7939 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

436 J. G. Sidle enhance the Section 7 process by requiring federal agencies to consult in instances where their activities may modify or destroy habitat without directly af- fecting the species (51 Federal Register 16047). Monk seal CH includes numerous occurring and reoccurring beaches, and spits, and other land and aquatic habitats in the northwestern Hawaiian islands. An avian species with CHD, the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammospiza maritima nigrescens) is restricted to south Florida. Its prairie and marsh habitat is subject to agricultural conversion that permanently alters the wetland habitat. The FWS found that the issuance of US Army Corps of Engineers permits for such activity would result in the destruction of the CH of the sparrow. The adverse modification of CH findings were issued for areas within the CHD, but not cur- rently occupied by the species. Similar areas of good habitat, currently not occupied by the species and not within the CHD, cannot be protected by this mecha- nism. It may have been difficult to develop an argu- ment for jeopardy to the continued existence of the species for the above permit action. Summary and Discussion Shortage of staff and funds probably have limited CHDs for most of the 115 species listed prior to the ESA. Confusion over the meaning and benefit of CH curtailed CHD. Moreover, given the continued need to list more species each year, there is little desire or time to designate CH for already listed species. FWS biologists do not see a need for CHD in most cases (Sheppard 1980). The current record of endangered and threatened species listings indicates that CHD is not often used. Under the ESA, CHD is not required if it is not pru- dent. The FWS has decided that, for most species' listings, CHD is not prudent because of the potential taking and vandalism that would result from the re- quired publication of CH locations in the Federal Reg- ister. In a few instances, a listed species habitat is wide- spread, changing, and difficult to map precisely. In addition, it is believed that the location of a species CH can be signaled by other means to federal agencies with projects and activities in the species habitat. If the area where a species occurs is well defined and cur- rently subject to intensive planning efforts, it is un- likely that any federal action could be proposed or carried out without coming to the government's atten- tion. Even without CHD, many believe that the re- quirements of the ESA will ensure that no action ad- verse to a species or its habitat will occur. The recovery process with its recovery plan and optional essential habitat determinations and the Section 7 jeopardy standard often suffice to protect a listed species. Some believe that adverse publicity results from ex- tensive CHDs. The yearly addition of more land and water as CHDs could damage the image of the ESA more than simply listing species. Although CHD is not acquisition, the distinction can be lost to the public and elected officials. However, fear of public reaction has accompanied other environmental legislation. CHDs have been around for about ten years. Perhaps the relative youth of the ESA and CHD make it difficult to evaluate the benefits of CHD. Drabelle (1985) concluded that the effectiveness of recovery plans for listed species is difficult to assess because of the short history of the ESA. However, if CHD was routinely beneficial, it seems likely that more FWS and NMFS biologists would show stronger support for it. Instead, there is a general lack of interest in the cur- rent CHD provision of the ESA as an operational tool for interacting with other federal agencies in species conservation. This is due in part to many bureaucratic delays associated with the CHD process, which in turn delays species listings. Had the ESA allowed no excep- tion to CHD, fewer species than are currently listed would have been listed. It is likely that if most of the nearly 4000 candidate species are listed, most will be listed without CHD. I:. r Acknowledgments I thank John Fay and Jane Yaeger for their review of the manuscript and many FWS employees for their comments on CHD. Literature Cited Bean, M.J. 1983. The evolution of national wildlife law. Praeger, New York, 449 pp. Craighead, F. C. 1979. Track of the grizzly. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 261 pp. Craighead, J. J. 1985. Politically endangered. Naturalist 36(2): 1-3. Drabelle, D. 1985. The endangered species program. Pages 73-90 in A. S. Eno and R. L. Di Silvestro (eds.), Audubon wildlife report 1985. National Audubon Society, New York, 671 pp. Fosburgh, W. 1985. Wildlife and the US Forest Service. Pages 307-341 in A. S. Eno and R. L. Di Silvestro (eds.), Audubon wildlife report 1985. National Audubon Society, New York, 671 pp. Ganong, N. M. 1979. Endangered Species Act amendments of 1978: a Congressional response to Tennessee Valley Au- thority v. Hill. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 5:283- 315.