How can the federal government enhance wildlife habitat, species protection, and other conservation outcomes through regulatory and voluntary conservation programs?

v      Provide “take” protection for neighbors via a good neighbor policy.

v      Find ways to streamline the ESA consultation process, which sometimes can take up to a year to initiate. Establish time limits, and force the agencies to comply.

v      Implement – either legislatively or administratively, the recommendations of the 2006 final report of the NEPA Task Force, chaired by U.S. Rep. McMorris ( Washington ).

How can the federal government enhance cooperation among federal agencies and with states, tribes, and local communities in the application of environmental protection and conservation laws?

v      Improve communication in the consultation process between stakeholders, local entities, and agency staff administering the ESA.

v      Coordinate efforts to avoid duplication of already-existing research and information in areas being reviewed.

v      Work to fix the “disconnect” between policy officials who think outside of the box, and the regulators / agency attorneys on the ground.

v      Require agency work on biological opinions to keep pace with development of NEPA compliance documents.

v      Enhance congressional budgets of the lead agency (often BOR) to cover additional costs associated with consultation.

How can the federal government work with states, tribes, and other public- and private-sector partners to improve science used in environmental protection and conservation?

v      Employ better science in the ESA consultation process.

o       Establish standards for scientific and commercial data that are used to make decisions under the ESA.

o       Give relatively greater weight to data that have been field-tested or peer-reviewed. The former requirement would help clarify when such things as “personal observations” or mere folklore are considered by the agencies to be reliable enough to make decisions with potentially profound effects.

o       In certain cases, provide peer review of ESA listing decisions and ESA section 7 consultations by a disinterested panel.

v      Provide a place at the table for relevant local stakeholders during consultation (“applicant status” for irrigation districts).

v      “Purpose and need” requirements related to potential benefits or uses of future water supplies should not be dismissed by agency regulators in NEPA. Planning opportunities and purposes for which a project may be permitted should not be restricted, which narrows the planning horizon, and makes it impossible to plan for projects with long-term benefits.   

v      NEPA analyses should require that value be assigned to continued agricultural production in a project area.

v      Impacts of drought and continuing water demands must be assessed and built into the NEPA process.

How can the federal government work cooperatively with businesses and landowners to protect the environment and promote conservation?

v      Encourage regulatory agencies to pull in senior policy officials to help solve ESA problems. Irrigation districts should have the ability to meet directly with upper level management.

How can the federal government better respect the interests of people with ownership in land, water, and other natural resources?

v      Grandfather older water projects and infrastructure into proposals advanced by ESA, NEPA, CWA, etc. Early water rights are being affected by new rulemaking.