Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OJ1333 <br /> <br />1. The coordination and operation of the Act, between and among the state and federal ,-, <br />agencies. could be improved if the federal and state agencies were compelled to develop <br />coordinated resource management plans, that reinforce the same objectives and do not conflict <br />with each other, so that resources can be efficiently managed. Agencies should also be <br />encouraged or required to share data to share responsibility for species management, and the full <br />spectrum of developed areas impacting species should be involved in the analysis. such as <br />military bases and other federal enclaves not normally thought of as having a role in this regard. <br />Structural changes in state law might be necessary, such as passing instream flow laws or <br />requiring interaction between diverse agencies at the state level. Finally, to the extent that the <br />Federal Advisory Committee Act (F ACA) is a barrier to these types of actions, legislative action <br />should be taken so that all sections of the ESA are exempted from the provisions of F ACA. <br /> <br />2. Concomitant with the above action is the need for adequate funding to carry out these <br />initiatives. Creative methods must be developed for funding these efforts. These could include <br />everything from ESA impact fees for developers to incentive programs for landowners, including <br />tax breaks. CRP and Wildlife Diversity Act funding may be available for this purpose, as well as <br />water marketing solutions. <br /> <br />3. Any solution must be equitable in scope. The implementation of any recovery <br />program should be across the natural, historic, habitat range of the species, costs should be fairly <br />apportioned and, if migratory waterfowl are involved, be borne across the full path of migration. <br /> <br />4. Water codes may need to be redrafted in some instances and reinterpreted in others, to 'W <br />ensure that releases of waters for wildlife and habitat purposes are maintained where needed and <br />not immediately diverted under the prior appropriation system. At the heart of the institutional <br />issue is to ensure that the focus is on developing a complete inventory of biodiversity on lands <br />and waters, then ensuring that resources are managed in a way that integrates wetland and <br />riparian concerns to efficiently ensure species survival. <br /> <br />5. The principle of sustain ability is implicit in the concept of recover ability. This must <br />be understood, internalized by the local support groups, and articulated at every forum. Such <br />local "buy in" can only come as a result of relinquishment of some control to the local level, <br />providing locals with rights to be informed and participate in decisions relating to ecosystem <br />sustainability and exploration of the latest models for local planning and decision making. <br /> <br />6. Finally, common sense must prevail. The federal agencies must be realistic and admit <br />what they cannot do, not focus their resources on species where efforts to save would be too late. <br />States must be included in decision making and recovery ptocesses, and give input to the <br />Secretary in identifYing species with the greatest "recovery potential" under section 4(t) of the <br />ESA. Disincentives to participate must be eliminated to the greatest degree possible and <br />incentives to participate in recovery plans must be provided. <br /> <br />2 <br />