From the LA Times, CNN International, The Washington Post, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the AP. And, unfortunately but not surprisingly, more hyperbole. But at least this blog can function as Diogenes among the mainstream media.
[Another point as to why the environmentalist critique of the new regs rings hollow. Federal agencies have every incentive in the world to consult if agency officials have reason to believe that the proposed project will harm species. And that is because of the significant civil and criminal penalties attendant upon a "take" of a species. The only way to avoid that liability is to get an incidental take statement, which can only come from Section 7 consultation. Who would want to run that kind of risk? The carping from the other side approaches absurdity.]