My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7393
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7393
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:30 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 5:14:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7393
Author
Harrington, W.
Title
Endangered Species Protection and Water Resource Development.
USFW Year
1980.
USFW - Doc Type
LA-8278-MS,
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />only uncertainty involved here is the one always present in endangered species <br />issues: whether alternative populations exist or whether the species can be <br />transplanted to another site. * On the other hand, stream-flow depletions, <br />unless flow is reduced to near zero, cause changes of degree and not of kind. <br />Predicting whether these changes will have a significant adverse effect on <br />habitats is difficult if not impossible. Indeed, for the Grayrocks Dam and <br />Warner Valley cases, the evidence of adverse impact on the species in question <br />was very debatable. In the Warner Valley case, there was complete disagreement <br />among the consulting biologists over the flow requirements of the woundfin.** <br />In the Grayrocks case, the reduction in streamflow attributable to the dam was <br />expected to be 3%. But between 1938 and 1976, while the suitable whooping <br />crane habitat along the Platte River had shrunk by 50%, the crane population <br />nearly quadrupled.*** These examples suggest that the FWS biological opinions <br /> <br />are quite risk-averse. <br /> <br />( <br />A third difference is that with innundations, the conflicts between LS,./d.~,,; <br />species preservation and development are confined to the site of the r~ ,~\ ,d <br />reservoir. A depletion, on the other hand, affects all downsteam habitats.' ~ ~-,t) <br />These differences suggest that conflicts involving depe1tions will be more II, <br /> <br />cODmon, but more resolvable. <br />experience with the Act to date. <br />C. The 1978 Amendments to the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 95-632) <br /> <br />At least the latter point is borne out by <br /> <br />In part, the 1978 Amendments gave formal Congressional approval to <br />regulations and practices previously established by the Fish and wildlife <br />Service. The Act required the preparation and implementation of Recovery <br />Plans for conserving listed species. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service <br />had been preparing such plans for a number of years, and at the time of enact- <br />ment, 18 plans were completed and 64 Recovery Teams were at work preparing <br />plans. Likewise, the process outlined in the Act for Interagency Consultation <br /> <br />*This is not to minimize the importance of such cases. The Colorado squawfish, <br />for example, is found at various locations throughout the Upper Colorado Basin. <br />The Dickey-Lincoln project would extirpate 350 plants out of a total known <br />population of 880. <br /> <br />**See pp. 97-148 of the Senate Hearings for an account (albeit one-sided) of <br />the Warner Valley controversy. <br /> <br />***See Williams (1978) for a discussion of channel width losses along the <br />Platte. Population figures are from US Fish and Wildlife Service (1977). <br /> <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.