A federal push to weaken the Endangered Species Act - the latest target in the Trump administration’s fight against environmental protection - is troubling on its face.
Making it worse is the behaviour of the Interior Department. The agency is supposed to be a trusted steward of precious public resources, including endangered species and a fifth of the land in the United States. But it is hobbled by appearances of cronyism and reduced transparency.
This is of particular interest in Washington, where about 28% of the land is federal. There are 48 listed species occurring in the state, including 36 animals and 12 plants, and petitions for additional listings. If only they were as resilient as the lobbyists inhabiting the still undrained swamp of the other Washington.
Congress passed an endangered-species protection law in 1966 then expanded it into the ESA in 1973. Major successes include the bald eagle, which was facing extinction in the 1960s. Mandated protections led to its recovery, and bald eagles were removed from the federal endangered list in 2007.
Another success came in 2015 when the Interior Department avoided listing the greater sage-grouse - and prevented a costly legal battle - by developing recovery plans and protecting habitat in collaboration with landowners in the West. That demonstrated the ESA’s flexibility and the value of trusted leadership.
ESA rule changes are now being made under the direction of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, a former oil and water-district lobbyist.
Minor changes may be needed to update ESA rules. The act is a dynamic framework for decision-making to protect and recover species at risk of extinction, and preserve habitat they need to survive.
These are complex, controversial decisions in the best of times. When trust in Interior’s motives erodes, and the department makes it harder for the public to be fully informed, the process breaks down further.
Despite opposition from tens of thousands during a public-comment period, the agency is forging ahead with broad changes that increase flexibility but also make it more vulnerable to politicking. One would end blanket protections for species newly listed as threatened and allow a case-by-case approach, similar to how threatened marine species are handled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Another change enables the agency to start assessing economic impacts when it considers listing species as endangered or threatened.
The concern is that listing decisions will be skewed by economic considerations, undermining the scientific approach that’s a defining feature of the ESA. The act mandates that listing decisions be based only on the best available scientific and commercial data.
In response, Interior pledged to abide by the statute in making listing decisions.
The Interior Secretary has leeway to protect critical habitat to “the maximum extent prudent.” The key word is prudent. Will economic studies influence Bernhardt’s determination of what’s prudent, or provide cover for “prudent” decisions that provide less species protection than called for by science?
Tweaks may be needed to the ESA. But an Interior Department facing ethical questions, led by a former oil lobbyist and politicising public disclosure hasn’t earned the trust to make such changes. (The Seattle Times) - Tribune News Service
LEAVE A COMMENT Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*
Rewriting the Arab social contract
Investments worthy in versatile and clean natural gas
Citizens of nowhere: Trump ban raises fear for US Rohingya
Money trees: US cities find new ways of valuing urban forests
Ahead of 2020 election, a ‘Blue Wave’ is rising in US
Bankers scour malls and manufacturers for virus playbook
FM renews Qatar’s call to create binding security pact for Middle East countries
Japan defends handling of virus outbreak