Internal Bush administration policies are intentionally undermining the Endangered Species Act, according to a Washington Post investigation. As a result, species protection activity has all but stopped inside Bush's Department of the Interior.

One policy instructs officials at the Fish and Wildlife Service — the Interior Department agency responsible for most Endangered Species Act decisions — to basically ignore public requests for species protections:

[T]he agency limited the information it used in ruling on the 90-day citizens' petitions that lead to most listings. In May 2005, Fish and Wildlife decreed that its files on proposed listings should include only evidence from the petitions and any information in agency records that could undercut, rather than support, a decision to list a species.

Unsigned notes handwritten on May 16, 2005, by an agency official, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, attributed the policy to Douglas Krofta, who heads the Endangered Species Program's listing branch. The notes said employees "can use info from files that refutes petitions but not anything that supports, per Doug."

Although most decisions to list a species under the Act come as a result of public petitions, administrations can decide to list species on their own. During the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, 21 percent of species listed under the Act came as a result of internal requests, according to the Post.

Maybe Bush administration officials don't know they can request species protections on their own. Maybe they just don't care. Either way, the news is not good if you are a dwindling species of animal, plant, insect, or other organism. The current Bush administration has not listed a single species as a result of internal requests, according to the Post.

The result of these obstructionist policies and general inertia has been a stark decline in the number of species granted protection under the Act. In fact, as the Post reports, "Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has not declared a single native species as threatened or endangered since he was appointed nearly two years ago." See below for the grand totals from the George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations; and keep in mind H.W. Bush was only in office for one term.

OMB Watch recently conducted an informal survey asking people to identify questions they would like to ask candidates for federal office. The survey focused on questions related to government transparency.

After more than two thousand people responded to the survey, the results are in. Responses show that, more than anywhere else, Americans want greater transparency in the Executive Branch, particularly the White House.

Based on the survey, here are the top five questions we hope voter groups, media outlets, and the general public will ask candidates:

1) Manipulation of Facts
Concerns have been raised about possible manipulation of information produced by agencies and the influence of the White House over agency decisions. Do you support disclosure of all communications between the White House (including the Office of Management and Budget and other executive offices) and agencies regarding administrative decision-making and information disclosure?

2) Executive Privilege
What do you believe are the appropriate limits of executive privilege in the disclosure of information to Congress and the public?

3) Whistleblowers
Under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, only corporate whistleblowers revealing financial abuses are protected. In order to strengthen accountability against corporate crimes, would you support pending legislation that expands whistleblower protection rights to private sector workers who report violations of any federal public health and safety laws?

4) Presidential Records
Executive Order 13233 limits access to presidential records under the Presidential Records Act by giving former presidents the power to effectively veto the release of their records. Do you commit to reversing Executive Order 13233 to restore public access to presidential records after twelve years?

5) Health, Safety & Environment
Given the importance of health and safety information, how would you ensure that the public has easy access to understandable information about the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the products they use?

"These top questions provide the tools to gauge where the candidates fall on the openness-secrecy spectrum," said Sean Moulton, OMB Watch's Director of Federal Information Policy.

The list of questions for candidates is part of OMB Watch's 21st Century Right to Know Project which has the end goal of developing open government policy recommendations for the next White House and Congress.

Researchers are investigating the Potomac River's most unusual inhabitants: Male fish that grow eggs like female fish. According to an article in today's Washington Post by reporter David A. Fahrenthold, "Along the Potomac, researchers have long suspected that hormone-mimicking chemicals were the cause of the 'intersex' fish. The first of these creatures, male fish with eggs growing in their sex organs, were noticed in a rural West Virginia tributary in 2003."

Scientists suspect a class of compounds called endocrine disruptors may be to blame for the intersex fish. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, "An endocrine disruptor is a synthetic chemical that when absorbed into the body either mimics or blocks hormones and disrupts the body's normal functions." Exposure to endocrine disruptors may lead to developmental abnormalities, like those the intersex fish exhibit.

The effects and identity of many endocrine disrupting chemicals are still largely a mystery to scientists and the public. Chemicals such as dioxin and DDT are known endocrine disruptors; but most chemicals are not tested for their effects on the endocrine system. Suspected endocrine disruptors can be found in pesticides, plastics, and fragrances.

The Environmental Protection Agency should already have a handle on the endocrine disruptor mystery, but the agency has been dismal in researching or testing suspected chemicals. In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act requiring EPA test suspected substances for their effects on the endocrine system. In 2007, 11 years later, EPA finally unveiled the list of chemicals it intends to test.

This is one of the most egregious examples of regulatory delay in recent memory.

The Department of Interior's inspector general is conducting a preliminary investigation into the Department's continuing delay of a decision to protect the polar bear, according to the Associated Press. Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) missed a January deadline to decide whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

The inspector general's office opened the investigation in response to complaints from environmental groups, AP reports. Interior officials may have missed the deadline intentionally as a favor to the oil and gas industry. In February, another agency in the department awarded "$2.6 billion in winning bids from companies seeking to drill for oil and gas in Alaska's Chukchi Sea," according to The Washington Post.

Because Interior delayed the polar bear decision, oil and gas companies will not have to take special precautions to ensure the safety and health of the polar bear species in the Chukchi Sea — one of the polar bear's most important habitats. According to the World Wildlife Fund, "this lease sale is taking place before the ESA listing decision, allowing [Interior] to sell off polar bear habitat to the oil and gas industry without adhering to the protections of the ESA."

This is not the first time Interior's inspector general has looked into political manipulation of endangered species decisions. In March 2007, the inspector general's office exposed Julie MacDonald, an FWS employee who had been ignoring scientific findings calling for species protections and leaking internal documents to industry lobbyists. MacDonald resigned amid the ensuing fallout.

The inspector general will decide whether to conduct a full-blown inquiry based on the preliminary investigation.

Friday, EPA announced administrator Stephen Johnson's official rationale for denying the state of California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

Pressure from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee revealed that Johnson rejected the advice of agency scientists and legal counsel. Johnson's staff argued that California request met every criterion for receiving permission to develop regulations more strict than those of the federal government.

For many EPA staffers who belong to government employee unions, Johnson's decision to reject California's plan was the straw that broke the camel's back. Yesterday, the nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) released a letter from four such unions announcing its members — scientists, analysts, lawyers, and the like — are taking a significant step back from negotiations with EPA leadership.

PEER states:

In a February 29, 2008 letter, the presidents of 19 locals from four unions representing more than 10,000 staff from EPA headquarters, all but one of its regional offices and seven lab complexes served notice that they will "suspend" further involvement with the National Labor-Management Partnership Council. The Partnership Council is a nearly ten-year old forum for resolving disagreements.

The letter rattles off a number of examples where Johnson — a career scientist at EPA before being promoted to administrator — has ignored staff advice in favor of political pressure:

Under your Administration, EPA ignores the advice of its Labor Union Coalition and its own Principles of Scientific Integrity whenever political direction from other federal entities or private sector interests so direct. Examples include fluoride drinking water standards, organophosphate pesticide registration, control of mercury emissions from power plants, and requests for waivers to allow States to more stringently control greenhouse gases.

The Bush administration (and the next administration) should take notice of the unions' letter. EPA's career staff is comprised of dedicated individuals who have stuck it out in an administration that has at times been downright hostile toward the environment. By walking away now, they prove the problems at EPA are serious and deeply-rooted.