Full Version: Role Of Critical Habitat
| QUOTE |
| SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection to species. In 30 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), we have found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of available conservation resources. The present system for designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory prescription into a process that provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. We have determined that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection. Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and Implementing the Act While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts of conservation resources. [Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the ESA can protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation requirements of section 7. |
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/200...y-20/i11382.htm
REFORM THE ESA
FRIDAY, JUNE 11th...
http://www.americansandassociation.org/new...cle&article=171
| QUOTE |
| On October 25, 2001, we received a petition to delist Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's milk-vetch) dated October 24, 2001, from David P. Hubbard, Ted J. Griswold, and Philip J. Giacinti, Jr. of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, that was prepared for the American Sand Association (ASA), the San Diego Off-Road Coalition, and the Off-Road Business Association (ASA et al. 2001). Various supporting documents were submitted with the petition. The petition (ASA et al. 2001) asserts that the original decision to list A. magdalenae var. peirsonii was in error, and claims that: (1) The original listing decision was made without an actual plant count; (2) the original listing relied on data developed prior to the implementation of the California Desert Protection Act (CDPA); (3) the original listing decision relied on field studies that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has since determined were biased and scientifically unsound; (4) monitoring studies indicate that A. magdalenae var. peirsonii is abundant and thriving; and (5) plant counts confirm that the Imperial Sand Dunes support more than 100,000 A. magdalenae var. peirsonii individuals and a healthy seed bank. On November 6, 2002 we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue from David P. Hubbard et al., representing the ASA et al, citing our alleged failure to make the findings on this petition as required by the ESA. A complaint was executed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on February 25, 2003. The plaintiffs (ASA et al.) challenge the Service's failure to make both the 90-day finding and 12-month finding on petition to delist the Peirsons's milk-vetch. In August 2003, the Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement with ASA et al., requiring us to make a 90-day finding on this petition by August 29, 2003, and, if the 90-day finding is that the petition contains substantial information that delisting Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii may be warranted, a 12-month finding by May 31, 2004. As part of this settlement agreement, the petitioners asked that we also accept and consider the information provided in Phillips and Kennedy (2002) when making our findings. The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a result of: (1) Extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) a determination that the original data used for classification of the species as endangered or threatened were in error. |
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2003/Septemb...y-05/i22600.htm
It has been a L-O-N-G battle in the WAR that will NEVER end...
But with SUPPORT we don't plan a
in the future... 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.