Craig Manson posted this comment1 on June 28th.
All too often, speculation seems to trump facts in the scorched-earth approach to policy commentary concerning natural resources. This piece doesn't even pretend to have any factual basis as to Julie MacDonald's alleged involvement in the biological opinion on EPA's CWA delegation to the State of Arizona. The fact is she did not touch that document. Additionally, it is a mischaracterization to say that the regional office was “overruled.” The regional director favored the outcome that was eventually reached. Furthermore, the biological opinion never in any form found jeopardy to the continued existence of any species. Instead, the biological opinion at one point urged that there might be indirect adverse effects unless EPA and FWS consulted on future permits issued by Arizona officials.
The comment is referring to my speculation that Julie McDonald might have been involved in the decision to overrule regional U.S. Fish & Wildlife officials and approve the Environmental Protection Agency's grant of discharge permit authority to the state of Arizona.
I plead guilty to speculation. I do not have any direct knowledge that Julie McDonald was or was not involved in this particular decision.
But
In July 2002, Julie McDonald became a senior adviser to Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Wildlife and Parks in the Department of Interior, according to a press release on the DOI website.
After she was promoted to Assistant Secretary for Wildlife and Parks in 2004, “she frequently sought to reshape the agency's scientific reports in an effort to ease the impact of agency decisions on private landowners.”
Is it unreasonable to speculate that she could have had some influence on the decision in this case? Maybe. I don't think so, but even if it were but I'd hardly call it “scorched earth” especially when Mr. Manson simply asserts “The fact is she did not touch that document.”
I also plead guilty to saying that the regional office was overruled. According to the majority opinion,
Specifically, the FWS feared that, be-cause §7(a)(2)’s consultation requirement does not apply to permitting decisions by state authorities, the transfer of authority would empower Arizona officials to issue individual permits without considering and mitigating their indirect impact on these upland species... The FWS regional office therefore urged that, in considering the proposed transfer of permitting authority, those involved in the consultation process should take these potential indirect impacts into account.
The EPA disagreed, maintaining that “its approval action, which is an administrative transfer of authority, [would not be] the cause of future non-discharge-relatedimpacts on endangered species from projects requiring State NPDES permits.”
That's the dispute that was referred to the national offices. The biological opinion continues:
After further reflection and analysis of causation and the definition of indirect effects found in our Consultation Handbook, our final opinion is that the loss of section 7-related conservation benefits is not an indirect effect of the approval action. This proposed approval does not cause the loss of conservation benefits for listed species or critical habitat.
The biological opinion is signed by Steven L. Spangle, Field Supervisor. OK. So “on further reflection” the regional office changed its mind. It wasn't overruled, at least there's no evidence in this record that the national office brought pressure on regional officials to change their assessment.2
As for “eopardy to the continued existence of any species” the biological opinion says:
In the course of our analysis, we have expressed concerns that the approval will result in a loss of section 7 consultation-related conservation benefits. We have stated that the loss of these conservation benefits is an indirect effect of the approval. Furthermore, we have stated that the loss of conservation benefits as an indirect effect will appreciably reduce the conservation status of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl and the Pima pineapple cactus.
I'm sorry, but “appreciably reduc[ing] the conservation status of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl and the Pima pineapple cactus” sounds like jeopardy to me.
1To avoid having this site filled with comment spam, I moderate comments. Since therea are so few comments, I didn't see this comment and it didn't post until last night. I'm posting it in full here, along with my comments, to make sure that the two or three people who read this blog see the comment.
2Of course national officials “have epeatedly instructed Fish and Wildlife scientists to change their recommendations on identifying ‘critical habitats&rsqho;” (source), so it wouldn't be surprising to learn that national officials had some influence on the outcome of the regional office's “further reflection.”
Leave a comment