7939 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

430 J.G.~d~ gered species program since its inception. Where pos- sible, various aspects of CHDs are quantified but, as noted by Sheppard (1980), an objective analysis of a governmental process that is subjected to changing laws, policies, and politics is nearly impossible. Pre- sented here are examples to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of CHD, and alternatives to CHD. The Endangered Species Act and Habitat Protection The ESA emphasizes the importance of habitat protection to the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Congress declared: "The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the eco- system upon which endangered species and threat- ened species depend may be conserved. . . ." The Act authorizes the possible acquisition of lands, waters, or interests therein (Section 5) as one means of con- serving the habitat of listed species. For example, new national wildlife refuges protect the endangered masked bobwhite (Colinus virginianus rUlgwayi) in Ari- zona and several endangered plants and invertebrates at Ash Meadows, California. Because it is not feasible to purchase habitat for all listed species, another means of protecting species and their habitats is to ensure that federal actions, such as water development projects, do not 'jeopardize the continued existence of" the species (jeopardy stan- dard) or result in the "destruction or adverse modifica- tion" of its CH (51 Federal Register 19926-19963): "Jeopardize the continued existence of" means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the sutvival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distri- bution of that species. "Destruction or adverse modiflCltion" means a direct or indirect alter- ation that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the sutvival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical. Such protection is known as interagency consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. Federal agencies must consult with the FWS or NMFS concerning a project's or activity's effects on listed species and their CH. The Tellico Dam/snail darter (Percina tanan) case is a well- publicized example of the result of an interagency consultation. The FWS believed that the existence of the snail darter would be jeopardized and its CH ad- versely modified by completion of the Tellico Dam. Recent water projects _on the Platte River system in r . Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming are other ex- amples where projects require modification to ensure the survival of the whooping crane (Crus americana) and to protect its CH. Thus a project can be halted or modified on the basis of either the jeopardy standard or adverse modification of CH or both. There are two types of consultation, fonnal and in- formal (51 Federal Register 19926-19963): "Informal consultation" is an optional process that includes all discus- sions, correspondence, etc., between the [FWS] and the Federal agency or the designated non-Federal representative prior to formal consultation, if required. "Formal consultation" is a process between the [FWS] and the Federal agency that commences with the Federal agency's written request for consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act and concludes with the [FWS's] issuance of the biological opinion under section 7(b)(3) of the Act. It has been the experience of the FWS that nearly all Section 7 interagency consultations are resolved so that the species is protected and pr~ect objectives are met. From 1982-1985 there were 17,748 infonnal consultations and 922 fonnal consultations. The fonnal consultations resulted in 836 no-jeopardy and 86 jeopardy biological opinions (467 consultations were between the FWS and other federal agencies; 455 consultations were within the FWS and included research and import/export permits). Of the 836 no- jeopardy opinions, 269 (32%) also included activities that would promote the conservation of the species in- volved. Of the 86 jeopardy opinions, the project pro- ceeded in 49 cases, discussions are continuing in 14, the agency decision is unknown in 9, and the project was canceled in 14. There are no inherent restrictions on human activi- ties in an area designated as CH. CHD affects only those actions authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies (Jacobsen 1980). It provides notifica- tion to federal agencies that a listed species is depen- dent on a particular area for its continued existenceoand that any federal action that may affect that area is subject to the consultation requirements of Section 7. Certain activities such as commercial fisheries and timber harvesting that are federally regulated, scien- tific research conducted under federal pennits, fed- eral management of other resources, and military operations may be conducted within an area desig- nated as CH if the authorizing federal agency deter- mines through the Section 7 consultation process that the activity is not likely to jeopardize the continued ex- istence of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its CH. If a federal action outside CH may affect a listed ! . . ' ..... /\ i < t~~~~.~~ i'" "