Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. -. ._...-:.....__...._......._,._,,',...--..~_..........:;..-..--;..~:... <br /> <br />0023;..4 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />significant additional resources needed to comply <br />requirements, We also believe that the Service should <br />to list these species in a timely manner. <br /> <br />wi th the <br />formulate <br /> <br />Act's <br />a plan <br /> <br />Recommendation 2. The Service did not sufficiently address <br />development of a national plan which would prioritize and immediately <br />survey all candidate species lacking conclusive knowledge of their <br />status. We believe that a national plan, including involvement by the <br />states, is needed to ensure that the most critical candidates are <br />surveyed within funding constraints and that all species requiring <br />surveys are sufficiently surveyed to make informed decisions in <br />compliance with the Act. Therefore, we are requesting that the Service <br />reconsider the recommendation. <br /> <br />Recommendation 3. The Service did not address the recommendation <br />directly. We believe that rare species (that is, naturally low <br />populations) indigenous to certain areas only may be better conserved and <br />protected through state or local conservation efforts which would then <br />"free-up" limited resources under the Act to better protect species which <br />are truly endangered or threatened on a national level. Since che <br />Service is technically not in full compliance with the Act in terms of <br />listing actions, we have suggested a few alternative methods which would <br />relieve the Service of some of the administrative burden associated with <br />the liscing process. As such, we are requesting that the Service <br />reconsider the recommendation and analyze these and other alternatives <br />which may be available to assist in complying with the requirements of <br />the Act. <br /> <br />10 <br />