FW: [wmangreatlakes] Major changes to Endangered Species Act
Shria
I’m not too sure about what we could or should do about this but I thought there may be people on our list who would be interested to find out more about it. I got it from a Great Lakes environmental protection agency.
Do we not have some agreements with Michigan that could be affected by this?
Carol
Major changes to Endangered Species Act
Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Friday, December 12, 2008
12-11) 20:28 PST -- Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced major changes Thursday to the Endangered Species Act, causing environmental groups to charge that the "midnight rules" set to go into effect before President-elect Barack Obama takes office are intended to eviscerate the nation's premier wildlife-protection law.
The regulations eliminate a requirement that federal agencies seek review by government scientists before approving logging, mining and construction projects to make sure the activities don't endanger rare animals and plants.
In addition, the regulations say the law could not be used to protect polar bears, walrus, mountain frogs and other species vulnerable to the effects of global warming.
"The Bush administration is using this to go after our most imperiled wildlife and kick them when they are down," said Janette Brimmer, an attorney with Earthjustice, an environmental group. "The act is our nation's most important law for protecting wildlife like wolves, grizzlies, salmon and lynx."
Reid Cherlin, a spokesman for the Obama-Biden transition team, said, "President-elect Obama will review all 11th-hour regulations and will address them once he takes office." Obama has said he does not favor changing the Endangered Species Act.
Kempthorne, at a news conference in Washington, said that he knew changes to the act would evoke controversy but that he is certain the new rules would clear up confusion over the law that had existed for years.
"Nothing in the regulation relieves a federal agency of its responsibilities to ensure that species are not harmed," he said.
Law covers 1,400 species
The law protects 1,400 species. In the last eight years, there has been a slowdown in adding new plants and animals, building a backlog of hundreds of species waiting for scientific review and approval, including California's furry Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.
The Interior Department proposed the new regulations in May and since has received nearly 300,000 comments, the vast majority opposing the changes.
Hours after Thursday's announcement, three environmental groups, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Biological Diversity, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco seeking to halt regulations that they say are inconsistent with the act.
The regulations don't require federal agencies to seek consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service before approving projects, the lawsuit said.
In Congress, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., called a hearing to review the regulations and said members would work to restore the act. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said members may try to eliminate the regulations by using a special congressional act that allows the review of newly adopted administrative rules.
Part of the new regulations prohibit regulators from taking into account the effects of greenhouse gases on habitats and on species. Kempthorne said his legal advisers concluded that considering global warming a threat to the survival of the polar bear would require tracking emissions to a particular factory and determining how that would melt Arctic ice and harm the bear.
"That's completely wrong, and they're just making that up," said attorney Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, which is suing the federal government in an attempt to protect polar bears.
Federal agencies are supposed to look at sources of greenhouse gases from projects they approve, then analyze ways to reduce those emissions, Siegel said.
"There's no requirement to trace any molecule of DDT to the thinning of bald eagle eggs just as there's no requirement to trace any molecule of carbon dioxide to the death of any particular polar bear," she said.
In California, the requirement to consult with government biologists before construction projects is particularly crucial, said Mark Rockwell, California state representative of the Endangered Species Coalition, an alliance of 50 environmental, business, hunting and fish and religious groups in the state.
The U.S. Forest Service approves logging plans that might affect coastal coho salmon and steelhead, marbled murrelets and Pacific fishers on national forests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers give permits for filling wetlands.
Without the requirement, there's no incentive for the agencies to seek consultation and a biological opinion, Rockwell said.
For example, the Bureau of Reclamation was forced by the current requirement to seek biological opinions on whether the amount of water being diverted from the southern part of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta would hurt the delta smelt or harm chinook salmon.
Protections found lacking
Environmental groups challenged opinions that water flows for the fish were adequate, and won decisions agreeing that the protections were indeed lacking in the plans.
"It was the biological opinions that led to the challenges," Rockwell said. "If you don't have an opinion, you have nothing to challenge."
Under the new regulations, the federal agencies would have the discretion of deciding whether or not to ask for a consultation and opinion, Rockwell said.
E-mail Jane Kay at jk...@sfchronicle.com.
Bush relaxes wildlife law limits
The Bush administration has made it easier for drilling, mining and major construction projects to go ahead without a full scientific assessment.
Revised rules mean agencies will no longer have to consult scientists about whether projects, such as the building of dams or mines, would harm wildlife.
Environmentalists say the changes could take away protection for animals and plants facing possible extinction.
Democratic President-elect Barack Obama has vowed to reverse the new rules.
Modifications to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are expected to come into effect in about 30 days.
Republican supporters of the changes, along with developers and some federal agencies, argue the current system of environmental reviews causes delays to projects, pushing up costs.
Critics of President George W Bush say his administration is trying to rush through unpopular reforms during his last days in office, and correspondents say environmental groups are likely to challenge the changes in the courts.
Common sense?
The changes proposed by the Bush administration would let federal agencies make decisions on planned projects without a full scientific assessment as to their likely impact on the environment.
Under current rules, the impact of such projects must be assessed by experts.
The US interior department said the "common sense modifications" were a "narrow update of existing regulations" prompted by concerns the ESA would become a "backdoor for setting climate change policy".
"The rule strengthens the regulations so the government can focus on protecting endangered species as it strives to rebuild the American economy," said Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.
"The Endangered Species Act is not the right tool to set climate change policy."
The White House has previously denied the late spate of rule changes is politically motivated.
Mike Daulton, a director of the National Audubon Society, an environmental group, urged Mr Obama and Congress to reverse the "destructive changes".
"The swan song of this administration is par for the course - special treatment for special interests at the expense of sound science and conservation."
Endangered list
Senior Democrats have questioned the "one-minute-to-midnight" rules which, if in place before Mr Bush leaves the White House, would be harder for Mr Obama to repeal when he takes office on 20 January 2009.
Mr Obama's chief of transition, John Podesta, has said the incoming president would review the last-minute actions, and seek to repeal those that are "not in the interests of the country".
Mr Bush has already been criticised by environmentalists for adding fewer than 10 species of plant and animals a year to the endangered list.
That contrasts with former President Bill Clinton, who added an average of 65 species a year.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1844 - Release Date: 12/12/2008 9:02 AM