WSP11851 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.... ..! POINT . . . AND COUNTERPOINT Some Signal Successes, But Increased Resources, Commitment Needed by Michael J. Bean. Environmental Defense Fund The road 10 extinction can be reversed. In the dozen yean since enaClment of the Endan- gered Species Act, there have been cnough examples of thil.llruism to demaRltrate that the Act's lofl)' goals arc nOl mere pic in the: sky, but arc really attainable. Species once seemingly headed incJl:orably toward the abyss ofc.llinclion have been rescued and given a better chance for 1008-tcnn survival. The bald cagle. though still endangered in mosl of the U.S., is showing strong signs of recovery. The brown pelican of the Gulf and Atlantic coaslS recently completed a .ucccnful recovery and no longcr needs the prOlcc- tion of the Endangered Species Act. The peregrine falcon, once completely eliminated from the eastern U.S. has been successfully reinlroduced there. The American alligator, once endiilngered. is now abundant in pans of its range. These are signill successes, but they mwt be kept in perspective. The Fish and Wildlife Service's en- dangered species program is a very modesl program of a very small agency, yet the threat of endangermenl facing our na!lve wildlife and wild planls is no small problem. Indeed, there is ample reason to fear that, despite the~ impona.nt "ucce'ii~S, (or II great many species, the Endangered Species Act is failing iCriously to meet its objeclives. Eyen within our own borders, species that could be: conserved without heroic and eAlravaganlly expensive meuures are being lost, or are being made much more vulnerable to loss, principally as a resull of insufficient resources available to the program. The problem is perhaps most acule with respect to the so-called "candidate" species that are known to be J6 Jul,/1915 1711 EnvirOflmellltlJ Forum eligible for protection but that still receive none. Since 1973, the list of Ihreottened and endangered species has grown by an average of fewer than 40 species per year. Yel, the Fish and Wildlife Service has identified, from within the U.S. alone, more than 1,000 additional species for which it already has sufficient mformation warranting proposals to add them to the list. At currenllisting rates, it will take a quarter century to prolect that backlog of species already known to need prolection. For many, Ihat is far too long. Indeed, wilhin the last three years alone, at least seven of the candidate species have apparently gone extinct while the Fish and Wtldhft Service pondell:d whcaher 10 hslthem. These species were not hopeless cases, already beyond Any possibility of recovery when originally tdenllfied as candidates. Rather, they perished because nothing was done to avert their Iou. For those species thilt do make it onto the endangered species list, lhe Act CDn be a potent force for arresting their decline and aiding their recovery. The key, as always, is the avililability of sufficient resources to implement Ihe Act. It is increasingly evident, bowever, that the very modest ruources currently available are insufficient. Within the last year, at least one listed species, the Palos Verdes blue buHerfly of California, apparently went eXlinct, the first species to have done so alter being listed for Bean COnlinuedoflpugeJ8 Mi€hMl.... u CM""''''' 0/'11I Etr~,,,,_,,,&llM/,ru' FuNi~ Wild/V' hOI'..... ... W........"..... DC H, .. ,''' _,,,,. 0/-1M C...,/u,,,,,, of N."o",,1 ~../JI'I' L..... -..........Iu s,~ Utlo"- p..blu1wdb, h_." Mlu/w". t t t Amending the Endangered Species Act- The Western Water Rights Connection A long with a numb~r oj pol/ution control ugulalory stalut~$ tllat it will ~:ramin~ IlIir/1I11. tlt~ Congr~ss also wm b~ cons;d~rmg r~autlloruation of tile Endangtr~d Speci~$ Act. OpmioIU vary widtly on wll~thtr that legidative process wil/ erupt mto substantial controversy. But thert is little disagrttmtnt that th~ implications oj the reauthorization are substantial when it comes to the always touchy issue of westtrn wattr rights. In Ihis ftature, two oj the most influential advocates on the Act and on tht wtSltrll water rights issue hav~ thtir IllY: c o N CJl [-y N Conflict Resolution: Western Water Law and the Endangered Species Act by Tom PillS, Tom Pius & Associates Cooperation, not confrontation, is the key to successfully resolving potential conflicts be- tween the Endangered Species Act and westcrn water law. For morc lhan a year, the Colorado Water Congrcss has cooperated with federal agencies, state:governments, conservation groups, and industry 10 resolve potential conflicls between the Endangered Species Act and western water allocation laws in the Colorado River Basin and the Plaue River Basin. The potential conflicts arose in JUne 1983 when the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service circula!ed a draft recovery plan for three Colorado River endangered native fISh species. Implementalion of the plan would nave conflicled with decrees oflhe U.S. Supreme Court apportioning water among Slates; inlerstate waler compacts which hild been ratified by thc U.S. ConsreS$; and western states' water rights systems which have aJlocated the scarce resource in an orderly manner for 12:5 years. Subsequently, Ihe Colorado Water Congress, a 1,200-membc:r organization of agricultural, munici- pal, and industrial water users, and private citizens, organized a Special Project on Threatened and Endangered Species. The Colorado Water Congres.s is convinced (hat connicts between implementation of the Endangered Species Acl and future water development in western states can be avoided. The Colorado Water Congress supportS an aggres- live program to fully recover the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River BUill. An effective recovery program must recognize the true causes for the present stale of Ihe endangered fish species, existing realities of lhe Upper Colorado River Basin, and changing condition. whicb will occur in the future, including full development of each slate's compact allotment of waler. Many fat:1on have contribuled to the decline of the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. In Ihe early twentieth ccnlury, long-lived Colorado squawfish were harve$ted in vast numbers 81 a commercial food source. Laler on, federal and !tate 80vernments became more actively involved in creatingspon fisheries. Native fish, now endangered, were considered to be"trash fish" by Cederal aad state game management agencies. In an attempt 10 crea.te beller spOrt fishery habitat, government agencies subjected more than 500 miles of major river habilat of endaniered native fishes 10 rotenone poisonin. ta eliminate these species. Game fish were intro- duced 1n10 native fish habnat. Largemouth bas., northern pike, and catfish prey upon the young of the endangered fish species with devastating effectiveness. Conslructlon of several major federal hydroelectric projects in the Colorado River Basin blacked the migration routes of endangered fishes. The operation o{ se.....era.l federal project! also has. a.llered tempera- lure regimes from warm water to cold water, eliminating habilal {or tbe warm water native endangered fish. This has also created outstandin, cold waler fisheries, highly valued by state game Pitts Continued on page 39 To", "IU U . P,ol,v.kJ"",1 .1l./I11tnr .... P'IM'" of To'" rtlv. Mtd .4uo<..,,~ c~...., u.,llIlH'L lA",J.tvI. CoIo. H, .."'" a hO~<f CtJtJ,dllllll'", 10' I'" Colo,. w_ CofIVUJ s,.n.J hDJ<<' "'" n.n."fWd....~'nls,.<..... 1M Environ~f1'tll Forum Jul,/I9I! 31