8189 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_r ~~ tL,~ - ~' o °s~°~~s • ~R.~' M~ r~ increase at the expense of agriculture and the little remain- ing unallocated water. This will generate a fierce competi- 6on f^r ~~,ater that evil! res}?! i, ~ -ase~ -,~!;~'_! a:..d !-- =! ...--- .. r- _.. ,~y... actions. 4. Aquatic habitats will continue to deteriorate. Given these assumptions, and the direction of past recovery actions, future recover practices become somewhat oredict- abTe. mp ementation of recovery plans is likely to proceed slowly, ccncer.~afing prncipally cn bird and mammal species like the whooping crane (Gnus americans), California condor (Gymno- gyps colifomianus) and black-footed ferret (Mustelo nigripes)- Some recovery for Southwestem fish species will occur, espe- cially in the protection of isolated desert spring habitats, but this will be overshadowed by the continued loss of larger and more diverse aquatic habitats. Long-term recovery efforts for South- westem fishes will be determined by the amount of aquatic habitats protected,-and by the degree to which public opinion is willing to save remnants of these habitats and their associated species. [t is our belief that the projected downward trend for South- westem fish species can be reversed, at least over the next decade, and recovery actions accelerated signiticantly if recovery efforts concentrate on the following areas: (1) developing goals for protecting specific aquatic habitats; (2) reintroducing extir- pated species into remaining historic habitats, and (3) increasing agency cooperation and un erstan ing in implementing endan- gered species programs. A discussion of these short-term actions follows. Protecting Aquotic Habitats The almost universal goal of fish recovery plans is to protect and enhance existing habitats. However, recovery teams have, for the most part, failed to provide details of implementation, leaving this task to the discretion of land managers. We visualize at least three methods of specifying protection of existing habi- tats. /ncreased federal management. Aquatic habitats under federal control will generally be far better protected in the near future than similar habitats in private ownership because of the contin- ued surveillance of federal actions under the Endangered Spe- cies Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Water projects will continue to be proposed, and some are likely to be completed; however, specific recommendations for the conser- vation of native fishes also will be considered, and adjustments made to accommodate rather than eliminate nongame species. Conversely, water resources in private ownership will continue to be developed for specific uses because of the value water has in the West. Federal easement, cooperative agreement, or fee simple purchase of selected aquatic habitats should be included in recovery efforts when appropriate. Prioritization of protected habitats. When the historic distri- bution of a species is limited to a single desert spring (e. g. Gambusia gaigei, Gambusia heterochir, Cyprinodon diabolis), protection of the habitat is straightforward. However, for species once widely distributed but now limited to a small portion of their former range, the amount of habitat to be protected must be carefully determined. The. ideal recovery action would be total reoccupation of the historic range, but usually this is not feasible and selection of specific localities becomes a necessity. Thus, priorities must be set in order to focus protective efforts of involved agencies. To date, most recovery plans have not selected 6 optimal habitats. but have recommended total protection for all occupied areas. Although biologically desirable, this all-inclusive .:;;rrcach i5 wiitiCi3iiy i1TiFlraCtlCdi anu aesiined for failure. we believe future recovery actions will have to select the most desir- able habitats and designate them specifically for protection, in order to concentrate protective efforts, even when it means losing presently occupied. but marginal habitats. Ecosystem-based recovery teams. The first recovery teams appointed by the Fish and Wildlife Service were species specific, and their recovery plans were therefore narrow in scope. Future recovery planning should be on an ecosystem basis, an approach already being partially implemented in the West by the Colorado River Fishes, Rio Grande Fishes. and Eastern Mohave Desert recovery teams. Even though these teams consider all of the species in an ecosystem, individual plans are still written for each listed species. A broader total, ecosystem approach is being initiated by the San Marcos Recovery Team by writing a single recovery plan for the entire San Marcos River system in Texas. In this case, it is clearly the ecosystem that is endangered and the recovery plan will address methods for its protection. By specif- ically protecting the habitat, the San Marcos gambusia (Gam- busio georgei), fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola), San Mar- cos salamander (Eurycea nano), and Texas wild rice, (Zizania texana) will also receive protection, Reintroducing Listed Species Reintroduction of extirpated species back into historic habitats, either with or without renovation of those habitats, is another common element of most fish recovery plans. However, this technique has not been readily accepted by some state and federal agencies. We believe that it may be necessary to amend the Endangered Species Act in order to promote greater accep- tance of reintroduction actions by state and federal agencies and by the public at large. We suggest that the following two rec- ommendations are so vital to overall recovery schemes that without their implementation recovery of Southwestem fishes may be impossible. Experimental classification. More than four years ago, the Desert Fishes Council passed a resolution recommending a new listing category, called experimental, be added to the Act. Indi- viduals of an endangered species being reintroduced into their historic range could be designated as experimental, and the reintroduction habitats subject neither to critical habitat desig- nation nor to the other protective devices of the Act. Wild pop- ulations of the same species would retain their original listing designation. Experimental populations would have to survive on their own, under existing environmental conditions, with only state regulations for protection. With adoption of the experimental category, reintroduction efforts could begin immediately for many species of Southwest- em fishes. Without the ability to ease the strict protective func- tions of the Act, reintroduction efforts will continue to be subject to suspicion by some agencies that believe the presence of listed species may limit ongoing activities. Elimination of the critical habitat requirement. Under the 1978 amendment to the Act, critical habitat must be specified to the maximum extent prudent when a species is proposed for listing. This requirement may be sound biologically, but has produced far more problems and misunderstandings than it has protected habitats. Presently, critical habitat appears to 6e the major stum- bling block in new listing actions, and the most common reason agencies oppose reintroduction activities. Fisheries, Vol. 7, No. 3