[CitizensTruth] Fwd: Bush Administration proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act

[Alissa Catalan]

---------- Forwarded message ----------



The Bush Administration has proposed regulatory changes to the Endangered
Species Act.  They want to gut the law.  I am sending you the comments I
submitted.  You can read the proposed regulation and submit your comments
through Sept 14, 2008 at
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=09000064806c5826
.



Doug

____________

Dept of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 50 CFR Part 402

Dept of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 50 CFR
Part 405



This is my comment on the August 15, 2008 proposed changes to 50 CFR Part
402.  I strongly disagree with the changes proposed and request that no
changes be made at this time.  These efforts to "simplify" the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (i.e., ESA) would have the effect of
undermining the intent of the legislation.  My detailed comments follow.



Section 402.02 Definitions (page 47869).



1. "Biological Assessment"

The proposal to eliminate the requirement to create a separate,
all-inclusive "Biological Assessment" document makes it extremely difficult
to understand the entire environmental impact of any project or action.
This proposal to simply cite segments of other documents for a "Biological
Assessment" would require both the action agency and anyone attempting to
review the action to obtain a huge number of documents and allows everyone
to take data out of context.  This proposal is not a "minor procedural
change" as is stated.  It basically stops all review of an "action agency".
Also, by allowing the "action agency" in charge of implementing the project
or action to decide what information to cite as justification is "putting
the fox in charge of the hen house".  They can more easily interpret the
data in ways that allow the action to proceed.  This is not the intent of
the ESA.  I oppose this change to the definition.



2. "Cumulative effects"

The proposal to amend the current regulatory definition of "cumulative
effects" is also inconsistent with the ESA.  The proposal requires an
analysis of each individual Federal project instead of the impact of an
entire Federal program.  In addition, knowledge of the impacts of one
project is not always that precise.  It is like requiring the "action
agency" or reviewing agency to know which straw will break the camel's back,
or how much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will stop the Atlantic
thermohaline current.  Science can only estimate social, economic or
environmental impacts of overall programs.  But, this can be critical in
deciding whether it is wise to proceed with a project or program.  I oppose
this change to the definition.



3. "Effects of the action"

"Initially, we want to emphasize that both in the current regulations and
these proposed regulations, an effect must both be caused by the action
under consultation and must be "reasonably certain to occur" before it can
be included in the effects analysis. …"



Science can only estimate the impacts of an action on an entire ecosystem
based on similar experience and forecasts.  It is almost never a black and
white, precise determination. The project or action must not be defined as
only one phase or segment of a much larger program.  It must consider the
likely longer term impacts caused by other public and private entities that
result from the Federal action.  For example, an isolated major highway
interchange by itself might not have much impact on the environment but the
resulting development caused by increasing accessibility to that interchange
will have a huge impact on the local environment and ecosystem.  Both direct
and indirect impacts must be considered by the Federal action agency.  They
can not wait until a species is destroyed and then go back in time and do it
all over.  The proposed change is not consistent with the ESA.





Section 402.03 Applicability (page 47870)



1. This section states that "section 7 only applies to discretionary agency
actions".  Please define "discretionary".  Is an action "discretionary" if
it is a Congressional earmark?  Can the President redefine a "discretionary"
project by decree?  If an action is "a take" do ESA requirements apply?
What is "a take"?



2. In the third paragraph the proposed regulation states, "In paragraph
(b)(1) we propose to add language that action agencies are not required to
consult on those actions for which they determine their action will have "no
effect" on listed species or critical habitat".



This is an inappropriate change.  Action agencies should follow the current
regulation that they consult with service agencies on any action that MAY
affect a listed species or designated critical habitat.  The proposal gives
too much authority to Federal action agencies to make decisions on critical
habitat for which they have little or no expertise or interest.



3. On page 47871 this proposal states: "To achieve the goal of reducing
unnecessary consultations, the proposed language allows a Federal action
agency to make a "not likely to adversely affect" determination without
concurrence from the Services..."



This again eliminates the need to consult with biological, habitat and other
experts about the environmental impact of building a road or other Federal
action.  This is basically rewriting the ESA legislation.  If the desire is
to speed up the consultation process this proposal should simply require
that the service agencies providing this expert environmental analysis hire
and use the necessary staff to do the action in a timely manor.  Instead
what happens is that these agencies and their funding agencies are allowed
to minimize the expertise available to do the required consulting and then
the Federal Action agencies or constituents complain about the timeliness of
reviews.  This is simply a way to eliminate a legislative requirement by
underfunding and mismanaging the agencies required to make it a timely
process.



4. On page 47871 the proposal states that "Federal action agencies
understand that there are significant consequences if they were to take an
action that resulted in prohibited take without an exemption through the
section 7 process."



What is the penalty if a Federal action causes the extinction of a life
species?  Is it a slap on the wrist after the fact?  Is it a critical
performance evaluation?  The intent of the ESA is to prevent extermination
of life through consultation with biological and habitat experts before
Federal action.



5. On page 47872 the proposal states that, "These regulations would
reinforce the Services' current view that there is no requirement to consult
on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions' contribution to global warming and its
associated impacts on listed species (e.g., polar bears)."



This view defies science and current observation of a large number of plant
and animal species.  It is inappropriate.



Respectfully,



Doug...

Thank you. Your comment on Document ID: FWS-R9-ES-2008-0093-0001 has been
sent.   Your Comment tracking number is *807021de* *.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/citizenstruth/attachments/20080912/7beabe49/attachment.htm>