Jimi

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

First of all, for a Republican, this guy sure wants to give a lot of power to the Federal government. Second, I know this moron doesn't have long left in office, but who the fuck does he think he is? I mean, just pointing fingers and saying, "Here, you decide if this animal is going to be put in harm's way by your operation."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Parts of the Endangered Species Act may soon be extinct.


An adult male Florida panther growls as he enters his new home at Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida.

An adult male Florida panther growls as he enters his new home at Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida.
more photos »

The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.

New regulations, which don't require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft first obtained by The Associated Press.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a "back door" to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.

The draft rules would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

"We need to focus our efforts where they will do the most good," Kempthorne said in a news conference organized quickly after AP reported details of the proposal. "It is important to use our time and resources to protect the most vulnerable species. It is not possible to draw a link between greenhouse gas emissions and distant observations of impacts on species."

If approved, the changes would represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1986. 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.

The changes would apply to any project a federal agency would fund, build or authorize that might harm endangered wildlife and their habitat. Government wildlife experts currently perform tens of thousands of such reviews each year. See how the Endangered Species Act works today »

"If adopted, these changes would seriously weaken the safety net of habitat protections that we have relied upon to protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years," said John Kostyack, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming initiative. Photo See photos of endangered animals »

Under current law, federal agencies must consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or to damage habitat, even if no harm seems likely. This initial review usually results in accommodations that better protect the 1,353 animals and plants in the United States listed as threatened or endangered and determines whether a more formal analysis is warranted.

The Interior Department said such consultations are no longer necessary because federal agencies have developed expertise to review their own construction and development projects, according to the 30-page draft obtained by the AP.
Don't Miss

* Report: Nearly half world's primates face extinction
* More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo
* U.S. Fish & Wildlife Endangered Species Program
* In Depth: Planet in peril

"We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations," the proposal said.

The director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, H. Dale Hall, said the changes would help focus expertise on "where we know we don't have a negative effect on the species but where the agency is vulnerable if we don't complete a consultation."

Responding to questions about the process, Hall said, "We will not do anything that leaves the public out of this process."

The new rules were expected to be formally proposed immediately, officials said. They would be subject to a 60-day public comment period before being finalized by the Interior Department, giving the administration enough time to impose them before November's presidential election. A new administration could freeze any pending regulations or reverse them, a process that could take months. Congress could also overturn the rules through legislation, but that could take even longer.

The proposal was drafted largely by attorneys in the general counsel's offices of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department, according to an official with the National Marine Fisheries Service, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan hadn't yet been circulated publicly. The two agencies' experts were not consulted until last week, the official said.

Between 1998 and 2002, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted 300,000 consultations. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which evaluates projects affecting marine species, conducts about 1,300 reviews each year.

The reviews have helped safeguard protected species such as bald eagles, Florida panthers and whooping cranes. A federal government handbook from 1998 described the consultations as "some of the most valuable and powerful tools to conserve listed species."

In recent years, however, some federal agencies and private developers have complained that the process results in delays and increased construction costs.

"We have always had concerns with respect to the need for streamlining and making it a more efficient process," said Joe Nelson, a lawyer for the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition, a trade group for home builders and the paper and farming industry.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called the proposed changes illegal.

"This proposed regulation is another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door," she said. "If this proposed regulation had been in place, it would have undermined our ability to protect the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the gray whale."

The Bush administration and Congress have attempted with mixed success to change the law.

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.

In 2005, the House passed a bill that would have made similar changes to the Endangered Species Act, but the bill died in the Senate.

The sponsor of that bill, then-House Resources chairman Richard Pombo, R-California, told the AP Monday that allowing agencies to judge for themselves the effects of a project will not harm species or habitat.

"There is no way they can rubber stamp everything because they will end up in court for every decision," he said.

But internal reviews by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that about half the unilateral evaluations by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management that determined wildfire prevention projects were unlikely to harm protected species were not legally or scientifically valid.
advertisement

Those had been permitted under the 2003 rule changes.

"This is the fox guarding the hen house. The interests of agencies will outweigh species protection interests," said Eric Glitzenstein, the attorney representing environmental groups in the lawsuit over the wildfire prevention regulations. "What they are talking about doing is eviscerating the Endangered Species Act."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/scienc...s.ap/index.html

___________________________________________
"I don't care if they're black, white, purple or green. Awww hold on now. Purple or green? You gotta draw the line somewhere. To hell with purple people. Unless they're suffocating. Then help them."


January 2009, the end of an error.

i'm rich biatch

Cliff Notes

YaMon

I support PETA

___________________________________________

Jimi

I could go for a steak right now.

___________________________________________
"I don't care if they're black, white, purple or green. Awww hold on now. Purple or green? You gotta draw the line somewhere. To hell with purple people. Unless they're suffocating. Then help them."


January 2009, the end of an error.

YaMon

Let me give you an example of how fucked some of this environmental shit has become.

The Port of Los Angeles allowed the creation of Pier 400 (Maersk Logistics). Here is a picture of it:



Bridge in question highlighted:



An environmental impact study (commonly referred to as EIR) was conducted and it found that a small little fucking fish measuring about an inch long was "in danger" because the road leading from Ocean Blvd. (the mainland) to Pier 400 was cutting off the little fucking fish's access to open water.

As a result, a through way had to be cut into the road and a bridge had to be constructed over the through way to allow vehicle access to Pier 400.

The cost of this bridge was over $1,000,000.

All for some small little fucking fish that wasn't allowed to evolve to swim its ass through the main channel to get to "open ocean" (which was already hindered from the breakwater that was built circa World War II.


OUR SURVEY SAYS:

___________________________________________