Candidate Notes on 01-WGA11

01-WGA11 on Aug 14, 2001

1. Preventative conservation on both public and private lands is essential. Western states are actively developing conservation plans to restore declining species before they need the protections of the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. Most declining species can be restored to health only through a federal-state partnership that involves private landowners and interested parties.
2. The purposes of the ESA are undermined if the Act must be so narrowly interpreted that, in order to defend its application against legal challenge, the very species the Act was enacted to protect are disadvantaged. [For example], the decision in Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Daley, holds that the requirement under the ESA for federal agencies to consider state conservation plans means almost nothing. If decisions like the one in Oregon stands, the Western Governors believe there is a problem with the Act itself requiring amendment or regulatory clarification.

In addition, the Governors have long supported the reauthorization of the ESA based on three goals: to increase the role of states, to streamline the ESA, and to increase certainty and technical assistance for landowners and water users. And the governors call for the ESA to have the recovery of species as its central focus.

The Western Governors believe that the courts, and the Congress, when writing the reauthorization of the ESA, should reaffirm the Secretary’s ability to defer the listing of a species when the actions of a state conservation agreement eliminates the need to list a species. The courts and Congress should also clarify that voluntary actions that the Secretary finds will help restore a declining species and which have performance standards, implementation plans, and monitoring and reporting provisions, and are properly financed, are valid conservation tools.