WSP01444 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ft-.""! u IJI. I '.' C\ ~1J be utilized to drive other actions under the Act, e.g., to determimi what is a taking, what is ~i::~ recovery, etc. The general group added to this the need to clarify other terms under the act--particularly the definition of "species" and "taking." The group expressed concern over application of the discrete population definition of "species" under the existing Act, for example. Also, in the general discussion that followed, two central questions were raised: namely, how to accomplish prioritization regarding implementation of recovery plans; and, in the water resources context, how to combine species recovery and project development, so as to make Congress choose and fund the choice made? ADDENDUM Following the Symposium, various participants offered comments after further reflection upon the issues discussed. These comments are collected below. ~~t.~} One way to bring more proactive state involvement is through section 4( d) rule exclusion. However, this would probably necessitate ESA amendment in order to better define "threatened" and "candidate" species and those "regulations [the Secretary]. . . deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species." 16 U.S.C. ~ l533( d). This approach also requires a consistent application of portions of Section 6 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. ~ l535(c)). Comprehensive legislation similar to California's Natural Communities Conservation Program (Cal. Fish & Game Code ~ 2800 et seq.) makes it very easy for the Secretary to implement the Section 4( d) rule exclusion. If this model is successful, perhaps other states will adopt similar strategies. Until such time, it will remain difficult for the USFWS or NMFS to transfer the "burden" of conservation and recovery to the state biological resource agencies. The recent DOl "no surprises" policy directive may actually inhibit the USFWS or NMFS ability to enter meaningful pre-listing agreements. IfUSFWS or NMFS is bound by an HCP or Recovery Program/Plan, the agency may be very reluctant to enter into pre-listing agreements for species which mayor may not be well understood biologically. If this turns out to be the case, the ESA should be amended to facilitate timely modifications to Section 10(a) permits or Recovery Programs to encompass the additional listed species or biological needs. More importantly, if the HCP or RIP is based upon an "ecosystem" approach and emphasizes biodiversity, the implementing agreement should not measurably change. Recovery costs must be proportional to the causes of species listings, and funding mechanisms must be clearly delineated and identified. Recovery program goals must be clearly and consistently defmed and applied (no "moving targets"). Clear and comprehensive de-listing fit:;?,) criteria must be required in recovery plans. If these data are not available when the plan is '--/:;::N 7