7939 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.' ample, the Kauai forest birds recovery plan (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1983) details the essential habitat for six species. The essential habitat will provide the space necessary for the continued existence and growth of the populations of the Kauai forest birds. The recovery plan states: "All activities involving fed- eral agencies that would alter or destroy the land, water, air quality, and vegetation, or cause mortality to, or harassment of, the endangered birds, would be prohibited." This sounds similar to a CHD, but without the supposed "hassles" of a CHD. There is still that underlying theme that some sort of habitat desig- nation/notification is necessary. Essential habitat is not a legal designation as is CHD, but may be an effective alternative to CHD in guiding federal agencies. Re- cently, the FWS purchased land for a NWR for several endangered Hawaiian forest birds. Concerning the issue of the prudence of a CHD, certain points are evident. It is reasonable that the publication of CH locations in the Federal Register could call attention to the location of listed species, al- though CH locations are often not detailed to exact sites. Not designating CH may merely delay the even- tual location of listed species through other means. Each proposed and final listing rule states that the complete flle for the rule is available for inspection at a designated government office. These flles often con- tain detailed locations of species. In addition, the ref- erences or literature cited section of a final or pro- posed rule often contains published and unpublished sources detailing species locations. More important is the likelihood that in the years ahead the location of species such as cacti will be found out one way or an- other. It is unlikely that locations can be kept secret indefinitely. The nondesignation of CH is at best a stop-gap measure in preventing taking and vandalism. Judgments of prudence in designating CH are often difficult and require the balancing of risks and benefits. Often the benefits are not clear even in the absence of potential taking and vandalism. For ex- ample, in the CHDs for the Hiko White River spring- fish (Crenichthys baileyi grandii) and the White River springfish (Crenichthys baileyi baileyt) , the FWS con- tended that environmental and other benefits may ac- crue from the CHDs (50 Federal Register 39123). How- ever, no quantifiable estimate of the magnitude of benefits of CHD could be developed. The FWS stated: Difficulties in estimating these benefits stem from: (1) Uncertainties about the nature and extent of the possible additional protection for the two springfishes that might result from the critical habitat desig- nations; and (2) difficulties inherent in developing units of measure that adequately represent the social value of identifying, protecting, and conserving critical habitat for these fish species. Critical Habitat Designation 435 The benefits of a CHD may not be immediately ap- parent or determinable, but this may be due to the limits of techniques to determine benefits or uncer- tainty concerning the future protection that a CHD may provide. Critical Habitat Designation and Section 7 Congress intended CHD to provide species protec- tion. Together with the jeopardy standard, CHD should provide the means to protect species where federal projects and activities are undertaken. But can the jeopardy standard alone adequately pl'otect species? Several examples serve to address this ques- tion. As mentioned, proposed CH for the endemic Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse was withdrawn. Since the listing of the two species, a major Section 7 consultation between the Rural Electrification Admin- istration and the FWS was completed and the lack of CHD did not affect the resultant biological opinion, which recommended that federal funding not subsi- dize electrical delivery to hammock areas supporting the two species. The FWS anticipates that any future consultations would likewise protect the species and their habitat without CHD. It is likely that, for listed species endemic to a small area, CHD is not often nec- essary. The orange-footed pearly mussel (Plethobasus coo- perianus) is an endangered species known to exist at only a few sites in the Tennessee and lower Ohio Rivers. Existing navigation activities on the lower Ohio River are placing considerable stress on mussel beds in the form of spills, barge traffic, fleeting, beaching, and barge cleaning. Even though the river is not desig- nated as CH, a recently proposed barge-fleeting project on the river was judged likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the mussel. Similarly, a jeop- ardy opinion was given in the case of a barge terminal on the Mississippi River because the project area was directly above one of seven sites identified as essential habitat for the Higgins eye pearly mussel (Lampsilis higgirm ). For the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides (=Den- drocopos) borealis), a wide-ranging species without CHD, a jeopardy opinion was made concerning timber plans by the US Forest Service's Southern Region in order to protect the bird's habitat, old-growth forests on southern national forests (Fosburgh 1985). Because the ESA can protect species with and without CHD, CHD may be redundant to the other consultation requirements of Section 7. However, ex- tensive CH recently was designated for the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandt) because CHD may