Organizing for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Draft

Home Browse Search

? ? ? ? ? actions that can reasonablybe expected to increase jeopardy of a listed species must find ways to ? achieve ESA compliance in order to gain essential permit(s). For 29 years now, the ESA has been ? an unwelcome guest at virtually every Western water user dinner pariy. In 1978, in an effort to protect the whooping crane and other species listed under the act, the Fish and Wildlife Service, designated a 56 mile-long by 3 mile-wide stretch of the Platte River between Lexington and Chapman, Nebraska. Five additional species that depend on the central Platte were also listed as threatened or endangered: the Least Tern (1985), Piping Plover (1985), Western Prairie Fringed Orchid and American Burying Beetle (1989), and the Pallid Sturgeon, which inhabits lower reaches of the Platte mainstem (1990). The Sturgeon Chub is also a candidate for Federal listing (IJ.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1997) (Echeverria 2001). The USFWS„ in order to implement its ESA mandate, would take a seat at the Platte basin water users' repast. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) By the 1960's it was clear that federal programs had worked in conjunction with state and local constituencies to create significant environmental problems. It was becoming clear that, if federal action was an important part of the nation's environmental problems, the federal government could be the source of potential solutions (Andrews 1999). In 1969, Congress enacted its first piece of major environmental legislation, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA declared it to be national policy to maintain "productive harmony" between humans and nature while fulfilling economic and social requirements of present and future generations of Americans. NEPA stipulated a set of tasks and. procedural requirements that mandated preparation of an environmental impact statement for each major federal action that would significantly alter the natural environment. Each environmental impact statement would assess environmental impacts of proposed actions, and it would also advance suggested options to address the environmental impacts that would be caused by the proposed actions (Andrews 1999). ? When USBR water facilities had been found, under ESA review, to have created jeopardy ? for listed species associated with the central Nebraska critical habitat, the USBR along with its • local project sponsors would have to begin to search for options to redress matters. Any solutions ' • s own to be developed would be advanced for scrutiny under two lenses-one of the USBR environmental impact statement (EIS) as mandated by NEPA, and another of the United States ? Fish and Wildlife Service as it worked to implement the ESA by maintaining and improving ? habitats for listed species. ESA and Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives To obtain ESA compliance, any federal action agency is required under section 7 to consult with the USFWS to determine whether the proposed action will jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species (Freedman 1987). Any action agency that receives a FWS `jeopardy opinion' is technically free to make its own decision about the consistency of its 16