Laserfiche WebLink
be utilized to drive other actions under the Act, e.g., to determine what is a taking, what is <br />recovery, etc. <br />The general group added to this the need to clarify other terms under the act -- particularly <br />the definition of "species" and "taking." The group expressed concern over application of the <br />discrete population definition of "species" under the existing Act, for example. <br />Also, in the general discussion that followed, two central questions were raised: namely, <br />how to accomplish prioritization regarding implementation of recovery plans; and, in the water <br />resources context, how to combine species recovery and project development, so as to make <br />Congress choose and fund the choice made? <br />ADDENDUM <br />Following the Symposium, various participants offered comments after further reflection upon <br />the issues discussed. These comments are collected below. <br />One way to bring more proactive state involvement is through section 4(d) rule exclusion. <br />However, this would probably necessitate ESA amendment in order to better define "threatened" <br />I& and "candidate" species and those "regulations [the Secretary]... deems necessary and advisable <br />to provide for the conservation of such species." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). This approach also <br />requires a consistent application of portions of Section 6 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1535(c)). <br />Comprehensive legislation similar to California's Natural Communities Conservation Program <br />(Cal. Fish & Game Code § 2800 et seq.) makes it very easy for the Secretary to implement the <br />Section 4(d) rule exclusion. If this model is successful, perhaps other states will adopt similar <br />strategies. Until such time, it will remain difficult for the USFWS or NMFS to transfer the <br />"burden" of conservation and recovery to the state biological resource agencies. <br />The recent DOI "no surprises" policy directive may actually inhibit the USFWS or NMFS ability <br />to enter meaningful pre - listing agreements. If USFWS or NMFS is bound by an HCP or <br />Recovery Program/Plan, the agency may be very reluctant to enter into pre- listing agreements for <br />species which may or may not be well understood biologically. If this turns out to be the case, <br />the ESA should be amended to facilitate timely modifications to Section 10(a) permits or <br />Recovery Programs to encompass the additional listed species or biological needs. More <br />importantly, if the HCP or RIP is based upon an "ecosystem" approach and emphasizes <br />biodiversity, the implementing agreement should not measurably change. <br />Recovery costs must be proportional to the causes of species listings, and funding mechanisms <br />must be clearly delineated and identified. Recovery program goals must be clearly and <br />consistently defined and applied (no "moving targets "). Clear and comprehensive de- listing <br />criteria must be required in recovery plans. If these data are not available when the plan is <br />7 <br />