7066 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

forms the basis of a biological opinion for a project impact where a potential conflict with the Endangered Species Act occurs. Amendmants were made to the Endangered Species Act in 1978. One calls for an economic analysis to be prepared before any critical habitat is designa- ted. This amendment is designed to reveal negative economic impacts from the designation of critical habitat that might retard or block future develop- ment. Critical habitat had been proposed for the squawfish, but was withdrawn until an economic analy- sis can be prepared. Thus, the squawfish and hump- back chub are endangered species, but neither has "critical habitat" in the legal sense of the term. Any future development project or environmental modification in the upper Colorado River basin, to be compatible with the Endangered Species Act, would be subjected to the provision that its construction and operation do not "jeopardize the continued existence" of the squawfish or humpback chub, but would not be subjected to the critical habitat provi- sion until such critical habitat is defined and desig- nated by the Secretary of Interior. Another 1978 amend- ment stipulates that, in the future, any species proposed for the federal list of endangered or threatened species must, "to the maximum extent prudent", have the critical habitat designated at the time it is listed. The effects of the listing of a species as endangered or threatened by the Colorado Wildlife Commission consist mainly of the recognition of the plight of a species and the ordering or priorities for funding, study and restoration. No provisions in the state law are likely to conflict with the activities of state or federal agencies or private individuals, except that endangered species cannot be killed, transported, or sold. The three sub- species of native cutthroat trout in Colorado (Colo- rado River, greenback, and Rio Grande cutthroat trout) are all listed as threatened by the state, but they are covered by game fish regulations. It is not illegal to fish for, catch, and eat the native cutthroat trout except in waters where all angling has been prohibited, such as those in Rocky Mountain National Park where greenback cutthroat trout occur. Some streams have been set aside for catch-and-release angling for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, and more of these special regulation trout fisheries are likely to be established as part of restoration programs. The federal Endangered Species Act defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A "species" is defined to include sub- species and smaller units of a species. Thus, the Kendall Warm Springs dace and several subspecies of cutthroat trout, including the greenback cutthroat in Colorado, have been listed as endangered or threat- ened species on the federal list, even though the species as a whole was not endangered. A "threatened species" is defined as any species that is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. Insofar as the Endangered Species Act is concerned, there is little difference in the legal protection given endangered and threatened species. A threatened species, however, may be the object of a properly regulated sport fishery. When a potential conflict arises with the occur- rence of an endangered species in an area where a federal project or action is deemed to pose a threat to the species, a consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is initiated. The consul- tation process is an attempt to find ways that would allow the planning, construction, and operation of a proposed project to be compatible with the Endan- gered Species Act. Fair and equitable administration of the Endan- gered Species Act to protect a species and at the same time allow new development projects to proceed is not a simple matter. It is generally realized that an uncompromising, ultraprotectionist stance should not be taken with endangered species to block future economic development. Such action would create a backlash in public opinion concerning the need to preserve endangered species. The official view of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was pre- sented by the former Associate Director, K. M. Shreiner, to the 1977 annual meeting of Western State Game and Fish Commissioners: We must stop our traditional adversary role in water development, power development, agricultural expansion, energy production, etc., and start trying to help the developers locate the site, design the i structure and develop the operational regime that will do the least harm to wild plant and animal species and their habitats. It is likely that we can en- Nance the habitat and ultimately the species if we accept the fact that development must and will continue. 30