Many of the actions that affect endangered species occur either on Federal lands or are the actions of federal agencies. Whether changes in logging rules in a National Forest, permitting oil and gas leases on BLM land, or even building a new visitor center in a National Park, Federal agencies are required by law to consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists regarding their project. Then the Fish and Wildlife Service issues a Biological Opinion regarding the Endangered Species on the project. They can find that the project causes “jeopardy” to the species and cancel the project. This is exceedingly rare. More typically, they issue some guidelines to follow during the project to protect the species and the project continues. This system works. The effects of the project on the species is scientifically evaluated by independent experts, the project is modified to protect the species if necessary, and the project is completed.
In the waning days of the Bush administration, President Bush has instructed the Interior Department to remove this independent review. Instead, the agency proposing the project will conduct the review of impacts on Endangered Species internally. In other words, they will evaluate the impacts of their project internally. While Federal agencies often have talented biologists on their staffs, this is a clear conflict of interest. Reviews of impacts need to be scientific, impartial, and independent.
The rule change is also intended to remove the possibility of looking at the effects of climate change on endangered species.
Today, the Interior Department opened up a public comment period regarding this rule change. It is only 30 days long and is intended to finish in time for the Bush administration to implement this rule before the November election. Furthermore, the Interior department is not taking email comments. They take written comments or you can use their online system here. Search for Endangered Species and click on “Interagency Cooperation Under the Endangered Species Act.”
Technorati Tags: Endangered Species
1 response so far ↓
1 Mark // Aug 19, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I’m confused. If it’s a law that this review has to occur, then Bush can’t change it. If not, the next administration can easily undo any damage in Jan. I guess I don’t see this as a total crisis. A biologist who works for an agency can be an independent voice. Other than the Department of the Interior, probably the largest landholder in the US govt is DoD. Locally, in the panhandle of Fl, DoD is one of the largest landowners, and they take their role as a steward of the environment very seriously. They don’t need another agency OKing their already OK work. Better to streamline the approval process, and spend the funds saved wisely elsewhere. They already compete and win awards for preserving the land and waterways they are responsible for, to include working with the Nature Conservancy. As far as “unbiased” goes I think if you can find a zoologist, botanist, hydrologist, or biologist who isn’t biased for saving the wild, you can probably find a petroleum engineer who isn’t interested in drilling for or processing oil, or a aeronautical engineer who thinks we should park all aircraft and bicycle everywhere. I don’t see agency “ologists” being a problem.
Leave a Comment