Comment on FR Doc # E8-25678

I do not support the proposed rule. It is obvious that too much discretion, in the absence of professional oversight, will be given to federal agencies to make the determination if a listed species will be adversely affected by a proposed action. A key point is that Section 7 consultation will not occur if an action's effects on a listed species are 'indeterminable.' This ensures that agencies will systematically and forthrightly prevent their own scientists from trying to determine the potential effects of an action on listed species. If scientists are prevented from conducting sufficient data collection and analyses to identify if an action can have adverse effects, then those effects will remain "indeterminable", and Section 7 consultation will not occur. This is why this proposed rule is nefarious, un-democratic, and panders to pro-development interest groups. As a result, and contrary to your 'myth vs. reality webpage,' this rule will, in fact, allow judgments to be made in the absence of science.