Countdown: Comment Deadline for ESA Proposal Approaches

The Bush Administration -- which has the worst record for listing species of any Administration in history -- has proposed a major change in how the Endangered Species Act is implemented, according to news reports. The agency calls the rulemaking "narrow," but the proposed rule disagrees: "we have determined that this document is a significant rule."

Under the current regulatory scheme, scientists at the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must approve anything that another agency might do which could potentially impact endangered animals and plants. For example, if the Department of Transportation wants to build a new bridge (we're having this discussion in Seattle), then the plans must not negatively impact threatened or endangered species, like salmon, for example.

The proposed rule (filed 15 August 2008) "allows a Federal action agency to make a 'not likely to adversely affect' determination without concurrence from" either USFWS or NMFS. In other words, the agencies themselves decide whether or not their act would impact endangered species.

The rationale for this -- and other proposed changes -- is the regulatory burden resulting from global warming and climate change.

Associated Press reported last month:

The changes represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1988. They would accomplish through regulations what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects.

If the rules are truly cumbersome, as Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne insists, then why wait until the 11th hour of this Administration to propose a change?

Might it be because the last time they tried it, they failed? Also from AP:

In 2003, the administration imposed similar rules that would have allowed agencies to approve new pesticides and projects to reduce wildfire risks without asking the opinion of government scientists about whether threatened or endangered species and habitats might be affected. The pesticide rule was later overturned in court. The Interior Department, along with the Forest Service, is currently being sued over the rule governing wildfire prevention.

Why might the court have overruled the Administration? Its own agencies -- NMFS and USFWS -- found that about half of the determinations made during the 2003 rule change were "not legally or scientifically valid."

To give you some idea of how bad these rules probably are, a Republican Seante couldn't get this passed when the Republican House passed a bill authorizing similar changes in 2005.

How Many Listed Species Are There?

According to NMFS, there are approximately 1,925 species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. In general, NMFS manages marine and "anadromous" species; the USFWS manages land and freshwater species.

The annual rate of listing declined precipitously under the Administration of George W. Bush.

• Nixon/Ford: 23.5 listings per year (47 total)
• Carter: 31.5 listings per year (126 total)
• Reagan: 31.9 listings per year (255 total)
• GWH Bush: 57.8 listings per year (231 total)
• Clinton: 65.1 listings per year (521 total)
• GW Bush: 8.0 listings per year (60 total, May 2008)

Comments are due by 15 September and can me made online at Regulations.gov. Or you can provide comments to an advocacy group like the Natural Resources Defense Council, which will deliver your comments on your behalf.

Learn more about the Endangered Species Act:

• What Is The Endangered Species Act?
• The North Pole Becomes An Island
• US Lists Polar Bears As Threatened
• Endangered Species Directory - By State