My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
A White Paper: Endangered Species Act of 1973
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
A White Paper: Endangered Species Act of 1973
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2010 12:42:51 PM
Creation date
7/16/2010 11:48:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
General Statewide Issues: Endangered Species Act, Fisheries
State
CO
Date
3/31/1992
Author
Nationwide Public Projects Coalition, Frank H. Dunkle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicce
Title
A White Paper: Endangered Species Act of 1973
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
X03- 273 - x-413 -=-C= =�h1 <br />THE PROBLEMS (Continued) <br />°_1 F11 , -IAR 31 93 :0:5 <br />Implementation of Act frequently has been seized upon as a method of stopping <br />land development and resource management and numerous commercial activities <br />which affect natural resources, including denying housing, employment and social <br />services to communities because of reduced tax revenues. <br />The case of logging and the spotted owl amply illustrates this point. <br />e The Act does not provide for management discretion to accomplish the goals of <br />protecting the species. <br />There is no provision to allow use of conservation or mitigation measures to <br />achieve the purposes of the Act. <br />The Act severely restricts access to the exemption process. <br />The exemption process includes two sets of very stringent criteria, the first for <br />determining the eligibility of an affected interest (federal agency, governor of an <br />affected state, or applicant for federal permit or license) to apply for exemption; <br />the second for the Endangered Species Committee to consider when determining <br />whether to grant the requested exemption. <br />• The Act does not provide for automatic public hearings on proposed regulations <br />to implement its provisions and since listings and recovery plans and designation <br />of critical habitat are two separate actions /regulations, the subjects of public <br />hearings which may be held are only pieces of the whole. <br />There is no provision for automatic public hearings of listings and recovery plans. <br />Since a recovery plan and designation of critical habitat is not part of the listing <br />process, hearings about a proposed listing do not include discussions of the impact <br />of the listing. <br />The Act says: "The Secretary shall promptly hold one public hearing on the <br />proposed regulation if any person files a request for such a hearing within 45 days <br />after the date of publication of general notice." <br />CURRENT ISSUES <br />e Proposed environmental legislation would make biodiversity a key part of federal <br />land management policy. <br />From From the Sh to the Spotlight Government a 1991 <br />Reps. Gerry Studds, D -Mass, and James Scheuer, D -NY, have each introduced <br />bills (HR 2082 and HR 585) that promote biodiversity. The Studds bill proposes <br />that the federal government develop a strategy to guide agencies in their efforts <br />to maintain viable populations of native plants and animals throughout their <br />geographic range and to study ways of connecting the populations into larger <br />units. Supporter David Wilcove of the Wilderness Society says, "Regulations <br />covering environmental impact statements do not explicitly call for a <br />consideration of biodiversity. " <br />9*2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.