Tuneup for a Venerable Vehicle : At 20, Endangered Species Act may get some improvements

The federal Endangered Species Act celebrated its 20th birthday last week. Rather than being a cause for celebration, the milestone has escalated an already angry argument that is drowning out constructive discussion of how best to reconcile species preservation with human development.

That both activities are vital should be beyond question. But one measure of the distortion that has occurred in the argument over congressional review and reauthorization of this act is a growing belief by some that one activity need be sacrificed to the other.

Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, declaring that diversity of animal and plant species has “aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation and its people.” That value is even more salient today, as, for instance, the over-harvesting of some wild species like Pacific Northwest salmon threatens their viability and scientists are finding medicinal worth in a growing number of natural compounds.

GOOD AIM, CLUNKY MEANS: The act affirms these values by providing a mechanism to protect and encourage recovery of threatened and endangered species while also allowing for development. Landowners whose property contains animals, plants or insects that have been found endangered cannot harm those species and, in most cases, must create a habitat recovery plan to facilitate species regeneration. About 750 species are now on the federal endangered species list, with as many as 3,000 more feared to be in poor ecological health.

While there may be broad consensus about the need to foster biodiversity, the act’s record of often cumbersome implementation, the growing number of species believed to be at risk and the absence of other strong protections for natural habitats have sparked a growing effort to weaken the goals of the act itself rather than to streamline its implementation. Yet the 20-year history of species protection indicates those goals remain appropriate and that, though it has weaknesses, overall the act works. Landowners with imperiled species on their property have been able to proceed with development while limiting and mitigating the ecological damage caused by construction. Most federal works projects affecting endangered species also have been completed; of more than than 34,000 evaluated from 1987 to 1991, federal officials had to halt only 23 because they jeopardized species. And the act does have its major successes: The bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the Pacific gray whale, the brown pelican, the whooping crane and other species once on the brink of extinction have recovered dramatically due to federal protection.

DON’T LOSE IT, IMPROVE IT: Yet there clearly is room for improvement. The first need is to better document the extent and the health of the animal and plant life within our borders. That vast survey effort is already under way, begun last year by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Results from this national biodiversity survey should lower the volume some in debates over which species are close to extinction and to what degree.

The second task is to improve the application of the act. Legislation introduced by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and John H. Chafee (R-R.I.) would do that. Their bill would set deadlines for completion of recovery plans and increase funding to allow the federal agencies charged with enforcement of the act to be more responsive. The measure would also encourage strategies to preserve entire habitats rather than individual species, thus avoiding potential conflicts between plans for different species in the same area. California has taken the lead in this approach.

The bill deserves support because Baucus and Chafee recognize that the act they would amend is still needed.