WSP07065 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000872 for instance, holds that the deple- tion of water anywhete in the U p- per Colorado River Basin will ad- versely affect the fa ur endangered fish species that reside in the lower, warm-water reaches of the Upper Basin rivers. As a conse- quence, depletion activities far upstream of the habit:H are con- sidered to "jeopardize" [he endan- gered species, even [hough endan- gered species habitat may be hun- dreds of miles downstream. The application of the act has been expanded. and it now encom- passes grazing permits issued by federal agencies w individual ranchers, federally funded conser- vation activities on farms. and practically all activities on lands managed by any federal agencies. including the Bureau of Land Man- agement, the U.S. Forest "Service, and the Department of Defense. The aCt is applied to comracts be- tween the Bureau of Reclamation and individual water users that address water from federal projects, the annual operation of federal water and power projects, and hy- droelecuic power generation op- erations that change the flows in rivers and streams. Moreover, per- mirs issued by the Federal Energy Regula[Qry Commission are sub- ject to Endangered Species Act compliance. Almost any project to benefit American Indians on their own reservations is also subject [Q Endangered Species Act compli- ance and restrictions, since these are all normally a function of some federal activity. The vast federal land ownership in the western states also [figgers application of the Endangered Species Act to coundess activities. Clearly, the Endangered Species Act can affect water users through- out the western United States, = ranging frol!' the individual farmer, rancher, or irriga[Qr to the largest municipalities and indus- tries. Warer development activities by American Indians are equally subject [0 the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Economics and the Act The Endangered Species Act, as written and in practice, is virtu- ally devoid of economic consider- ations. In this way it is unique in American law. Listing of species as threatened or endangered requires no consideration of the resultant economic impacts. The Fish and Wildlife Service has routinely con- cluded chat Jisting a species is not subject to provision of the Na- tional Environmental Policy Act, a federal act designed to disclose the impacts of federal actions on the human environment. A!i a re- sult, there is no economic or envi- ronmental review of the impacts of listing endangered species, Critical hahitH designation is subject [Q economic impact analy- sis, but these economic analyses routinely conclude that critical habitat designation does not have a significant economic impact in itself or that the impact is mini- mal on a national or regional scale. Thus, the federal government evades any substantive analysis of economic or environmental im. pacts for implementing the act. This lax approach to economic analysis occurs despite the drastic impacts of the act in some areas and on some economic sectors. For significanr examples in the Pacific Northwest, you need look no fur- ther than me spotted owl and sev- eral species of endangered salmon, In fiscal year 1997, reported fed- eral and state expenditures for the three species of Columbia Basin salmon totaled $72.2 million.' Expenditures for these species have occurred in the past and will concinue inro che foreseeable fu- ture. The economic effects on the timber industry and associated communities and On hydroelectric power production and COStS are significan t. There was a previous agreement that rhe Bonneville Power Author- ity (BPA), which generates hydro- electric power in the Pacific North- west, would expend no more than $435 million per year, on average, on endangered species and other fish and wildlife purposes. These COStS are passed on to BPA power customers. Of this toral $183 mil- lion would resulr from lost rev- enues from power generation in order to meet flow requirements for fish. and to purchase power resulting from lost generation ca- paciry. BPA is now operating un- der a biological opinion recenrly issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. BPA estimates it may have to spend as much as $2,0 billion to purchase power in 200 I, while operating under rhe biologi- cal opinion issued by National Marine Fisheries Service. ~ Federal regulations to imple- ment Section 7, "Interagency Co- operation," state that "reasonable and prudent alternatives" must be "economically and technologically feasible," Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative actions that can be implemented to avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the listed species or the destruction or . adverse modification of critical , habitat, In other words, reasonable and prudent alrernatives are miti- gation measures for impacts on en- dangered species, resulting from actions of federal agencies. The determination of what is Spring 2001 . 47