WSP01444 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O"7"~... ", ,< U t ".. listing criteria should be required in every recovery plan. Fifth, states need to be involved as active partners, and affected states need to have mandatory seats 6n recovery teams. He urged {I~ that Section 7 consultation provisions should be applied to states as well as federal agencies, stating that section 10 procedures are too cumbersome. Finally, he urged that the ESA should be exempted from F ACA in its entirety. 11. Interstate Effects (Throughout Affected Basins) Eric Kuhn led off the presentations on interstate effects. A member of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, he discussed interstate effects of ESA management on the Colorado River. He said these ESA impacts are depletion-driven, affecting any project that depletes water from the River. The ESA will ultimately impact development of Colorado River Compact water, he said. The Lower Basin is ahead in terms of human development, while the Upper Basin is being primarily affected by ESA-driven considerations for Colorado River management. He described the potentially broad range of section 7 consultations as possibly triggered by anything even marginally involving the federal government. He stated that consultations on water quality permits may result. Michele DeHart, representing the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority's Fish Passage Center, spoke on the Columbia/Snake River System. First, she pointed out that the present crisis of salmon extinction on the Columbia River evolved as a result of governments' "delusion" that "we can have it all": i.e., maximum development and a healthy natural ecosystem. Second, she pointed out that ESA implementation was not the problem. State and regional interests had been ~;4' given total responsibility to resolve the Columbia River crisis for 10 years starting in 1980, when an initial request to list under the ESA was deferred pending action by the states through the Northwest Power Planning Council and the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act. It was only after failure of the state process that the ESA came into play. She noted that consultation and coordination between state, federal and public interest groups was extensive over the years, including the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. The failure of all regional and state entities to resolve these issues stemmed from their inability to curb and undo development. Third, she pointed out that Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs )could be a key vehicle in the process of the ongoing delusion that "we can have it all," unless they truly address the limitation of development. Many of the components of HCPs raised in the symposium by other speakers were tried on the Columbia River, and only delayed the unavoidable confrontation with the crucial issue of development, Ms. DeHart stated. Wayne Haas, Administrator ofIdaho's Department of Water Resources, discussed the Columbia and Snake River system from Idaho's perspective. He provided a summary of detailed technical studies on each alternative for managing the Snake River. He said that Idaho has no more storage left, due to drought and releases. He also said that biologists don't agree on the requirements for fish recovery. .Idaho claims the major sources of the problem are the dams on the lower Snake River, which create inadequate velocities for fish maintenance. To create the necessary velocities, he said, the water level of the dams could be lowered an average of 40 feet. 8