Kelly:

> For ten plus years, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildife has
> negotiated land use agreements around bald eagle nests and communal night
> roosts. Over 200 such agreements have been signed, mostly with private
> landowners....

> Washington currently has at least 550 nesting pairs of bald eagles...
> Numbers alone now dictate that the population can sustain, in the
> short-term, many of the purely local effects of adverse developments,
> pollution, maniacs with rifles...

> Is the job done? Do we delist now and get on with other business?
>
> Consider the cons. Bald eagles need big trees for nesting and night roosting.
> Half of Washington's occupied nesting habitat is within one half mile of the
> Puget Sound shoreline, an area where human development proceeds at a rapid
> pace. Sixty four percent of all of the nest sites in Washington are on
> private land. In the important Puget Sound region, 78% are on private land.
> On the lower Columbia River and on Hood Canal bald eagles are reproducing
> poorly, possibly too poorly to be self-sustaining (if it weren't for the many
> more healthy reproductive areas elsewhere). Contaminants, mostly of unknown
> origins, are the cause. Is this phenomenon going to increase in the future...?

In the lower Columbia, this isn't quite true. My understanding is that
the source - contaminated sediments - is known. At one time I believed
that the mechanism of transport wasn't well understood, but some bright
people in tweeters posted that even this isn't really true today.

It was a great thread, being told I was wrong without being called
nasty names in public. :)

Can't comment on the Hood Canal scene.

> decrease...? stay about the same?

> The specter of the bald eagle as a species this nation could easily lose has
> been raised. Now that the sacrifices have been made, the expenses absorbed,
> and the bird restored to good numbers, perhaps its time to loosen up. Let
> individuals..., local communities (??) decide how to shoulder the
> responsibility for maintaining habitat for this great bird into the distant
> future.

Short answer "yes and no".

Long answer:

Should the species be delisted if the goals of the recovery plan have
been met? Yes, I do believe it should unless there is evidence that
the recovery plan is deficient, which I do not believe to be the case.
If our use as conservationists of the ESA listing and recovery process
is to have any credibility, we must be as willing to support a technical
process for determining when to delist as we are when we support listing.

To take the marbled murrelet, for instance, we are currently livid
over the fact that Slade Gorton has passed legislation that uses a
politically-driven process for determine nest sites for these birds,
with the goal of allowing logging in nesting habitat regardless of
the current scientific protocol (i.e. requiring an actual nest
or egg fragments be found, rather than the indirect protocol used
by current surveyors as finding an actual nest is virtually impossible).

We can't demand adherence to a science-based protocol in cases such
as these while rejecting a science-based protocol for delisting.

If the drive for delisting were strictly political, of course it
should be opposed. At the moment, both components are visible
as delisting is viewed as a success story which can be publicized
to motivate support for the ESA. As long as the decision is made
on technical grounds, I don't mind it being exploited for what
boils down to PR. We must guard that the process not be driven
by this need, but as long as we're satisifed it isn't, we should
support it.

Now, the "no" part - this does not mean that we should relinquish
control over habitat preservation to the good graces of Developer
Dave who's bought himself the mayorship of some heavenly bit of
Puget Sound. But we needn't invoke the endangered species act
as a backhanded way of maintaining control.

I realize that Washingonians are at a disadvantage here, as comprehensive
statewide planning in essence doesn't exist, but this is really the
approach and foundation upon which habitat preservation in urban
and semi-urban areas should be based. For it isn't simply bald
eagles that we wish to maintain around Puget Sound, nor are all
species' needs met by preserving that sort of habitat. Take note
of Montlake Fill. Take note at the pleasure we take in having
non-endangered wildlife in the city.

Down here, we've taken a much more proactive approach to landscape
planning to preserve open spaces and habitat. It partly involves
aggressive planning, and also involves a $150 million bond measure
to buy outright entire parcels, passed by the voters last November
in the midst of the Newtonian Revolution.

Here are some of the planning goals which have been adopted
by our Metro regional government (the umbrella that among other
things controls land use planning for Washington, Multnomah and
Clackamas counties). These are binding on county and municipal
governments and will form a part of the basis of zoning codes
developed to implement our regional 2040 growth management plan:

"Manage watersheds to protect, restore and ensure to the maximum
extent practicable the integrity of streams, wetlands and
floodplains, and their multiple biological, physical and social
values.

Preservation, use and modification of the natural environment of
the region should maintain and enhance environmental quality while
striving for stewardship and preservation of a broad range of natural
resources.

...encourage the use of techniques relying on natural processes
to address flood control, storm water management, abnormally high
winter and low summer stream flows and nonpoint polllution reduction.
"

Etc - these are just samples. Note the lack of the word "endangered
species" anywhere in this - our approach is much more broad-based.
If you're wondering, yes, we do have endangered subspecies of
cutthroat trout in some of our urban watersheds (indeed, on the
140 acre refuge owned by PAS). Obviously, if an ESA-listed
species were found and if the habitat were not covered in our
extensive planning approach, the ESA would take precedence.

The ESA is like the ER at a hospital. It's a way to treat
trauma victims. This doesn't preclude preventative care, though,
which is the analogue to the planning approach.

In Washington, it may be that delisting would leave the state
and urban governments with no power to protect eagle habitat
(though I do believe the agreements which have been worked
out often take the form of deed restrictions? It's been about
five years since I attended a talk by one of your Washington
folks on how these agreements were implemented). I would say,
though, that politically-based efforts to defeat delisting
would just increase polarization on the overall issue, which
after all is one of protecting a diverse range of habitat in
the face of inevitable growth.


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>