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
03- 373 -35413 EPEE _ -M <br />DISCUSSION OF DEBATE ISSUES <br />731 P05 MAR 31 :0:4,S <br />• Species versus Biodiversity. <br />Do we, as a nation, want to continue attempting to save each species and sub- <br />species, relying on habitat preservation, or do we want to maintain examples of <br />the biodiversity by preserving entire ecosystems? <br />If one or both of the bills promoting biodiversity currently before Congress pass <br />prior to the ESA's reauthorization, the debate should center around the <br />redundancy of saving ecosystems and single species. If such a law passes, the <br />specific arguments can be framed around the requirements of that act. However, <br />a national debate about the presumed value of preserving biodiversity may be <br />beneficial prior to consideration of such bills.. -,a <br />• Can we, as a nation, afford the Endangered Species Act? <br />The full costs - to the federal budget and the social costs to the nation - must <br />be disclosed for intelligent debates on the impacts of the Act. <br />Budget costs <br />• It would cost $4.6 billion to fully implement the Endangered Species Act, <br />according to a report by the Department of Interior Inspector General's Office. <br />• This cost will be increased with each listing of a new species and <br />implementation of a recovery plan. The government should also anticipate the <br />costs of defending its actions and decisions in court. <br />sod ial costs <br />• Such costs would include unemployment caused by a listing, diminished <br />services by local governments due to reduced tax revenues, reduced housing, <br />food and recreational opportunities. <br />Examples include: <br />Northern Spotted Owl <br />According to a report prepared by The Scientific Panel on Late Successional <br />Forest Ecosystems, headed by a quartet of respected foresters, academics and <br />scientists: <br />"Cost to the Northwest - 30,000 to 56,000 jobs and $940 million to $2.6 <br />billion in personal income, if a middle range option that ranged from a high <br />timber- harvest plan that would doom the owl and its old- growth habitat to <br />a pure conservation plan that would doom timber - dependent Northwestern <br />towns. " <br />University of Washington researchers predict severe social and political strain <br />if courts and federal agencies sharply cut back logging to protect the spotted <br />owl. <br />"Preventive health -care programs, law enforcement, youth services and <br />community museums and parks would be most adversely impacted by <br />revenue reductions. " <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.