My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02180
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02180
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:13:10 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:12:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/22/2003
Description
WSP Section - Colorado River Issues
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its <br />habitat or range; <br />(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational <br />purposes; <br />(C) disease or predation; <br />(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or <br />(E) other natural or manmade factors affectiJ;lg its continued existence. <br /> <br />16 U.S.C. 9 1533(a)(1). <br /> <br />Thus, Congress, quite logically, required that a recovery plan incorporate <br />"objective, measurable criteria" for determining whem the statutory listing/delisting <br />factors are satisfied such that the population is recovered and delisting may occur. The <br />threats to a species' existence must be removed for *ecovery to occur. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />Unfortunately, under the above legal standards, FWS's humpback chub, Colorado <br />pikeminnow, bonytail, and razorback sucker Recovery Plans as amended and <br />supplemented by the new Recovery Goals fail to Pl\SS legal muster. These Plans are not <br />based upon the best available science and in fact will leave these fish species closer to <br />extinction than when they were originally listed unc;ler the ESA. The 2002 Recovery <br />Goals are a step backwards. Most glaringly, the "recovery" population goals are set far <br />too low. Indeed, in some cases, for example the hU1npback chub, the new "recovery <br />goals" are set under the population numbers that FirS concluded warranted listing in the . <br />first instance and at levels that represent dramatic declines over the past decades. The <br />ESA does not permit such ba9kwards steps to be called "recovery." Moreover, the <br />current Recovery Plans are overly reliant on hatchery- raised fish, ignore adequate habitat <br />restoration, and fail to properly emphasize removing exotic predatory fish. Accordingly, <br />we believe the amended Recovery Plans for the h~pback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, <br />bonytail, and razorback sucker are arbitrary and capricious in violation of Section 4( t) of <br />the ESA. . <br /> <br />If you believe ally ofthe above itif6miati6n; is incorrect or you would like to <br />discuss this matter please contact me at the addres~ and phone number indicated on this <br />letterhead. Absent immediate remedial action from FWS we intend to file suit after the <br />expiration of 60 days. <br /> <br />Thank you for your time and attention to tljis matter. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Jay 1]utchton, <br />Counsel for The Grand Canyon Trust <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.