Laserfiche WebLink
18. Listing is separated from other events. [?) <br />• <br />19. Evaluate recoverability separately from listing [ ?) <br />20. Need to improve the quality of science used under the ESA. <br />- peer review <br />21. No more moving targets for recovery. Need mandatory_ delisting criteria in recovery_ <br />plans. <br />22. FACA needs to be amended or repealed. <br />23. ESA processes need to be streamlined. <br />24. Failure to involve state fish and v6ldlife agencies in ESA science. <br />25. Federal policies published in regulations have not been implemented. <br />26. Affected states do not have a seat on recovery teams. <br />27. Negative impacts of interstate management of resources are not considered. <br />28. Section 6 funding does not accomodate discretionary uses. <br />29. US F &WS and NMFS ability to transfer funding burden to other agencies. <br />30. Policies are selectively implemented. <br />31. States can't get feds to act. <br />32. Federal bioloLnsts are not answerable to a sinale auency. <br />33. Administrative methods may be inadequate to achieve goals. <br />34. Need to develop mandatory process to consult with states. <br />35. Cooperation and coordination among affected state agencies needs to be improved <br />regarding ESA implementation (federally mandated or state - defined ?) <br />36. Federal administrative processes may inadequate. States need to become more <br />powerful. <br />37. States may lack their own tools for solving problems. <br />38. ESA is litigation- driven. <br />