Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-' <br /> <br />01233. <br /> <br />1 \ 1. <br /> <br />o . R - A - F - T <br /> <br />P:\User\Thomas\95Rate\ESAcosts <br />October 21. 1993 <br /> <br />Reimbursability of Expenses Related to the <br />Endanqered Species Act <br /> <br />Issue <br /> <br />. The questi on has been appropri ate ly asked as to the rei mbursabi 1 ity of <br />expenses incurred relative to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). <br /> <br />Background <br /> <br />. All Reclamation projects must comply with the ESA. Since its' enactment <br />in 1973, the ESA has become a significant factor in the development and <br />operation of water and power projects. Projects constructed before its <br />enactment were obviously not subject to Section 7 consultations when the <br />original Federal action was taken to build the project. The ESA requires <br />Federal agencies to consult for several reasons. including a proposed <br />action. a new listing of species. and new information which may become <br />available regarding an endangered species. <br /> <br />. Consultations for CRSP under Section 7(a)2 of the ESA have usually been <br />triggered by new listings or new information on the species. Reclamation, <br />and other Federal agencies, also have responsibility under Section 7(al1 <br />of the ESA to utilize their authorities to improve the conditions for the <br />species and assist in species recovery. These activities are typically <br />separate from the project consultation activities and are more voluntary <br />in nature. <br /> <br />. Consultations are considered the responsibility of the project and <br />therefore the expenses associated with that consultation and the resulting <br />opinion are considered project expenses. . <br /> <br />. A 11 of Rec 1 amat i on's Regi ona 1 Offi ces have been work i ng on a pol icy <br />dicision to make all of the future ESA costs nonreimbursable. A draft of <br />the new policy is being reviewed by these offices. but that policy has not <br />yet been accepted by all offices. However. a letter dated February 2. <br />1993. implementing the draft policy was sent to Regional Office Division <br />Chiefs and Projects Managers, Albuquerque, El Paso. Grand Junction and <br />Provo. The first paragraph of the letter states: "Based upon the present <br />draft policy and the continuing situations regarding the Act and 8ureau or <br />Reclamation's ongoing and future activities, the Upper Colorado Region <br />will begin in fisca year 1993 to allocate all costs of . recovery-like' <br />activities done for the benefit of the species under the authority of <br />section 7(a)(I) of the Act to nonreimbursable fish and wildlife purposes. <br />" This dicision to proceed is for future years only. Historical years <br /> <br />1 <br />