B
bach2yoga
Guest
GAO REPORT FAULTS ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM
Date: 031010
From: http://www.bendbulletin.com/
By Matthew M. Johnson, Bulletin (OR), October 9, 2003
Washington - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program for
designating critical habitat for endangered species is in disarray
because of tangled litigation that is devouring the agency's funding,
the General Accounting Office reports.
As a consequence, Fish and Wildlife priorities, such as listing new
endangered species, are being delayed, says the GAO, Congress'
investigative arm.
"The GAO report states basically what we have been saying for years,"
said Mitch Snow, the Fish and Wildlife chief of media services. "We
would like to have funds available for doing other things besides
critical habitat."
The origin of the brouhaha stems from Fish and Wildlife's process for
designating critical habitat for endangered species. Critical habitat
is a special designation for specific areas that officials believe are
crucial to a species' survival. Once designated, critical habitat can
bring management restrictions to an area.
The endangered species list is generally based on hard scientific and
numerical information and is usually straightforward, the GAO reports.
But critical habitat decisions are complex and often necessitate more
scientific and nonscientific information, the agency concluded in its
report last week.
Indeed, Fish and Wildlife efforts to create a plan to protect bull
trout in the upper Deschutes Basin have raised a host of concerns
among many Central Oregon farmers and ranchers.
Snow said the 1973 Endangered Species Act requires Fish and Wildlife
to designate critical habitat whenever an endangered species is
listed. But, he said, that is not always what happens.
"In some cases we found that it (designating critical habitat) is not
prudent - when a certain species of butterfly is endangered, it does
not help to tell (insect) collectors where to find them," he said.
In any case, Snow said, experts have expressed concern over the
territories designated for critical habitat and the scientific data
used to make such decisions. In many cases, litigation ensued, and the
service lost a number of legal disputes.
"We end up in court whenever we do stuff with endangered species,"
said Nicholas Throckmorton, a Fish and Wildlife public affairs
specialist.
Legal decisions have effectively ended certain procedures at Fish and
Wildlife. Now the agency is unable to focus resources on activities
that could provide more protection to certain species - instead, it
focuses on designating critical habitat, the GAO reported.
The report recommends the Interior Department require Fish and
Wildlife Service to "provide a clear strategic direction for their
critical habitat program." Doing so, the GAO said, requires
legislative changes that would affect "the greatest conservation
benefit to threatened and endangered species in the most cost-
effective manner."
Kieran Suckling, executive director at the Tucson, Ariz.-based Center
for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization that has won
47 legal suits against Fish and Wildlife, thinks more government
funding is necessary.
"We agree 100 percent with the GAO - we would love for U.S. Fish and
Wildlife to get more funding," Suckling said. "Every federal agency
has a great work load and when it has a greater work load it increases
its budget."
Chuck Burley of Bend, who represents a Portland- based timber
industry group, the American Forest Resource Council, also agrees that
new guidance is preferable to the current system.
He favors a more conservative approach to critical habitat
designations.
"It has been our experience that U.S. Fish and Wildlife has been a
little over-zealous in their designations," Burley said. "Personally,
I think what needs to be done is we must designate critical habitat as
part of a developmental recovery plan.
"When all you do is designate critical habitat, that's just lines on
a map - all that does is create uncertainty."
Date: 031010
From: http://www.bendbulletin.com/
By Matthew M. Johnson, Bulletin (OR), October 9, 2003
Washington - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program for
designating critical habitat for endangered species is in disarray
because of tangled litigation that is devouring the agency's funding,
the General Accounting Office reports.
As a consequence, Fish and Wildlife priorities, such as listing new
endangered species, are being delayed, says the GAO, Congress'
investigative arm.
"The GAO report states basically what we have been saying for years,"
said Mitch Snow, the Fish and Wildlife chief of media services. "We
would like to have funds available for doing other things besides
critical habitat."
The origin of the brouhaha stems from Fish and Wildlife's process for
designating critical habitat for endangered species. Critical habitat
is a special designation for specific areas that officials believe are
crucial to a species' survival. Once designated, critical habitat can
bring management restrictions to an area.
The endangered species list is generally based on hard scientific and
numerical information and is usually straightforward, the GAO reports.
But critical habitat decisions are complex and often necessitate more
scientific and nonscientific information, the agency concluded in its
report last week.
Indeed, Fish and Wildlife efforts to create a plan to protect bull
trout in the upper Deschutes Basin have raised a host of concerns
among many Central Oregon farmers and ranchers.
Snow said the 1973 Endangered Species Act requires Fish and Wildlife
to designate critical habitat whenever an endangered species is
listed. But, he said, that is not always what happens.
"In some cases we found that it (designating critical habitat) is not
prudent - when a certain species of butterfly is endangered, it does
not help to tell (insect) collectors where to find them," he said.
In any case, Snow said, experts have expressed concern over the
territories designated for critical habitat and the scientific data
used to make such decisions. In many cases, litigation ensued, and the
service lost a number of legal disputes.
"We end up in court whenever we do stuff with endangered species,"
said Nicholas Throckmorton, a Fish and Wildlife public affairs
specialist.
Legal decisions have effectively ended certain procedures at Fish and
Wildlife. Now the agency is unable to focus resources on activities
that could provide more protection to certain species - instead, it
focuses on designating critical habitat, the GAO reported.
The report recommends the Interior Department require Fish and
Wildlife Service to "provide a clear strategic direction for their
critical habitat program." Doing so, the GAO said, requires
legislative changes that would affect "the greatest conservation
benefit to threatened and endangered species in the most cost-
effective manner."
Kieran Suckling, executive director at the Tucson, Ariz.-based Center
for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization that has won
47 legal suits against Fish and Wildlife, thinks more government
funding is necessary.
"We agree 100 percent with the GAO - we would love for U.S. Fish and
Wildlife to get more funding," Suckling said. "Every federal agency
has a great work load and when it has a greater work load it increases
its budget."
Chuck Burley of Bend, who represents a Portland- based timber
industry group, the American Forest Resource Council, also agrees that
new guidance is preferable to the current system.
He favors a more conservative approach to critical habitat
designations.
"It has been our experience that U.S. Fish and Wildlife has been a
little over-zealous in their designations," Burley said. "Personally,
I think what needs to be done is we must designate critical habitat as
part of a developmental recovery plan.
"When all you do is designate critical habitat, that's just lines on
a map - all that does is create uncertainty."