USFWS contradicts administration's plans

[Novalex]

Copyright 2003 The Times-Picayune Publishing Company
Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)

December 7, 2003 Sunday

USFWS contradicts administration's plans

Bob Marshall


Contempt and arrogance. Keep those words in mind as you read this.

By now, those who love waterfowl and wetlands know the Bush Administration is moving forward with a plan to remove small, isolated and temporary wetlands from the protection they have had under the Clean Water Act for 30 years. And we know the history of this effort.

In a 2001 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Congress never intended to protect those wetlands under the CWA.

Realizing these are the most critical wetlands to waterfowl production in the U.S. -- and vital to fisheries and clean water -- a bi-partisan group of congressmen proposed to meet the Court's concern by passing a bill that said, basically, "Yes, we do."

But the Bush team blocked those efforts, instead directing its Department of the Interior to put out a call to its agencies for a reaction to the ruling and to opine whether these wetlands should be protected.

Last month, a draft of the Interior Department's decision was leaked to the media. It is just seven pages long and says these wetlands should not be protected, stating flatly that removing them from federal regulations "is consistent with continued protection of the nation's wetlands," which it
acknowledges are critical to fish and wildlife. It concludes by saying it believes voluntary, non-regulatory efforts can get the job done.

The document is such a sweeping repudiation of more than 30 years of bi-partisan commitment to wetlands protection, many immediately asked: What does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the professionals charged with managing these resources, say about this?

No one knew, because Interior Secretary Gale Norton's office had forbidden the Service to release its comments. If we wanted a copy, we were told, we'd have to file a petition under the Freedom of Information Act.

Before that process was completed, a copy was leaked to the Sierra Club. It is 22 pages long and cites facts compiled by the best fish, wildlife and wetlands scientists in the nation.

And on page two, it's obvious why the Bush team didn't want the taxpayers to see for what they had paid. This is what the scientists have to say:"The Service believes the overwhelming body of scientific information supports protection of 'isolated' waters because of their intrinsic physical and biological values and their importance to downstream aquatic
ecosystems."

Why? The Service answers clearly in the next 20 pages: These habitats are vital to ducks, fish, water quality, the growing recreational industry and federal mandates for protecting endangered species, among other critical national concerns.

What about those voluntary and non-regulatory programs the administration
likes?

Even if adequately funded (which they seldom have been) these programs, the Service reports, "will only scratch the surface of opportunities because of the large number of wetland basins. From a public policy standpoint, such programs cannot and should not be used to entirely replace the stewardship responsibilities of private and governmental landowners and the public."

Other points in the report by the experts:

"No one should assume" other federal or state programs will continue to protect these habitats, because many states have laws that prohibit them from being more stringent than the federal government. For example, Texas has no programs to protect isolated wetlands.

The change could place 20 to 25 percent of the remaining wetlands in the lower 48 states in jeopardy, including miles of streams also important to fish, wildlife and clean water. The wetlands at danger are "absolutely essential" to waterfowl production and other migratory birds.

Isolated wetlands in fast developing urban areas would be especially vulnerable.

Reading the two reports, it is clear why the political appointees running the Interior Department for Bush tried to hide the facts: They clearly contradict almost everything the politicians claim.

Of course, suppressing and ignoring the facts is a hallmark of this
administration, especially when it comes to the environment. It suppresed the EPA's report on global warming, because the facts didn't agree with the political rhetoric. It suppressed that agency's report on the practice of mining coal by removing mountaintops, for the same reason.

All of which brings us back to the words at the top of this column:

Contempt and Arrogance.

It is becoming clear to a growing number of outdoors folk that the Bush Administration displays withering contempt for the professional scientists that staff its biological agencies and unparalleled arrogance toward more than 30 years of broad national consensus on environmental protection.

Those are just the facts.

. . . . . . .

Bob Marshall can be reached at rmarshall@timespicayune.com or (504)
826-3539.

[N. Cook]

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS: Mike Leavitt, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection agency, said Tuesday that President Bush personally made the decision "not to issue a rule that could reduce" further wetlands protections.

Leavitt said the administration wants to avoid "a contentious and lengthy rule making debate" over disputed enviormental benefits or losses. The administration recoginizes the ecological value of wetlands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps this will put to rest the left's continuous efforts to paint the administration as anti enviroment on this issue at least. The rule change is not intended to effect what are normally recognized as "wetlands" only prevent the use of the law to stop mostly suburban home owners from paving driveways and adding garages or yard barns on their property. The current rule has been abused by local agencies which demand homeowners pay thousands of dollars in "set aside" fees for acres of new wetlands to be created "somewhere" before being issued remodeling or building permits for their property that may affect only a few square feet of low spots in often mowed lawns. You can bet enough people, REps and DEms, are mad and there will be an adjustment. to fix the rule.

[RutnNStrutn]

Contempt and arrogance? Perhaps, but by who? The administration, or the guy who started this thread??
Here's an alternate view by the TRCP.

President Bush meets with conservation community leaders
Washington - President George W. Bush along with Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman met with Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Chairman Jim Range and representatives from several of the country’s leading hunting and angling organizations Friday at the White House. The meeting was called in part to thank those in the group who had supported the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative which he signed into law as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act on November 21. The meeting also provided an opportunity for the President to address issues that the sporting community has recently identified as top priority conservation concerns.
On November 24, Range and leaders from several of the groups represented at the White House today held talks with Interior Secretary Norton to clearly identify top consensus policy concerns in the view of American hunters and anglers. Today the President and his top Cabinet officials addressed those concerns: continued conservation of the nation’s wetlands, protection of the nation’s fish and wildlife habitat while expanding energy development on federal lands, better federal funding of wildlife programs, and increased access to land for hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation.
The President focused in particular on wetlands and energy development. The Administration is currently considering whether a recent Supreme Court ruling requires adjustments to provisions in the Clean Water Act that provide protections for millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of small lakes and ponds. President Bush acknowledged the importance of wetlands to fish and wildlife and pledged to work with the sporting community in determining whether new regulations are created. For over 30 years, the current wetlands protections in the Clean Water Act have served to shield one of the most vital habitats in the United States.
Regarding expanded energy development on federal land in the Rocky Mountain west, the President expressed a determination to develop a policy that is sensitive to the abundant fish and wildlife in that area. The TRCP and its partner organizations have offered to help federal officials design policies for new exploration and drilling that have the least negative impact on native trout, elk, mule deer, pronghorn and sage grouse. President Bush welcomed this and expressed a desire to get direct input from the conservation and sporting community.
The frank and substantive meeting with President Bush was one of several recent signs that the Administration is interested in working with the sporting community on the top conservation priorities of the nation’s hunters and anglers. After the meeting, TRCP’s Range said "there are issues of major importance to hunters and anglers in play right now in Washington. This President understands the issues and why we are concerned about them."
Among the organizations represented at the meeting were the American Sportfishing Association, BASS, the Boone and Crockett Club, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, the Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, the Wildlife Management Institute and the National Rifle Association.

The TRCP is an organization dedicated to bringing together the leading hunting, angling and conservation groups in the United States to combine forces and work on the national issues most important to American sportsmen and women. To that end, TRCP works to improve protections for crucial fish and wildlife habitats, strengthen funding for fish and wildlife management, and increase public access to quality hunting and angling opportunities. For more about the TRCP and its partner organizations visit: www.trcp.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bush Administration has decided AGAINST making a new rule that would have changed key wetlands protections. The TRCP partner organizations pulled together and presented a united message on this issue and the government heard us. This was the kind of team effort the TRCP was created for! When we all pull together, fish and wildlife win!

Bush Administration Stands By "No Net Loss" of Wetlands
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Won’t Issue New Rule
WASHINGTON, DC - The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership welcomed good news from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers today regarding some of the most important wildlife habitat in North America. The EPA and the Corps announced they will not issue a new rule ceding federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The Bush Administration had been weighing whether it needed to issue such a rule on federal regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands in light of the Supreme Court’s so-called SWANCC ruling in 2001.
Ever since that ruling, the conservation community has urged continued federal protection of a habitat that migratory birds in particular rely so heavily on. The TRCP and its partner organizations have sought to bring that message directly to federal decision-makers in a concerted and constructive form. Recently the Bush Administration has reached out to the conservation community and offered to listen.
On Monday, November 24, the TRCP helped coordinate a meeting between leaders of several hunting, angling and conservation groups and Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and her top staff. The isolated wetlands issue was a focus of that meeting and was soon followed up on in a White House meeting with President Bush just this past Friday, December 12th. At that meeting, the President clearly acknowledged the importance of protecting wetlands. His willingness to listen that day and consider the recommendations of the conservation community has led to a good decision for fish and wildlife. The EPA and Department of Interior, by engaging with the TRCP and other conservation groups, has ensured that the voices of millions of hunters and anglers who want to see wetlands protection continued, were heard.
The TRCP’s Chairman Jim Range was an architect of the wetlands protections in the Clean Water Act when he was counsel to the Senate’s Committee on the Environment and Public Works in the 1970’s. Range applauded today’s decision saying "it is hard overestimate how vital wetlands are to the overall health of American wildlife. By clearly stating today that there will continue to be no net loss of wetlands, the President has given Americans who care about fish and wildlife a big reason to smile."
President Bush’s father, former President George H. W. Bush put forth the pledge of ensuring that there is "no net loss" of wetlands in the United States. It’s a pledge that fish and wildlife advocates have held fast to as being vitally necessary. We thank the President for standing by this pledge.

[Mehrenfl]

From Delta Waterfowl:


Changes to Clean Water Act Abandoned (Posted December 17, 2003)

BISMARCK, ND—The Bush administration, under pressure from sportsmen and conservationists, has abandoned plans to issue new rules that would have eliminated protections for wetlands critical to duck production under the Clean Water Act.



A story in the Washington Post said the administration received more than 133,000 comments opposing the administration’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that would have stripped millions of acres of wetlands from protection under CWA. Additionally, 218 members of Congress signed a letter to President Bush urging him to abandon the rulemaking process.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers Tuesday reiterated the administration’s commitment to “no net loss” of wetlands and said they would forgo issuing new rules on regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands.

“Sportsmen made their voices heard,” says Rob Olson, director of operations for Delta Waterfowl’s US office here. “Their comments to the administration made a huge difference. The rules proposed earlier by the administration would have eliminated CWA protection for all isolated wetlands, those little temporary and seasonal wetlands so critical for duck production.

“This is a very positive first step, but we’re not out of the woods yet,” cautions Olson, “because the guidelines issued last January have not yet been rescinded. Swampbuster is still in place, but we need to continue to work towards permanent federal regulations protecting these little wetlands.”

Julie Sibbing of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the organization that led the fight to protect wetlands, agrees. “We’re breathing a little easier,” says Sibbing, “but the guidance issued in January is still in place. What this does is to free us up to monitor what’s happening on the ground to see how this is going to shake out.

“Several lower court decisions since that guidance was issued have been favorable, but we still need a legal hook to permanently protect isolated wetlands.”

Olson and Sibbing say the best way to guarantee protection of isolated wetlands would be passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act, which was intended to clarify Congress’ intent when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act has been blocked by the leadership in Congress, and isn’t likely to pass any time soon.

The scope of CWA wetland protections came into question after the US Supreme Court ruled in the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) case that isolated wetlands did not qualify for CWA protections based on their use by migrating birds.

For additional information, contact Rob Olson or John Devney at 888-987-3695.

[Novalex]

Rut,

Bush only changed him mind after receiving 133,000 petitions from concerned outdoorsmen & conservationists to "scrap" his proposal.

Please post up the entire story next time & not a cut & paste job.

Here's what really happened!!!

Pres Bush is no friend to the wetlands!!!



Wetlands decision

Groups hail Bush's "reversal" on wetlands

By RICHARD HINTON, Bismarck Tribune

Conservation and wildlife groups breathed a sigh of relief Wednesday after the Bush administration “abandoned efforts that could have reduced protection for millions of acres of wetlands,” including many North Dakota potholes.

Despite the administration's earlier stance that occasional use of wetlands by farmers, migratory birds or endangered species wasn't reason enough to stop developers from filling them in, Mike Leavitt, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said that Bush personally made the decision "not to issue a rule that could reduce" further wetlands protections under the Clean Water Act.

Around the prairie pothole region, many were breathing easier.

"If you look historically at the wetlands base in North and South Dakota upon which ducks depend, the majority would not have received protection under the proposed rule-making," said John Devney, the group manager for communications, marketing and development at Delta Waterfowl in Bismarck.

"We probably have more isolated wetlands than any other state," said Lloyd Jones, the refuge coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Bismarck office.

The issue arose when the Supreme Court ruled in 2001 in a Chicago-area case that isolated ponds and mudflats should not be afforded Clean Water Act protections if only to provide habitat for migratory birds. At the center of the ruling was a proposed landfill.

The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued guidelines for carrying out the court's decision. At the same time, the administration began crafting new regulations specifically to exclude isolated ponds and streams, many of them dry for part of the year, as protected wetlands under the law.

Leavitt said the administration wanted to avoid "a contentious and lengthy rule-making debate" over disputed environmental benefits or losses.

"We're very pleased," said Steve Adair, director of conservation programs at the Bismarck Ducks Unlimited Office. "It shows the administration's commitment to no net wetlands loss, and we are hopeful the abandonment of rule-making will sustain a long-term commitment to sustain wetlands."

Mike McKenna, the chief of the conservation and communications division at the state Game and Fish Department, called it good news when the administration thinks a resource like wetlands is important to America.

But McKenna -- and others -- also sounded a cautionary note: "The notion that the administration believes wetlands and clean water are important is good," he said. "How it plays out in rules and protections, I don't know."

Ron Reynolds, the supervisor with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's habitat and population evaluation team based in Bismarck, called wetlands protection critical. "Hopefully, it will put us on the right track."

Reynolds also said the time has come for Congress to reaffirm its commitment to protect isolated wetlands.

The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act was introduced in Congress last year. The measure was meant to ensure that small isolated wetlands are protected.

"It got support," Reynolds said, "but it had no serious chance of passing."

That Congress was motivated to introduce legislation indicated some uncertainty about what the Clean Water Act is intended to cover, Reynolds said.

"Now is the time for conservationists to get the Clean Water Act clarified," Reynolds said, pointing to the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling.

"That was a gravel pit," Reynolds said. "Next time it might be a pothole wetland."

Last month, 218 House members, including 26 Republicans, one independent and all but 14 of the House's 205 Democrats, signed a letter to Bush urging him to scrap what they called an attempt "to remove federal protection from waters ... that have been covered by the Clean Water Act for decades."

The proposed changes also drew opposition from states, hunting and fishing groups, wildlife organizations and environmental activists.

"Our perception is that this was a test balloon out of the administration, using this narrow interpretation as sort of a barometer of what the response would be," said Delta Waterfowl's Devney. "They found out quickly what the response was and reversed their decision very quickly."

(The Associated Press contributed to this story. Reach Tribune reporter Richard Hinton at 250-8256 or outdoors@bismarcktribune.net.)

[RutnNStrutn]

by our pal, CJ
Bush only changed him mind after receiving 133,000 petitions from concerned outdoorsmen & conservationists to "scrap" his proposal. Please post up the entire story next time & not a cut & paste job.

In other words, he took into consideration the opinions of his constituents, and acted in the accordance with the people's wishes. That's what politicians are supposed to do - represent the people. I wish more politicians would do that.
Let us not forget what our buddies, the Democraps want to do. They want to take away our guns, restrict or deny access to federal lands and waters, and end hunting. Oh yeah, let's put another Clinton in the White House.
Two words - roadless initiative. Look that one up if you want to see an example of an "environmentally friendly" president. :rolleyes:
It's funny too, the hunting orgs all seem to be in support of this, and the only ones who are complaining are the tree huggers, and you. :rolleyes: Your paranoia is shining through.