invested.

There are new solutions like mitigation banks and habitat exchanges that allow dollars to flow quickly and efficiently into projects on the ground, with improved accounting, reporting and monitoring to ensure positive outcomes.

The best part? The land can continue to be productive – to provide the food, fuel and fiber that our nation’s people need, and that drive local economies across the country. Case in point: Newmont Mining Corp. is one of the first credit producers through Nevada's market-based program.

With new tools, strong standards and a cooperative mindset, I believe our next Interior Secretary can help President-elect Trump meet his goals of conserving and protecting our natural resources for the next generation. Now it’s up to Trump to make his pick.

Related: 

Why we're seeing the beginning of a multi-billion dollar ecosystem marketplace >>

$2 million available for Nevada landowners to earn revenue through sage-grouse pilots >>

Ranchers and conservationists step up to avert listing of sage-grouse