If the purpose of these…

If the purpose of these changes are to support -sustainable- economic growth, disregarding the natural environment and it's inhabitants by marginally shortening development timelines will not yield this result. What will the government's decisions to add and remove species listed by COSSARO be based on, if not science? This is deeply subjective and sets a precedent for conservation law that disregards the environmental and economic services associated with protecting species and their habitat - this should be considered unacceptable. Removing the concept of harass from the species protection will not shorten development timelines and will open up individuals of sensitive species to harm. There is no additional permitting taking place federally that slows development timelines - all permitting is done in tandem with each other and does not have a significant additional cost. If recovery plan requirements are being removed what will the new conservation guidance be based on? Most consultants are comfortable with these documents and removing them will not shorten development timelines. Voluntary conservation fund? Really? Strengthening the ability to enforce the amended ESA/SCA is a reactionary approach that does not mitigate real harm to species - additionally, the changes to this act demonstrate that there will not be many requirements that proponents need to be held accountable for to begin with.