7393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

procedures usus lly take more than 2 years to complete. * Third and probably most important, with the new requirements it will take considerably more agency resources to produce one listing, but the authorized appropriations were not expanded to take into account the increased load. The very limited experience since passage of the 1978 Amendments tends to support these assertions. Except for the Te llico and Grayrocks Dams, whose consideration by the Endangered Species Committee was mandatory, only one ex- emption has been sought: the Pittston Refinery in Eastport, Maine. This refinery is subject to the Endangered Species Act because of the necessity of obtaining an effluent discharge permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In December 1978, the FWS issued a biological opinion that the comple- tion of the project would jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle in Maine. EPA accordingly denied the permit. After Pittston applied for an exemption in January 1979, all parties agreed to a 90-day suspension of the exemption process so that another consultation, in search of a compromise, could be perfonned. In May, however, the FWS reaffirmed its earlier conclu- sion, and the Review Board resumed its processing of the exemption application. Immediately, several environmental groups sued to halt the proceedings claiming that EPA's internal appeals procedure had not been exhausted.** Thus Pittston, which had first applied to EPA for a permit in early 1978, must go through an EPA appeals procedure lasting several months (the outcome of which is a fore- gone conclusion) before further action can be taken on its exemption applica- tion. This experience is not likely to make developers particularly eager to seek exemptions from the Endangered Species Committee. The new listing procedures have resulted, through July 1979, in the addi- tion of only three new species to the endangered species list, and for none was a critical habitat designated. This allowed the FWS to avoid the public hearing and economic impact requirements stipulated by the Amendments. The failure to designate critical habitat was justified by a need to restrict in- fonnation on the location of the species thereby preventing their "taking." This is no idle concern as evidenced by the experience with the Virginia round- leaf birch thought to be extinct since 1914, but recently rediscovered. *See Magat et al. (1978), especially Appendix I. **Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, v. 4, nos. 3 and 7 (March and July, 1979) . 22