Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOlG33 <br /> <br />be utilized to drive other actions under the Act. e.g., to determine what is a taking, what is <br />recovery, etc. <br /> <br />The general group added to this the need to clarifY other terms under the act--particularly <br />the definition of "species" and "taking." The group expressed concern over application of the <br />discrete population definition of "species" under the existing Act, for example. <br /> <br />Also, in the general discussion that followed, two central questions were raised: namely, <br />how to accomplish prioritization regarding implementation of recovery plans; and, in the water <br />resources context, how to combine species recovery and project development, so as to make <br />Congress choose and fund the choice made? <br /> <br />ADDENDUM <br /> <br />Following the Symposium. various participants offered comments after further reflection upon <br />the issues discussed. These comments are collected below. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />One way to bring more proactive state involvement is through section 4(d) rule exclusion. <br />However, this would probably necessitate ESA amendment in order to better define "threatened" <br />and "candidate" species and those "regulations [the Secretary]. . . deems necessary and advisable <br />to provide for the conservation of such species." 16 U.S.C. 9 1533(d). This approach also <br />requires a consistent application of portions of Section 6 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 9 1535(c)). <br />Comprehensive legislation similar to California's Natural Communities Conservation Program <br />(Cal. Fish & Game Code 9 2800 et seq.) makes it very easy for the Secretary to implement the <br />Section 4( d) rule exclusion. If this model is successful, perhaps other states will adopt similar <br />strategies. Until such time, it will remain difficult for the USFWS or NMFS to transfer the <br />"burden" of conservation and recovery to the state biological resource agencies. <br /> <br />The recent DOI "no surprises" policy directive may actually inhibit the USFWS or NMFS ability <br />to enter meaningful pre-listing agreements. IfUSFWS or NMFS is bound by an HCP or <br />Recovery PrograrnlPlan, the agency may be very reluctant to enter into pre-listing agreements for <br />species which mayor may not be well understood biologically. If this turns out to be the case, <br />the ESA should be amended to facilitate timely modifications to Section 10(a) permits or <br />Recovery Programs to encompass the additional listed species or biological needs. More <br />importantly, if the HCP or RIP is based upon an "ecosystem" approach and emphasizes <br />biodiversity, the implementing agreement should not measurably change. <br /> <br />Recovery costs must be proportional to the causes of species listings, and funding mechanisms <br />must be clearly delineated and identified. Recovery program goals must be clearly and <br />consistently defined and applied (no "moving targets"). Clear and comprehensive de-listing <br />criteria must be required in recovery plans. If these data are not available when the plan is <br /> <br />7 <br />