Fate of the Wild

Chapter 8: The Bureaucratic Contribution

Chapter Eight The Bureaucratic Contribution The administratorof the act is always conscious of the possibility of powerful forces effecting a change in the act that may have shattering future consequences. One is always aware of the need to strike a balance, to proceed with caution, to accommodate today in order to prevail tomorrow.—Lynn Greenwalt, 1991 THE FIRST Fish and Wildlife Service director to have Endangered Species Act enforcement responsibilities was Lynn Greenwalt. He summarized the challenge he and his successorshave faced: balancing the statute's power to disrupt human plans in order to save species with the omnipresent fear that its power might speed its revocation.This is one of the bureaucratic difficulties with the ESA. The federal bureaucracy has contributed at least four components to the ESAdilemma. First, implementation standards havevaried from one administration to the next. In practice, implementation has been sporadic and unreliable . Second, from the outset the bureaucracy separated responsibility for terrestrialspecies and marine species: the Department ofthe Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service handles terrestrial species, including birds and freshwater species, and the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) handles marine species, including marine mammals. Both bureaus took on endangered species authoritywith inadequate organizational structures for the task ofprotecting species, inappropriate existing procedures, and insufficient congressional funding. Add to these difficulties the inherent deficiency of scientific knowledge about species' requirements, and the task was a huge challenge. Third, there have been instances of regulatory mishandling of cases that have been magnifiedby interest groups and the media to make the ESA look unnecessarily harsh. A few FWS biologists, facing the jeopardyof an endan112 The Bureaucratic Contribution 113 gered or threatened species on privateproperty, have overzealously enforced the no-takings clause with minimal effort at public relations. Unfortunately, the actions of a few are the actions most widelypublicized. Fourth, throughout the life of the ESA, the agencies charged with enforcing it have had insufficient funding to do the job adequately. Perforce, all aspects of the effort to save species had to be prioritized and therefore some efforts were not made. Steven L. Yaffee (1991) wrote that annual ESA funding stayed relativelyconstant while consultation activityquadrupled by 1988. The demand for listing analysis and recovery planning increased daily. All four components are related. Bureaucracy bashing is a popular pastime. However, everyadministrative entity—public or private, commercial or nonprofit—has flaws; the U.S. federal bureaucracy is more visible and therefore more vulnerable than others. Federal agencies are political entities and intensely sensitive to political considerations . The views and values of each administration direct the actions, policies, and regulations promulgated by all federal agencies. Congressional pressure has impact. Popular opinion, especially when represented by active interest groups and industrylobbies, also affects the actions of federal agencies . Voteropinions often swingagainstthe bureaucracy.Public hostilitycycles back to influence congressional and administrative politics. While the primary ESA regulators are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, several other Interior Department agencies have considerable endangered species responsibility. Each handles the charge to protect species based on its own culture. These include the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of IndianAffairs , and to a lesser extent the Bureau of Reclamation. Department ofAgriculture land management agencies include the U.S. Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, previouslyknown as the Soil Conservation Service. The Department ofDefense, being a large landowner, must often consider endangered species before taking action. Through its regulation of pollutants, the Environmental Protection Agency is also a frequent consultant with FWS. Tim Clark and Ann Harvey (1991) believe bureaucratization to be the root cause of many ESA problems because the existing organizational structures of the lead agencies did not meet the ESAs needs. The federal government continues to reexamine its hierarchical structure and resources to address todays complex issues. The agencies are aware of their shortcomings. The 114 Conflict 1995 report from the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force outlined a number of procedural and structural changes to be made within all land management agencies. Environmental issues involve many participants and demand a range of scientific and social science expertise. Resolving today's environmental issues requires biology, economics, physics, chemistry, earth sciences, technology, and the social sciences to deal with scientific, cultural, and social barriers. Regulatory mishandling of the ESA occurred when agencies disregarded their own policies in species listing, recoveryplanning, designation of critical habitat, cooperating with states, and in...