Natalie M. Henry, Greenwire Northwest reporter

LA JOLLA, Calif. -- Western state governors this weekend discussed proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act, including developing clearer recovery goals, mandating peer-reviewed science in ESA decisions and increasing collaboration between states and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

With 70 percent of endangered species making their homes in the 18 states west of the 100th meridian, Western governors have a huge stake in the implementation of ESA and have a beef with a variety of its measures. The governors attending the Western Governors' Association meeting said they do not want to eliminate ESA, but they had differing views on how to revise it.

The WGA meeting comes as legislation to modify ESA is about to be pushed by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.); WGA plans to vote in March on its formal legislative recommendations to Congress.

Colorado Gov. Bill Owens (R), chairman of WGA, said, "The governors recognize that the act has helped to prevent the extinction of some species and enjoys wide, popular support. However, we also understand the need to look at reforms that might make the Endangered Species Act even more effective at reaching those goals."

Most of the governors in attendance agreed that recovery and getting species off the endangered list are their primary goals. Many governors said they want clear recovery objectives laid out so states can help achieve delisting species. Recovery goals are often never identified and without them, the governors say state resources are wasted on actions that in the end do not bring about delisting and thus never relieve the pressure ESA sometimes puts on farming, ranching and development.

"I believe there has to be a goal," said Gov. Judy Martz (R) of Montana. "Ultimate recovery goals need to be set out before us so we have guidelines to focus on."

David Hayes, former deputy secretary of the Interior Department under the Clinton administration, urged caution in using recovery as the sole goal. "We do need a metric for success," Hayes said. "But I think we have to be careful how we measure success under ESA. There are some 1,200 species on the list. Very few species get off the list. If the measure of success is how many species are getting off the list, I suspect we will never be successful."

Hayes said habitat destruction over the last 50 years is the primary reason species are not recovering or getting delisted. "The reason species are on the list, by and large, is the result of habitat destruction over the years, and that is not going away," Hayes said.

Protecting habitat via the act's critical habitat provisions has become increasingly controversial in the last 15 years. The Fish and Wildlife Service takes the position that listing provides the majority of benefits to species under ESA and critical habitat offers virtually no additional help. But environmental groups note that according to FWS's own data, species with critical habitat are more than twice as likely to be recovering than those without it.

Critical habitat designations often draw the ire of governors in affected states. Former FWS Director Jamie Rappaport Clark, now with Defenders of Wildlife, said if the governors want recovery, protecting habitat is essential. "You often don't achieve recovery by only ensuring what's in place at the time of listing," Clark said.

Many of the governors do support Habitat Conservation Plans to protect habitat on private land, but they and stakeholders from the business community noted that landowners need assurances that HCPs will help them avoid regulatory burdens in the future. Currently those assurances are in question as FWS re-evaluates the "No Surprises" policy under court order (Greenwire, May 26).

Environmental groups say regulatory certainty is an issue, but an unchangeable plan can prohibit new science, information or circumstances from being considered in the future. Increased funding for HCPs could solve both problems, they said. In addition, environmentalists suggested that the regulatory effects of critical habitat sometimes drive voluntary conservation agreements.

The governors also noted that they want to ensure sound science is being used when making listing decisions and critical habitat designations. In Wyoming, Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D) has petitioned to delist the Preble's meadow jumping mouse saying the listing was based on insufficient science. While at the time it was the best available science, as required under the act, it consisted of a physical study of only three adult mice. Later studies have suggested the jumping mouse is no different from another species and does not warrant listing.

Many of the governors and stakeholders supporting an overhaul of ESA say sound science is defined as science that has been peer reviewed. But, while it is not required under ESA, environmentalists noted that FWS already conducts peer reviews on their listing decisions and less than 2 percent of the time has FWS made a mistake when listing.

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) issued a warning in the debate over science. "Be careful about redefining science that we not talk about stronger science or sound science and have that diverge from the main goal of recovery. And be careful that we're not pushing a little bit toward extinction," he said.

Richardson was one of the few governors who emphasized that the act did not need a major overhaul, although he acknowledged it might need some tweaking that can be made outside the legislative process.

"What is important more than drastically changing the law is to improve collaboration," Richardson said. All of the attending governors agreed ESA could be better implemented by collaborating with landowners and drawing from the expertise of state resource agencies.

Richardson also urged caution in revising the act. "I believe that Congress should be careful about amending this law," he said. Past reform efforts have seen consensus between the regulated community and environmentalists on some issues, but Democrats and environmental groups openly worry that amending ESA could result in widespread changes that they oppose. Those concerns have increased since the November elections strengthened the GOP's hold on the House and Senate.