WSP01444 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

""I:f . 1'""""" ';:;&~~. ~\~) (', . <. 7 ~ '. uUl .L" Larry McKinney, Director of Resource Protection for the Texas .Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) described the three distinct areas associated with Texas' Edwards Aquifer and its management: the agriculturally dominated west, the municipally dominated (San Antonio) central area, and downstream areas including coastal estuaries. All depend entirely or to some degree upon the aquifer. First, he said the aquifer area is a true case of "the tragedy of the commons," because there is virtually no common management strategy (between the area and user groups) for this very distinct aquifer. The issue that brought all sides together to focus on the future of the aquifer was the ESA. It is also the one clear issue that nearly all sides agree was the worst vehicle to do so. Second, the aquifer is a clear example of where the term "ecosystem management" has true meaning because all the endangered species associated with the aquifer could be conserved by what would otherwise be considered good water management policy. Third, he noted that potential solutions to conserving the aquifer and associated species affect other species like whooping cranes, and this makes the whole issue extremely complex. The complexity of this and similar situations appears to make lawsuits the predominant means of implementing the ESA. This third aspect has had three implications for the Edwards Aquifer situation (and others) that make it difficult to resolve: 1) it limits the use ofa number ofESA provisions that possibly address the problem by removing the issue to the courts and out of the administrative arena; 2) it takes away state, regional and local control and limits the ability to develop local solutions by relegating that duty to the courts; and 3) it can limit participation by parties best suited to contributing the solution, as in this case where TPWD had developed much of the data and information on which USFWS based its actions, but the there was little consultation with the state because of legal restrictions. He concluded by supporting previous speakers' recommendations for a greater role for state resource agencies in ESA-associated . actions as a way of helping to avoidlitigation. Charles Meacham, Alaska's Deputy Commissioner ofFish and Game, addressed Alaska salmon issues. A 1991 report identified 214 stocks of salmon at risk in the Pacific Northwest, and another 106 stocks already extinct. No listings are in effect for Alaskan stocks. He echoed concerns that the NMFS is not acting to help species recover. He said that 95% of fish mortality is due to the hydropower system which remains largely unaffected by ESA management, while the states are being required to bear the highest proportion of an ineffectual recovery burden. He said the NMFS arbitrarily selected 1986-1990 as the base period to use in calculating fishery harvest minimization measures, a period which captured the highest overall exploitation rates of Snake River fall chinook ever documented for some fisheries, while, during this same period, Alaska was limiting its fisheries to some of the lowest exploitation rates ever for these fish. The result ofNMFS' uniform adoption of this base period favors continuation of the higher levels of take for fisheries which most directly and measurably impact Snake River fall chinook, Mr. Meacham said. He offered several specific recommendations. First, the definition of "species" needs to be improved in the ESA, to recognize there is a national interest in preserving distinct species, but not distinct populations of species. He favors a definition of species as evolutionary significant units. Second, the definition of "take" should distinguish between lethal takes and encounters. Third, a clear separation between threatened and endangered species should be drawn. However, he expressed concerns about a potential new pre-listing category. Fourth, de- 7