Don't Change the Endangered Species Act

The ESA is our nation's bedrock environmental law, which for more than 30 years, has protected many species from extinction. This administration has been continually trying to find a way to dismantle the ESA and in it's waning days, government lawyers have engineered an attack on the ESA that will severely undermine the Act and result in more wildlife at risk of extinction.

This latest attempt would severely undermine the safety net provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, presenting dire ramifications for some of the world's most endangered wildlife.

Weakening the ESA in any way is unacceptable. Of the actions being considered, I am very concerned about:

 The elimination of informal consultations and reduction of formal consultations. Without this oversight, the law can easily be circumvented and, in some cases, even ignored.

 New justifications for avoiding or minimizing Endangered Species Act consultations based on "Lack of Causation" arguments.  I agree with John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation, when he says that he "believes the bill is intentionally timed to coincide with the election campaigns, so that a distracted public would not create a nuisance".

The creation of an arbitrary deadline that will be used to enable  even the most harmful projects to escape Endangered Species Act scrutiny. The ESA is one of the few acts passed in the last century that does what it was intended to do, and that is to benefit wildlife as opposed to the big money interests that would weaken the Act.

Repeatedly, polls have shown that large majorities of the American people want to maintain or strengthen the Endangered Species Act. I think that I speak up on behalf of that majority to make sure you know we will not stand for any actions to weaken this important law.

Even though under the proposed rule, federal action agencies would no longer have to informally consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on actions that are not likely to "adversely affect a listed species or its habitat", the informal consultation provisions were retained for those cases where an action is not excluded from consultation or when the action agency seeks the Services%u2019 expertise. However, the proposed rule adds time deadlines to limit the duration of the informal consultation. Specifically, the Services will have 60 days, with an option to request an additional 60 days, to act on a request. If there is no written determination from the Services within the deadlines, then the action agency may terminate the consultation.

This change is intended to help make the consultation process more efficient and avoid unnecessary duplication. However, the Services note that it is the action agency%u2019s responsibility to describe with specificity where the relevant analysis for initiation of consultation can be found in the alternative document

The Services note that because the contents of a biological assessment are not set by regulation but rather are at the discretion of the action agency, the Services will allow action agencies to use information in documents prepared for another purpose in order to initiate consultation and satisfy 50 CFR 402.14(c.

This will allow the federal action agencies to arbitrarily decide whether proposed actions will not "adversely affect a listed species or its habitat", and to request consultation only in cases where the agencies are actively seeking the expertise of the Services. It effectively eliminates oversight and penalties for sidestepping the current provisions and will allow deliberate obfuscation to delay the examination process well beyond the allotted time obviating the need for further consultation.

The proposal constitutes a rollback of protections for listed species, arguing in particular that it would unduly limit informal and formal consultations. Letting the federal action agency determine that there would be no effects would be like giving the fox the key to the hen house There is also the concern that the proposed rule includes new justifications for avoiding or minimizing consultation based on lack of causation arguments and arbitrary deadlines, allowing projects to escape ESA scrutiny.

The proposed rule is clearly geared toward excluding greenhouse gas emissions from consultations under the ESA, enforcing the Services%u2019 current view that under this proposal there is no requirement to consult on GHG emissions contribution to global warming and its associated impacts on listed species (e.g., polar bears). This is a win/win for the action agencies and a lose/lose for the environment.

Now more than ever, it is imperative that we protect and preserve the world that was entrusted to our care by our fore-fathers that we may in turn pass it on to our heirs. It is time for leaders, not impeders.

Please join with me in telling the government that we will not accept alterations to the Endangered Species Act.

Grant Campbell

The ESA is our nation's bedrock environmental law, which for more than 30 years, has protected many species from extinction. This administration has been continually trying to find a way to dismantle the ESA and in it's waning days, government lawyers have engineered an attack on the ESA that will severely undermine the Act and result in more wildlife at risk of extinction.

This latest attempt would severely undermine the safety net provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, presenting dire ramifications for some of the world's most endangered wildlife.

Weakening the ESA in any way is unacceptable. Of the actions being considered, I am very concerned about:

 The elimination of informal consultations and reduction of formal consultations. Without this oversight, the law can easily be circumvented and, in some cases, even ignored.

 New justifications for avoiding or minimizing Endangered Species Act consultations based on "Lack of Causation" arguments.  I agree with John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation, when he says that he "believes the bill is intentionally timed to coincide with the election campaigns, so that a distracted public would not create a nuisance".

The creation of an arbitrary deadline that will be used to enable  even the most harmful projects to escape Endangered Species Act scrutiny. The ESA is one of the few acts passed in the last century that does what it was intended to do, and that is to benefit wildlife as opposed to the big money interests that would weaken the Act.

Repeatedly, polls have shown that large majorities of the American people want to maintain or strengthen the Endangered Species Act. I think that I speak up on behalf of that majority to make sure you know we will not stand for any actions to weaken this important law.

Even though under the proposed rule, federal action agencies would no longer have to informally consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on actions that are not likely to "adversely affect a listed species or its habitat", the informal consultation provisions were retained for those cases where an action is not excluded from consultation or when the action agency seeks the Services%u2019 expertise. However, the proposed rule adds time deadlines to limit the duration of the informal consultation. Specifically, the Services will have 60 days, with an option to request an additional 60 days, to act on a request. If there is no written determination from the Services within the deadlines, then the action agency may terminate the consultation.

This change is intended to help make the consultation process more efficient and avoid unnecessary duplication. However, the Services note that it is the action agency%u2019s responsibility to describe with specificity where the relevant analysis for initiation of consultation can be found in the alternative document

The Services note that because the contents of a biological assessment are not set by regulation but rather are at the discretion of the action agency, the Services will allow action agencies to use information in documents prepared for another purpose in order to initiate consultation and satisfy 50 CFR 402.14(c.

This will allow the federal action agencies to arbitrarily decide whether proposed actions will not "adversely affect a listed species or its habitat", and to request consultation only in cases where the agencies are actively seeking the expertise of the Services. It effectively eliminates oversight and penalties for sidestepping the current provisions and will allow deliberate obfuscation to delay the examination process well beyond the allotted time obviating the need for further consultation.

The proposal constitutes a rollback of protections for listed species, arguing in particular that it would unduly limit informal and formal consultations. Letting the federal action agency determine that there would be no effects would be like giving the fox the key to the hen house There is also the concern that the proposed rule includes new justifications for avoiding or minimizing consultation based on lack of causation arguments and arbitrary deadlines, allowing projects to escape ESA scrutiny.

The proposed rule is clearly geared toward excluding greenhouse gas emissions from consultations under the ESA, enforcing the Services%u2019 current view that under this proposal there is no requirement to consult on GHG emissions contribution to global warming and its associated impacts on listed species (e.g., polar bears). This is a win/win for the action agencies and a lose/lose for the environment.

Now more than ever, it is imperative that we protect and preserve the world that was entrusted to our care by our fore-fathers that we may in turn pass it on to our heirs. It is time for leaders, not impeders.

Please join with me in telling the government that we will not accept alterations to the Endangered Species Act.

Grant Campbell