Laserfiche WebLink
Council staff with significant input from Council members. Because of these concerns, the . <br />WSWC determined to sponsor a symposium to explore both the problems and ways to improve <br />ESA implementation. Recognizing that western states' governors and fish and wildlife managers <br />share manv of the same concerns, the Western Governors' Association and the Western <br />Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies were invited to cosponsor the symposium in the hopes <br />of building a dialogue and working relationship between western state agencies primarily <br />affected by ESA implementation. <br />Concurrent with the Council efforts over the past year to prepare its discussion paper and plan a <br />symposium, Interior Secretary Babbitt and key agencies of the Interior and Commerce <br />Departments announced promising new directives for ESA implementation. These new <br />directives offer the opportunity for federal consultation with state agencies, private persons and <br />organizations, commercial enterprises and experts in various disciplines. They promise to give <br />representatives of affected groups and other stakeholders a voice in recovery planning and <br />implementation. The directives promote an ecosystem approach which will produce listing <br />decisions for multiple species and recovery plans on an ecosystem basis rather than for individual <br />species, where possible. They require recovery planning to be completed within 30 months of <br />listing. To ensure that ESA decisions are based on sound science, they also promote the use of <br />independent peer review in listing and recovery planning, and the establishment of scientific <br />standards for ESA decisions, evaluation and review. Finally, they guarantee that habitat <br />conservation plans, once adopted, will not be subject to changes or revisions if new habitat <br />requirements are later developed (the "no surprises" policy). 0 <br />Joint directives from the Departments of Interior and Commerce explicitly recognize the primary <br />authority and responsibility of state fish and wildlife agencies over states' biological resources <br />(unless federally preempted). They acknowledge that these state agencies possess scientific data <br />and expertise on the status and distribution of species. They also recognize that these state <br />agencies are critical to achieving ESA goals because of their authority, expertise, and close <br />working relationships with local governments and landowners. <br />In this context, the symposium was designed to encourage staff from state agencies to identify <br />concerns with implementation of the existing ESA and to develop approaches to resolve those <br />concerns. The attendees were asked to suggest ways of improving ESA implementation under the <br />existing act, to make recommendations to improve coordination and consultation under the act, <br />particularly with reference to the new ESA directives issued by the Departments of Interior and <br />Commerce, and to consider what amendments to the ESA may be required in connection with the <br />reauthorization efforts in the coming Congress. Symposium participants represented a wide <br />range of fishery and water management viewpoints, and were particularly interested in discussing <br />issues of state- federal agency process and coordination in administering the existing ESA. One <br />of the most frequently mentioned coordination issues was the very basic one of access to, and <br />sharing of, technical biological data. Since much of the discussion time, as well as attendees' <br />interest, was occupied by state- federal coordination/consultation roles in ESA administration, <br />less attention was ultimately focused on discussion of ESA reauthorization issues. 0 <br />2 <br />