An environmental activist nonprofit blasted earlier this week for alleged abuses of Endangered Species Act litigation claimed Friday that the energy industry group’s critical report is “riddled with errors and false claims.”
The report researched and released by the Western Energy Alliance and criticizing the Center for Biological Diversity and the WildEarth Guardians was made public Monday.
The two environmental groups, according to the WEA report, have filed more ESA litigation since 2011 despite signing an agreement with the federal government that year to launch fewer such cases.
But Noah Greenwald, CBD’s endangered species director, told the Washington Examiner Friday that the WEA analysis was “incredibly inaccurate.”
Greenwald said the WEA report “is either exceptionally sloppy or utterly cynical. Either way it’s ginning up fairytales in the hopes of hiding its opposition to helping wildlife that are being pushed to the brink of extinction.”
“Instead of a misinformation campaign, the oil and gas industry ought to be focused on making sure they don’t drive the sage grouse, lesser prairie chicken and many more species into oblivion,” Greenwald said.
In the three years before the settlement in July 2011, Greenwald said, CBD filed 20 ESA petitions to protect 466 species and 26 lawsuits to protect species.
In the three years since the settlement, he said, CBD has filed 16 petitions to protect 76 species and brought nine lawsuits to protect species.
The WEA report said that “between them, WEG and CBD have been plaintiffs on 14 different lawsuits challenging listing decisions on 35 different species, or nearly 40% of those filed since the settlement agreements. Nineteen of those species were subject to the settlement agreements.”
The petitions are a critical step in a process established by the ESA that allows groups like CBD to file “sue-and-settle” lawsuits against the government.
Federal officials that are sympathetic with the views of environmental groups like CBD often settle out of court and agree to reimburse most or all of the nonprofits’ legal costs, according to WEA.
Greenwald said the WEA was wrong on several other counts, saying the energy industry group’s report inaccurate asserted that “in 2011, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service spent over 75% of its $20.9 million listing and critical habitat budget responding to litigation from environmental groups.”
But Greenwald said government documents demonstrate that FWS spends 2 percent or less of its annual ESA listing budget on litigation costs.
Greenwald also claimed that, while the WEA report said the 2011 settlement agreement excluded “the public, elected officials, state and local governments, job-creating businesses, and other stakeholders,” the agreement actually required that protection decisions be made while allowing public comment and input.
Finally, he said, the WEA report asserted that CBD agreement and another with WildEarth Guardians covered a total of 1,008 species when in fact the two agreements together referenced 878 species.
A WEA spokesman has been asked by the Examiner for a response to the CBD spokesman’s comments.
Go here to read the complete statement by CBD’s Greenwald.
UPDATE: WEA stands by report
Kathleen Sgamma, WEA’s vice president for government and public affairs, said “I’m glad CBD is proud of filing fewer petitions since the settlement, but the fact is that they’re still not satisfied, and between the two groups, they’re responsible for 74% of new petitions covering 89% of petitioned species since the settlement.”
Sgamma pointed to congressional testimony of FWS Director Dan Ashe as the source for the WEA report’s estimate that the federal agency spent 75 percent of its 2011 ESA budget on litigation:
“Our FY2011 resource management allocation for listing and critical habitat was $20.9 million, of which we spent at least $15.8 million taking substantive actions required by court orders or settlement agreements resulting from litigation.”
The WEA official also said “we of course stand by our statement on how the public is locked out of closed-door settlement agreements. Just look at the reaction to the settlements by state and local elected officials, Congress, ranchers, industries, and others who were not at the table.”
The closed door process results in policy-making by federal officials and environmental activists like CBD, she said.
Mark Tapscott is executive editor of the Washington Examiner.
