Gutting the Endangered Species Act

By Sharon Guynup

11/04/2008

In its final days the Bush Administration is pushing changes that could decimate threatened Chesapeake Bay wildlife, as well as 1,353 at-risk species across the nation.

The Interior Department posted a proposal last summer, while Congress and the rest of American was on vacation, for sweeping changes to the 35 year-old Endangered Species Act. They would eliminate mandatory scientific review by experts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service of all federally approved development projects that might affect endangered plants or animals. Instead, the new rules allow government agencies to decide for themselves whether their dam, highway, mine, drilling or logging project poses danger to federally protected species.

The proposal also states that if they are engaged on a project, Fish and Wildlife or National Marine Fisheries must reach a decision within 60 days, or construction can move forward without further study. This timeline is unattainable for these severely under-funded, understaffed agencies.

In a telephone call with Washington Post reporters, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne called the new regulations a "narrow regulatory change" that "will provide clarity and certainty to the consultation process under the Endangered Species Act."

However, self-regulation by federal agencies with no expertise in wildlife, botany or ecology poses obvious problems. Suppose there's a proposal before the Federal Highway Administration to build a road through a meadow where bog turtles lay their eggs. Surveyors and bureaucrats will evaluate the impact. As long as turtles won't be paved over or drop dead on the spot, the project will be quickly green-lighted. That the area is a key nesting ground is a fact that agency "experts" would most likely fail to recognize, which is no small mistake when extinction is the consequence.

Despite Administration claims, the employees of most federal agencies are not capable of assessing the needs of endangered species. Others may be biased against environmental concerns. For example, we learned in news reports recently that employees from the Mineral Management Service were literally in bed, partying with, and accepting gifts from the oil companies they were to regulate.

Taking wildlife experts out of the equation eliminates the checks and balances that have kept the Bay's bald eagles, shortnose sturgeon, Delmarva fox squirrels, piping plovers, and other rare creatures from disappearing. The watershed's health is already of concern, with habitat lost to development, dams blocking fish spawning routes, and pollutants and agricultural runoff fouling its waters.

It's not the big development projects that are of concern, the big dams or mines where there's little doubt that harm will be caused, says Bob Davison, senior scientist with Defenders of Wildlife, a D.C.-based conservation group. "The real danger here is the 'death by 1,000 cuts' impact of many smaller federal projects like roads, or small logging projects that may not in themselves kill off a species. But cumulatively, they could," he explains.

Carl Pope, executive director of The Sierra Club, points to another concern. Agencies could revert to pre-ESA tactics of cutting big projects into a series of small ones that fall under the radar.

The public largely has been excluded from the review process for the rule changes. The Department of the Interior is circumventing normal feedback methods by not allowing emailed or faxed comments, nor scheduling public hearings.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and other senators protested to Kempthorne, asking him to abandon the plan, or at least to schedule public hearings and extend the review period to six months. Kempthorne extended the public comment period just 30 days, to October 15th. In September's Senate oversight hearings on proposed ESA changes, Interior Department witnesses declined to appear.

The proposed amendments mirror those pushed by industry groups over the last eight years, changes that the administration has been repeatedly unsuccessful passing through Congress. In this 11th hour attempt to undermine environmental protections, Congressional approval is not needed, and the initiative is on track to be shoved through before President Bush leaves office.

This is the latest effort by this administration to dismantle fundamental environmental laws and circumvent an honest discussion, and it continues a disturbing trend of environmental degradations that ravage our land for corporate profits.

"This would dramatically weaken the very heart of the process of protecting endangered species in America which has been successful for over three decades," said Davison. Though regulations could be changed in the future, Davison warns that it's much easier to abandon this process now than attempt to overturn it later.