A guest post by
Sharon Friedman

The recent restoration of a requirement for consultation with FWS and NMFS for ESA was correctly characterized by the Denver Post Wire Report and the Washington Post and mischaracterized by CNN (and perhaps President Obama) (see quotations and links below, the bold in each story is mine.).

Denver Post:

President restores rule benefiting endangered species
Denver Post Wire Report
Posted: 03/04/2009 12:30:00 AM MST

WASHINGTON — In a move that will subject a number of government projects to enhanced environmental and scientific scrutiny, President Barack Obama is restoring a requirement that U.S. agencies consult with independent federal experts to determine whether their actions might harm threatened and endangered species. The presidential memorandum issued Tuesday marks yet another reversal of former President George W. Bush’s environmental legacy.

CNN:

Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule
The regulation, issued a few weeks before George W. Bush left office, made it easier for federal agencies to skip consultations with government scientists before launching projects that could effect endangered wildlife.

By doing overturning the regulation, Obama said during an enthusiastic reception at the Interior Department, he had restored “the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act, a process undermined by past administrations.”

Under the Bush administration rule, there was no need for a federal agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Services if that agency determined that no harm would come to an endangered species as a result of its project.

But the determination of what “no harm” meant rested with agency bureaucrats instead of scientists.

Obama issued a memorandum that effectively suspends the regulation while ordering a review to determine whether it promotes “the purposes of the [Endangered Species Act].”

Washington Post

“Earthjustice lawyer Janette Brimmer, ..”I think the Obama administration now is going to take a step back on these projects. It needs to bring science back into the equation,” Brimmer said, adding that her group will not drop its lawsuit until it can assess how the new policy is working.

Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an activist group, said the switch would help guard against the potential conflicts of interest and lack of expertise that could color decision-making by any agency hoping to press ahead with a particular project. “After years of scientific scandal, the Interior Department and its partner agencies need desperately to regain credibility by making decisions with honesty, clarity and transparency,” Grifo said. “

As the Denver Post correctly reports, FWS and NMFS as regulatory agencies, and the agencies doing the actions requiring consultation, all hire “experts”- professional wildlife and fisheries biologists. They meet the same educational requirements, belong to the same professional societies with the same codes of ethics, and have great dedication and values for the environment and the species. The ones in the regulatory agencies face different kinds of pressures than the ones in the management agencies, and it is reasonable, in my view, to prefer that kind of independence in reviewing documents.

But to assert or to imply that regulatory agency wildlife biologists are “scientists” and the management agency wildlife biologists are not, is simply incorrect. They either both are, or aren’t. In fact, they are hired by both kinds of agencies and move from regulatory to management agencies and vice versa. To suggest that would be a wee bit of a slur on the professionalism of the management agency wildlife biologists — and this would bother me — except that I think most people are actually not familiar with the facts, nor with real agency wildlife biologists.

The Washington Post was careful to quote people making that claim, including Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who pointed out to “conflicts of interest” (I believe possible) and “lack of expertise” by other agencies. I don’t know about Ms. Grifo’s personal experience with management agencies’ wildlife biologists, but I have to think that this “lack of expertise” was assumed, rather than observed.