Section 7 of the Act. Its importance is also in that it assigns an additional 

 burden on the FWS personnel who are on scene. Given the circumstances of the 

 situation and the time constraints, especially in the containment process, 

 the FWS specialists have to make some wery quick decisions. And, the deci- 

 sions are based on a rapid evaluation, considering that they are binding. 

 If our advice is going to be carried out, we have the obligation of insuring 

 species/habitat protection. 



Containment Process and List of Dispersants 



It would appear that the containment process and the list of chemical 

 dispersants are very sensitive areas of concern. It is difficult to plan on 

 knowing exactly what happens when a dispersant is used, where it goes, and 

 what the ultimate effect is going to be. However, the U.S. Environmental 

 Protection Agency is very careful with its recommendations on the use of a 

 dispersant. We can anticipate FWS involvement through recommendations on 

 listed endangered species that are threatened along with their habitats as 

 they relate to that use. The obvious constraint to response is not fully 

 knowing what to expect. It is possible that the use of a dispersant may 

 create further abuse to the habitat of listed species, even more so than 

 letting the oil stay there or using a more conventional method of dispersal. 



Use of Volunteers 



Another problem that can be anticipated in responses on pollution plans 

 is the use of volunteers. The value of volunteers cannot be overly stressed 

 or appreciated. As stated in the FWS's pollution response plan, wherever 

 possible that use should be proportional to the experience of the individuals 

 whenever the possibility of handling endangered or threatened species exists. 



Habitat Effect 



Another common problem in pollution response is the effect on the habitat. 

 Before rushing out to remove the oil from the habitat, it should be determined 

 whether the natural erosion of the oil, or some alternative removal method is 

 more conducive to reclamation activities and to the subsequent rehabilitation 

 of the listed species. Sometimes with beach cleanup, we are faced with the 

 problem of esthetics. If all the oil is removed we have served everyone well. 

 This could be at the expense of listed species and their habitat if to remove 

 the oil one has to traverse the habitat with heavy equipment. 



Again, knowledge of where the habitats are, knowledge of what species 

 are there, mobility of those species, and when they are there all need to 

 be considered. The obligations of the FWS is that work within the confines 

 of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act includes secondary effects of 

 all of our actions. This is mandated by the Coleman case in Mississippi. 

 The highway interchange was not going to disect the habitat of the Mississippi 

 sandhill crane but the secondary effect of subsequent development would have 



125 



