[env-trinity] ESA Rule Changes

[Byron]

Endangered Species Act -- parts of it could become extinct: Bush wants to
let federal agencies decide whether projects might harm endangered animals.
New rules would cut scientific reviews.

The Los Angeles Times- 8/12/08

By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration Monday proposed a regulatory overhaul
of the Endangered Species Act to allow federal agencies to decide whether
protected species would be imperiled by agency projects, eliminating the
independent scientific reviews that have been required for more than three
decades.

The new rules, which will be subject to a 30-day comment period, would use
administrative powers to make broad changes in the law that Congress has
resisted for years. Under current law, agencies must subject any plans that
potentially affect endangered animals and plants to an independent review by
scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Under the proposed new rules, dam and highway construction and
other federal projects could proceed without delay if the agency in charge
decides they would not harm vulnerable species.

The Associated Press obtained a draft of the proposal and reported its
details.

Afterward, in a telephone call with reporters, Interior Secretary Dirk
Kempthorne described the rules as a "narrow regulatory change" that "will
provide clarity and certainty to the consultation process under the
Endangered Species Act."

But environmentalists and congressional Democrats blasted the proposal as a
last-minute attempt by the administration to bring about dramatic changes in
the law. For more than a decade, congressional Republicans have been trying
unsuccessfully to rewrite the act, which property owners and developers say
imposes unreasonable economic costs.

"I am deeply troubled by this proposed rule, which gives federal agencies an
unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with
the Endangered Species Act," said Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), chairman
of the House Natural Resources Committee, who asked for a staff briefing
before the proposal was announced but did not receive one. "Eleventh-hour
rulemakings rarely, if ever, lead to good government. This is not the type
of legacy this Interior Department should be leaving for future
generations."

Bob Irvin, senior vice president of conservation programs at the advocacy
group Defenders of Wildlife, questioned how some federal agencies could make
the assessments, when most do not have wildlife biologists on staff.

"Clearly, that's a case of asking the fox to guard the chicken coop," Irvin
said, adding that the original law created "a giant caution light that made
federal agencies stop and think about the impacts of their actions. What the
Bush administration is telling those agencies is they don't have to think
about those impacts anymore."

But Dale Hall, who directs the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the move
would not apply to major federal projects and would give his agency more
time to focus on the most critically endangered species, rather than
conducting reviews of projects that pose little threat.

"We have to have the ability to put our efforts where they're needed," Hall
said, adding that individual agencies will have to take responsibility if
their projects do harm a protected species. "This really says to the
agencies, 'This law belongs to all of us. You're responsible to defend it.'
"

The new rules would also limit the impact of the administration's decision
in May to list the polar bear as threatened with extinction because of
shrinking sea ice. At the time of that decision, Kempthorne said he would
seek changes to the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that it was
inflexible, adding that it had not been modified significantly since 1986.

In a statement Monday, the Interior Department declared that even if a
federal action such as the permitting of a power plant would lead to
increased greenhouse gas emissions, the decision would not trigger a federal
review "because it is not possible to link the emissions to impacts on
specific listed species such as polar bears."

The draft rules obtained by the Associated Press would bar agencies from
assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and
its effect on species and habitats.

Kempthorne said the new regulations included that language "so we don't
inadvertently have the Endangered Species Act seen as a back door to climate
change policy that was never, ever intended."

The new rules were expected to be formally proposed immediately, officials
told the Associated Press. That would give the administration enough time to
impose the rules before November's presidential election. A new
administration could freeze any pending regulations or reverse them, but
that process could take months. Congress could overturn the rules through
legislation, but that could take even longer.

Tim Coyle, senior vice president for governmental affairs at the California
Building Industry Assn., said that while his association would have to read
the rules before making a judgment, he welcomed Kempthorne's statement on
the polar bear because it offered "clarity on an issue that if it was left
broad and ambiguous, could be a serious problem for the home-building
industry here in California. . . . For home builders, clarity in the rules
is always, always helpful."

Although Kempthorne said he had received "encouragement from both sides of
the aisle to see if we couldn't bring about steps that would make the
Endangered Species Act more effective," his proposal opened a new front in
the ongoing battle between the administration and Congress on the
environment.

An aide to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Environment and
Public Works Committee, said she, like Rahall, had requested but not
received a briefing. The panel is drafting a letter to the Interior
Department and will hold an oversight hearing.

In a statement, Boxer called the rules change "another in a continuing
stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the
back door. I believe it is illegal, and if this proposed regulation had been
in place, it would have undermined our ability to protect the bald eagle,
the grizzly bear, and the gray whale."#

 

 

Byron Leydecker, JCT

Friends of Trinity River, Chair

PO Box 2327

Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327

415 383 4810

415 519 4810 cell

415 383 9562 fax

bwl3 at comcast.net

bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org (secondary)

http://www.fotr.org

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20080812/0c9d5c05/attachment.html>