NJAS Opinion: Autumn, 1995

As this opinion appears in September 1995, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Reauthorization bill will have been debated in the House and probably weakened. It was already weakened by riders attached to unrelated bills which prevented any listing of new species or critical ecosystems until the act is reauthorized by Congress, and which allowed suspension of the act for salvage logging in National Forests. The battle this fall is in the Senate, usually a more deliberative body. The ESA in Congress is no longer apple pie. A major effort is needed now to save it and strengthen it.

At this writing in July, a Senate bill has been introduced by Senator Slade Gorton (S.768). Quickly dubbed the "Endangered Species Extinction Act," this bill would gut protection for species and cost the taxpayers millions. It would replace recovery goals with a "conservation objective" that could be as minimalist as affording endangered species no protection other than against intentional killing. The secretary of interior could decide not to prepare any recovery plan for a species and waive the requirement that federal agencies ensure that their actions do not cause extinction. This bill would revoke all existing recovery plans and prepare a new plan for all listed species. The federal agencies would have to discard plans for 600 species.

As if that were not bad enough, the bill goes on to redefine "take" of endangered species so as to protect only against those activities that directly kill or injure wildlife. Habitat destruction, the chief threat to most species would not be covered. In the winter when most species are away, their habitat could be destroyed. Further, the protections would be removed from all seabirds and mammals within the 200-mile limit unless the take is proven to be intentional. The requirement to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or Marine Fisheries to ensure that federal actions do not jeopardize endangered species (Section 7) would be eliminated. On top of that, the bill requires taxpayers to pay half the cost of ESA compliance; private development could destroy habitat, mitigate for it, and have the taxpayers pay 50 percent of the mitigation!

The last presidential election was no mandate to gut the ESA (or other environmental laws). With only 38 percent of the voters voting, and with three candidates splitting the vote, any mandate was pretty well hidden! The wildlife tax checkoffs, license plate programs, Green Acres bond issues, and recent polls are clear mandates from the public to protect wildlife and endangered species and their habitats. One recent poll showed 70 percent of the people wanted a stronger act and only 11 percent thought it went too far. This Congress is out of step with the people.

The ESA works well nationally without stifling growth or taking property. Agreements with property owners on protecting endangered species habitats have been successful (for example, Georgia Pacific buffers red-cockaded woodpecker Sites against logging operations). Of 120,000 Section 7 consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the impacts of a project on endangered species from 1988 to 1994, fewer than 1 percent of the projects with impacts were stopped by ESA regulations. So it is not the legal monster that a few anecdotal horror stories make it out to be.

Economic studies (as opposed to carefully edited anecdotes) show clearly no measurable negative impact of the ESA on economic growth. A 1995 MIT study on endangered species listings and state economic performance found that, from 1975 to 1990, the states with the highest number of listed species also enjoyed the highest economic growth. The "Green and Gold" study, which ranks the states according to economic growth and environmental regulation across twenty economic and twenty environmental indicators, found that states with the best environmental records also offer the best job opportunities and economic climate.

The ESA has worked well in New Jersey. Bald eagle and peregrine falcon have recovered with protection. Eagles went from five nesting pairs to eleven between 1990 and 1995. The act also helps trigger the exceptional resource value classification under our state fresh water wetlands law, which requires 150-foot buffers, thus protecting valuable habitat. Undermining the ESA could have a negative effect on our wetlands protection, which we worked hard to assure.

The Endangered Species Act as a budget item is lean and mean. The annual budget is roughly equal to the cost of a mile or two of interstate highway! The conservation programs in the federal budget in total represent less than 1.8 percent of the entire budget. Budget cutting enthusiasts should look to big ticket items instead. How about deep-sixing the Passaic tunnel at $2.2 billion; or the below-cost timber sales in the National Forests, costing the taxpayer over $100 million; or the 'Road to Nowhere," Highway 69 in Indiana, with an $800 million price tag? And how about cutting the sand dumping for 50 years on New Jersey beaches, which the ocean will rearrange anyway?

An aspect of the ESA often overlooked by critics and supporters alike is its economic benefit. The medicinal uses of nature are many. About 25 percent of the compounds used in the pharmaceutical industry are found in nature. As more research is done, that number should rise, provided we have the foresight to protect habitat. The ecotourism industry also benefits directly from conservation programs like the ESA. For instance, many people travel to Texas to see whooping cranes. But aside from spending on travel, there are the monies spent on optics and guide books by 24 million birders nationally, and the multiplier effect of money spent around the refuges on ancillary services. In New Jersey, lots of people go to see the recovering bald eagles. A quarter million people drive through Forsythe (Brigantine) National Wildlife Refuge each year, and birders spend $10 million in the Cape May peninsula each year during bird migration months. Wildlife protection in short is an investment in present and future economies, both national and local. While we are budget-cutting and deficit-reducing, let's not defund our future!

A good strong Endangered Species Act would expedite recovery programs for endangered species and would help candidate species, not prevent their listing. A good act would establish deadlines for recovery plans and recommend specific actions for recovery of species (e.g., fencing colonies). It would also improve habitat protection. Without some provision for habitat protection, communities of species will be harmed. A reauthorized act should also provide sufficient budget for technical assistance by the Fish and Wildlife Service to landowners with stewardship responsibilities for endangered species. If we don't get an improved Endangered Species Act from the Senate, then the president will need to veto it until it is improved.

Richard Kane
Director of Conservation