Here.
Update: Another related article is here.
Natural Climate Change Factors
1 hour ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
The Big Battle — The People versus The Blob2 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
6 comments:
It does grieve me that Florida would wipe out 2000 acres of wetlands plus another 2000 for the airport plus another 70,000 in the surrounding area to jump start the panhandle. With or without IBWO.
One day the Earth is going to say screw you; do you hear that great whooshing sound, can't breathe anymore can ya.
Too bad everything else will perish too.
It's such a beautiful place.
Why do we want to ruin it forever?
It serves a more valuable purpose than any airport will ever do.
I have to agree with Marcus on this one. I hope that Tom and others are not shaming this simple plea from the conservationist groups (as the context of being posted at Tom's blog most certainly implies). There's nothing wrong with being "urged...to look into the issue" (quote from the original article).
Even if IBWOs were dwelling in the Auburn research team's area, the airport would likely not be an agent of disturbance.
It is, nonetheless, extremely unfortunate that they plan to destroy those precious wetlands.
This case illustrates perfectly why A) we need the Endangered Species Act yet B) why the ESA gives cause to so many to hate environmentalists.
The reality is that you can't sell to the general public the notion of preserving vital ecological areas without having a pretty or cute poster child like an IBWO or a SPOW. A few of us know what "biomass" and "primary productivity", "connectivity" and "carbon sinks" are, but most need a big piece of megafauna to be sold on getting behind a conservation plan for an area.
Yet one can hardly blame a local for getting pissed off at outsiders, intellectuals, and the government for giving him or her the impression that a woodpecker is more important than his or her livelihood.
Oh, well. I hope that this is one swamp they don't drain, IBWO or no.
"Even if IBWOs were dwelling in the Auburn research team's area, the airport would likely not be an agent of disturbance."
You apparently know nothing about the NEPA or any of the history of environmental protection for the last 30 years.
The airport is built with federal monies. Therefore, a NEPA environmental impact should take into account not just what the airport is built upon. But also, the development of the entire region that the airport is meant to foster.
Has such a NEPA process been done? Sure, but it didn't take into account all the double knockies or kents that show without a doubt that IBWO still lives in the area. And we even have a Dr. of ornithology at a major university who has actually seen them there! Any judge would love that.
A slamdunk lawsuit if I have ever seen one. Could easily delay this airport for another 10 years.
What a hoot!
"Rylander says federal agencies should consider both the direct and indirect effects of the project. Not just the impact of the airport itself, but the effects of future development and flight patterns."
Does this project not already have a NEPA Environmental Impact Statement that does just that? If not, that's a sufficient lawsuit with or without the Ivory Bill.
"So, is it possible that one single woodpecker could stop the project? A team of researchers from Auburn University says it should."
Is this true? I thought Hillcrow claimed that he didn't know anything about the airport? Are they now taking a position against the airport?
Post a Comment