7938 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a Members of the group voiced concerns that 1) the original process was one whereby particular parties developed this document and the personal philosophies and other positions are easily identified; therefore, many of the other groups with responsibilities on the River have difficulty 4 identifying it as a cooperatively developed plan and will have difficulty agreeing and being participants; 2) What is the current role of the Recovery Teams in the view of the FWS, if not to develop these types of things? FWS participants then indicated that these materials were intended to be a jumping off point for working into recovery plans that would coordinate with Upper Basin and come together as a Lower Basin plan identified in terms of at least three of the big river ESA fish in the Upper Basin and which would be worked in coordination with Upper Basin activities. The planning is running on two levels - the team approach and the "perspective document" approach. Regional directors of the FWS regions involved have been asked to revisit the original concepts that the Upper and Lower Basins were deserving of separate plans - especially in view of the recent ecological approaches to planning. As new directors and staffs come into place in 1995, they indicate they will be looking at this question. Part of the resistance is if the two Basins are considered together, one Basin may have all the recovery prospects and the other left out of the picture and the monies that might be obtained to help recover the species. CRFWC members were very concerned that some overall strategy had to be developed.' Perhaps 4 the original Recovery Team should meet with all the stakeholders to determine just what the resources for recovery were throughout the Basin and come to an understanding of where the financial resources were in relationship to the habitats in which the various fishes could be brought to sustaining populations. , The group explored the idea of reconvening the Big River Fishes Recovery Team, which includes both sub-Basins in its makeup, with the addition of major other stakeholders to review at least the issue of what the Lower Basin could contribute in terms of the four big river species. There have been a large number of fundamental changes in the way the overall Basin has been looked at in the intervening years since the issue was originally discussed. The conflict with 4 Basin-wide involvement was identified to be that while the two Basins would like to have goals and objectives that would provide for the integrated Basin-wide recovery of each species, the stakeholders involved in each Basin would not want the other Basin to deal with the specific methods of implementation that have been, or may be, set as attainment features. If the total recovery activities were driven by an overall recovery plan, it did not appear that the 4 representatives of the different Basins would mind more specific goals and objectives carried on within each area. Separate implementation plans to an overall recovery plan would have to be recognized not being separate, but being together in terms 1) the biology of the species, 2) the effort to reduce duplication and waste, 3) to be cognizant of the overall objectives to feed into each other, and 4) that new federal rules and regulations are not developed based upon individual 4 efforts in one or the other Basins, but being interpreted and regulated out of context of the overall recovery Basin-wide. Generally, everyone thought that the original recovery documents should be looked at to see if they should be revised in view of the intervening years and the listing of the Razorback Sucker and its critical habitat along with the other regulations; especially inviting a host of important stakeholders to acknowledge natural resources along with financial 4 14 4