Columnist Paula Del Giudice: Endangered species bill needs revisions

Wednesday, Oct. 8, 1997 | 9:39 a.m.

RECENTLY SENS. Chafee, Kempthorne, Baucus and Reid introduced S. 1180, the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997. They should be commended for taking the initiative to stand ahead of the pack in support of this very vital legislation.

In particular, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) stood up early and often as a very vocal supporter of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). His staff has worked very closely with conservation organizations to understand the conservation community's concerns.

In Nevada, that cooperation could stand as a model for other legislators.

We also know that Sen. Reid takes great pride in his ability to bring compromise to the table and solve logjams -- and nothing has been jammed more than the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Though the bill gets the jam moving, as a compromise, it isn't passing the muster of conservationists across the country.

To its credit, this bill does contain some provisions that help the ESA work better. However, without some changes to its present form, the bill could seriously weaken ESA's essential protections.

One problem is that S. 1180 would codify the Fish and Wildlife Service's (USF&WS) practice of approving Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) for listed species, even if the HCPs would undermine species recovery.

In addition, the bill would support a "hands-off" approach to monitoring of the HCP. While it is recognized that landowners need stability to encourage them to invest time and resources on conservation planning, it is important to revisit HCPs on occasion to allow for the availability of new information, so as not to allow HCPs to jeopardize the recovery of species.

The bill should provide for meaningful citizen participation in the development of the HCP. It is hopeful that the language in the bill can be altered to allow for citizen contributions.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the bill is the increase in loopholes in the areas of recovery planning, recovery implementation agreements and Section 7 consultations that weaken agency accountability. For one, the bill's provisions governing recovery implementation agreements would insulate those agreements from judicial review.

The incentives for private landowners contained in the bill are laudable. However, with a secure source of funding, the failure of these important concepts will result in the extinction of these incentive programs. That will further jeopardize an often precarious relationship between agencies and those who own most of the land on which threatened and endangered species dwell.

It's a good start, senators. It's certainly a piece of legislation on which to build. The next part isn't up to you, however. It's up to the American public. It's time for the lethargic public to let lawmakers know how much they support the ESA.

In 1991, bipartisan polling found that two-thirds of voters in every region of the country supported the Endangered Species Act. In March of 1992, 51 percent felt that the federal government's efforts to conserve endangered species have not gone far enough, while 31 percent felt that current protection strikes the right balance.

Despite that voters have largely kept quiet on issues of the environment and ESA recently, the support of a strong act is there. It's up to voters to let their representatives know that strong protection for threatened and endangered species is important to them.

This is not the time to allow a well-intentioned compromise result in the decline of species that hover on the brink.

If that happens, we have no one to blame but ourselves.