Conservation organizations are accusing the federal government of attacks on the Endangered Species Act. However, it is not the actual Act under scrutiny.

Instead, the Interior Department is proposing a new streamlined decision process. Under the new guidelines, federal agencies would be able to approve and/or fund dams, highways, and other projects without consulting government biology experts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA usually advise on potential disturbances and impacts on endangered species. Without this input, other government agencies could make decisions without obtaining further information.

Typically, proposed changes to legislation are put forward for public comment. The Federal Register is the official US government journal. Published daily (except for holidays) since 1935, it contains newly approved rules, proposed rules, and any changes to existing rules. In addition, executive orders, other presidential documents, and notices from Federal agencies and organizations are included. The Federal Register serves as a record for legislation. Another very important function is public notification. By posting the information and providing a comment period, every person can take part in the rule-making process - provided that they are (i) aware of the publication and process, and (ii) given sufficient chance to respond. Final rules are codified in the annual update of the Code of Federal Regulations. Some documents are classified and do not get published.

Currently, the concern is that insufficient time has been allotted for receiving comments. Only 30 days has been set - to September 15th. With such a rapid turnaround time, the new rules could be in place before November and any possible change of administration. The generally preferred route would be a longer public comment period - 120 days - allowing for more substantive and comprehensive input. It would also be a less partisan decision.

To date, the response has been defensive. The Interior Department’s website states that the proposed rules follow government guidelines and protocols. They claim there would be more clarity about required consultation. If a development had no foreseeable effects on endangered species, consultation would not be necessary. However, the cited examples, such as building a fish ladder for listed species, only serve to illustrate the erroneous reasoning at play.

Federal agencies with no mandate to study endangered species may have little - or no - idea of effects on endangered species. While there may not be an obvious detrimental result, only experts dedicated to the minutiae may recognize possible ramifications. The aforementioned fish ladder may seem like a splendid idea, but what if it disturbs water turbidity, prey availability, or any number of factors? There are many cases where a well-intentioned project has had the opposite effect, due to insufficient data and lack of familiarity.

If you are interested in making comments on the revised consultation process, here is the document link: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064806c5826