Laserfiche WebLink
A& Richard Opper, Director of the Missouri Basin States Association, described ESA impacts on the <br />Missouri River System. He said the ESA is at the heart of the new Missouri River Operations <br />Manual. Until the ESA, he said, fish and wildlife interests took a back seat to all other water <br />uses: now, the ESA greatly affects the entire 2300 -mile long complex. He described how federal <br />agencies instituted river development that eliminated riparian habitat, including channelization, <br />dam construction, and control of flood plains. Yet, he said, the preferred option under the Army <br />Corps' of Engineers Missouri River Operation Plan won't offset the jeopardy opinion issued by <br />the USFWS for affected species. The USFWS reasonable and prudent alternative recommended <br />flooding an additional 64,000 acres. He noted that states and tribes were excluded from ESA <br />section 7 consultation processes. <br />Finally, Greg Power, Missouri River Coordinator for the North Dakota Game and Fish <br />Department, spoke on the Missouri River system. He said that flood control was the main reason <br />for the Missouri River Basin dams, and that water supply was a second major reason for them. <br />Since they were constructed, there has been an explosion in recreation and fishery interests at <br />reservoirs. He said that states should take a proactive role to protect critical habitat in avoidance <br />of listing. He commented that stocking and fish propagation are a "band -aid" approach, not a <br />long -term solution to the problem of fish decline, even if such methods work in the near term. <br />F. Habitat Conservation Plans <br />• Symposium participants enjoyed a luncheon presentation on Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) <br />given by Adam Relin, a natural resources attorney from the California law firm of Nossaman, <br />Guthner, Knox & Elliott. Over one hundred HCPs are in process nationally, Mr. Relin stated. <br />Among these, the plan for several species in Kern County is unprecedented in scope and <br />complexity, and has incurred considerable costs. A broad spectrum of agencies and interest <br />groups are working together to develop the HCP with the county, which must comply with both <br />state and federal endangered species acts. The working committee for the Kern County HCP has <br />endorsed a novel market -based conservation plan which would allow landowners to create <br />conservation credits by dedicating or enhancing habitat, then sell those credits to developers as <br />compensation for impacts on wildlife habitat. Thus, the system adopts an innovative market - <br />based approach in place of the command- and - control planning approach usually taken. HCPs <br />offer an opportunity to plan for species on a regional basis, instead of project -by- project, and also <br />provide local governments a lead role in ESA planning. HCPs take time to negotiate, depending <br />on the number of interested parties involved, he said. Development of necessary, accurate <br />biological data takes time. NEPA adds another year to the time required to obtain a section 10(a) <br />permit. HCPs may offer a means of reaching a consensus in local planning to resolve conflicts. <br />However, Mr. Relin noted that no one has yet submitted an HCP covering aquatic species, nor <br />does the prospect of aquatic HCPs seem likely in the near future. <br />• <br />0 <br />