9649 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-'--- . . HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING: INTRODUCTION that prevents FWS from acting swiftly to list the category I candidates also prevents it from quickly acquiring the additional information needed to resolve the status of the category II candidates. None of these candidate' species receives any legal protection under the En- dangered Species Act; only formally listed threatened and endangered species do. Never- theless, because many of these candidates are likely to be listed at some point in the future, people who want some measure of certainty with regard to their obligations under the En- dangered Species Act-and perhaps especially those who invest in the considerable task of developing an HCP-cannot afford to Ignore the candidate species. CRITICAL HABITAT In 1973, one of the novel features of the En- dangered Species Act was its introduction of the concept of "critical habitat." The notion was that for every listed species there is some portion of its habitat that is of special sig- nificance and that must be carefully protected or managed if the species itself is to be preserved. ESA did not originally define the term "critical habitat," direct that critical habitat actually be designated, or specify how it was to be determined and designated. These omissions were remedied in 1978. By that time, however, more than 185 U.S. species were already listed as threatened or endangered, and critical habitats had been designated for only about 30 of these. Although since 1978 ESA has required that, with some exceptions, critical habitats be designated concurrently with, or soon after, the listing of new species, in practice critical habitats have seldom been designated. Of the more than 403 species added to the list since 1979, critical habitats have been designated for only 73. As will be eXplained below, the only opera- tive consequence of a critical habitat designa- tion is to restrain the actions of federal agen- cies, which must ensure that their actions not 3 adversely modifY critical habitat. As a practical matter, however, critical habitat designations serve to alert both federal agencies and others to the special significance of particular areas to the conservation of listed species. The critical habitat concept, though widely hailed when ESA was passed and often the focus of intense controversy and debate, has actually had very limited impact. As will be seen later, this has been particularly evident in the HCP process. Most HCPs have been developed for species for which no critical habitat has been desig- nated. In the few cases where critical habitats have been designated, HCPs have allowed ex- tensive development within them. RECOVERY PIANS Recovery planning comprises another impor- tant component of the overall endangered species program. Its purpose is to develop a blueprint or plan of actions that, if imple- mented, would lead to the recovery and even- tual "delisting" of species now listed as threatened or endangered. Recovery planning originated within the Fish and Wildlife Service; nothing in the original Endangered Species Act required it, though it was a logical administra- tive response to the need to establish objectives in the program and means of attaining them. Whar originated as an administrative practice, however, was later incorporated into the law it- self. ESA now requires, with only a very nar- row exception, that recovery plans be developed for all listed species. However, just as the Fish and Wildlife Service lacks the resources to list species as quickly as it becomes aware of their endangerment, so too does it lack the resources to develop recovery plans promptly. For only about 265 of the 588 listed species do such plans yet exist. Even more sig- nificant, FWS lacks the resources to implement fully most of the plans it has. ESA directs that recovery plans be developed and implemented, but it does not specifically link these plans to the duties imposed on federal agencies or