(Note: See how the CBD mouthpiece chortles over getting more money from the taxpayer pockets in the form of DOI/USFWS funding! Once again, this quote is ever so appropriate for understanding the real agenda: "When we make critical habitat designations, we just designate everything as critical, without an analysis of how much habitat an evolutionary significant unit needs." - Donna Darm, the acting NMFS -- National Marine Fisheries Service -- Regional Administrator for the Northwest, in a 1998 intra-agency memorandum.)

October 9, 2003

By Matthew M. Johnson

The Bulletin

Bend, Oregon

202-661-0151

http://www.bendbulletin.com

To submit a Letter to the Editor: bulletin@bendbulletin.com

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program for designating critical habitat for endangered species is in disarray because of tangled litigation that is devouring the agency's funding, the General Accounting Office reports.

As a consequence, Fish and Wildlife priorities, such as listing new endangered species, are being delayed, says the GAO, Congress' investigative arm.

"The GAO report states basically what we have been saying for years," said Mitch Snow, the Fish and Wildlife chief of media services. "We would like to have funds available for doing other things besides critical habitat."

The origin of the brouhaha stems from Fish and Wildlife's process for designating critical habitat for endangered species. Critical habitat is a special designation for specific areas that officials believe are crucial to a species' survival. Once designated, critical habitat can bring management restrictions to an area.

The endangered species list is generally based on hard scientific and numerical information and is usually straightforward, the GAO reports.

But critical habitat decisions are complex and often necessitate more scientific and nonscientific information, the agency concluded in its report last week.

Indeed, Fish and Wildlife efforts to create a plan to protect bull trout in the upper Deschutes Basin have raised a host of concerns among many Central Oregon farmers and ranchers.

Snow said the 1973 Endangered Species Act requires Fish and Wildlife to designate critical habitat whenever an endangered species is listed. But, he said, that is not always what happens.

"In some cases we found that it (designating critical habitat) is not prudent -- when a certain species of butterfly is endangered, it does not help to tell (insect) collectors where to find them," he said.

In any case, Snow said, experts have expressed concern over the territories designated for critical habitat and the scientific data used to make such decisions. In many cases, litigation ensued, and the service lost a number of legal disputes.

"We end up in court whenever we do stuff with endangered species," said Nicholas Throckmorton, a Fish and Wildlife public affairs specialist.

Legal decisions have effectively ended certain procedures at Fish and Wildlife. Now the agency is unable to focus resources on activities that could provide more protection to certain species -- instead, it focuses on designating critical habitat, the GAO reported.

The report recommends the Interior Department require Fish and Wildlife Service to "provide a clear strategic direction for their critical habitat program." Doing so, the GAO said, requires legislative changes that would affect "the greatest conservation benefit to threatened and endangered species in the most cost-effective manner."

Kieran Suckling, executive director at the Tucson, Ariz.-based Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization that has won 47 legal suits against Fish and Wildlife, thinks more government funding is necessary.

"We agree 100 percent with the GAO -- we would love for U.S. Fish and Wildlife to get more funding," Suckling said. "Every federal agency has a great work load and when it has a greater work load it increases its budget."

Chuck Burley of Bend, who represents a Portland-based timber industry group, the American Forest Resource Council, also agrees that new guidance is preferable to the current system.

He favors a more conservative approach to critical habitat designations.

"It has been our experience that U.S. Fish and Wildlife has been a little over-zealous in their designations," Burley said. "Personally, I think what needs to be done is we must designate critical habitat as part of a developmental recovery plan.

"When all you do is designate critical habitat, that's just lines on a map -- all that does is create uncertainty."

http://www.bendbulletin.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=11056

And another pithy and educational quote:

"In 30 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act, the Service has found that the designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while preventing the Service from using scarce conservation resources for activities with greater conservation benefits. In almost all cases, recovery of listed species will come through voluntary cooperative partnerships, not regulatory measures such as critical habitat. Habitat is also protected through cooperative measures under the Endangered Species Act including Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements and state programs. In addition, voluntary partnership programs such as the Service's Private Stewardship Grants and Partners for Fish and Wildlife program also restore habitat. Habitat for endangered species is provided on many national wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state lands administered by the Department of Land and Natural Resources." - From: Joan_Jewett@r1.fws.gov.  You can cite the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the source of the critical habitat language. June 23, 2003 (On June 19, 2003, the comment to my inquiry as to the author of this quote was: "These statements were written in Interior Secretary Gale Norton's office. I do not know the exact author.")