U.S. Signals New Approach to Protected Species

The Clinton administration signaled Thursday it is ready to move forward with a wide-ranging update of the Endangered Species Act, opting for a flexible approach that could allow controlled development of some habitats that currently are off-limits.

The new effort, alike in theory to the community conservation program piloted in Orange County and other areas, is intended to steer away from the contentious pattern of the last 20 years. In that time, little room for compromise has been found between economic interests and environmental concerns.

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said he favors a new approach to the highly controversial law, which since 1973 has been used in politically charged settings to halt construction, restrict logging and even, critics say, tie the hands of small landowners seeking to perform minor construction on private property.

Instead of focusing on the threatened animals and plants themselves, as the law now does, Babbitt would seek to protect the species by preserving the places where they live.

Babbitt’s approach could allow for some carefully controlled development on habitats where all development is now prohibited, following the pattern in Southern California. In Orange County, 37,000 acres of land have been set aside to preserve the habitat of a species of bird, the gnatcatcher, while other wildlife habitat is opened for development.

The Orange County plan also calls for the protection of 39 plants and animals by preserving and managing large blocks of native habitat such as coastal sage scrub. The land cannot be developed for at least 75 years.

That arrangement was made with Babbitt’s support under administration regulations established by the Interior Department. Those regulations could be rewritten by federal officials in the future.

Babbitt said Thursday that writing the regulations into law would make it less likely that they would be reversed. Another Interior Department official said rewriting the law would also help protect it from future rear-guard actions by unfriendly members of Congress.

Congress last reauthorized the Endangered Species Act for five years in 1987. With no action by Congress since then, the federal government has been enforcing the old law and making administrative changes as it has seen fit.

For more than two decades, the law has engendered drawn-out litigation and angry on-site confrontations between property owners, loggers and developers on the one hand and environmentalists on the other.

As one of the most comprehensive environmental measures in the federal code, it has had an impact on cities, suburbs, farms, forests and deserts--anyplace where such species as threatened salamanders, owls or ferns might be found. It is a top-priority target of property-rights advocates, who argue it is emblematic of a big-brother government telling people what they can do with their land.

California, with roughly 200 plants and animals protected by the law, is considered the nation’s hot spot for endangered species. Among the largest areas under its restrictions are 78,000 acres where the kangaroo rat lives and 37,000 acres that make up the habitat of the marbled murrelet, a coastal bird.

The hallmark of the new approach, say those familiar with it, is flexibility--exactly what critics say is now lacking.

Under current law, homeowners might find themselves blocked from cutting down a stand of longleaf pines that are in the way of a new back porch or swimming pool because the trees provide potential homes for the rare red-cockaded woodpecker.

By contrast, the new approach might allow holders of fewer than five acres to avoid such restrictions, particularly if their communities provide the birds with other habitats or if removal of the woods would have a negligible impact on them.

“If you do your planning right and base it on a broad enough area, you can mitigate the negative impacts on a species by a particular property owner by protecting a larger area and sustaining that habitat for not just that species but a suite of species that depend on the habitat,” said Jim Waltman, who tracks wildlife legislation for the Wilderness Society.

But, Waltman said, lack of scientific information can leave a gap between the concept and the reality. “We don’t always know enough before we start issuing the [construction] permits,” he said, “and it’s hard to go back if the calculation is inaccurate.”

As in the past, Babbitt also supported assuring landowners that they would not be subject to future restrictions if new endangered species were found on their land after they began managing their property in a manner that protected other threatened species already there.

Since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has avoided growing pressure to rewrite the law. Babbitt has said time was needed to determine whether the law was protecting threatened and endangered species without placing an undue burden on property owners.

“Now we are ready to return to Capitol Hill and show them the act is working,” he said Thursday in a speech at the National Press Club. “The act is ripe for reauthorization. We know what works, we know what doesn’t.”

Told of Babbitt’s comment, a Senate aide close to the bipartisan effort to craft the legislation said: “This is a sign we will be breaking new ground in the next few weeks to reach a consensus. This is a big green light.”

Still, members of Congress have been working at varying speeds for several years to redraw the 1973 legislation. If past efforts involving major environmental legislation are a guide, the new draft is likely to undergo many revisions and delays before it reaches the floor of the House and Senate--if it does.

Also contributing to this report was Times staff writer Lisa Richardson.