Stoltz of Coudersport

Howard's Inc, Coudersport, PA

Bokman of Wellsville, NY

solomon's words

solomon's words

xxx

xxx

Do You Know: You can buy this marquee ad on Solomon's words for the wise for your business or event for only $10. per day! It's just one of the low cost advertising options available. Your ad is viewed 40,000 to 70,000 times every day. Email us for information on other ad locations.

Solomon's Auction & Yard Sale Page

UPMC Cole Healthy Holidays

UPMC Cole Healthy Holidays

UPMC Cole

Friday, November 8, 2013

Causer Issues Statement About Endangered Species Coordination Act

Rep. Martin Causer
Causer Issues Statement About Endangered Species Coordination Act

HARRISBURG – Rep. Martin Causer (R-Turtlepoint), chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee, issued the following statement to clarify ongoing misinformation about the proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act, House Bill 1576:

“The purpose of House Bill 1576 is to provide consistency, transparency and accountability by subjecting all endangered species and trout streams designations to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) process. It is also designed to provide more efficient and timely access to sensitive species information, including avoidance and mitigation measures, for those involved in permitted projects that may be affected by those species.

“House Bill 1576 does not take the decision-making authority out of the hands of the Game Commission or Fish and Boat Commission. It simply requires the commissions to take the same steps as every other state agency that promulgates regulations – including the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources when it makes endangered species designations and the Department of Environmental Protection when it makes certain stream designations.

“The bill does not limit the state’s ability to designate threatened or endangered species not already designated as such by the federal government. And an internal review by House attorneys of our endangered species designation process under this bill versus those of other states also indicates there should be no loss of federal money should the bill become law.

“The IRRC process simply allows for review and acceptance of public comment before regulations are enacted, and that is the way it should work in a democracy. Decisions cannot be made in a vacuum; rather, state government must operate in an open forum where Pennsylvania residents can participate and a system of checks and balances ensures both accuracy and accountability.”

Causer also outlined key points of a proposed amendment to the bill. The amendment is based on testimony received during two joint public hearings of the House Game and Fisheries and House Environmental Resources and Energy committees. The amendment:

Removes the requirement for the agencies to re-designate all currently listed species within a two-year time frame.

Expands the proposed centralized database to include “other designated species” that are of special concern or rare species other than threatened or endangered species.

Ensures access to information in the database is made available only to authorized persons and increases the civil penalties for unlawful use of sensitive database information.

Prohibits the transfer of licensing dollars or federal funds for implementation of the act to further ensure there is no loss of federal funds as a result of the change.

Places the requirement to do field surveys back on the permit applicant affecting the land and specifies that if field surveys are required, the state agency with jurisdictional authority for the protection of the species must within 30 days of receiving the survey results provide either clearance for the project, or detailed avoidance measures, detailed minimization measures or detailed mitigation measures to the permit applicant.
Clarifies that the requirement of the commissions to adhere to independent regulatory review does not apply to actions such as hunting seasons and bag limits or fishing seasons and creel limits.

1 comment :

Anonymous said...

Why should public comment be part of a process that should strictly be a SCIENTIFIC decision. I just don't get it, unless they want to make scientific decisions based on pollitical agendas instead of SCIENCE.