Endangered Species Act Founders in 1999
12/28/99
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Endangered Species Act founders in 1999
Source: Environmental News Network
Status: Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint
Date: December 28, 1999
Byline: Lucy Chubb
The victories included the peregrine falcon and Aleutian Canada
goose, both of which were set free from the endangered species list.
But the loss column numbered 46 other species, including 11 salmon
and steelhead varieties in the West, all of which are now endangered
or threatened.
It could have been worse, but 1999 was not kind to endangered species
in the United States.
Enacted in 1973, the Endangered Species Act was designed to restore
protect endangered and threatened species. Despite attempts in some
legislative camps to undermine the act, its essential provisions
remain intact. Next fiscal year the ESA program will even see a
slight increase in funding.
In July, a recommendation by federal officials to remove the bald
eagle from the endangered list met with opposition from biologists
and other conservationists who insisted that, while the raptor's
population has shown steady growth since the 1960s, habitat
preservation and long-term recovery were still of concern.
Several species were not listed this year because of low funds and
political obstacles.
ESA was a topic of discussion and a target for the White House and
both houses of Congress in 1999. Here's a composite of legislative
action aimed at the program during the year:
Anti-environmental riders on appropriations bills
Again this year, several members of Congress attempted to attach
anti-environmental amendments, or riders, to House and Senate
spending bills for 2000. Riders that would have directly affected
endangered species were designed to:
* prevent the introduction of grizzly bears in the northern Rockies
(a provision that passed as an attachment to a spending bill in
1998).
* remove a provision that requires the Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management to conduct surveys for endangered and sensitive
species prior to approving land-use activities.
* block the National Marine Fisheries Service from taking steps to
protect endangered Pacific Northwest salmon in Alaskan waters.
Environmental advocates succeeded in getting these and other riders
struck from bills. The only significant rider to move through
appropriations allows the BLM to reissue grazing permits for up to 10
years without completing the environmental reviews required by ESA
and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Endangered species programs received an increase in federal funding
for fiscal year 2000, with an appropriation of nearly $108.7 million.
Last year's total allocation of $110.8 million was slightly larger
but nearly $4 million of it was specifically directed salmon issues
in Washington state.
The Endangered Species Recovery Act (H.R. 960)
In March, Rep. George Miller, D-California, reintroduced the
Endangered Species Recovery Act (H.R. 960), which he proposed in
1997. The bill is designed to "amend the Endangered Species Act of
1973 to ensure the recovery of our Nation's declining biological
diversity; to reaffirm and strengthen this Nation's commitment to
protect wildlife; to safeguard our children's economic and ecological
future; and to provide assurances to local governments, communities,
and individuals in their planning and economic development efforts."
By November, 90 members of the House had signed on as co-sponsors of
Rep. Miller's bill. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, has offered
to introduce similar legislation in the Senate if he can rally enough
co-sponsors. So far, only eight senators have offered their backing.
The ESRA is very popular among environmental organizations,
scientists and religious groups because it stresses sound science and
species recovery in addition to survival. Given the current political
climate, however, it appears unlikely that H.R. 960 will pass.
Critical habitat legislation (S. 1100)
Sens. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, and the late
John Chaffee, R-Rhode Island, introduced S. 1100 in May. The bill,
which passed the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee in
June, is designed to "amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to
provide that the designation of critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species be required as part of the development of recovery
plans for those species."
Under the bill, the designation of critical habitat for any species
placed on the endangered list would be postponed pending a recovery
plan, without any interim survival habitat. The bill is unpopular
with conservationists because species recovery plans aren't developed
overnight and because habitat is critical to the survival of a
species.
Environmentalists also worry that S. 1100 deals with the ESA program
in a piecemeal fashion and could undercut future efforts to
reauthorize and strengthen the act. The full Senate did not consider
the bill this year.
Clinton and critical habitat
President Clinton also grappled with the issue of critical habitat
for endangered species in 1999. The administration put forward a
draft addendum to guidelines in Habitat Conservation Plans for non-
federal landowners whose property is protected as habitat for
endangered or threatened species.
HCPs are submitted by landowners who hold permits for the "incidental
take" of endangered or threatened species on non-federal lands during
otherwise lawful activities. Together, Incidental-take permits and
HCPs form an agreement between a non-federal landowner and the
government that allows the landowner to take an endangered species or
alter its habitat in exchange for measures that protect the species.
A controversial part of the HCP program is the "no surprises" clause,
by which a landowner who is correctly implementing a plan is
guaranteed exclusion from costs or restrictions on the use of his
property over and above those outlined in the plan. Many conservation
groups have criticized this clause for its limited scope.
The addendum proposed by President Clinton, known as the "five-point
policy initiative," is intended to ease some of these concerns by
clarifying HCP guidelines and "no surprises" assurances. The
initiative addresses the following issues:
* monitoring to ensure compliance with an HCP and its biological
goals.
* adaptive management in the case of new information about a species.
* measurable biological goals for species conservation.
* longevity of HCPs.
* increased public participation in HCP approval.
Advocates of endangered species believe the Clinton addendum falls
short because it lacks regulatory clout.