7065

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7065
• Author: Behnke, R. J. and D. E. Benson.
• Title: Endangered and Threatened Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin.
• USFW Year: 1983.
• USFW - Doc Type: Bulletin 503A,
• Copyright Material: NO

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.
1982 UPDATE
On October 13, 1982, President Reagan signed the publish their findings on the scientific merit of the
Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982 reauthori- petition. Final action on listing, delisting or cri-
zing and further amending the Endangered Species Act tical habitat proposals must now be accomplished
of 1973. In addition to specifying shorter time within one year instead of the two years previously
periods for the listing and exemption processes, allowed.
several significant changes were made. Critical A new amendment creates a category of "experi-
habitat designation and economic evaluation are no mental population" for a population of an endangered
longer required prior to the listing of a species. or threatened species intorduced outside of its pre-
Biological criteria determining a species status are sent range. If the "experimental population" is
now the only considerations for the listing of species determined to be not essential for the continued exis-
as endangered or threatened. tence of the species then it will be protected in the
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must now act same manner as species proposed for endangered or
on a petition to list or delist a species, "to the threatened status and will not receive the full pro-
maximum extent practical", within 90 days and to tection of the Act unless it occurs in a National Park
34