Conservation News
Endangered Species Act: Success or Failure?
By Dougald Scott
Endangered Species Act: Success or Failure?
By Dougald Scott
On September 19th, House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo of Tracy introduced new legislation to rewrite the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pombo's bill, the "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005" (TESRA) was fast tracked and cleared committee on September 22rd. The first Committee hearing on the bill was September 21st, and many committee members complained they did not have adequate time to analyze the bill. It is likely to go before the full house for a vote the following week.
This legislation is being rushed through congress while our country is reeling from the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Pombo, a central valley rancher/developer, contends that the ESA is a failure because only ten of the 1,264 listed species have recovered and been delisted since President Nixon signed the ESA in 1973. Conservationists, on the other hand, see the ESA as a highly successful program that has saved hundreds of species from extinction. According to Glen Martin of the San Francisco Chronicle, an independent study published in 1999 concluded that in spite of losing seven species to extinction, 172 species would have disappeared forever without the law.
The winter run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River provides a good example. An alarming decline in their numbers was noted through the '70s and '80s, and the species was listed as "threatened" in 1990. Here are some representative counts of adult winter run Chinook salmon in Sacramento River:
| 1969 | 118,000 |
| 1991 | 211 |
| 2002 | 9,000 |
One could argue that the listing of the species in 1990 was a failure because the 2002 count was less than one percent of what it was in 1969. In other words, the species did not recover. A more realistic assessment would look at the precipitous decline from 1969 to 1991 and conclude that the species was on the brink of extinction. This situation was followed by an almost fifty fold increase in numbers after the listing. Framed in this way, the program was a resounding success that saved the species from extinction.
The winter run salmon were being hurt mostly by projects directly or indirectly under federal control. When ESA protections took effect and forced the federal agencies to change the ways the Sacramento River was managed, the winter run responded. Here are some of the steps taken to reverse winter run salmon declines:
* Shasta Dam was retrofitted to release cold water during droughts, which is necessary for baby winter run salmon.
* At the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, where adult fish must pass to spawn and baby fish must pass to get to the ocean, gates are now kept open most of the year to allow free passage.
* Screens were installed on giant irrigation canals that take water from the river to prevent juvenile salmon from being sucked in.
* Toxic mining discharges into the Sacramento River decreased after a treatment plant was put into operation.
* Closer monitoring of juvenile winter run migration to the sea has prompted "time outs" for the huge pumps drawing water from the Sacramento/San Joaquin delta to minimize destruction of these fish. These "time outs" are not always properly timed or observed and this is an area that continues to cause problems.
The rebound of the winter run demonstrates that when the ESA is enforced and balanced actions are taken, species have a chance to make a comeback. In addition, steps taken to protect winter run salmon have improved conditions for the other salmon species, as well as trout and steelhead, in the Sacramento River.
How will the Pombo bill change the ESA? Under the law as it is now, the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries are required to designate critical habitat for endangered plants and animals to help them survive and eventually recover to a healthy population level. Pombo's bill would eliminate critical habitat designations and instead require the agency to prepare recovery plans that identify certain areas considered to be important to a species' recovery. Critics argue that removing critical habitat designations from the law would essentially leave no legal protection for the fast-disappearing habitat of many endangered plants and animals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 85 percent of endangered species on the list are there at least in part because of the loss or degradation of critical habitat.
Other troublesome parts of the bill include:
* Weakening the definition of "best available scientific data" to "scientific data, regardless of source, that are available."
* Imposes a 90-day deadline for telling developers whether their actions would impact endangered species. If the government misses the deadline, no matter what the reason, developers get a de facto exemption from the law.
Undoubtedly there is room for improvement in the ESA, and perhaps it should be revised. Much has been learned in the 32 years since it was signed into law, and this could be applied in a positive way to protect endangered species and ease conflicts between land owners and government agencies. But the Pombo bill does not reflect a careful and studious analysis of the Act. Rather it is the result of a concerted effort by special interests, especially developers, to gut the current protections afforded under the existing provisions.
As I write this on September 24, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that Congressman Pombo is circulating a draft of another bill. This one would sell 15 national parks and require the National Park Service to raise millions of dollars by selling the naming rights to visitors' centers and trails. WHAT ARE WE COMING TO?