Can Collaboration Achieve What Regulation Hasn’t? Redrock Canyon Redux — A Case Study

Authors: Sally E. Stefferud, Jerome A. Stefferud

Year: 2009 (xli)

Abstract

In 2001 we spoke to Desert Fishes Council, asking the question “Can conservation be achieved through section 7 (ESA)?” using endangered Gila topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis, in Redrock Canyon in southern Arizona as a case study. Our conclusion was a resounding “no.” Despite conditions conducive to effective use of the section 7 regulatory mechanism and over 15 years of efforts, progress toward recovery had been slow and limited. In addition, there were indications that some forward progress was not lasting. Since that time, the changing national political scene and internal policies of the responsible agencies shifted efforts for Redrock Canyon and its fish away from regulation toward a more collaborative approach. But the intervening eight years have also seen the crash of the population of Gila topminnow in Redrock Canyon; they are now extremely rare. Adverse effects from nonnative species, most notably western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, in concert with severe drought, are the major factors, exacerbated by past and present land and water uses. Although solutions and funding are available, little effort has been made to deal with those problems due to roadblocks from a variety of sources, including State and Federal agencies, local grazing interests, and other stakeholders. Needed actions have been rejected, significantly scaled back, and/or substantially delayed. Some gains resulting from previous regulatory work have been reversed or are being considered for reversal. Eight years of collaborative effort does not appear to have been successful in moving recovery of Gila topminnow in Redrock Canyon in a forward direction, nor in stemming the catastrophic decline of this or other native species. In fact, it has not yet been successful in overcoming the territoriality and conflicting interests of some parties or in achieving buy-in to a course of action from a majority of the parties. In 2001, we argued that much of the failure in recovery was not due to the regulatory process itself, but rather to failures in understanding and commitment by the entities charged with conserving the natural resources of Redrock Canyon. The past eight years indicate that the same applies to collaborative efforts. Under either mechanism, a lack of historic vision as to what the ecosystem once was and the extent to which it could be restored, is the all-to-frequent justification for inaction by the responsible individuals and agencies. Apathy or opposition on the part of responsible agencies is a major impediment to recovery efforts, exacerbated by opposition from livestock grazing interests, bureacratic ineptitude, and limited resources. This case study suggests that the regulatory or collaborative mechanism used is much less important than a strong commitment by the responsible agencies to actually achieve recovery - a commitment of political will, biological understanding, and necessary resources.