Quantity/Quality/Wildlife Meeting January 5 1995

Home Browse Search

which protect threatened and endangered species. Within the ESA, Section 7 requires that the Service consult on those federal actions which may impact listed species. The long - running issue involving renewal of land use occupancy permits for water storage facilities on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests is one example of the growing role of the ESA and Section 7 consultation in water resource management. While on the road to successful resolution, this example demonstrates the political conflict and costs that can result when federal and state agencies fail to become proactive in addressing water, land and wildlife management issues. It is important to recognize that there are hundreds of other permits that will be addressed by the Forest Service in the next few years in Colorado. It is also apparent that virtually every river basin in Colorado will eventually have to address the need for recovery of declining species and potential federal listings, unless a more proactive approach is undertaken soon. More and more, people and organizations confront terms such as "section 7 consultation," "critical habitat," "incidental take," "reasonable and prudent alternatives," and "habitat conservation plan." These and other terms associated with the ESA now strongly flavor, if not dominate, much of the public discourse surrounding wildlife and water resource management in Colorado. Traditional water resource management practices now frequently bump up against ESA regulatory requirements as more species are listed for protection under the act and as federal regulatory agencies apply the act on a wider scope and with increasing vigor. Colorado citizens increasingly are concerned about how the ESA is being implemented. First, it is invoked only after a given species has declined to the point of near extinction. The ESA therefore functions as the ultimate "safety net ", a regulatory tool of last resort, although it does nothing to prevent a species from reaching this critical point in the first place. Once listed, a given species might either be ignored (which may occur due to severe funding constraints on ESA programs), or become the center of vast and intensive bureaucratic, regulatory, and legal processes marked by confrontation and significant expense for all parties. These time - consuming and costly processes are driven by the stringent regulatory requirements of the ESA, and often do not allow for the flexibility necessary to accommodate both species protection and economic activity. Finally, due to their traditional focus on individual species, protection efforts carried out under the ESA often ignore the needs of other species, leaving open the door for possible future listings and a further layering -on of bureaucratic and regulatory obligations. 5