Boxer calls out Interior Department

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Friday requested Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne attend Senate oversight hearings next month on the White House’s plans to relax parts of the Endangered Species Act.

Boxer wrote Kempthorne to ask the Bush administration drop its proposal to relax a requirement that federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration anytime before they undertake any action that could affect an endangered species. News of the administration’s proposal leaked out within the past week, prompting Interior officials to take a defensive posture.

{mosads}Boxer asked Kempthorne to testify at a Sept. 24 Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, to schedule public hearings on the proposal, and to extend a period for public input from one month to six months. Boxer chairs the EPW committee.

“The proposed regulations greatly undermine the Act’s purpose to conserve endangered and threatened species and appear to contravene the plain language of the Act,” Boxer wrote Kempthorne. “I urge you to discontinue further action on this proposal.”

Boxer also accused the Interior Department of trying to push through the changes before the November election and without congressional approval.

“By proposing these considerable changes with only a short time remaining in the Administration’s term, your office appears to be attempting, in effect, to make changes to the Endangered Species Act that the Administration has been unable to achieve through legislation,” Boxer wrote.

Interior Department Communications Director Tina Kreisher said Kempthorne’s office has not yet received Boxer’s letter and had no immediate comment. However, she did note a posting on the front page of the department’s Web site. The posting, titled “Myths and Realities,” says media coverage of the department’s proposal have been inaccurate.

“The proposed regulations clarify that agencies do not have to consult if their actions have no effect, an insignificant effect, a beneficial effect or an indeterminable effect on a listed species or its critical habitat,” the Web site states.

The department has also taken pains to downplay the significance of the proposed changes, such as an Aug. 11 press release that described the changes as “narrow… common-sense modifications.”