EDITORIAL
Habitat debate beset by speculative fear

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to turn nearly a quarter of Hawai'i's land mass into a critical habitat to protect endangered plants has set off all manner of alarms.

Hunters are worried their gaming terrain will be restricted. State officials fear private landowners won't let on if there are endangered species on their turf.

Others fear third-party lawsuits from, say, environmental groups that might use the critical habitat designation as leverage to sue an entity for disregarding federal guidelines to protect endangered species.

But for the moment, these are just speculative fears.

While there are no guarantees the critical habitat designation won't result in lawsuits and bureaucratic hassles, it's highly unlikely to curb activities such as camping, hiking and hunting or bring economic activity to a grinding halt.

Much of the proposed acreage — which includes 548,000 acres on O'ahu and the Big Island and 290,000 acres on Maui and Kaua'i — is government land and already zoned for conservation use or under protection.

Earthjustice lawyer David Henkin was among those who filed lawsuits that led a federal judge in 1998 to order Fish and Wildlife to name critical habitats to protect endangered plants. He says the designation is not a federal land grab, but a means to stop federal activities from making matters worse in critical habitats.

"It defends the areas from being trashed by federal projects," Henkin said.

Still, there are numerous misconceptions that need to be addressed. So let's start by examining how this confusing provision of the Endangered Species Act works.

First of all, Fish and Wildlife aren't exactly the bad guys here. They're under a federal court order to complete habitat designations for hundreds of species of endangered Hawai'i plants and animals.

Second, a critical habitat designation doesn't create a "refuge" and doesn't threaten existing development or cut off access to the land. However, it does mean any development or activity that uses federal funding or requires a federal permit must get approval from Fish and Wildlife to ensure it won't harm or destroy endangered species.

Fortunately, the borders of these huge land masses identified for critical habitat are still fuzzy and subject to revision. By law, Fish and Wildlife has the right to exclude areas where the economic and social costs to society outweigh the benefits to the species.

Now that the plan has been published in the Federal Register, it is open to public comment for the next few months, and a final ruling is not expected for another year. We hope the various stakeholders will weigh in with their concerns.

Michael Buck, director of Forestry and Wildlife in the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, laments that the designation is driven by court requirements rather than what is reasonably required to bring the species back from the brink of extinction.

Also, the designation doesn't come with dollars, and the state Forestry and Wildlife division lacks the necessary manpower to carry out surveying and other means of locating and saving species that are clinging to survival.

Instead of designating huge swaths of land, says Buck, let's look at what is possible and draw the lines around what we have some hopes of accomplishing. That's reasonable.

We support the protection of threatened species and fragile ecosystems. But the application has to make scientific sense.