Organizing for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat

Home Browse Search

utilitarian commodity production. There were no ESA or other environmental mandates to be fulfilled. But, a spate of environmental legislation began to change all that and, most especially passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, transformed the USFWS into an agency that would define itself by the number of dam projects modified or blocked in the name of an alternative vision of social progress centered on f'ree flowing streams. In the 1970's and 1980's the Bureau of Reclamation would haltingly re-orient itself toward a revised mission, that of water service at least somewhat constrained by environmental stewardship. Old constituencies of both agencies would feel that their 19' and early 20`h century compacts with the federal government had been betrayed. New urban, rural ranchette, and environmental resource constituencies would push hard in Congress and the courks for new visions. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) "I think the ESA is a remarkable piece of legislation,...It's the one federal environmental statute that deals with scientific uncertainty and makes it clear that the species will not bear the burden of scientific uncertaint}?" Dan Luecke, Environmental Defense Colorado Water March/April, 2002, p. 9 North America's freshwater habitats continue to support an extraordinary diversity of biotic communities, particularly as compared to those found in what have been similar habitats around the globe. But U.S. freshwater habitats are also among the most threatened by flow alterations, habitat degradation and &agmentation, and introduction of non-native species. All this has taken a heavy toll. In the U.S., only two percent of natural rivers and streams are free flowing. Consequences of human disturbance has been staggering: 67% of freshwater mussels and 65% of crayfish species are rare or imperiled, 37% of freshwater species are at risk of extinction, 35% of amphibians that depend on aquatic habitats are rare or imperiled (Abell, Olson, Dinerstein, Hurley, and et a12000). In the late 1960s the whooping crane, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon and Eskimo Curlew were all considered endangered (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1997b). Early concerns about this habitat loss and consequent threats to plant and animal species led to calls for protective legislation, and those efforts resulted in the eventual passage of the current Endangered Species Act (ESA) (1973). Under ESA, existing federal water projects are subject to federal discretionary authority and control if any appear to affect habitat of listed species (Echevema 2001). Under Section 7, any federal agency must insure that activities that: it authorizes, funds, or implements do not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. Nor may any federal actions adversely modify or destroy `critical habitat' of any species (Bean 1999). Federal agencies are mandated to coordinate their efforts with the Fish and Wildlife Service to try and ensure that no species are adversely impacted by any agency action. Section 4 of the ESA provides for designation of critical habitat, which consists of land, water, and airspace required for the normal needs and survival for the designated species (Anderson 1998). The ESA has, therefore, changed water policy in the West, by changing the mandates of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. 16