HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

Home :  Regulatory Policy :  RegWatch : 
RegWatch:     

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

 R    E    G    •    W    A    T    C    H 


Thursday, September 23, 2004

Say bye-bye to the bull trout...

Remember the bull trout? The administration pulled some chicanery a while back and produced a cost-benefit analysis of plans to save the bull trout's habitat... but eliminated all references to benefits from the final report.

Well, surprise, surprise: the new recovery plan "would sharply reduce the amount of federally designated critical habitat for the threatened bull trout in three Western states and eliminate federal requirements for such habitat in Montana," according to the AP. Adds the (Bend) Bulletin:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday designated which water bodies in four Northwestern states must be protected to ensure bull trout's survival. The final rule sent to the federal register designates 1,748 miles of streams and 61,235 acres of lakes in the Columbia and Klamath River basins of Oregon, Washington and Idaho as critical habitat. It also eliminated protection requirements in Montana. The original plan, released in November 2002, called for the safeguarding of about 18,450 stream miles and 532,700 acres of lakes and reservoirs.

In the Deschutes basin, 39 miles of rivers were set aside Wednesday — a marked drop from the 439 originally proposed.

About 23,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs — including Wickiup Reservoir, which fuels the North Unit Irrigation District — had also been earmarked for protection in 2002. No lakes or reservoirs in the Deschutes basin were included in the final rule.

Why such a dramatic reduction from the original proposal? Why eliminate so many areas from habitat protection plans? According to the Fish and Wildlife Service: "[T]he Service found that the social and economic cost of a designation outweighed the conservation benefit."

Posted by Robert Shull



Entries by Theme

All Themes

Enforcement

About This Blog

Rollbacks

Safety

Industry Influence

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues

Environment

Public Health

In the Courts

Oversight

In the White House

Most Recent Entries for RegWatch

Last-Minute Ocean Conservation from Bush

Bush Takes Last-Minute Shot at Reproductive Health

Happy Friday! EPA Announces Two Major Rollbacks

Bush Backs off Clean Air Changes, Finalizes Mountaintop Mining Rule

Will Climate Change's Effect on Species Be Considered?

White House Says "No Surprises" in Last-Minute Rules

New Bush Rule Allows Guns in National Parks

Pentagon Must Clean-up Bases, Justice Department Says

Mountaintop Mining Rule Nearing Completion

Bush Strips Employee Rights with Last-Minute Order

Archived Entries for Cost-Benefit Analysis

July, 2008

June, 2008

March, 2008

February, 2008

January, 2008

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

September, 2006

August, 2006

June, 2006

April, 2006

March, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

March, 2005

November, 2004

September, 2004