WASHINGTON (AP) — Parts of the Endangered Species Act may soon be extinct. 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 obtained by The Associated Press.

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

If approved, the changes would 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.

The changes would apply to any project a federal agency would fund, build or authorize. Government wildlife experts currently perform tens of thousands of such reviews each year.

"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.

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 U.S. 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.

"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, in an interview with the AP Monday, said the changes will help focus expertise on projects that have serious repercussions for species.

"We are trying to be more efficient, which means not do consultations that result in a difference for the species," Hall said.

A National Marine Fisheries Service spokeswoman declined Monday to discuss the draft proposal since it had yet to be published.

The new rules are expected to be proposed formally in coming weeks. 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-Calif., 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-Calif., 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.

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."

• Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov/endangered
• National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/

U.S. Department of the Interior

Date: August 11, 2008 Contact: Chris Paolino 202-208-6416
Secretary Kempthorne Proposes Narrow Changes To ESA Consultation Process
WASHINGTON, D.C.— Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today followed through on his commitment to propose common-sense modifications to the existing Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations. When Secretary Kempthorne on May 15, 2008, listed the polar bear as a “threatened species” under the ESA, he said the ESA was not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy or regulate green house gas emissions. Today’s proposal is intended to update a portion of the ESA regulations dealing with section 7 of the Act. Section 7 governs the endangered species responsibilities of federal agencies. The proposed changes to the regulations are designed to reflect current practices and recent courts cases. The changes will make it easier for agencies to understand when and how the regulations apply. While this rule will help avoid misuse of the ESA to regulate climate change, the rule will also generally improve the consultation process. Each federal agency is responsible under the regulations to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration before they undertake an action that may affect an endangered species. Such consultation may involve either a formal written request or it may be an informal conversation between the agencies. The purpose of these proposed changes is to clarify process, replace ambiguous definitions, explain when formal consultation is applicable, and improve the informal consultation process. The existing regulations were last updated in a meaningful way in 1986. Much has happened since then. Both the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA have gained considerable experience in implementing the Act, as have other Federal agencies, States, and property owners. There have been many judicial decisions regarding almost every aspect of section 7 of the Act and the implementing regulations that govern the consultation process. And now, agencies face new challenges with regard to global warming and climate change. “ESA consultations in the 21st century address increasingly complex issues. We need a regulatory framework to guide those consultations that is consistent with the ESA and will address new challenges such as climate change,” said Kempthorne. “The existing regulations create unnecessary conflicts and delays. The proposed regulations will continue to protect species while focusing the consultation process on those federal actions where potential impacts can be linked to the action and the risks are reasonably certain to occur. The result should be a process that is less time-consuming and a more effective use of our resources.” “The purpose of these changes is to reduce ambiguity, improve consistency, and narrow interpretive differences, even within the Services. They are a positive step forward,” said Dale Hall, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. “In 1986, our existing rules made sense. At that time very few Federal action agencies had any in-depth expertise with section 7 and listed species, but that is not the case today. We are not being good stewards of our resources when we pursue consultation in situations where the potential effects to a species are either unlikely, incapable of being meaningfully evaluated, wholly beneficial, or pose only a remote risk of causing jeopardy to the species or its habitat.” The announcement today is being made in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Department of Commerce. These changes are designed to reduce the number of unnecessary consultations under the ESA so that more time and resources can be devoted to the protection of the most vulnerable species. Under the proposed rule, agency actions that could cause an adverse impact to listed species are still subject to the consultation requirement. The proposed rule is consistent with the FWS current understanding that it is not possible to draw a direct causal link between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and distant observations of impacts affecting species. As a result, it is inappropriate to consult on a remote agency action involving the contribution of emissions to global warming because it is not possible to link the emissions to impacts on specific listed species such as polar bears. The Bush Administration has acknowledged climate change as a serious problem but has stressed that the proper forums to address it are through the Congress and the Bali Action Plan. That plan was approved at the 13th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2007. The U. S. strongly supports the identification of a long-term global goal for emission reductions to inspire actions at all levels. Since 2001, the U.S. has invested more than $45 billion to research, develop and promote clean and efficient energy technologies. Finally, today’s proposal also adds timelines to help limit the duration of informal consultation and lend greater certainty to the process. It would allow action agencies to terminate consultation if the Fish and Wildlife Service has not acted on its request for concurrence within 60 days. However, the Service may request an additional 60 days. If, after that time, there is no written determination from the Service within the appropriate time frame, the action agency may terminate the consultation. The Department is seeking comment on this proposal for the next 30 days.