My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03840
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03840
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:52:24 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:00:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8065
Description
Section D General Statewide Issues - Endangered Species Act - Fisheries
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
10/5/1994
Author
WSWC - Western Govs
Title
Water Management Symposium 1994 - The Effect of the Endangered Species Act on Western Water Management - Improving ESA Implementation - 10-5-94 through 10-7-94 - Meeting Materials - Part I of II
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
143
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001G61 <br /> <br />"\ Problems in ESA Implementation <br /> <br />~ We all have war stories about federal ESA implementation. As a result of <br />similar problems with California ESA implementation, our Legislature came very <br />close to passing a package of CESA reform bills this year. Negotiations among <br />business groups, environmental interests, and others collapsed at the end of <br />session, but there remains significant support for continuing to work on CESA. <br /> <br />~ The listing process was identified as a problem in CESA, just as it is in fed <br />ESA. Broader public participation in the listing process, peer review, and an <br />appeals process are all needed. We've had two recent listing examples -- fairy <br />shrimp and delta smelt -- where species were listed based on flimsy evidence. <br />[Refer to fairy shrimp handout]. <br /> <br />~ Designation of critical habitat is the only place in the ESA process where <br />economic and other impacts may be considered. In our experience, this <br />consideration has been cursory, rather than comprehensive. <br /> <br />~ Technical issues in ESA implementation -- is the species/subspecies really <br />a distinct population or species/subspecies? How can it be identified? (winter-run <br />salmon size criteria example). <br /> <br />, <br />~ <br /> <br />~ Water project operations may be seized upon as a convenient (and politically <br />correct, in environmental circles), easily regulated, cause of fishery population <br />declines. Population declines may in fact be caused by a variety of factors, <br />including toxics and polluted runoff, over-harvesting or poaching, competition from <br />introduced non-native species, and food-chain alteration. <br /> <br />~ The Bay-Delta, for example, is home to over 150 introduced species; in <br />parts of the Bay more than 90% of the bottom-dwelling mollusks are <br />introduced species. Also, we have recently seen data suggesting that there <br />has been substantial decline in production of food organisms upstream of the <br />Delta. <br /> <br />~ [Refer to introduced species poster]. We are very interested in getting <br />recognition of these types of impacts in both ESA and CW A federal <br />regulatory actions, and have developed this poster to increase awareness <br />of introduced species impacts. If you'd like a copy of the poster, please <br />leave your card at the back of the room & we will mail you one. <br /> <br />~ Habitat conservation plans for terrestrial species are cumbersome -- we have <br />serious doubts about applicability of the present HCP process to complex aquatic <br />settings like the Delta where we have multiple species of concern. Protection and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.