Bush Isn't All Wrong About the Endangered Species Act

By BRUCE BABBITT
April 15, 2001

The Bush administration has again outraged environmentalists, this time by proposing that Congress modify the budget for the Endangered Species Act. The administration wants to place financial restrictions on a process called "designation of critical habitat," which maps areas occupied by endangered species.

Environmentalists resist any change, fearful of giving opponents of the Endangered Species Act any openings. But on this matter, they are overreacting. Critical habitat is a problem that ought to be fixed, if not in the manner proposed by the administration.

When a species is listed as endangered, the underlying cause is usually destruction of its habitat by activities like road building, land development or clear cutting. To ensure the survival of the species, the Fish and Wildlife Service must at some point in the process designate, with detailed maps, those areas of habitat that require special protection.

The controversy now flaring up turns on a seemingly simple question — when to prepare the maps. Should it be at the beginning of the process, when there is often not much information available, or at the end, when the biologists have had an opportunity to prepare a comprehensive plan for the protection of the species? Since mapping and the scientific surveys are time-consuming and expensive, biologists have generally preferred to prepare habitat maps later, as part of the comprehensive plan.

Then in the 1990's, environmentalists brought lawsuits arguing that the Endangered Species Act requires mapping immediately upon listing of a species, whether or not the biologists have enough information.

Because the statute is ambiguous, courts have by and large agreed with environmentalists, and are now ordering the Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake these mapping projects all over the country on strict deadlines. Struggling to keep up with these court orders, the Fish and Wildlife Service has diverted its best scientists and much of its budget for the Endangered Species Act away from more important tasks like evaluating candidates for listing and providing other protections for species on the brink of extinction.

In one recent case in California, the Fish and Wildlife Service was ordered by a federal court to produce, on a short deadline, a habitat map for the endangered red-legged frog. The frog has been identified in streams and wetlands scattered throughout southern California, but the Fish and Wildlife Service had limited biological surveys to identify its critical habitats. So the service quite understandably painted with a broad brush — in this case four million acres, an area the size of Connecticut. Unsurprisingly, this map enraged landowners and developers, who feared the regulatory consequences of such a designation.

These uncertainties undermine public confidence in one of our most important and successful environmental laws. That is why during my tenure as interior secretary I repeatedly asked Congressional leaders to write budget restrictions that would prevent money for important endangered-species programs from being siphoned off into premature "critical habitat" map- making. This request was denied every year. The Bush administration now proposes something similar.

That said, putting restrictive language in the budget is not the best way to fix the problem. The better alternative is to amend the Endangered Species Act, giving biologists the unequivocal discretion to prepare maps when the scientific surveys are complete. Only then can we make meaningful judgments about what habitat should receive special protection.

Back in 1997 we tried to do just that through a comprehensive overhaul of the Endangered Species Act. At that time, John Chafee, the late Republican senator from Rhode Island, called all the usual antagonists into his office and expressed his desire to update the act. He wanted to address the mapping of critical habitats, to codify the voluntary participation of landowners in conservation planning, to require scientific peer review of listing decisions and to encourage state participation. Senator Chafee then patiently worked out a consensus. This legislation sailed through the normally gridlocked Senate Environment and Public Works Committee before it was killed by the Senate leadership.

If the Bush administration is sincere about improving the Endangered Species Act, rather than stirring controversy, it should revive the Chafee reform measures.

Bruce Babbitt served as secretary of the interior in the Clinton administration.