Do you hold joyful memories of the exhilaration you and that mountain yellow-legged frog in California shared or are you recalling that ecologically and economically important Illinois bumblebee-butterfly-moth-fly-bat wild pollinator or cute dragonfly which teased you mercilessly? You, I and It all need a full-on defense from Trump Administration’s use of “Rulemaking” to Kill the Endangered Species Act! Here’s how to participate in the defense…
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of Interior department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) of Commerce department jointly propose revisions to regulations that implement portions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This would affect achieving the purposes of certain treaties and conventions and much more. See PowerPoint Presentation. The FWS proposal removes its blanket rule under section 4(d) of the ESA that automatically conveys the same protections for threatened species as for endangered species. They say the change will not affect the protections for species currently listed as threatened, but in the future species listed as threatened get only protections individually specific to species' conservation needs. That specificity seems to me to open a morass around which agencies will pass by “Streamlining” considerations and implementations of rules and enforcements so protections will decrease.
They say here: Section 424.11— Factors for Listing, Delisting, or Reclassifying Species Economic Impacts — We [ FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ] propose to remove the phrase, “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination”, from paragraph (b) to more closely align with the statutory language. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to make determinations based “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species”. The word “solely” was added in the 1982 amendments to the Act (Pub. L. No. 97-304, 96 Stat. 1411) to clarify that the determination of endangered or threatened status was intended to be made “solely upon biological criteria and to prevent non-biological considerations from affecting such decisions.”
I oppose key adverse changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) proposed by FWS and NOAA Fisheries that could put endangered species in worse trouble and set back species on the edge like whooping cranes, grizzly bears, right whales and hundreds of others, thus harming overall the diversity of species.
Do not lift blanket protections for "threatened" species. Do not remove the clause in ESA worded as "without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination" that will allow for the prioritization of economic considerations over wildlife protection. For an example of how twisted administrative and other rules can become in these days when wit and guile have replaced strength and honesty, look at Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Court of Appeals 2014 dissenting opinion in STALLION ENERGY CENTER, LLC v. EPA concerning Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Final Rule [“The Rule”] entitled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,” 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In Judge Kavanaugh's words, "EPA Administrator would surely ask how much the regulations would cost." In Kavanaugh's dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that EPA may reasonably exclude consideration of costs when deciding whether it is appropriate to regulate electric utilities under the MACT program, for example, this prospective Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh clearly cares more about meager costs to 19th Century industries than he does about 21st Century personal health of children and adults. Similarly, in COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION v. EPA (2012), Kavanaugh dissented from denial of rehearing en banc in a case involving regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions. Kavanaugh resisted the agency’s attempt to adapt the language of a 1970 statute, the Clean Air Act, to permit regulation of an environmental problem that Congress did not anticipate when it enacted the statute, concluding that the EPA had “exceeded its statutory authority” when it issued the greenhouse-gas regulations.
Do not now change ESA, so allowing it to succumb to what Kavanaugh refers to as the “major rules doctrine.” Chief Justice John Roberts notably relied on a similar approach in 2015, in King v. Burwell, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s health-care-subsidy system. Diversity of species is a right we humans have and we must protect that diversity as a cornerstone of our own survival strategy, regardless of the so-called "cost", by which I mean the meager money that Kavanaugh, Roberts and the like would undoubtedly value more than species protection required by a truly robust ESA. It is stupidity to neuter ESA protections with unhealthy rule changes that have potential to rip into the thin covering of Earth which contains and sustains life (meaning the biosphere and all species it presently includes).
I am opposed to opening the door to habitat destruction along with allowing the use of more chemicals and pollutants including light, sound, heat pollutants on our lands and in our waters that will be so harmful to vulnerable species.
Most of the world’s 250,000-plus species of flowering plants require pollinators to transfer pollen between plants. The diversity of flower shapes and sizes, as well as the seasonal timing of flowering requires that a diverse assemblage of animal visitors be on hand in search of pollen or nectar or a colorful place to mate. It’s not only critters (including us) that Trumpsters and administrative law specialists like Brett Kavanaugh attack but also plants that we depend upon every minute of the year.
I encourage you to focus on strengthening the Endangered Species Act's rules by focusing on improving the process for recovering species. Thank you.
Action Items --- Public Comment on regulations that implement portions of the ESA …
- The proposed rules published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2018. Comments for each notice must be received within 60 days, by September 24, 2018. All comments will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means any personal information provided through the process will be posted.
To comment on any of these rules electronically please click on the links below. Then click the Comment Now button:
Remember: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov ... In the Search box, enter FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0006, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
2. Center for Biological Diversity, founded beneath the ancient ponderosa pines of New Mexico's Gila wilderness, where Kierán Suckling, Peter Galvin, and Todd Schulke met while surveying owls impels us to: