No such deadline currently exists. The overall economic effects on the public and private sectors would have to be outlined if the plan imposes significant costs on a municipality, county, region or industry. Proponents contend the provision will speed up recovery. Opponents say it would further delay recovery because of added bureaucraq and require economic analyses that do not incorporate the benefits of species recovery. The bill would streamline the consultation process by providing federal agencies greater clout to determine whether their project would harm a species.
Proponents contend the consultation process causes needless delays.
Environmentalists counter the provision, arguing it will badly weaken an important safeguard and give preferential treatment to mining and timber companies that lease federal land. Listing - require minimum scientific evidence for listing a species as endangered, including specific threats to the species. All listing and delisting decisions would have to be reviewed by three scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and appointed by the Interior. A procedure for delisting a species once the recovery goal has occurred would be put in place. Proponents contend the provisions will ensure greater confidence in agency decision making.