Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GfH71.Q <br /> <br />,../{:~ <br />"l<y,,':Ir-" <br />"j,:;r~~i~ <br /> <br />SYNOPSIS OF GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />The ESA Symposium participants identified three major areas of concern where <br />improvements could be made. These were: 1) ensuring states take a proactive role in protecting <br />habitats and ecosystems to the end that listings might not be necessary; 2) taking action at the <br />federal level to avoid inconsistent application ofthe Act and to ensure that states are made full <br />partners in the application of the Act; and 3) as needed, recommending amendments to the Act <br />that will make it operate more efficiently and more rationally. <br /> <br />Throughout the meetings common threads emerged. There is a clear need for good <br />reliable peer reviewed science in the listing process and in the development of recovery plans. In <br />addition, there is an equally clear need to involve the states more in controlling their own destiny <br />with respect to plans for recovery of any species. There is also a need to have a more carefully <br />defmed standard for the meaning ofterms such as "species," "take," "recovery" and "harm". <br />Finally, there was general concern that, at bottom, the focus of the Act may, iniact, be wrong in <br />that it emphasizes the protection of particular species over protection of biodiverse habitats. <br /> <br />A. Proactive Role of the States <br /> <br />($";"'" The group discussing the feasibility of states taking a proactive role in protecting habitat <br />~~l and species with the end of avoiding a federal "listing" made the following recommendations. <br /> <br />They agreed that the heart of any long-term attempt to preserve species is preservation of <br />biodiverse habitat on a sustainable basis. Complete and full compliance with existing laws other <br />than the ESA could help preserve the quality of habitat and ensure species' survival. In addition, <br />state and local planners must address the reality that growth and development are not imperatives <br />that are inviolate. Indeed, it may be necessary for states to simply set aside areas from <br />development that, because of their biodiversity, require protection to avoid listings in the future. <br /> <br />Carrying out this proactive role will require establishing concrete and clear targets for <br />protection, legislative support from legislators and constituents alike, and a grass roots support <br />system of watershed councils that initiate and support these proposals. Adequate funding will be <br />necessary to support these efforts, along with incentives that will cause the private landowners to <br />participate. Such an effort should be headed by the governor who would direct all agencies to <br />carry out a common mission of information sharing and cooperation and coordination of efforts. <br />Environmental groups and others with a concrete stake in the process would have to be involved, <br />as well as PUC boards, water quality agencies and other comparable agencies with jurisdiction. <br /> <br />The group recommended the following specific actions, which, if implemented, would <br />allow states to become active partners in species management and could conceivably avoid <br />additional listings altogether in some cases. <br /> <br />I <br />