BAD Proposed Changes to the Endangered Species Act. By Geniusofdespair

It is official, this change request is in the Federal Register of August 15th.

Federal projects or consumptive use on federal lands (timber, grazing, mining, oil and gas, dredging, flood control, etc.) are among things most constrained by the Endangered Species Act. With the changes, they can just do their own assessment and conclude there is "no impact" from any of those projects to the endangered species. See Bush Administration’s Plans to Weaken Endangered Species Act.

Submit your comments to these changes (tell them: "Hell, No!") by September 15th to: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting comments. Be sure to reference 50 CFR Part 402 (FWS-R9-ES-2008-0093).

The proposed regulations attempt to:

Eliminate informal consultations. Currently, federal agencies seeking to carry out, fund or permit an action must enter into either formal or informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service if the action is found to have any affect whatsoever on a listed species. The Bush Administration wants to significantly reduce informal consultations by allowing proponents of federal projects to decide unilaterally whether projects have adverse effects on listed species. This would eliminate the ability of the Service to review projects and employ its expert scientific judgment about what is needed to protect species and habitats unless an agency requests an informal consultation.

Reduce the number of formal consultations. These are the in-depth reviews that lead to the preparation of a biological opinion, in which the Service determines whether a project will jeopardize listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat and, if so, how the project must be modified to avoid harm. The proposed changes eliminate the requirement for formal consultation any time that an agency unilaterally determines that a project will have no adverse effect on listed species.

Avoid or minimize consultations based on "Lack of Causation" arguments. Under this rule, agencies could avoid consultation if they determine their action will have only a “marginal” impact on a listed species, ignoring the fact that the cumulative effect of “marginal” piecemeal destruction of habitat quantity and quality is one of the main causes of species decline and extinction. “This could mean death by a thousand cuts for many threatened and endangered species,” said Kostyack.
Impose an arbitrary deadline on the consultation process.

Perhaps most outrageously, the Administration proposes to impose a 60-day deadline on the Service to respond to an agency’s request for consultation and, if this deadline is not met, to allow the project to go forward regardless of the impacts of the project on listed species. “The creation of an arbitrary deadline could enable even the most harmful projects to escape Endangered Species Act scrutiny,” said Kostyack.