7939 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

... ~ s~ \ct <61 \ > . . ,b, t.a O,Q3q ~ FORUM Critical Habitat Designation: Is It Prudent? JOHN G. SIDLE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife University of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA ABSTRACT I The critical habitat provision of the US Endan- gered Species Act was believed by many to be a key feature of the Act. It was believed that this provision would benefit federally listed endangered and threatened species. How- ever, only 23% of the listed species in the United States have their critical habitats designated. The current trend is to forego critical habitat designation because the federal gov- ernment believes that the Endangered Species Act can pro- tect most listed species without resort to the critical habitat provision. Required publication of critical habitat locations in the Federal Register may draw vandals and collectors to rare species. In other cases, existing habitat protection already provides adequate protection for species. In a few instances critical habitat changes over time and is difficult to delineate. Lastly, designating critical habitat is time consuming, delays species listing, and is controversial, detracting from the posi- tive image of the Endangered Species Act. Critical habitat designation (CHD) for federally listed endangered and threatened species in the United States is one of the most controversial and mis- understood provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. Although some have called CHD of central importance to the endangered species program (Bean 1983, Drabelle 1985), state and federal agencies and others disagree over the adminis- trative usefulness of CHD (Sheppard 1980). Some be- lieve that CHD affords all the necessary protection and management for recovery of listed species (Shep- pard 1980), but it is lagging behind other activities under the ESA (Drabelle 1985). The ESA mandates the listing of qualified species, which include any species or subspecies of fish, wild- life, or plant, and any distinct population segment of any vertebrate species that interbreeds when mature. Endangered species means a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species means any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the fore- seeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (49 Federal Register 38900-38912). Currently, at the time of a species listing, the ESA requires a CHD where prudent and determinable. CHDs are limited to listed species within the United States and its territories. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are the two federal agencies responsible for listing and CHD. Nearly all listings and CHDs have been done by the FWS. Like any government program, the endangered species program involves costs and staff-hours. Alloca- tion of resources for listing species is based on a pri- KEY WORDS: Critical habitat; Endangered Species Act; Endangered and threatened species; Interagency consultation Environmental Management Vol. 11, No.4, pp. 429-437 ority system that assesses those species in the most ~rit- ical need of listing. Similarly, resource allocations for the recovery of listed species also are based on a pri- ority system (Sparrowe and Wight 1975). CHD repre- sents an added cost in the listing process, but may pro- vide substantial benefits. Due to limited resources and the current backlog of nearly 4000 candidate species for listing, as well as recovery costs for listed species, funds and personnel should be allocated to the most beneficial actions authorized under the ESA. This ar- ticle reviews the CHD experience and its usefulneSs. Species listings and CHDs are initially published in the Federal Register, the federal government's daily publication for making available to the public regula- tions and legal notices issued by federal agencies. A proposed species listing rule containing the justifica- tion for such listing is published in the Federal Rer;ister and asks for public comments. Proposed CHD may be contained in the rule. Within one year, a final listing rule is published or the proposed rule is withdrawn. CHD may be extended for one year. Lists of endan- gered and threatened species and CHD descriptions and maps are published later in parts 17 and 226 of 50 Code of Federal Regulations. CHDs and listed species recovery plans were re- viewed to determine the extent to which the CHD provision has been invoked by the FWS and NMFS. In addition, all final and proposed listing rules published in the Federal Register between 1973 and 1986 were re- viewed. These rules include the government's official reasons for listing species and reasons against CHD for a given species, and thus serve as one of the: pri- mary sources for this evaluation of CHD. FWS d~- ments presenting the views of FWS personnel on GHD also were reviewed and I discussed CHD with FWS biologists in each of the FWS's regional divisions. ~me of these biologists have been involved with the enpan- @ 1987 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.