7393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a project at some risk of delay or additional cost, especially if critical habitat is pramulgated.* Thus we have, for several reasons, a perception among many that the En- dangered Species Act can have a severe impact on economic development. ** The potential is certainly there, but has it been realized? What have, in fact, been the impacts of the Act on economic development? A thorough answer to this question is beyond the scope of this report, inasmuch as the Fish and Wildlife Service has been involved in about 20 000 consultations with other federal agencies. However, a preliminary examination suggests that in only a handful of cases has the Act led to irresolvable conflicts or otherwise imposed heavy costs on development projects. In making this assertion, I rely on the assumption that such cases would be easy to find out about. They would either have resulted in a court case or would have been mentioned in the 1978 Senate Hearings on "Amending the Endangered Species Act of 1973."*** A short descrip- tion of each of these cases follows. 1. Devil's Hole pupfish. In US v. Cappaert ,+ the United States brought suit for a declaration of its rights to the waters necessary to main- tain the habitat of the Devil's Hole pupfish and a permanent injunc- tion against a nearby rancher to prevent the pump1ng of water, which would lower the water level in Devil's Hole. The injunction was granted. 2. Mississippi sandhill crane. In National Wildlife Federation (NWF) v. Coleman,++ NWF brought an action to halt construction of a 6-mile segment of Interstate Highway 10 (1-10), which would have disrupted the habitat of the Mississippi sandhill crane, a subspecies of sand- hill crane consisting of only 40 individuals. The Court of Appeals *The Service may also designate "emergency" critical habitat if it is that "an impending action poses a significant risk to a listed species." designation may stay in effect 120 days (50 C.F.R., Part 402.05). found This **See Lachenmeier (1974) for a discussion of this and other problems that could arise under the 1973 Act. ***Of course, this overlooks those instances, if any, in which a project is abandoned at the beginning because of potential problems with the Act. +375 F. Supp. 456 (D. Nev. 1974). ++400 F. Supp. 705 (S.D. Miss. 1975), 259 F. 2d 359 (5th Cir., 1976). 13