Cox, Boak C.

Gay, Ruth

Lamoureaux, Charles

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa

University of Hawaii at ManoaEnvironmental CenterCrawford 317. 2550 Campus RoadHonolulu, Hawaii 96822Telephone (808) 948-7361Office of the DirectorHR 127URGING ADOPTION OF FEDERAL LIST OF ENDANGEREDPLANT SPECIESStatement for House Committee on Ecologyand Environmental Protection,Public Hearing, 15 February 1977b'.y .Ruth Gay, BotanyCharles Lamoureaux, BotanyBoak C. Cox, Environmental CenterRL:0198HR 127 urges that the State Department of Land and Natural Resourcesadopt a list of endangered plant species in Hawaii that has been proposed bythe U. S. Department of Interior. This statement on the resolution is beingsubmitted for review to the Legislative Subcommittee of the EnvironmentalCenter of the University of Hawaii but does not reflect an institutionalposition of the University .. State law provides for the protection of endangered plants as well asanimals. The law can be effective only if the plants and animals that are injeopardy are recognized. It is, therefore, critical that an initial list ofendangered plants be agreed upon .The list of endangered plants to which the resolution pertains is a listprepared by botanists who are working or have worked in Hawaii, collated byI the Smithsonian Institution,and proposed for adoption by the U. S. Departmentof the Interior through publication in the Federal Register. This list has notbeen accepted by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources. DLNR hasproposed instead a much shorter list.Until the distribution of a listed species, and the population ofthat species, have been determined, the extent of jeopardy to the speciescannot be ascertained. Yet, distribution mapping and population estimationcannot proceed with Department of the Interior support until a tentativelist has been adopted. It is possible that some of the species and sub-species included as endagenered in the Federal Register list will be foundnot to be in serious jeopardy. It is certain, wowever, that the number ofspecies tbat are endangered is far greater than the DLNR list would indicate.RL:0198 Page 2The degree of jeopardy of a species and the degree to which a jeopardizedspecies sheuld be protected should be separate decisions~ yet the DLNRreluctance to accept the Smithsonian's list seems to be based on fear thatacceptance of the longer list will force the State to make major expendituresor forego major economic benefits in order to provide full protection to alllisted species.Adoption of the Federal Register list~ ·pr ppo$ed by the Department ofthe Interior, would appear to be appropriate if the list is recognized as aninitial one, subject to later revision based on determinations of the extentof jeopardy of the species and subspectes listed, and to subsequent determina-tion of the value of the species and subspecies and need for their protection.The Committee should be informed that a few additional Hawaiian plantspecies, not on either the Federal Register list or the DLNR list, have been ·proposed for endangered status--species that were ontil recently consideredextinct, but species of which some individuals have now been found.There are some errors in the resolution as now drafted. If desired~The Center would be pleased to assist ~n its revision.Comments on the problem of endangered plant species in a generalreview of IIConservation Policies" by the Environmental Center~ prepared inOctober 1975, are still pertinent and valid. An excerpt is appended to thisstatement.attachment: Appendix A: Endangered Plant ·Species [Excerpt from "ConservationPolicies" Environmental Center Statement by D. C. Cox~ H. Baker,A. Berger~ R. Gay~ C. Lamoureux, and D. Mueller-Dombois, RG:0024~22 October 1965.]APPENDIX A: ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIESExcerpt from IIConservation Policies ll Environmental Center Sta~ementby D. C. Cox, H. Baker, A. Berger, R. Gay, C. Lamoureux, andD. Mueller-Dombois, RG:0024, 22 Octoper 1976.Endangered species and natural areasThe jeopardy of species is relative, not absolute~ Some sources of jeopardymay be reduceable at little cost, economic or social. Other sources nlay bereduceable only at considerable cost. No means, may be known for reducing stillother sources of jeopardy. Some jeopardized species may be harvested with directeconomic benefit to man. With others our concern may be primarily ethical.Sow~ may be valuable because they uniquely fill a niche in a web of ecologicalrelationships involving other species that are valuable. Others represent geneplasms of actual or potential value. Still others may be of value in elucidatingevolutionary or ecological principles~ No endemic'species pose such direct orindirect threats to man that their endangerment wpuld be considered beneficial.Yet federal law requires the listing of species with a breakdown only bet~eenendangered and threatened species, and makes no provision for differentiatingas to the nature of the threat, the amenability of the threat to reduction, orthe nature and extent of the value of the species. The U.S. Bureau Qf SportFishereis and t~ildlife has appointed six "recovery teams" to study these -vari-ables with respect to birds and mammals, but the status with respect to plantsis not so satisfacto~v. -A list of plant species endangered in Hawaii, compiled by the SmithsonianInstitution and promulgated by the Interior - Department,-has been challengedby the State on the basis that it is too comprehensive, including some speciesnot probably endangered. Foresters in the State have proposed a shorter list.Botanists in the state tend to back the Smithsonian and Interior Department,State administrators to back the foresters. The Smithsonian list of endangeredplants refers to species and varieties, using conventional botanical terminology.This has been objected to because it does not conform to the original terminologyin the Act that refers to species and subspecies as is conventional in zoology.So long as the arguments continue at a semantic level with their present politicalreinforcement it is unlikely that we will arrive at a reasonable working consen-sus as to the listing of those kinds of plants and animals that are in somejeopardy and their differentiation as to the nature ~nd extent of jeopardy andthe nature of the value of the species .. Yet this differentiated listing is only the first step to designing andimplementing a man~gement program to control the jeopardy to whatever degreecontrol is appropriate. The identification and differentiation ought to be-considered primarily scientific matters. Politics should be minimized and con-fined to the questions as to which scientific disciplines and which specialistsshould be fonsulted. Broader politics must be involved when it comes to theestablish,ement of a management plan, because it is here that the relative valuesmust be assigned to species and costs of their salvation.Appendix A (continuation) Page 2The following statements of position maY be helpful:1. The number of species of both plants and gnimals that are in jeopardymay be expected to be far larger in Hawaii than in any comparable continentalarea because significant parts of a unique flora and fauna, developed in iso-lationover many millenia, still remain here extant in spite of a loss of iso-lation ·beginning about eleven centuries ago and accelerating rapidly during thelast two centuries. .2. The listing of jeopardized types of plants and animals can begin with"off-the-shelf" information, and should begin \'lith such information even if itis quite incomplete and in some respects uncertain. However, for use in an .effective management plan extension of .information on jeopardized species/deter-mination of the sources and extent and reduceability of jeopardy and the natureof values of species will be necessary.3. With some possible exceptions, jeopardized species cannot be protected -independently but only through the protecti on of the ecosystems of \'1hi ch theyare parts.4. The listing of jeopardized types of pl ants and animals and the determina-tion of the sources and extent of jeopardy are best approached by combinations ofspecialists in botany, zoology, and ecology that will differ somewhat from groupto group.5. No single agency or institution has ,or can be expect to have, internalcapabilities appropriate to the task. The DLNR for example, ~/hich under the ·state law has the responsibility for the needed research, lacks adequate botanicalcapabilities.6. The most expedient remedy to the ·inadequacy will probably involve bothincreasing the staff of DLNR and opening the procedures for listing to lnvolvepersons or staffs of other agencies and institutions.7. The costs of the increases in staff and such consulting arrangements asmaY be necessary are justified by the minimization of loss of valuable endangeredspe~ies that can be achieved only by early agreement as to the identificationand differentiation •.8. The specialists should .be charged with the identification and differ-entiation responsibilities. They should be encouraged to clarify the tradeoffsthat will have to be made in a management plan, but no special weight should begiven to their subjective value judgments on the tradeoffs.9. Federal funds are available to support the listing efforts and theimplementation and possibly the development of management plans for the protectionof selected endangered species in selected locales, but such funds can be allo-cated and effectively used only if there is close federal-state coordination.

HR 127, Urging Adoption of Federal List of Endangered Plant Species - Statement for House Committee on Ecology and Environmental Protection, Public Hearing - 15 February 1977

http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/31104/1/RL0198.pdf

HR 127, Urging Adoption of Federal List of Endangered Plant Species - Statement for House Committee on Ecology and Environmental Protection, Public Hearing - 15 February 1977

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa