8127

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8127
• Author: Wydoski, R. S., D. A. Smith, K. M. Schreiner and J. E. Johnson.
• Title: 1977 Annual Conference Western Association of Game and Fish Commissioners and Western Division, American Fisheries Society Tuscon, Arizona.
• USFW Year: 1977.
• USFW - Doc Type: n.d.
• Copyright Material: YES

rc.,listic lntC'rprct.:l:ion '~uhGest!'; h~bit:1t d~str.llction is f<:lr Tr.\.'re d~.Jlnabint;
to th.. species and should he given LJ higher prioriry th<:ln incid';!:lt:d
har~ssmcnt. This is the gcr,ei::Il dirl..:ction in "Which the Fish and \Hldlife
Service is implementing the Enuan~er~d Species Program.
In spite of the broad scope of Section 9, it is Section 7 of the
Act th;1t most often produc~s the clashes and makes the heOldlines (e.g.
all Federal dcp<:lrtments and agencies shall insure thelt actions authorized,
fund~d, or c3rriedout by them. do not jeopardize the continued existence
of endangered and threatened species or' result in the destruction or
modific.1tio:l of critical habitat). Problems to elate in this section
have centered around projects authorized or initiated before the Act was
signed. nnd the interpretation of "jeopardize the continul!d e.,<:istence
of".
Two recent court cases (Mississippi Sandhill Crane and Tellico Dam)
have clearly stated that no grandfather clause is implied in the Endangered
Species Act. The realism of this interpretation is presently being
strongly questioned by several Federal agencies including T.V.A., Corps
of Engineers and Bureau of Reclar.:ation to name a fe"", and several legjsl<ltive
actions arc being contemplated. However, public demand on this issue is
still unclear and the outcome difficult to predict. If we have a
choice between exemptions and amendm~nts to the Act. I would prefer the
former. but hope puhlic demand will stand by the Act as it is now being
interpreted.
The other area of contention under Section 7 is how much of an
impact can Cl species, already identified as being near extinction,
withstand in the way of habitat destruction or loss of numbers and still
survive? As more knowledge on listed species becomes available, some of
these problems should begin to sort themselves out. Until that time
however, "nickle and diming" a species to death will remain a controversial.
portion of the Act and its implementation.
I believe a realistic answer is to remain on the safe side by
giving listed species the benefit of the doubt until accumulative effects
of multiple projects can be more accurately assessed. Until such ti~e
that this infon~,ation is available. it falls upon the initiating FLderal
agency to demonstrate that theii project will not jeopardize the ~pecies
or its designated c~itical habitat.

Critical Habitat
The basis behind critical habitat is that each species has a portion
of the environment that is essential to its survival. If this habitat
is destroyed Dr chnnged so as to no longer support the spe~ies, the
species T:lust evolve or be doomed to extinction. ~lany variables mdY nake
up the habitat of a species. but there are other para~eters in the
environment that ha\"e no association with the species. \.;nen the Fish
and ~ildlife Service designates. for the Secretary of Interior, an area
as critic~l habitat, "e are notifying other Federal agencies that there
is a listed s~':'ci\.>s in thar area dependent Uilon sorr.~ environmental
variables. The designation is by geographic area (i.e. the VirgID River
from LaVcrkin Cr~~k to Lake Mead; the low~r 17 miles of the Little
Tennessee Ri'Jer) and no attempt is made to list the necessary environ:nental
parameters. The res:Jlts of critical habitat designation are similar to
listicg; passive protection of listed species.

299