Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OUlbj;) <br /> <br />4. States should formally recommend to the WSWC and other multistate organizations <br />the authorization of a comminee to review and critique any proposed regulations on the new <br />ESA directives. The White House Office of Environmental Policy has announced that it will <br />soon publish recommendations on ecosystem management. The WSWC Endangered Species <br />Subcommittee might provide an appropriate forum for conducting the review of these and other <br />recommendations or regulations pursuant to the newly announced federal directives in ESA <br />management. <br /> <br />5. Once states have identified the regulations which should be implemented, these should <br />be well publicized and emphasized in communication with implementing federal agencies. <br /> <br />6. Western states should broaden their coalition in making recommendations to federal <br />agencies about improving ESA administration. Ifpossible, they should obtain the support and <br />endorsement of various user groups, environmental groups, industry groups and other <br />organizations for recommendations made. <br /> <br />7. Federal and state participation in section 6 activities should be enhanced, including <br />allocation of funding for the monitoring ofthe status of "candidate" species (under section <br />6(d)( 1)(F). This, too, allows proactive efforts by the states to have the greatest margin of success <br />and potentially avoid subsequent species listings. <br /> <br />8. Litigation should be used as the last resort in forcing implementation of the new <br />directives, since, as policy statements, they lack the enforceable quality that would be desirable ~ <br />in a lawsuit, and since litigation is resource-intensive. <br /> <br />The Federal Advisorv Committees Act <br /> <br />The group briefly addressed the limitations placed by the Federal Advisory Committee <br />Act (FACA) on communications between state and federal agencies involved in ESA <br />implementation (other than recovery planning, for which a specific statutory exemption from <br />FACA exists). The group suggested that states should collectively seek a general ESA <br />exemption from F ACA requirements. Members also felt that states should band together and <br />press the USFWS to identifY the actual level of constraint F ACA places on consultation <br />processes, since there appears to be some variability between USFWS regions. <br /> <br />Biolol!ical Data <br /> <br />The group expressed concern over developing a mechanism for resolving conflicts. The <br />issue of intellectual property rights in data was raised as a problem which prevents states from <br />having access to the data upon which listing decisions are based. The new peer review standards, <br />if validly enforced, should help establish adequate scientific-bases for listing determinations. <br /> <br />Group members expressed concern about the potential role of the National Biological <br /> <br />4 <br />