Habitat designation list needs wide input
By Michael G. Buck
We are approaching the last chance for the public and local government agencies to comment on a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate more than 90,000 acres of land on Kaua'i and Ni'ihau as "critical habitat."
Advertiser library photo • September 1998
The listing of critical habitat on Kaua'i and Ni'ihau is just the beginning of a process that will systematically designate similar lands throughout the state that could encompass up to 1 million acres — or one-quarter of the land area of the entire state. This is the result of a recent federal court ruling that required the Fish and Wildlife Service to propose critical habitat designations statewide for 245 species of plants by April 30.
Cyanea superba is among Hawai'i's many endangered species. Designation of critical habitats for such plants will have vast impact on military activity, transportation, water supplies and recreation.
The potential implications that critical habitat designation will have on Hawai'i — on military operations, transportation and water systems, development on designated land and outdoor recreation — should be understood and considered by a much larger group of stakeholders than has been involved so far.
Hawai'i is blessed with unique plants and bird life — 97 percent of our native species are found nowhere else on Earth. These species evolved in all of Hawai'i's varied habitats, from the mountains to the ocean. Unfortunately, many of those habitats may no longer exist or have been severely altered.
Hawai'i is now often referred to as the "endangered species capital of the world." Today, invasive weeds, introduced animals, insects and diseases, and fire, threaten many species' existence. Unfortunately, we as a community haven't taken care of our native species — in particular, plants.
"Critical habitat" is the term used to define land considered necessary for an endangered (or threatened) species to recover.
The ultimate goal is to restore healthy numbers of listed species within their native habitats so they can be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species. Once an area is so designated, all federal agencies must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action they authorize, finance or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat. That same process will be required for all activities on designated state, county or private lands when any federal permit, license or financing is involved.
From how the Kaua'i and Ni'ihau proposal has taken shape, it can be expected that most of the designation will be on state-owned lands wherever possible, with most in the public Forest Reserve and Natural Area Reserve systems.
Private lands may be included when similar habitat types are not found on public lands. The Kaua'i and Ni'ihau proposal includes more than 32,000 acres of private land.
While not guaranteed, there may be an increase in federal money for recovery programs. However, broad habitat-based conservation approaches to species recovery may also have negative impacts when applied to a small state comprising islands. The admitted lack of knowledge about many of our plant species could result in critical habitat being designated on the basis of guesswork rather than science, possibly bringing inappropriate federal oversight and restrictions.
The designation of critical habitat, even if scientifically based, does not necessarily ensure that a plant species will benefit or recover. It may do no more than place a restrictive label on a piece of land.
It does not promise that the support for species conservation will be there, nor does it necessarily provide the basis for a process in which a species' recovery can be planned and integrated into the wide range of uses and demands that are placed on most of our lands in Hawai'i.
Concerns have been voiced about the discretionary authority that one federal agency would have over hundreds of thousands of acres — particularly when the agency has a singular focus and does not have the same obligation that state and county agencies have in considering a broad range of land uses. It may be impossible for many of the plant species to recover to the level called for in federal recovery plans, resulting in permanent critical habitat designations.
What will be the impact on the state's ability to work with private landowners, especially those who are already cooperating with the state in large-scale watershed and conservation partnerships? These landowners have a valid concern if their cooperation in such partnerships provides regulators with information on plant distributions that could later be used to designate their lands as critical habitat.
The formal designation process now under way represents the state's last opportunity to present its case on the full range of concerns involving a large-scale federal designation of critical habitat within Hawai'i. State and county governments and the private sector need to get involved in this process if concerns over such designations are to be considered.
Hawai'i must also invest the resources needed for an aggressive and realistic program to recover endangered plant species — not just to avoid large-scale designation of federal critical habitat, but to accept and fulfill our obligations to preserve Hawai'i's natural heritage for future generations. Now is the time for state and county agencies and Hawai'i's residents to participate in the process rather than letting the courts dictate a solution that may not be in the state's or the species' best interest.
Michael G. Buck is administrator of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources' Division of Forestry and Wildlife .
