Search

Search Results

• 1. [Image] The petition process: for requests to list a species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act

  	Electronic resource; Title from title screen; "March 2000"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The petition process: for requests to list a species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act Year: 2000, 2006, 2005 Electronic resource; Title from title screen; "March 2000" Title: The petition process: for requests to list a species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act Year: 2000, 2006, 2005 Electronic resource; Title from title screen; "March 2000" Close

• 2. [Image] Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce regarding jurisdictional responsibilities and listing procedures under the Endangered Species Act of 1973

  	MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION UNITED ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce regarding jurisdictional responsibilities and listing procedures under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; United States. National Marine Fisheries Service Year: 1974, 2005 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REGARDING JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND LISTING PROCEDURES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 WHEREAS, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, ( 16 U. S. C. § § 1531- 43) ( the " Act"), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce share, among other things, the responsi-bility to determine species of fauna and flora to be endangered species and threatened species; WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have delegated those responsibilities to the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively; WHEREAS, the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, which under the Act, governs the responsibilities of each Secretary, does not adequately set forth those species of fauna and flora under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and those under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce; - 2 - WHEREAS, the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, wish to establish procedures for the implementation of the Act and for the amend-ment of the United States Lists of Endangered Species and Threatened Species; WHEREAS, the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, consider it desirable to define their respective jurisdictions with respect to the Act; NOW THEREFORE, the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, hereby agree as follows with respect to their responsibilities for species of fauna subject to the Act and for the addition of species of fauna to the United States Lists of Endangered Species and Threatened Species, and for other revisions of those Lists: 1. ( a) The Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, shall have jurisdiction over and shall determine whether species in the following classes, orders, or groups of animals shall be added to the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from threatened to endangered: - 3 - All species of the order Cetacea; all species of the order Pinnipedia, other than walruses; all commercially harvested species of the phylum Mollusca and the class Crustacea which spend all of their lifetimes in estuarine waters; and all other nonmammalian species ( except members of the classes Aves, Amphibian, and Reptilia), which either ( i) reside the major portion of their lifetimes in marine waters; or ( ii) are species which spend part of their lifetimes in estuarine waters, if the major portion of the remaining time ( the time which is not spent in estuarine waters) is spent in marine waters. For the purposes of this Memorandum of Understanding: ( i) " commercially harvested species" is defined to mean species which are commercially harvested from the estuary at the time this Memorandum is signed; and ( ii) " lists of endangered species and threatened species" is defined to mean the endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act. ( b) The proposed determination of the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, that such a species should be added to the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from threatened to endangered, and the corres-ponding listing by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal - 4 - Register, signed by both Directors. Comments on the proposed listing shall be directed to the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, who shall conduct all appropriate or required status reviews, consultations, and notifications and who may, in his discretion, hold any appropriate hearings. The final determination of the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, that such a species should be added to the lists of endangered species or threatened species or changed in status from threatened to endangered, and the corresponding listing by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, signed by both Directors. ( c) Both Directors must jointly agree whether such a species shall be removed from the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from endangered to threatened. ( d) The proposed action by the Directors with respect to whether such a species should be removed from the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from endangered to threatened, and the corresponding proposed revision of those lists by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, signed by both Directors. Comments on the proposed revision of those lists shall be directed to both - 5 - Directors, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Directors. If both Directors desire hearings on the proposed revision, joint hearings shall be held, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Directors. The Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, shall conduct all appropriate or required status reviews, consultations, and notifications. The final action by the Directors with respect to whether such a species should be removed from the lists of endangered and threatened species or changed in status from endangered to threatened, and the corres-ponding revision of those lists by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, signed by both Directors. 2. The Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall have jurisdiction over, and shall determine whether species in the following classes, orders, or groups of animals shall be added to or removed from the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from either category to the other, and shall list such species in his discretion. All members of the classes Mammalia ( except members of the order Cetacea, and members of the order Pinnepedia, other than Walruses), Aves, Reptilia ( except marine turtles of the families Cheloniidae and Dermochelidae), Amphibia, and all other species ( except species of the orders Cetacea and Pinnipedia, other than Walruses) which either ( i) spend the major portion of their lifetimes on land and/ or in fresh water; or ( ii) are species - 6 - which spend part of their lifetimes in estuarine waters, if the major portion of the remaining time ( the time which is not spent in estuarine waters) is spent on land and/ or in fresh water. 3. ( a) The Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, shall have joint jurisdiction over, and shall jointly determine whether species of fauna not specifically assigned in paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall be added to or removed from the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from one category to the other. In the case of addition, removal, or change in status of one of these species, the procedure set forth in paragraph 3( b) shall be followed with all of the appropriate actions to be done jointly, with the concurrence of both Directors, including any notices of review, proposed determin-ations, notifications, hearings, consultations, receipt of comments, and final determinations; provided, that, the Directors may agree in writing that hearings and the receipt of comments may be the responsibility of either Director. ( b) The proposed joint determination by the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the corresponding proposed revision of the lists by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, - 7 - signed by both Directors. Where both Directors concur in the determination that a final revision of the lists should be made, the final determination by the Directors and the corresponding final revision of the lists by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, signed by both Directors. 4. Final allocation of responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, with respect to marine turtles of the families Cheloniidae and Dermochelidae must be resolved at some future time. For this reason, it is agreed that until this particular issue is resolved, all actions respecting such turtles will be undertaken jointly, using the same joint actions, requirements, and procedures contained in paragraph 3( b). 5. In emergency situations, regulations promulgated with respect to listing pursuant to the provisions of section ( 4)( f)( 2)( B)( ii) of the Act shall be undertaken using the jurisdictional assign-ments and the joint procedures, to the extent appropriate, described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4. 6. Neither agency will unilaterally act on the listing of any plant species until the jurisdictional issue, with respect to plants, is resolved. - 8 - 7. Each Director agrees that he and his staff will, at all stages, consult with and consider the recommendations of the other Director and his staff with respect to all actions proposed to be taken under the authority of the Memorandum of Understanding. 8. This Memorandum of Understanding has been executed in order to permit an orderly, efficient administration of the Act and should not be construed to govern the activities of either Secretary with respect to any other program administered by them. This Memorandum of Understanding will become effective when signed by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service. Either of the aforementioned Directors may cancel this Memorandum of Under-standing upon thirty days written notice to the other Director. Title: Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce regarding jurisdictional responsibilities and listing procedures under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; United States. National Marine Fisheries Service Year: 1974, 2005 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REGARDING JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND LISTING PROCEDURES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 WHEREAS, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, ( 16 U. S. C. § § 1531- 43) ( the " Act"), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce share, among other things, the responsi-bility to determine species of fauna and flora to be endangered species and threatened species; WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have delegated those responsibilities to the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively; WHEREAS, the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, which under the Act, governs the responsibilities of each Secretary, does not adequately set forth those species of fauna and flora under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and those under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce; - 2 - WHEREAS, the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, wish to establish procedures for the implementation of the Act and for the amend-ment of the United States Lists of Endangered Species and Threatened Species; WHEREAS, the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, consider it desirable to define their respective jurisdictions with respect to the Act; NOW THEREFORE, the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, hereby agree as follows with respect to their responsibilities for species of fauna subject to the Act and for the addition of species of fauna to the United States Lists of Endangered Species and Threatened Species, and for other revisions of those Lists: 1. ( a) The Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, shall have jurisdiction over and shall determine whether species in the following classes, orders, or groups of animals shall be added to the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from threatened to endangered: - 3 - All species of the order Cetacea; all species of the order Pinnipedia, other than walruses; all commercially harvested species of the phylum Mollusca and the class Crustacea which spend all of their lifetimes in estuarine waters; and all other nonmammalian species ( except members of the classes Aves, Amphibian, and Reptilia), which either ( i) reside the major portion of their lifetimes in marine waters; or ( ii) are species which spend part of their lifetimes in estuarine waters, if the major portion of the remaining time ( the time which is not spent in estuarine waters) is spent in marine waters. For the purposes of this Memorandum of Understanding: ( i) " commercially harvested species" is defined to mean species which are commercially harvested from the estuary at the time this Memorandum is signed; and ( ii) " lists of endangered species and threatened species" is defined to mean the endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act. ( b) The proposed determination of the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, that such a species should be added to the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from threatened to endangered, and the corres-ponding listing by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal - 4 - Register, signed by both Directors. Comments on the proposed listing shall be directed to the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, who shall conduct all appropriate or required status reviews, consultations, and notifications and who may, in his discretion, hold any appropriate hearings. The final determination of the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, that such a species should be added to the lists of endangered species or threatened species or changed in status from threatened to endangered, and the corresponding listing by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, signed by both Directors. ( c) Both Directors must jointly agree whether such a species shall be removed from the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from endangered to threatened. ( d) The proposed action by the Directors with respect to whether such a species should be removed from the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from endangered to threatened, and the corresponding proposed revision of those lists by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, signed by both Directors. Comments on the proposed revision of those lists shall be directed to both - 5 - Directors, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Directors. If both Directors desire hearings on the proposed revision, joint hearings shall be held, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Directors. The Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, shall conduct all appropriate or required status reviews, consultations, and notifications. The final action by the Directors with respect to whether such a species should be removed from the lists of endangered and threatened species or changed in status from endangered to threatened, and the corres-ponding revision of those lists by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, signed by both Directors. 2. The Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall have jurisdiction over, and shall determine whether species in the following classes, orders, or groups of animals shall be added to or removed from the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from either category to the other, and shall list such species in his discretion. All members of the classes Mammalia ( except members of the order Cetacea, and members of the order Pinnepedia, other than Walruses), Aves, Reptilia ( except marine turtles of the families Cheloniidae and Dermochelidae), Amphibia, and all other species ( except species of the orders Cetacea and Pinnipedia, other than Walruses) which either ( i) spend the major portion of their lifetimes on land and/ or in fresh water; or ( ii) are species - 6 - which spend part of their lifetimes in estuarine waters, if the major portion of the remaining time ( the time which is not spent in estuarine waters) is spent on land and/ or in fresh water. 3. ( a) The Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, shall have joint jurisdiction over, and shall jointly determine whether species of fauna not specifically assigned in paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall be added to or removed from the lists of endangered species and threatened species or changed in status from one category to the other. In the case of addition, removal, or change in status of one of these species, the procedure set forth in paragraph 3( b) shall be followed with all of the appropriate actions to be done jointly, with the concurrence of both Directors, including any notices of review, proposed determin-ations, notifications, hearings, consultations, receipt of comments, and final determinations; provided, that, the Directors may agree in writing that hearings and the receipt of comments may be the responsibility of either Director. ( b) The proposed joint determination by the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the corresponding proposed revision of the lists by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, - 7 - signed by both Directors. Where both Directors concur in the determination that a final revision of the lists should be made, the final determination by the Directors and the corresponding final revision of the lists by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be published in a single document in the Federal Register, signed by both Directors. 4. Final allocation of responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, with respect to marine turtles of the families Cheloniidae and Dermochelidae must be resolved at some future time. For this reason, it is agreed that until this particular issue is resolved, all actions respecting such turtles will be undertaken jointly, using the same joint actions, requirements, and procedures contained in paragraph 3( b). 5. In emergency situations, regulations promulgated with respect to listing pursuant to the provisions of section ( 4)( f)( 2)( B)( ii) of the Act shall be undertaken using the jurisdictional assign-ments and the joint procedures, to the extent appropriate, described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4. 6. Neither agency will unilaterally act on the listing of any plant species until the jurisdictional issue, with respect to plants, is resolved. - 8 - 7. Each Director agrees that he and his staff will, at all stages, consult with and consider the recommendations of the other Director and his staff with respect to all actions proposed to be taken under the authority of the Memorandum of Understanding. 8. This Memorandum of Understanding has been executed in order to permit an orderly, efficient administration of the Act and should not be construed to govern the activities of either Secretary with respect to any other program administered by them. This Memorandum of Understanding will become effective when signed by the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director, National Marine Fisheries Service. Either of the aforementioned Directors may cancel this Memorandum of Under-standing upon thirty days written notice to the other Director. Close

• 3. [Image] What You Need to Know About the U.S. Endangered Species Act

  	Electronic resource; Title from title screen (viewed on Dec. 22, 2004); "3/98"
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: What You Need to Know About the U.S. Endangered Species Act Author: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Management Authority Year: 1998, 2006, 2005 Electronic resource; Title from title screen (viewed on Dec. 22, 2004); "3/98" Title: What You Need to Know About the U.S. Endangered Species Act Author: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Management Authority Year: 1998, 2006, 2005 Electronic resource; Title from title screen (viewed on Dec. 22, 2004); "3/98" Close

• 4. [Image] Endangered Species Act : successes and challenges in agency collaboration and the use of scientific information in the decision making process : testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate / statement of Robin M. Nazzaro

  	Summary In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other resource uses, but that ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Endangered Species Act : successes and challenges in agency collaboration and the use of scientific information in the decision making process : testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate / statement of Robin M. Nazzaro Author: Nazzaro, Robin M Year: 2005, 2007 Summary In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other resource uses, but that more could be done to promote routine use of collaboration and clarify agencies' responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. In September 2003, we reported on efforts taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) to coordinate with other federal land managers in order to reduce the impact of species protections on military activities. We found several cases where such efforts were successful. For example, at the Barry M. Goldwater range in Arizona, Air Force officials worked with officials at FWS and the National Park Service to enhance food sources for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in locations away from military training areas. As a result, the Air Force was able to minimize the impact of restrictions on training missions due to the presence of the pronghorn. However, such cases were few and far between because, among other things, there were no procedures or centralized information sources for facilitating such collaboration. In March 2004, we reported on collaboration that takes place pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the act?referred to as the consultation process?in the Pacific Northwest. In this area, large numbers of protected species and vast amounts of federal land conspire to make balancing species protection and resource use a contentious endeavor. We found that steps the Services and other federal agencies had taken made the consultation process run smoother and contributed to improved interagency relationships. However, some problems have persisted. For example, some agencies disagree with the Services about when consultation is necessary and how much analysis is required to determine potential impacts on protected species. In each of these reports, we made recommendations intended to further improve collaboration among federal agencies with regard to balancing species protections and other resource uses, and?in the March 2004 report?to resolve disagreements about the consultations process. DOD and FWS have begun discussing an implementation strategy to improve collaboration regarding species protection on military and other federal lands and development of a training program. With regard to the consultation process, while FWS and NMFS have continued to take steps to expand their collaboration processes, the agencies did not believe that disagreements about the consultation process require additional steps. They believe that current training and guidance is sufficient to address questions about the process. With regard to the use of science, we have found that FWS generally used the best available information in key Endangered Species Act decisions, although the agency was not always integrating new research into ongoing species management decisions. In addition, we identified concerns with the adequacy of the information available to make critical habitat decisions. In December 2002, we reported on many aspects of the decision making for species protections regarding the Mojave Desert tortoise. We found that the decision to list the tortoise as threatened, its critical habitat designation, and the recommended steps in the species' recovery plan, were based on the best available information. However, despite over $100 million in expenditures on recovery actions and research over the past 25 years, it is still unclear what the status of the tortoise is and what effect, if any, recovery actions are having on the species because research has not been coordinated in a way to provide essential management information. Such information is critically important as some of the protective actions, such as restrictions on grazing and off road vehicle use, are vigorously opposed by interest groups who question whether they are necessary for the tortoise's recovery. Accordingly, we recommended that FWS better link land management decisions with research results to ensure that conservation actions and land use restrictions actually benefit the tortoise. In response, FWS recently established a new office with a tortoise recovery coordinator and plans to create an advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and recovery actions are fed back into management decisions. In August 2003, we found that, similar to the decision making regarding the tortoise, FWS decisions about listing species for protection under the act were generally based on the best available information. However, while most critical habitat designations also appeared to be based on the best available information, there were concerns about the adequacy of the information available at the time these decisions are made. Specifically, critical habitat decisions require detailed information of a species' life history and habitat needs and the economic impacts of such decisions?information that is often not available and that FWS is unable to gather before it is obligated under the act to make the decision. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior clarify how and when critical habitat should be designated and identify if any policy, regulatory, or legislative changes are required to enable the department to make better informed designations. FWS has not responded to our recommendation. Title: Endangered Species Act : successes and challenges in agency collaboration and the use of scientific information in the decision making process : testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate / statement of Robin M. Nazzaro Author: Nazzaro, Robin M Year: 2005, 2007 Summary In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other resource uses, but that more could be done to promote routine use of collaboration and clarify agencies' responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. In September 2003, we reported on efforts taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) to coordinate with other federal land managers in order to reduce the impact of species protections on military activities. We found several cases where such efforts were successful. For example, at the Barry M. Goldwater range in Arizona, Air Force officials worked with officials at FWS and the National Park Service to enhance food sources for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in locations away from military training areas. As a result, the Air Force was able to minimize the impact of restrictions on training missions due to the presence of the pronghorn. However, such cases were few and far between because, among other things, there were no procedures or centralized information sources for facilitating such collaboration. In March 2004, we reported on collaboration that takes place pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the act?referred to as the consultation process?in the Pacific Northwest. In this area, large numbers of protected species and vast amounts of federal land conspire to make balancing species protection and resource use a contentious endeavor. We found that steps the Services and other federal agencies had taken made the consultation process run smoother and contributed to improved interagency relationships. However, some problems have persisted. For example, some agencies disagree with the Services about when consultation is necessary and how much analysis is required to determine potential impacts on protected species. In each of these reports, we made recommendations intended to further improve collaboration among federal agencies with regard to balancing species protections and other resource uses, and?in the March 2004 report?to resolve disagreements about the consultations process. DOD and FWS have begun discussing an implementation strategy to improve collaboration regarding species protection on military and other federal lands and development of a training program. With regard to the consultation process, while FWS and NMFS have continued to take steps to expand their collaboration processes, the agencies did not believe that disagreements about the consultation process require additional steps. They believe that current training and guidance is sufficient to address questions about the process. With regard to the use of science, we have found that FWS generally used the best available information in key Endangered Species Act decisions, although the agency was not always integrating new research into ongoing species management decisions. In addition, we identified concerns with the adequacy of the information available to make critical habitat decisions. In December 2002, we reported on many aspects of the decision making for species protections regarding the Mojave Desert tortoise. We found that the decision to list the tortoise as threatened, its critical habitat designation, and the recommended steps in the species' recovery plan, were based on the best available information. However, despite over $100 million in expenditures on recovery actions and research over the past 25 years, it is still unclear what the status of the tortoise is and what effect, if any, recovery actions are having on the species because research has not been coordinated in a way to provide essential management information. Such information is critically important as some of the protective actions, such as restrictions on grazing and off road vehicle use, are vigorously opposed by interest groups who question whether they are necessary for the tortoise's recovery. Accordingly, we recommended that FWS better link land management decisions with research results to ensure that conservation actions and land use restrictions actually benefit the tortoise. In response, FWS recently established a new office with a tortoise recovery coordinator and plans to create an advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and recovery actions are fed back into management decisions. In August 2003, we found that, similar to the decision making regarding the tortoise, FWS decisions about listing species for protection under the act were generally based on the best available information. However, while most critical habitat designations also appeared to be based on the best available information, there were concerns about the adequacy of the information available at the time these decisions are made. Specifically, critical habitat decisions require detailed information of a species' life history and habitat needs and the economic impacts of such decisions?information that is often not available and that FWS is unable to gather before it is obligated under the act to make the decision. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior clarify how and when critical habitat should be designated and identify if any policy, regulatory, or legislative changes are required to enable the department to make better informed designations. FWS has not responded to our recommendation. Close

• 5. [Image] Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended through December 2004)

  	"February 2005."; "Serial no. 109-A."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended through December 2004) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Year: 2005 "February 2005."; "Serial no. 109-A." Title: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended through December 2004) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Year: 2005 "February 2005."; "Serial no. 109-A." Close

• 6. [Image] The Endangered Species Act and its impact on agricultural producers: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, July 26, 2004, Greely, CO.

  	CONTENTS Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 Musgrave, ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Endangered Species Act and its impact on agricultural producers: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, July 26, 2004, Greely, CO. Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement........................................................................... 2 Witnesses Foutz, Alan, president, Colorado Farm Bureau, Centennial, CO ........................ 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 George, Russell, executive director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO............................................................................................. 4 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 Palmer, William, executive director, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO ........................................................................................................ 16 Prepared statement.......................................................................................... 60 Sims, James T., executive director, Western Business Roundtable, Golden, CO.......................................................................................................................... 13 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 Stetson, Jean, co-chairman, Endangered Species Committee, Colorado Cattlemen, Craig, CO..................................................................................................... 7 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 Submitted Material Weege, Merle, secretary, Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, statement...................... 65 Title: The Endangered Species Act and its impact on agricultural producers: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, July 26, 2004, Greely, CO. Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research. Year: 2004, 2005 CONTENTS Lucas, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement........................................................................... 2 Witnesses Foutz, Alan, president, Colorado Farm Bureau, Centennial, CO ........................ 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 George, Russell, executive director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO............................................................................................. 4 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 Palmer, William, executive director, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO ........................................................................................................ 16 Prepared statement.......................................................................................... 60 Sims, James T., executive director, Western Business Roundtable, Golden, CO.......................................................................................................................... 13 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 Stetson, Jean, co-chairman, Endangered Species Committee, Colorado Cattlemen, Craig, CO..................................................................................................... 7 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 Submitted Material Weege, Merle, secretary, Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, statement...................... 65 Close

• 7. [Image] The Endangered Species Act and the National Research Council's interim judgment in Klamath Basin

  	The controversial 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service water allocation decision in the Klamath Basin has been portrayed as an example of scientific guesswork operating under a flawed Endangered Species ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Endangered Species Act and the National Research Council's interim judgment in Klamath Basin Author: Cooperman, Michael S. ; Markle, Douglas F. Year: 2002, 2005 The controversial 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service water allocation decision in the Klamath Basin has been portrayed as an example of scientific guesswork operating under a flawed Endangered Species Act. This conclusion has been based on an interim National Research Council report, quickly prepared in late fall, 2001. We have reviewed several iterations of the NRC Interim Report as well as all Biological Opinions and management documents related to Klamath Basin suckers and provide an overview. The 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report illustrate the lack of consensus typical of scientists in the early stages of exploring a complex system. Unfortunately, the decision created hardship for a small group of people and the lack of scientific consensus has politicized the debate. Politicians have assumed that the Interim Report has primacy in the scientific debate when, in fact, its speedy construction contributed to multiple errors that detract from its scientific usefulness. The NRC Interim Report has, instead, primarily served to deflect debate away from the needs of listed fishes to one about shortcomings in the Endangered Species Act. Although the process of science has been served by both the 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report, both have shortcomings, and we see no justification for either side labeling the other's decisions or conclusions as "not sound science." Title: The Endangered Species Act and the National Research Council's interim judgment in Klamath Basin Author: Cooperman, Michael S. ; Markle, Douglas F. Year: 2002, 2005 The controversial 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service water allocation decision in the Klamath Basin has been portrayed as an example of scientific guesswork operating under a flawed Endangered Species Act. This conclusion has been based on an interim National Research Council report, quickly prepared in late fall, 2001. We have reviewed several iterations of the NRC Interim Report as well as all Biological Opinions and management documents related to Klamath Basin suckers and provide an overview. The 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report illustrate the lack of consensus typical of scientists in the early stages of exploring a complex system. Unfortunately, the decision created hardship for a small group of people and the lack of scientific consensus has politicized the debate. Politicians have assumed that the Interim Report has primacy in the scientific debate when, in fact, its speedy construction contributed to multiple errors that detract from its scientific usefulness. The NRC Interim Report has, instead, primarily served to deflect debate away from the needs of listed fishes to one about shortcomings in the Endangered Species Act. Although the process of science has been served by both the 2001 Biological Opinion and the Interim Report, both have shortcomings, and we see no justification for either side labeling the other's decisions or conclusions as "not sound science." Close

• 8. [Image] The Water Report - Taking and water rights: constitutional & contractual remedies for government takings

  	Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Water Report - Taking and water rights: constitutional & contractual remedies for government takings Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2005 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/ Title: The Water Report - Taking and water rights: constitutional & contractual remedies for government takings Author: Envirotech Publications Year: 2005 Only portions of issues of The Water Report are available in the Klamath Waters Digital Library. See the full report at http://www.thewaterreport.com/ Close

• 9. [Image] Federal Register - Notice of Policy for Conserving Species Listed or Proposed for Listing Under the Endangered Species Act While Providing and Enhancing Recreational Fisheries Opportunities; Notice

  	The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) have adopted a policy that will address the conservation needs of species listed, or proposed to be listed, under the ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Federal Register - Notice of Policy for Conserving Species Listed or Proposed for Listing Under the Endangered Species Act While Providing and Enhancing Recreational Fisheries Opportunities; Notice Year: 1996, 2008, 2005 The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) have adopted a policy that will address the conservation needs of species listed, or proposed to be listed, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) while providing for the continuation and enhancement of recreational fisheries. This policy identifies measures the Services will take to ensure consistency in the administration of the ESA between and within the two agencies, promote collaboration with other Federal, State, and Tribal fisheries managers, and improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the requirements of the ESA while enhancing recreational fisheries. This policy meets the requirements set forth in Section 4 of Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries Title: Federal Register - Notice of Policy for Conserving Species Listed or Proposed for Listing Under the Endangered Species Act While Providing and Enhancing Recreational Fisheries Opportunities; Notice Year: 1996, 2008, 2005 The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) have adopted a policy that will address the conservation needs of species listed, or proposed to be listed, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) while providing for the continuation and enhancement of recreational fisheries. This policy identifies measures the Services will take to ensure consistency in the administration of the ESA between and within the two agencies, promote collaboration with other Federal, State, and Tribal fisheries managers, and improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the requirements of the ESA while enhancing recreational fisheries. This policy meets the requirements set forth in Section 4 of Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries Close

• 10. [Image] The Endangered Species Act : a primer

  	Report for Congress; "Updated March 31, 2005."
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Endangered Species Act : a primer Author: Baldwin, Pamela; Buck, Eugene H.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946- Year: 2005 Report for Congress; "Updated March 31, 2005." Title: The Endangered Species Act : a primer Author: Baldwin, Pamela; Buck, Eugene H.; Corn, M. Lynne (Mary Lynne), 1946- Year: 2005 Report for Congress; "Updated March 31, 2005." Close