In what way does removing…

In what way does removing protection from indirect harms to endangered species seem like a good idea? Understandable that the goal is to eliminate red-tape but surely it doesn't have to come at the expense of endangered species.

Corporations typically do not environmental protections at the front of their mind so as much as I believe there is good intention behind this change, I doubt that the profit-driven minds heading these companies are going to pay much heed to respecting endangered species.

Surely there is a way to reduce red-tape, wait times, and bureaucracy but does it have to involve lowering protections for endangered species?

I'm concerned this is going to lead to more profits, marginal increase in home building, and significant loss of habitats through abuse of the lack of "harassment" protection.