Republicans want to eviscerate endangered species act

[Normy]

This is just ridiculous. Anything for a buck-

The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.

New regulations, which don't require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft first obtained by The Associated Press.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a "back door" to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.

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

"We need to focus our efforts where they will do the most good," Kempthorne said in a news conference organized quickly after AP reported details of the proposal. "It is important to use our time and resources to protect the most vulnerable species. It is not possible to draw a link between greenhouse gas emissions and distant observations of impacts on species."

If approved, the changes would represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1986. They would accomplish through regulations what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects.

The changes would apply to any project a federal agency would fund, build or authorize that might harm endangered wildlife and their habitat. Government wildlife experts currently perform tens of thousands of such reviews each year. See how the Endangered Species Act works today »

"If adopted, these changes would seriously weaken the safety net of habitat protections that we have relied upon to protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years," said John Kostyack, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming initiative. See photos of endangered animals »

Under current law, federal agencies must consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or to damage habitat, even if no harm seems likely. This initial review usually results in accommodations that better protect the 1,353 animals and plants in the United States listed as threatened or endangered and determines whether a more formal analysis is warranted.

The Interior Department said such consultations are no longer necessary because federal agencies have developed expertise to review their own construction and development projects, according to the 30-page draft obtained by the AP.

Don't Miss
Report: Nearly half world's primates face extinction
More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Endangered Species Program
In Depth: Planet in peril
"We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations," the proposal said.

The director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, H. Dale Hall, said the changes would help focus expertise on "where we know we don't have a negative effect on the species but where the agency is vulnerable if we don't complete a consultation."

Responding to questions about the process, Hall said, "We will not do anything that leaves the public out of this process."

The new rules were expected to be formally proposed immediately, officials said. They would be subject to a 60-day public comment period before being finalized by the Interior Department, giving the administration enough time to impose them before November's presidential election. A new administration could freeze any pending regulations or reverse them, a process that could take months. Congress could also overturn the rules through legislation, but that could take even longer.

The proposal was drafted largely by attorneys in the general counsel's offices of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department, according to an official with the National Marine Fisheries Service, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan hadn't yet been circulated publicly. The two agencies' experts were not consulted until last week, the official said.

Between 1998 and 2002, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted 300,000 consultations. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which evaluates projects affecting marine species, conducts about 1,300 reviews each year.

The reviews have helped safeguard protected species such as bald eagles, Florida panthers and whooping cranes. A federal government handbook from 1998 described the consultations as "some of the most valuable and powerful tools to conserve listed species."

In recent years, however, some federal agencies and private developers have complained that the process results in delays and increased construction costs.

"We have always had concerns with respect to the need for streamlining and making it a more efficient process," said Joe Nelson, a lawyer for the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition, a trade group for home builders and the paper and farming industry.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called the proposed changes illegal.

"This proposed regulation is another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door," she said. "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."

The Bush administration and Congress have attempted with mixed success to change the law.

In 2003, the administration imposed similar rules that would have allowed agencies to approve new pesticides and projects to reduce wildfire risks without asking the opinion of government scientists about whether threatened or endangered species and habitats might be affected. The pesticide rule was later overturned in court. The Interior Department, along with the Forest Service, is currently being sued over the rule governing wildfire prevention.

In 2005, the House passed a bill that would have made similar changes to the Endangered Species Act, but the bill died in the Senate.

The sponsor of that bill, then-House Resources chairman Richard Pombo, R-California, told the AP Monday that allowing agencies to judge for themselves the effects of a project will not harm species or habitat.

"There is no way they can rubber stamp everything because they will end up in court for every decision," he said.

But internal reviews by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that about half the unilateral evaluations by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management that determined wildfire prevention projects were unlikely to harm protected species were not legally or scientifically valid.

Those had been permitted under the 2003 rule changes.

"This is the fox guarding the hen house. The interests of agencies will outweigh species protection interests," said Eric Glitzenstein, the attorney representing environmental groups in the lawsuit over the wildfire prevention regulations. "What they are talking about doing is eviscerating the Endangered Species Act."

N-

[m21sniper]

I really don't give a crap about endangered species. If they go extinct something else fills the vacuum. It's mother nature's way.

Endangered Spotted Owl? Who cares...

[snbush67]

$250,000,000 to save the black footed ferret which prey on prairie dogs, that ranchers are trying to kill and others are trying to protect through other federally funded programs.

[M.D. Holloway]

dems good eat'n

[slakjaw]

The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.

Why is this bad?

Are local DNR or GPC unable to determine this? why?

[BeyGon]

The save the Polar Bear and Walarus BS is just that, total BS, it is a way for the environmental wackos to make sure we NEVER EVER drill in ANWAR.

[Mule]

So you know a lot about the endangered species act Normy?

Penn & Teller blow up the endangered species act. Language may require a warning.

[john70t]

Anyone want to buy some yummy fresh tiger testicles? They'll give you wood!

[sammyg2]

Here's a true story:
About 10 or 15 years ago, my father's company bought some land outside Oxnard, Ca. It was out in the middle of nowhere, barren desert land, undeveloped. They were planning to build a new manufacturing plant that would create about 250 new jobs which the local economy sorely needed.

Some nutcase enviro-nazi group demanded a second environmental impact report, and sued because that land was NEXT TO a natural habitat of an endangered species, a SAND FLEA!

To make a long story longer, my father's company was unable to develop that land that they had alrwasdy paid for after the first environmental impact report came back clean.
They lost the millions of dollars they spent on the land because it was no longer useable and they ended up donating it TO THE ENVIRO-TERRORIST GROUP that blocked development in the first place so they could turn it into a refuge for the sand flea.

No new jobs were created and the loss of revenue hurt the company to the point where they had to cut back on their second shift so 12 people LOST their jobs. All because of a stinking sand flea.
So you can take your bleeding heart liberal knee-jerk enviro-nazi over-reaction and put it where the sun don't shine.
the republicans have to take actionsl ike this to try and reel in the moronic liberal environmentalists who would gladly ruin this country to if it meant they could hug a tree.

[ckissick]

It serves them right. The Endangered Species Act is continually abused and used as a tool to stop people from building houses. I have a client who wanted to build a house on his 150-acre spread. Because of "View Corridors", there was only one small place where he could build a house that would not be seen from the highway.

Fortunately, there was already an old ranch road to the site that would require very little grading to bring up to speed as a driveway. Unfortunately, it ran right past a pond. Red legged frogs, an endangered species, might live in the pond. The local enviros objected. That left the only route up the side of a very steep slope. The enviros insisted he build a new road on the steep slope. They figured he would abandon the project because of the cost. Be he's very wealthy and built the road anyway, at a cost of 1 million bucks.

Bottom line: Because of the Endangered Species Act, a new road was built requiring over 30,000 cubic yards of earthwork, 5 acres of land disturbance, and 30-foot cuts and fills. (On the bright side, it's a great autocross course with it's 4 switchbacks.) A level-headed biologist with Fish and Game called it a travesty.

[Jim Richards]

and sued because that land was NEXT TO a natural habitat of an endangered species, a SAND FLEA!

They sure seemed to be in abundance on FL's East Coast.

[Mule]

Normy, you got any snappy comebacks?

[BeyGon]

The Democrats in California are totally against a new toll road that would really help traffic on the 5 from San Diego to Orange County, why, cause more people would be able to get to a surf beach and there is some rat they worry about. It took me 1 1/2 hours to get home, 14 miles last week. The Dims keep voting against it, it will be built but just cost a ton more after all the BS to get it passed.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

CA government is typically opposed to anything that either (1) means less control in their hands or (2) that actually solves a problem (see #1). If this sounds counter-intuitive, keep in mind that politicians sustain themselves and are able to sell themselves as being useful to prospective voters by having problems that they PROMISE to try and solve and work towards resolving, not actually solving them.

It's the same logic as pharmaceutical companies use - "it helps to ensure our long-term survival and viability if we develop TREATMENTS, not cures". To put it another way, "before proposing a solution, consider how much money there is to be made in prolonging the problem".

Think this actually doesn't happen in the real world? Think again.

[70SWT]

As a lot of folks have indicated here, the endangered species protection concept often goes too far. It usually falls well beyond the point of diminishing returns for humanity and/or the planet.

It ignores the fact that the loss of species and the appearance of new ones through the process of evolution has been and is an ongoing part of the earth's dynamic. Species come and go. These things need to be taken on a case by case basis.

If there is not a major, concrete reason why a particular species should be carefully spared (such as suspicion that it harbors a specific medical cure in its body chemistry, etc), especially when jobs and other major issues are at stake, I see no reason why particular attention should be paid. A sand flea? Are you kidding me?

[Superman]

Like I've said, the current "administration" is going to do a GOOD job of reminding America why it does not hand government over to the party who does not believe in government in the first place.

[rcecale]

Originally Posted by Mule

Normy, you got any snappy comebacks?

Normy's probably getting all worked up, trying to have Sammy censored for calling these people "nazi's"

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Some nutcase enviro-nazi group..

Randy

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by Superman

Like I've said, the current "administration" is going to do a GOOD job of reminding America why it does not hand government over to the party who does not believe in government in the first place.

I'm still working on this.

[Mule]

BTW 99% of all species ever to inhabit the earth, are EXTINCT! If only lefties were on that list!

[Rick Lee]

Looks like Normy sure changed a lot of folks' minds with this one.