WSPC12541 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for instance, holds that the deple- tion of water anywhere in the Up- per Colorado River Basin will ad- versely affect the four endangered , fish species that reside in the lower, warm-water reaches of the Upper Basin rivers. As a conse- quence, depletion activities far upstream of the habitat are con- sidered to "jeopardize" the endan- gered species, even though endan- gered species habitat may be hun- dreds of miles downstream. The application of the act has been expanded, and it now encom- passes grazing permits issued by federal agencies to individual ranchers, federally funded conser- vation activities on farms, and practically all activities on lands managed by any federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Man- agement, the U.S. Forest 'Service, and the Department of Defense. The act is applied to contracts be- tween the Bureau of Reclamation and individual water users that address water from federal projects, the annual operation of federal water and power projects, and hy- droelectric power generation op- erations that change the flows in rivers and streams. Moreover, per- mits issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are sub- ject to Endangered Species Act compliance. Almost any project to benefit American Indians on their own reservations is also subject to Endangered Species Act compli- ance and restrictions, since these are all normally a function of some federal activity. The vast federal land ownership in the western states also triggers application of the Endangered Species Act to countless activities. Clearly, the Endangered Species Act can affect water users through- out the western United States, 001011 ranging from the individual farmer, rancher, or irrigator to the largest municipalities and indus- tries. Water development activities by American Indians are equally subject to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Economics and the Act The Endangered Species Act, as written and in practice, is virtu- ally devoid of economic consider- ations. In this way it is unique in American law. Listing of species as threatened or endangered requires no consideration of the resultant economic impacts. The Fish and Wildlife Service has routinely con- cluded that listing a species is not subject to provision of the Na- tional Environmental Policy Act, a federal act designed to disclose the impacts of federal actions on the human environmen~. As a re- sult, there is no economic or envi- ronmental review of the impacts of listing endangered species. Critical habitat designation is subject co economic impact analy- sis, but these economic analyses routinely conclude that critical habitat designation does not have a significant economic impact in itself or that the impact is mini- mal on a national or regional scale. Thus, the federal government evades any substantive analysis of economic or environmental im- pacts for implementing the act. This lax approach co economic analysis occurs despite the drastic impacts of the act in some areas and on some economic sectors. For significant examples in the Pacific Northwest, you need look no fur- ther than the spotted owl and sev- eral species of endangered salmon. In fiscal year 1997, reponed fed- eral and state expenditures for the three species of Columbia Basin salmon totaled $72.2 million.4 Expenditures for these species have occurred in the past and will continue into the foreseeable fu- ture. The economic effects on the timber industry and associated communities and on hydroelectric power production and costs are significant. There was a previous agreement that the Bonneville Power Author- ity (BPA), which generates hydro- electric power in the Pacific North- west, would expend no more than $435 million per year, on average, on endangered species and other fish and wildlife purposes. These costs are passed on to BPA power customers. Of this total $183 mil- lion would result from lost rev- enues from power generation in order to meet flow requirements for fish, and co purchase power resulting from lost generation ca- pacity. BPA is now operating un- der a biological opinion recently issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. BPA estimates it may have to spend as much as $2.0 billion to purchase power in 2001, while operating under the biologi- cal opinion issued by National Marine Fisheries Service.5 Federal regulations to imple- ment Section 7, "Interagency Co- operation," state that "reasonable and prudent alternatives" must be "economically and technologically feasible." Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative actions that can be implemented to avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the listed species or the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In other words, reasonable and prudent alternatives are miti- gation measures for impacts on en- dangered species, resulting from actions of federal agencies. The determination of what is Spring 2001 . 47