Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. , 7 ~ .. <br />(\ U 1 J.: <br /> <br />G. Efforts to Integrate Water Management and Fish and Wildlife Management <br />Concerns Regarding Protection of Endangered Species <br /> <br />fltJ <br /> <br />I. Intrastate <br /> <br />John Talbott, Deputy Director of Wyoming's Fish and Game Department, opened the afternoon <br />session on intrastate experiences with integrating water management and fish and wildlife <br />concerns to protect endangered species. He said there is one endangered fish species in <br />Wyoming, and very limited water development. The State has instituted basin and sub-basin <br />management plans for fisheries, and the information developed is shared with the public. The <br />working relationship between Wyoming's State Engineer and the Fish and Game Department is <br />good, he said. Because the state has not experienced much development which conflicts with <br />species survival and the state's development is occurring at a manageable pace, Wyoming has <br />been able to meet state and ESA-driven water needs without great difficulties resulting. <br /> <br />Larry Anderson, Director of Utah's Division of Water Resources, addressed cooperative <br />management of natural resources in the Virgin River Basin. He said that the population in the <br />Virgin River Basin is experiencing an average growth rate of 6 1/2 percent per year, the fastest <br />growing area in the state over the past decade. In 1993, the basin experienced a confrontation <br />between federal, state and local government, with mutual distrust and ill will resulting between <br />the agencies. In response, a group was created to improve coordination, cornmunication, trust <br />and comity and to reduce duplicative efforts. The working group includes government agency .fI'IiI.t <br />representatives, and various. user groups and public interest group representatives. It lacks ~p.~ <br />decision making authority, but offers recommendations, and has been successful in improving <br />coordination and communication between interested and affected members. Specifically, it has <br />managed to circumvent a serious conflict over wild and scenic river designations in the area. <br /> <br />ii. Interstate <br /> <br />Peter Evans, Deputy Director of the Colorado River Conservation Board and the Colorado <br />Recovery Team Coordinator for Colorado River Fishes, was the first speaker to address interstate <br />integration efforts of water and fish and wildlife management concerns. He said ESA problems <br />began two decades ago for the Upper Colorado River. Unsuccessful efforts were made to <br />exempt water development from the ESA requirements as part of the 1982 amendments. A <br />Recovery Implementation Plan was executed in 1988, which is intended to serve as a reasonable <br />and prudent alternative under Section 7. Colorado has not yet experienced takings problems <br />under Section 9. However, there is a vast chasm between federal environmental regulations and <br />state private property rights, he said. The Recovery Program participants developed a Recovery <br />Action Plan and a "Sufficient Progress" Agreement to help assure that recovery actions are <br />driven by biological priorities and that regulatory requirements related to depletion impacts can <br />be handled without conflict. The USFWS will come to signatories of the agreement first, if <br />progress toward recovery is not sufficient under the ESA. The recovery action plan is a 60-page <br />document, the goals of which are to preserve genetic diversity, and recover the endangered <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />d;Q~1 <br />