additional resources will be needed for species protection in the state. She indicated the water
tax part of the bill did not pass which would have funded species mitigation. The Endangered
Species Act (ESA) is a federal law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1973. The act protects both
endangered and threatened species. She reviewed the five major facets of the ESA which include
listing and taking of species. There are three major categories of listing actions: 1) endangered -
means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range; 2) threatened - means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range; and 3) the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service designation of "critical habitat" for a species. Mr. Larson reviewed the types of
enforcement actions that may be taken against unlawful takings.
Mr. Larson briefly reviewed several proposals currently in the U.S. Congress that would
create new government obligations which affect the administration of the act or create incentives
to preserve endangered species. She distributed a chart of state laws, policies, and programs
concerning endangered species. Although most states have some type of endangered species
law, these statutes vary widely in scope and effectiveness. Most of the states that do have
endangered species laws still rely on the federal act for enforcement and funding. Seven states,
including Utah, have no laws regulating endangered species.
Ms. Larson pointed out that one of the most controversial issues for state law has been
whether to include input from the public. Traditionally, the determination as to whether to list a
species has been based solely on scientific and commercial data. She stated that as under the
federal ESA, the issue most litigated under state law is the definition of a "taking."
Ms. Steffen discussed why the state is involved in protecting species. Although Utah
does not have an endangered species act, it is heavily involved in activities protecting species and
is likely to continue those activities. She noted that the Board and Division of Wildlife Resources are responsible for managing wildlife. The division has expertise in wildlife
management. Individual citizens and local governments who are affected by the ESA look to the
division for assistance. Local governments, especially in rural areas, have limited financial
resources to invest in species protection measures. Oftentimes species protection measures need
to be implemented across multiple governmental jurisdictions or in waters of the state. She also
indicated that there is a shift in the way the ESA is being implemented from a regulatory
approach to a planning approach. The federal government is relying less on making strict
prohibitions on the taking of species and critical habitat and is now encouraging parties to make
conservation agreements on how species will be protected. The state is often a party to those
conservation agreements.
Ms. Steffen said the kinds of species protection measures contemplated to be
implemented vary depending upon the category of the species. These species include: 1) listed;
2) sensitive; and 3) native. She reviewed the mitigation actions being used for listed species
which include a habitat conservation agreement authorized under the federal act. The agreement
identifies action that should be taken to protect species. If those actions are taken, development
can proceed and there can be an incidental take of a species in the course of that development.
The state of Utah is a party to two signed habitat conservation agreements. Ms. Steffen
explained that for sensitive species, the state enters into conservation agreements with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. She said the division intends to identify all the native species in Utah
by examining historical records and conducting field surveys to determine their current status.
Ms. Steffen stated that revenue sources adopted by other states for species protection,
excluding the general fund, include lottery revenues, special license plates, an income tax
checkoff, cigarette tax, and net proceeds from the sale of wildlife art prints, decals, and stamps.
She noted that various land acquisition programs may assist in preserving habitat for native, rare,
or endangered species. She reviewed two new approaches to protecting species. In California,
natural communities conservation planning is intended to preserve large blocks of land that are
inhabited by many sensitive species. Landowners who participate in a natural communities
conservation plan receive binding assurances from wildlife agencies that if a plan ever needs
adjusting, the public will pick up the tab. In Oregon, local watershed councils coordinate
watershed improvement projects which should improve water quality and therefore, improve the
habitat for threatened fish species.
Rep. Hatch indicated he has been working with the Utah Water Coalition and other
agencies to discuss available options. Since the representative from the coalition was not able to
attend, he suggested that this portion of the presentation be scheduled for a future meeting.
3. Appropriation for Forestry Extension Services - Mr. Terry Sharik, Utah State University, Forest Resources Department Head, discussed their responsibilities under S.B. 44,
"Appropriation for Forestry Extension Services." They are directed to hire extension personnel
and pay for expenses related to the developing and conducting of a private forestry education
program in coordination with the Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands and the Utah Farm
Bureau. He said one of the strengths of the program is ascertaining the attitudes of people and
tracking the effectiveness of the programs.
Dr. Michael Kuhns, Utah State University, Extension Forestry Specialist, distributed
information on the extension's efforts to educate Utah's private forest landowners. He said there
are numerous subjects to be addressed in the program. Education materials and programs will be
developed to address private forest landowners' needs and concerns and to educate others
involved with private forest lands and land management. Forest landowners have been shown to
have a preference for certain educational methods and media, such as one-on-one assistance,
newsletters, fact sheets, and local workshops. The program will take advantage of these
preferences in reaching landowners and important related audiences. He discussed the many
types of education materials and programs that will be used.
Mr. Art Default, Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, said that they were
encouraged the program is a positive step. However, he expressed concerns that current timber
harvesting in the state does not allow for a sustainable timber industry.
Rep. Hatch suggested concentrating on areas where there is a potential problem for
timber harvesting. Information should be obtained on which landowners the timber companies
are talking to. The landowners should be made aware that the state's services are available to
them prior to signing any contracts.
4. Great Salt Lake Management Plan - Mr. Ted Stewart, Department of Natural Resources, said the department has a unique situation in that many of its divisions have
significant stewardship responsibilities associated with the Great Salt Lake; however, there is
very little coordination among the divisions. In order to address the many issues involved, the
department is undertaking a coordinated resource management process for the Great Salt Lake.
If the process works for the Great Salt Lake, the department will ultimately have to do the same
thing for Utah Lake and Bear Lake.
MOTION: Rep. Iverson moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:35 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.