Endangered Species Act: government feet-dragging over critical corrections

The issue of overturning many of the 11th hour steps taken by the previous U.S. administration that weakened environmental protections and regulations have been addressed several times in this blog in the past (Click here and here). But one of the big challenges we face is the tendency for government to procrastinate, stall, or stonewall acting on environmental or conservation issues until it is more convenient or financial feasible (as if nature is listening to our endless stream of rationales).

The Center for Biological Diversity(CBD) is focused on an upcoming deadline regarding a procedural process to undo crippling changes to the Endangered Species Act(ESA):

Dear Richard,

A crucial deadline is looming: By May 9, the Obama administration has to seize its opportunity to overturn last-minute Bush administration regulations that gut the Endangered Species Act, or it will miss the chance. The Bush rules exempt thousands of federal activities from review under the Endangered Species Act, and specifically exclude greenhouse gas emissions from regulation. If this administration doesn't withdraw those "extinction rules" by May 9, they will stay in effect -- a disaster for endangered species.

Congress specifically empowered Obama's secretaries of Commerce and Interior with the authority to overturn the Bush extinction regulations with the stroke of a pen. The secretaries of Commerce and Interior jointly administer the Endangered Species Act, with the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (under Commerce) responsible for marine species such as whales and sea turtles, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (in Interior) responsible for species such as wolves and polar bears.

While more than 80,000 people have written to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar demanding he revoke the Bush rules, Gary Locke has only recently been confirmed as secretary of Commerce and has yet to take a position on the issue. Similarly, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the new head of the National Ocean Atmospheric Administration, has failed to take a public position on rescinding the extinction rules. Please contact Secretary Locke and Dr. Lubchenco and urge them to immediately revoke the Bush extinction regulations.

The Endangered Species Act has served nature well for 35 years. And it's more important today than ever. Here's a link to a CBD web page where you can add your voice. Click here.

Gray Wolf out in the cold: endangered status in question

In the last days of the current administration, controversial environmental decisions are still being made: the latest being a proposal to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list in several northern Midwest states. Environmental groups have promised a swift reaction, with a legal suit as one possible reaction as has been done several times in the past.

The number of gray wolves has been slowly increasing since its earliest protected status during the Clinton administration and there have been several unsuccessful attempts in the past to remove the wolves from the list. The gray wolf is a perfect example of the importance of top predators. While a bane to cattle ranchers, when wolves were heavily hunted then populations of animals ranging from deer to the smallest rodents exploded - trading a rancher's problem for new problem's for farmers and flora in wooded areas.

Organizations including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity have said they will be taking action, both political and legal, to stop the proposed change in status for the gray wolf.




On the West Coast, the State of California has filed suit against the federal government, charging that the Bush administration illegally changed provisions in the Endangered Species Act when they mandated the elimination of independent scientific review of projects subject to federal review and, specifically, the new rule imposed that eliminated consideration of the effects of greenhouse gases on protected species and their habitat. California has taken on the federal government in the past regarding environmental issues and has won practically every case.

Adminstration's Parting Gifts: rolling back environmental protections

In the U.S., outgoing administrations participate in a time-honored tradition of last minute skulduggery that has ranged from taking the White House linen and gluing the computer keys to issuing executive pardons and orders or rulings of dubious merit - Democrats and Republicans alike have been guilty.

Questionable orders can be overturned under the Congressional Review Act. However, the effectiveness of the act is hampered by the requirement that the order or regulation being overturned must be done in its entirety - and many bad rulings are attached to a good one, thereby providing a protective shield.

Whether you are an advocate or critic of the past administration, it can be a fair statement that its record on the environment has not been stellar. A concerted effort was made to avoid recognizing scientific advice and reports as required for determining species status under the Endangered Species Act if doing so would mean recognizing the existence of global warming (I have noted this in previous postings). In its closing days, the current administration has been generating a series of executive orders and/or rulings that roll back many environmental safeguards. Here are a few:

• Federal agencies would no longer be required to have government scientists assess the impact on imperiled species before giving the go-ahead to logging, mining, drilling, or other development.
• The rule would also prohibit federal agencies from taking climate change into account when weighing the impact of projects that increase greenhouse emissions.
• Finalized a rule that allows the coal industry to dump waste from mountaintop mining into neighboring streams and valleys
• A rule relaxes air pollution standards near national parks, allowing coal plants to be built next to many of our most spectacular vistas - a rule established over the objections of 9 out of 10 EPA regional administrators.
• Opening up 2 million acres of mountainous lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for mining oil shale, even though the technique consumes considerable water resources (and the administration has admitted it doesn't know if the technology is viable).
• A new regulation will allow animal waste from factory farms to seep, unmonitored, into our waterways. The regulation leaves it up to the farms themselves to decide whether their pollution is dangerous enough to require them to apply for a permit.
• A similar rule will exempt factory farms from reporting air pollution from animal waste.
• In the chemical industries, more than 100 major polluters have been exempted from monitoring their lead emissions and a rule is proposed to allow industry to treat 3 billion pounds of hazardous waste as "recycling" each year.

Now it's true that environmental safeguards have always been costly to big business and impose hardships on their established revenue models. But in light of an overwhelming and growing body of evidence, to ignore them or worse, circumvent them, is the epitome of shortsighted thinking, oriented towards only short-term goals - something that we as humans have been notorious at doing.

For the incoming administration, it will be difficult enough dealing with the challenges of climate change/global warming and developing an effective long-term energy policy. But it will also have to deal with the many environmental land mines the current administration has left in its path.