7393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Shortly after its listing as an endangered species, several individuals were stolen and others damaged.* Even so, one must wonder what kind of protection can be offered to species whose location cannot even be revealed. D. Conclusion Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, designed to protect "critical habitat" of endangered species, was a very effective policy for two reasons. First, it gave preservation of species overriding importance, in a local setting, over other policy objectives. Second, the listing of new spe- cies and critical habitat designations were administratively simple enough to allow endangered, but as yet unlisted, species to be protected from the con- sequences of development almost to the extent that listed species are. The price of this effectiveness had a very large, putative impact on economic development projects, though so far this impact has been more poten- tial than actual. Although it is unknown how many projects were altered or abandoned in the planning stages as a result of uncertainties regarding the imp1ementa tion of the Act, we do know that a sma 11 number of important and highly visible cases were significantly affected. Most of the affected projects involved water resource development. The 1978 Amendments sought to modify both these features of endangered species protection policy, adding a procedure by which exemptions from the Act could be obtained (the Endangered Species Committee) and more stringent requirements for the listing of new species and their critical habitats. For reasons given in Section III, the Endangered Species Committee probably will not materially affect the implementation of the Act or ameliorate its impacts on development projects. The altered listing requirements, however, may have an important weakening effect, although this is by no means certain. In short, it appears that the Act will retain much of its effectiveness as well as its potential for disrupting development projects notwithstanding the 1978 Amendments. Having said that, it must also be acknowledged that the Endangered Species Act is not the only--nor probably the most significant--restriction on develop- ment, though it may of course be the most important issue in any particular case. In the argot of the Act, those who claim otherwise ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the red herring. Water *Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, v. 3, no. 5 (May 1978). 23