<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=09000064806c5826" target="_blank">www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=09000064806c5826</a>.</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Doug</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">____________</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Dept of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service: 50 CFR Part 402</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Dept of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration: 50 CFR Part 405</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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.</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Section 402.02 Definitions (page
47869).</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">1. "Biological Assessment"</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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.</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">2. "Cumulative effects"</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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.</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">3. "Effects of the action"</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">"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. …"</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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.</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Section 402.03 Applicability (page
47870)</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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"?</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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". </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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.</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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..." </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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.</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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." </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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.</span></font></p>
<p style=""><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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)." </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">This view defies science and current observation of a large
number of plant and animal species. It is inappropriate.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Respectfully,</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Doug...</span></font></p><br><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="1"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;">Thank you. Your comment on Document ID: <span>FWS-R9-ES-2008-0093-0001
</span>has been sent. </span></font> <font size="1"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;">Your Comment tracking number is <span><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">807021de</span></b></span> <b><b><font face="Times New Roman">.</font></b></b></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<br></div></div><br></div>