A White Paper: Endangered Species Act of 1973

Home Browse Search

HSEE C -M 7 - 001 F-07 '1AF 31 "D2 10:49 • Resource Management Decisions Must Be Taken Out Of The Courts. Judicial review of "negative decisions" made by the Secretary under the Act should be deleted from the law because practice has defined "negative decisions" as those decisions not to list a species under the Act. Judges are currently making land use and scientific decisions based on the very narrow guidelines outlined in the Act. An alternative method to appeal decisions must be provided to take the Act's implementation and management out of the hands of the courts. An Administrative appeal process must precede any judicial review. • Exemption Procedure. The Exemption Procedure must offer a practical opportunity for appeals when irreconcilable conflicts arise between the demonstrated needs of people and the ecological requirements of threatened or endangered species. The exemption process is so stringent and intimidating in its eligibility requirements and substantive standards of review as to be virtually inaccessible even in cases where, by any other rational standard of equity and balance, the economic and social necessities of affected human interests would be given objective consideration. A Draft of an Endangered Species Policy by the U. S. Conference of Mayors explains, "in the 1978 amendments to the Act, the Congress established an exemption process, whereby an action adversely affecting an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat could, nevertheless, be permitted, provided specific criteria are met. The Draft continues, "It has been almost 13 years since the Endangered Species Act was amended to establish the exemption process. During that entire period, only two exemption applications have been considered, both of these within only a few months following passage of the enabling legislation." • Public Participation. The Act itself must provide for full public participation in decisions which significantly affect its social well- being. The decision process must be integrated into a complete package (listing, recovery plans and costs) for public understanding and comment. The public is not currently given the opportunity to discuss the full implications of a listing - the extent that recovery plans will disrupt the social activities of a region and the costs they, as taxpayers, must bear to implement the plans required by the listing. -5-