Laserfiche WebLink
designation through a draft environmental assessment. In short, this document finds no <br />environmental impact resulting from the designation of critical habitat for the piping <br />plover. The FWS's analysis in this document is clearly erroneous and fails to comply <br />with federal law. <br />Given the inappropriately short time for evaluation and comment set by the FWS and the <br />critical importance of the economic issues related to any designation of critical habitat, <br />the Central Platte NRD formally requested an extension of the period for review and <br />comment for an additional 30 days. The Service's establishment of a January 28, 2002, <br />deadline for public comment was utterly insufficient. <br />In comments submitted on August 10, 2001, Central Platte NRD requested copies of all <br />necessary documents required by the NEPA and ESA. These documents include the <br />FWS's complete alternatives analysis, detailed maps and descriptions of the bounds of <br />the proposed critical habitat sufficient to allow the public to determine precisely the lands <br />to be designated. The FWS has yet to correct its use of inaccurate and non - qualifying <br />maps or provide any of the other information requested other than the draft Economic <br />Analysis. Given the magnitude of the enforcement powers that come to the FWS with <br />the designation of critical habitat to curtail or cease "adverse modification of critical <br />habitat" it is essential that the critical habitat be particularly and accurately described. <br />Based on these comments and the FWS's absence of scientific support for the proposed <br />designation, its lack of legal support for the designation, lack of consideration of <br />alternative habitat management and conservation efforts and lack of appropriate <br />evaluation of social impacts, the FWS should withdraw its critical habitat designation for <br />the piping plover and re -issue a proposed designation, draft economic analysis and draft <br />EA/EIS in compliance with federal law. <br />Need For a More Effective ESA- <br />Unfortunately, the ESA has failed at recovering and delisting species. Only 31 species <br />have been delisted since 1973 — seven due to extinction and twelve due to "data error" <br />(never should have been listed in the first place). The remaining species are either <br />located outside of the United States (and therefore receive no protection from ESA) or <br />were beneficiaries of other activities such as the banning of DDT. <br />Particularly troubling is federal abuse of the Act that has recently come to light. The <br />Wall Street Journal (January 24, 2002) reported on a scandal over a high - profile <br />December 2001 survey to count threatened Canada lynx. Seven employees from the <br />FWS, Forest Service and a state agency submitted hair samples from captive lynx and <br />tried to pass them off as wild. When caught, the employees claimed they were testing the <br />DNA identification process being utilized. Another explanation is that they were trying <br />to establish lynx use in places where they don't exist, potentially blocking national forests <br />to human use. I understand Rep. Scott McInnis (R., Colorado) has scheduled hearings <br />into the matter, while several agencies are investigating how far the fraud extended. <br />on <br />