Pombo panel cites lack of progress in protecting species

A Congressional committee is criticizing the Endangered Species Act in a possible prelude to legislation to overhaul the landmark environmental law.

Created in 1973 to help bring endangered plants and animals back from the brink of extinction, the Endangered Species Act is hailed by environmentalists as an effective tool for protecting sensitive plants and animals.

But a report released Tuesday by the House Committee on Resources, chaired by Congressman Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, states that the law's modest successes are overshadowed by the lack of progress in recovery from endangered status for most plant and animal species covered by the act.

"The intent of the Endangered Species Act is recovery," said Brian Kennedy, consultant with the Resources Committee. "There's one fact that's out there, and that is that only 10 of 1,300 species in the act's history have recovered. What has been less clear is the question of the status of those that remain on the Endangered Species Act list."

He noted that the committee's staff investigated Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service records and Federal Register reports to see if the act has been working as intended.

New legislation based on the report is likely to follow, Kennedy said, meaning committee leaders and environmental groups are preparing to battle over the future of the law.

"It sounds like the typical bunk we've come to expect from Congressman Pombo," said Bart Semcer, wildlife specialist with the Sierra Club's Washington, D.C., office. Semcer said that the bald eagle, just to name one species, has recovered its endangered status because of habitat protection required under the act.

"There are success stories all around the country we can point to," he said. "But it would take some time to get these species to the point where they can recover. They're not going to rebound overnight."

Kieran Suckling, policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said the argument outlined in the report -- that few species have been delisted because of policies based on the act -- is familiar to environmentalists and biologists alike.

"That claim has been rebutted by over 3,000 university, academic and federal biologists who have produced recovery plans for these species," Suckling said.

He added that the scientific community agrees that most recovery plans for endangered plants or animals include a 30- to 50-year period from the time a species is listed until the time it could be declared as recovered.

"Species are making progress on the endangered species list, but it is a long, slow process that requires many decades of work," he said.

Al Donner, assistant field supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Sacramento office, said he couldn't comment on the Resource Committee report, but he did note that recovery plans for endangered species are ongoing efforts.

One such plan under way now in the Central Valley would protect seasonal wetlands, also known as vernal pools, which are habitats for rare water plants and animals.

"It lays out a 60-year time frame for actions proposed in the recovery plan because it takes that time to measure successes and recovery times," he said.

Donner added that habitat plays a role in recovery plans, noting that the Aleutian Canada goose, one of the successes of the Endangered Species Act, would regularly migrate to the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge between Tracy and Modesto.