LA JOLLA, Calif. -- Western governors made it clear last weekend at a special meeting of the Western Governors Association that they want species recovered and delisted from the Endangered Species Act, and they want to be part of the process.
The trouble is, most of the time no one has any idea what it would take to get a species off the list, the governors said as they repeated over and over again that they need the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service to lay out clear recovery goals within a mandated time frame.
In particular, Republican Govs. Linda Lingle of Hawaii, Judy Martz of Montana and Bill Owens of Colorado said their No. 1 priority for improving upon the Endangered Species Act is to force FWS and NMFS to publicize recovery goals within a certain time after listing.
"I would like to see a clear recovery goal put in place within a certain period of time after listing. It could be five years, it could be three years, and I would obviously hope that the goal would be enforceable," said Owens, chairman of WGA. "I would suggest that that's reasonable in terms of the ESA."
One of Owens' aides echoed his comments, saying that while ESA does require FWS or NMFS to publish a recovery plan, it is unenforceable because there is no deadline.
"In Colorado, we didn't get recovery goals set for four species of fish for 14 years. We need deadlines that require recovery goals upfront," said aide Joel Harris.
Without those recovery goals, the governors said they often feel hamstrung. They are hesitant to put resources into conservation efforts that in the end might not help delist the species. Recovery -- and ultimately delisting -- is the goal because it reduces the pressure ESA often puts on farming, ranching and development and reinstates state authority to manage that species.
"We need ultimate recovery goals to be set out before us so we have guidelines to focus on so that people don't become the endangered species at the end of the day," Martz said.
Martz offered the example of gray wolf recovery in the Northern Rockies as a success for FWS and the states involved. FWS set clear recovery goals: Before it would consider delisting, there had to be 10 pairs of breeding wolves in each of three states, including Montana. Those clearly stated goals helped Montana officials focus their efforts, Martz said.
Greg Walcher, the former director of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources, said requiring FWS to publish recovery goals under deadline would have sweeping effects. "It would change the whole process nationwide if the Fish and Wildlife Service was required to publish recovery goals and delisting criteria for every species listed. ... We need to know what the light at the end of the tunnel is," Walcher said.
Often times Western Republican governors, Republican members of Congress and industry leaders disagree sharply with environmental groups over how, or even whether, to amend ESA. But incorporating a deadline for recovery goals may be something they all can agree upon.
Jamie Rappaport Clark, former director of FWS under the Clinton administration and currently an executive vice president with Defenders of Wildlife, said, "I would like to put more emphasis on recovery planning and the development of recovery plans within a legally mandated time frame so you do know what the end point is. While many species have recovery plans, many do not."
The chairman of the House Resources Committee, Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), has made amending ESA his primary legislative goal but is often at the receiving end of pointed criticism from environmentalists who say the legislation he pushes would essentially gut ESA. However on the issue of recovery deadlines, Pombo may be able to make some headway with the environmental lobby.
While attending the WGA summit in California, Pombo said the drafters of ESA should have set deadlines for recovery plans. The unintended consequence is that people lose sight of the ultimate goal of recovery, he said.
"We need a recovery goal. There needs to be a goal out there that says when we hit these population numbers, when we have this sustainable number, it will drop to a threatened species, and once we hit this goal it will be taken off the list," Pombo said.
Pombo has not yet advanced legislation that would mandate recovery deadlines. This Congress, Pombo pushed a bill (H.R. 2933) through the committee that would have moved the critical habitat designation process to the recovery planning process.
But environmental groups lambasted the measure, arguing that because recovery planning currently has no deadline, moving critical habitat designations to that phase would eliminate the deadline for critical habitat designations.
But most environmental groups do support the idea of merging critical habitat with recovery planning, so long as a deadline is set, preferably something around three years, according to Brian Nowicki of the Center for Biological Diversity. Environmental groups backed two bills introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) in 1997 and 2001 that would have merged critical habitat designations and the recovery planning process and mandated deadlines for both. Miller's bill never came to a subcommittee vote.
The governors suggested, and several environmentalists agreed, that while there should be a deadline for establishing recovery goals, how to meet those goals should not be mandated and instead should involve a large stakeholder process.
"FWS should assign what recovery is, then have a stakeholder process to determine how to achieve it," Clark said, adding that recovery planning holds vast opportunities for bringing together stakeholders from all sides of the debate because all of them have a stake in species recovery.
