7066 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

So I repeat, realistic endangered species administration means all of us helping developers to locate, design and operate their projects in a manner that is least harmful to species and their habitats. Almost all conflicts between development and endangered species have been resolved to date by the consultation process. In a situation where a conflict cannot be resolved (as in the case of Tellico Dam and the snail darter), a 1978 amendment to the Endan- gered Species Act provides for an exemption process. A Review Board consisting of persons appointed by the Secretary of Interior and by the President, with a third member represented by a judge appointed by the Civil Service Commission, decides if an irresolvable conflict exists. If the Review Board decides that an irresolvable conflict exists, the exemption applica- tion is considered by a seven-member Endangered Species Committee made up of the Secretary of Agri- culture, the Secretary of Army, the Secretary of Interior, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Administrator of the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, the Administrator of the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and a person appointed by the President after consultation with the Governor of the state concerned. An exemption to the Endangered Species Act can be granted if five of the seven members of the Committee agree to exempt the project. In their judgment, the Committee consi- ders if there are reasonable alternatives to the project or if the benefits of exemption clearly outweigh the values of endangered species protection, and determines the overall significance of the pro- ject to the region and to the nation. The final decision is subject to a review by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Any person is entitled to bring action to obtain this judicial review. If the Committee votes against exemption and the decision is upheld by the court, only special legislation passed by Congress can create an exemption. There is no doubt that there are many situations of potential conflict in the upper Colorado River bas- in in relation to future water and energy projects as they may modify the environment and impact the squaw- fish and the humpback chub. Although each project must be examined individually, a holistic view of the future is necessary to predict combined effects if all projects planned were allowed to proceed. The ulti- mate objectives are to guide and direct future envir- onmental modifications so that changes in flow regime, temperature, and water quality will have a beneficial impact on the endangered species. The present re- search efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife on the life history, ecology, and habitat preference of the squaw- fish and humpback chub are designed to provide the basis for resolving conflicts between the endangered species and future development in the basin. There are likely to be delays, compromises, and increased costs associated with some new projects in the upper Colorado River basin. If conflict with the Endangered Species Act is to be avoided, any future environmental modification should not be harmful and, preferably, of course, it should be designed to be beneficial to endangered species. 31