My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01980
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP01980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:33:43 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:47:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8065
Description
Section D General Statewide Issues - Endangered Species Act - Fisheries
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
3/31/1992
Author
National Public Proj
Title
National Public Projects Coalition - 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
<br />002288 <br /> <br />303-273-"3c.113 ESEE I~SM <br /> <br />';'81 P 11 <br /> <br />I'IAR 31 "3.2 10:52 <br /> <br />THE PROBLEMS (Continued) <br /> <br />. Implementation of Act frequently has been seized upon as a method of stopping <br />land development and resource ITl8nagement 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 /> <br />. 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 /> <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 /> <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 actionslregulations, 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 /> <br />The Act says: "The Secretary shall promptly hold one public hearing on the <br />proposed regulation jf any person files a request for such a hearing within 45 days <br />after the date of publication of general notice." <br /> <br />CURRENT ISSUES <br /> <br />. Proposed environmental legislation would make biodiversity 8 key part of federal <br />land management policy. <br /> <br />From From the Shade to the Sootliaht. Government and Commerce, June 1. 1991 <br /> <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 laroer <br />units. Supporter David Wilcove of the Wilderness Society says, "Regulations <br />covering environmental impact statements do not explicitly cal) for a <br />consideration of biodiversity. " <br /> <br />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.