Laserfiche WebLink
<br />('H1~., 71 '\ <br />U tJ .II.. _._ J <br /> <br />6Ri~ diversions without consideration of other factors affecting listing!species (e.g., over-harvesting, <br />~"i.~\9} toxics, introduction of non-native species). CDWR's ESA compiiance activities for terrestrial <br />species have been costly, and have included preparing a multi-agency HCP for a ground water <br />banking project. The existing ESA is flawed, Mr. Potter concluded, and needs to be amended. <br /> <br />ftj!~~ <br /> <br /> <br />ii. ESA Impacts on State Fish and Wildlife Manallement <br /> <br />Jim Burton, Chief of Habitat for Arizona Game and Fish, provided perspective on Arizona's <br />management of fish and wildlife resources under the ESA. He summarized the 62 species listed <br />as threatened or endangered in Arizona, 60% of which depend on riparian habitat. Arizona's <br />habitat program has a technical staff, supported by a scientifically validated data base. The state <br />is trying to implement its own funding for recovery plans. Arizona is also undertaking proactive <br />measures, gathering land managers and user groups to map key areas of biodiversity. Once <br />identified, conservation agreements are sought to avoid listings. He identified problems with the <br />Federal Advisory Committees Act (F ACA), which may prevent the State's Game and Fish <br />. agency from signing on to these conservation agreements. He stated that the United States Fish <br />and Wildlife Service (USFWS) fails to use the states' input to compensate for problems with <br />under-staffing, and uses highly secretive processes. Mr. Burton commented that the USFWS has <br />no authority over candidate species, non-native species, and resident wildlife. <br /> <br />Steve Huffaker, Chief of Fisheries for Idaho, suggested that the federal government's use of the <br />Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act is intended to nudge western states into a more <br />efficient use of water. Although tremendous resources have been spent on ESA efforts, very few <br />real successes have been achieved. Many species are listed due to federal agencies' activities, <br />yet the real causes of decline are protected from change. He described the frustration experienced <br />by Idaho's fisheries managers in dealing with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), <br />which has focused on peripheral issues and avoided the main issues contributing to the fisheries' <br />decline: i.e., the hydropower dams blocking the fishes' passage to the ocean. The reality of <br />economic forces, he said, make it hard to force meaningful reform under the ESA. Poor ESA <br />management has polarized federal and state agencies. He suggested that the best solution is to <br />head off problems before the situation becomes too much more controlled, citing Bruce Babbitt's <br />statement that the bull trout was not listed because of states' voluntary conservation planning <br />efforts. He urged that F ACA must be amended so that state resource agencies can enter direct <br />discussion with federal agencies implementing federal resource laws. <br /> <br />D. Group Discussion <br /> <br />The foregoing presentations provided valuable information and a useful starting point for the <br />discussion which followed, moderated bi Chuck DuMars, a law professor and attorney with the <br />firm of Sheehan, Sheehan, and Stelzner in Albuquerque, New Mexico and a member of the <br />Western States Water Council's Endangered Species Act subcommittee. Mr. DuMars solicited <br />input from the group on the outcome sought from the meeting, identifYing several key questions <br /> <br />5 <br />