A new proposal would let all kinds of federal agencies make
decisions about what species to protect.
The Bush administration has shown extraordinary disdain
for the Endangered Species Act over the years, dragging
its heels on listing some species (
polar
bear,
sage grouse,
wolverine) and removing vital protections for others
(
gray
wolf,
arroyo toad,
red-legged frog,
spotted owl). Time after time, it has been pulled
into court for flouting the law, and most of the time it
has lost and been ordered to do its job.
But regard for endangered species hit a low point this
week, when Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed a
regulatory change that would undermine not just
case-by-case decision-making but the law's basic
procedures. According to the proposal (
pdf),
federal agencies that wanted to start a new project -- a
road, say, or a dam -- could decide on their own that it
wouldn't harm an imperiled species, in which case they
wouldn't have to consult with the wildlife biologists at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service who are the experts on these matters.
Other agencies not only lack such expertise, they have a
built-in conflict of interest. We wouldn't think of letting
an oil company decide whether a new offshore rig might harm
the ocean; we wouldn't allow a pharmaceutical company to
market a new medication on its say-so that the drug is safe.
Why would we let the Department of Transportation build a
new road through the habitat of the California gnatcatcher
because its engineers claim that the project would do no
harm?
Under Kempthorne's proposal, a project could be halted or
scaled down only if it was "reasonably certain" to harm
endangered species; currently, scientists must show that
damage is "reasonably foreseeable." The proposal also would
make it harder for scientists to consider the cumulative
effects of various projects.
Because of a 30-day public comment period, instead of the
usual 60 or 90 days, the rule could be adopted and in place
before the presidential election. Though it might well be
overturned by Congress, the courts or perhaps a new
administration, the process would take months, giving
federal agencies the chance to push through their projects.
That makes this proposal a particularly cynical move,
designed for expediency, not good government.
To
get involved: The public can comment, and view the
comments of others, at
regulations.gov.
