REMARKS OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRAIG MANSON PREPARED FOR DELIVERY AT CLE INTERNATIONAL’S 10TH ANNUAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING CONFERENCE
DECEMBER 5, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

December 5, 2003

I’m thrilled to be here back at home from Washington. I grew up in Monterey about 120 miles south, Steinbeck country. I was exposed to marine biology early on through the eyes of Steinbeck’s Doc Ricketts as well as a biology teacher named Steve Clark with whom I’m still occasionally in touch by e-mail. As high school students we did some fairly sophisticated field work at Point Lobos under Mr. Clark’s tutelage. I almost became a biologist as a result . . . But you may recall that one of Steinbeck’s most popular novels was titled after the aphorism about our best laid plans. . . .

Well, let’s talk about thirty years of the Endangered Species Act. It was December 1973 that President Nixon signed that legislation into law. And how the world has changed since then. Indulge me in one more personal reminiscence to illustrate the point.

Though my official government biography doesn’t mention it, I spent part of 1973 working at Monterey’s top-40 rock station KMBY. I did the news at 20 minutes before each hour from 1 a.m. To 6 a.m. At the end of the news, I’d say something like: “Currently it’s 56 degrees in Santa Cruz, 59 degrees in Salinas; and 54 along Monterey’s Cannery Row. This is KMBY 20-20 News--the sound of news in the making!” And I’d cue the DJ who’d go right into one of t he top songs of the week. Remember these?

Tie A Yellow Ribbon 'Round The Ole Oak Tree, Tony Orlando & Dawn
Bad Bad Leroy Brown, Jim Croce
Killing Me Softly With His Song, Roberta Flack
Let's Get It On, Marvin Gaye My Love, Paul McCartney & Wings
Crocodile Rock, Elton John
Will It Go Round In Circles, Billy Preston
You're So Vain, Carly Simon
Touch Me In The Morning, Diana Ross

How different the world was in 1973!
Computers with less power than today’s laptops filled entire rooms; students used slide rules in the classroom; there was just one telephone company and no cell phones. FM radio was just past the novelty stage.

The Endangered Species Act came at end of that year, 1973. It was and is an important law; but based on what I call “1970’s state-of-the-art public policy technology.”

The ESA did very well for a few species in its first 30 years. It’s had a mixed to poor record for more than 1200 other species. It’s not done so well for people who live, work on land, and who otherwise would be natural cooperators in conservation, thus creating controversies and the dubious dichotomies of environment vs. economy.

So now after the first 30 years, how do we move forward with the ESA? Paradoxically we have to look back to the late 1940s, and the great Aldo Leopold, the founder of the field of conservation biology. He said in his "Sand County Almanac": "A conservationist is one who is humbly aware that with each stroke he is writing his signature on the face of his land."

At the heart of Leopold's conservation ethic was this poetic call to citizens to take responsibility and become stewards of the land.

Since Leopold wrote, the growth of our population and expansion of our economy, have increased pressures correspondingly on our undeveloped land, water resources and wildlife. Of course, these pressures were among the factors that led to the enactment of the ESA.

But we’ve learned a lot since 1973. We now understand that public lands are no longer the only places to protect species. We have come to realize that we must work in partnership with people who farm, ranch and log on private land. While countless species depend on the land to sustain life, families depend on the land for economic survival.

In President Bush’s Administration, we share Leopold's belief that Americans should be partners in the preservation of our lands and natural resources. Most Americans, especially those who depend on the land for their livelihood, are ready and willing to step up to the challenge.

President Bush and Secretary Norton envision a nation of citizen-conservationists. The essence of that vision is the belief that for conservation to be successful, we must involve the people who live on, work on, and love the land and the water.

Successful conservation is a partnership between the government and the people. The government's role is to empower the people to take conservation into their own hands. This concept puts collaboration ahead of polarization.

So at age 30, the manner in which the ESA is implemented is ready for some adaptive public policy--new policy technology, if i may continue that analogy.

Indeed, a new model is emerging: collaboration.

And we’re laying the groundwork for the next 30 years every day.

Our goal is to improve the implementation of ESA to enhance focus on
recovery, protect habitat, and reduce unnecessary bureaucratic process.

¯ We are committed to the recovery of species and preservation of habitat.
We have opportunities across the country to change the dynamic of how we implement the Endangered Species Act – to move towards a new era of cooperative conservation that achieves significant benefits for species, while respecting the needs and interests of our partners.

¯ We have learned from experience that we can do a better job of protecting species if we involve States and Tribes, landowners, businesses, and conservation organizations and work together through partnerships, incentive- based programs, conservation agreements, and enhanced funding.

¯ Recovery of listed species -- the true measure of success -- will largely depend on the beneficial, and often voluntary, actions of States, landowners, and others to preserve and restore habitat. It will depend on partnerships and other innovative approaches to conservation. It will be depend on the creativity and flexibility of the regulatory agencies. And it will depend on the good stewardship of private landowners.

Let me share with you a timely and somewhat local example of cooperative conservation in practice. As Californians, you’re all familiar with Mark Twain’s story of the jumping frog of Calaveras County. As conservation professionals, you all know that that talented frog was most likely of the species now commonly known as the red-legged frog. It’s a federally-, and state-, listed species here in California. Just a few weeks ago, two children whose parents own a ranch in Calaveras County discovered several red-legged frogs on their parents’ property. The kids were thrilled. Now under the 1970’s paradigm, regulators would have descended on that ranch and immediately commenced telling the family: “Don’t do this; don’t do that; don’t do A, B, or C, or X, Y, Z.” How thrilled do you think those folks would have been with that?

Under the 1980’s model and well into the ‘90’s, the landowners never would have let anybody know of their discovery. And what good would that have done the species?

But today, empowered by our cooperative approach to conservation, the family and federal and state biologists are sitting down together and asking, “How can we all make this work for the frog and the ranch?” The family’s being treated as the citizen-stewards they are. If this approach works--and I’m optimistic it will--then we’ll conserve a population of an imperiled species and at the same time preserve a family’s property to be productive for another generation. We’ll also have created two more enthusiastic conservation-minded kids who’ll be responsible stewards as adults.

The Calaveras frog isn’t the only current example of cooperative conservation. In our partnership programs, we’ve committed literally
hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve habitat with the goals of avoiding the need to list species and to accelerate recovery of species already listed.

The Private Stewardship Grants Program provides grants and other assistance on a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in local, private, and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species.

Conservation Grants provide funds for implementation of conservation projects federally listed threatened or endangered species and species at-risk States or Territories that have entered into cooperative agreements with the Service.

In 2003, we spent nearly $70 million on recovery land acquisition and habitat conservation activities. And that doesn’t include millions more available in the Farm Bill for activities to restore and enhance habitat.

We want to make the states active partners in species conservation. We recognize the importance of their roles and we will explore new partnerships under section 6 of the Act.

Now a brief update on current issues:

No surprises litigation:

As you may know, the U.S. District Court in Washington has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the “no surprises” policy. Unfortunately, the court hasn’t told us the grounds for its ruling. For a while, we had a moratorium on new section 10(a) permits. Now, however, we have drafted a “savings clause” for use in HCPs by which we continue the use of the “no surprises” policy until we know for sure the substantive basis of the court’s ruling.

CRITICAL HABITAT:

“[C]ritical habitat designation has proven to be a controversial and costly yet largely toothless means of furthering conservation of listed species. Nothing focuses and energizes controversy more than having government agencies draw lines on maps, and the required economic analysis added significant costs to listing actions. At the same time, since regulations were issued in 1986, the duty for federal agencies to avoid adversely modifying critical habitat has provided little if any additional protection beyond that provided by the requirement that they avoid jeopardizing a listed species' existence because the two have been defined to mean the same thing. . . .
Critical habitat designation has become the tail that wags the dog of listing species.”

You all have read that I’ve said that or something like that. Only that’s not me. It’s from an article entitled “The Endangered Species Act: Thirty Years on the Ark,” by Jeff Curtis and Bob Davison, in a recent edition of OPEN SPACES QUARTERLY. ‘Nuff said. . . Except to add that critical habitat guidance for Service staff is on the way . . . Probably by year’s end.

COUNTERPART REGS:

President Bush signed the Healthy Forests legislation earlier this week and the FWS and NOAA Fisheries released section 7 consultation regulations with the Forest Service, BLM, the National Park Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The new regulations that will accelerate Endangered Species Act review of National Fire Plan actions, allowing land managers to better protect communities and wildlife habitat from catastrophic fires.
The regulations improve the consultation process by allowing trained biologists within the federal land management agencies to make the initial determination of whether there is likely to be an adverse effect.
This will free up FWS and NOAA Fisheries biologists from routine and often duplicative "informal consultations" and allow them to focus more attention on proposed actions that are more likely to have an effect on listed species. The two agencies will continue the current practice of conducting "formal consultations" in cases where biologists determine a forest health project is likely to have an adverse effect. While the new regulations will accelerate reviews, they do not change any standards used for determining whether an action will have an adverse effect on a listed species. Listed species will receive the same level of protection as before.

DELISTINGS:

The Service has just recently received independent reviews of state management plans for wolves in the Northern Rockies. These plans are essential if wolves are to be delisted. The Service has transmitted the reviewer’s comments to the states for response. When the states have commented, the Service will assess the plans and the comments and determine the next steps.

Genetics

The science of genetics was not well-developed and hence not contemplated as having a role in the act in 1973. But today, genetics
plays a greater role in listing decisions and the Service’s DPS policy. How this developing science and its emerging technologies should figure into ESA policy remains an area ripe for further study.

HCPs

We support the HCP program. But in too many cases, completion takes too long and too much process. Many landowners now prefer to find a federal nexus for a section 7 consultation. I’ve recently learned that even some FWS staff tell landowners to go for section 7.

We have to make the HCP process work for small landowners and those with working landscapes.

CANADA

Our northern neighbors recently proclaimed “SARA” -- their Species At Risk Act, 30 years after ESA. The Canadians learned much from observing our experiences. Now, we will observe and learn from them -- completing the iterative loop of adaptive public policy.

So now we enter the second phase of the ESA in the second century of conservation in America--
The collaborative phase, the century of cooperation.

It may not quite be the love train . . . but . . .may be 30 years from now, in the third act. . .there’ll be peace in the valley for people and species.