Bush to relax protected species rules

Those for, against changes
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."

More from msnbc.com In slump-hit areas, suicide rates on the rise Brokaw:  The night the wall came down Cosmic Log: How the Maya lived Is the swine flu shot as safe as regular vaccine? Scoop: Letterman extortion case heads to court Signs of the sacrifices of military life On Twitter: Breaking news updates | Weird and wild

MORE FROM ENVIRONMENT

Environment Section Front

Judge asked to end Yellowstone bison kills Cavern could collapse, taking part of city West Africa's giraffes escape extinction EarthTalk Q&A: wind aesthetics, green travel   Creek a poster child for Chesapeake Bay Newsweek: India seeks green super power status Fertilizer, exhaust tied to alpine lake pollution Legally binding climate treaty less likely Democrats advance contentious climate bill California OKs $11 billion for water overhaul Environment Section Front   Add Environment headlines to your news reader: