39-006

109TH CONGRESS

Report

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1st Session

109-237

--THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2005

September 27, 2005- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. POMBO, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 3824]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amendment references.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Determinations of endangered species and threatened species.
Sec. 5. Repeal of critical habitat requirements.
Sec. 6. Petitions and procedures for determinations and revisions.
Sec. 7. Reviews of listings and determinations.
Sec. 8. Secretarial guidelines; State comments.
Sec. 9. Recovery plans and land acquisitions.
Sec. 10. Cooperation with States and Indian tribes.
Sec. 11. Interagency cooperation and consultation.
Sec. 12. Exceptions to prohibitions.
Sec. 13. Private property conservation.
Sec. 14. Public accessibility and accountability.
Sec. 15. Annual cost analyses.
Sec. 16. Reimbursement for depredation of livestock by reintroduced species.
Sec. 17. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 18. Miscellaneous technical corrections.
Sec. 19. Clerical amendment to table of contents.
Sec. 20. Certain actions deemed in compliance.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT REFERENCES.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 4. DETERMINATIONS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THREATENED SPECIES.

`DETERMINATION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THREATENED SPECIES

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CRITICAL HABITAT REQUIREMENTS.

SEC. 6. PETITIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATIONS AND REVISIONS.

SEC. 7. REVIEWS OF LISTINGS AND DETERMINATIONS.

SEC. 8. SECRETARIAL GUIDELINES; STATE COMMENTS.

SEC. 9. RECOVERY PLANS AND LAND ACQUISITIONS.

`RECOVERY PLANS AND LAND ACQUISITION

SEC. 10. COOPERATION WITH STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.

SEC. 11. INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND CONSULTATION.

SEC. 12. EXCEPTIONS TO PROHIBITIONS.

SEC. 13. PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSERVATION.

`PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSERVATION

SEC. 14. PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

`PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

SEC. 15. ANNUAL COST ANALYSES.

`ANNUAL COST ANALYSIS BY UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

SEC. 16. REIMBURSEMENT FOR DEPREDATION OF LIVESTOCK BY REINTRODUCED SPECIES.

`REIMBURSEMENT FOR DEPREDATION OF LIVESTOCK BY REINTRODUCED SPECIES

SEC. 17. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

`AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 18. MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

SEC. 19. CLERICAL AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CONTENTS.

`Sec. 5. Recovery plans and land acquisition.'

`Sec. 13. Private property conservation.
`Sec. 14. Public accessibility and accountability.
`Sec. 15. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
`Sec. 16. Annual cost analysis by United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
`Sec. 17. Reimbursement for depredation of livestock by reintroduced species.
`Sec. 18. Authorization of appropriations.'.

SEC. 20. CERTAIN ACTIONS DEEMED IN COMPLIANCE.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 3824 is to amend and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide greater results conserving and recovering listed species, and for other purposes.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Prior to 1966, authority for wildlife protection rested primarily with the States, except where the wildlife was highly migratory or where wildlife was taken in violation of State or federal law or was transported across State boundaries. In response to a concern that various species had become or were in danger of becoming extinct, the federal government began to enact legislation protecting endangered and threatened fish, wildlife and plants. Congress' efforts culminated in 1973 with the passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, Public Law 93-205, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) which has become our Nation's strictest and most stringent environmental law. In conjunction with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, the ESA embodies a rigid and comprehensive approach to species protection in the United States and throughout the world.

The ESA was passed by Congress with the intent to protect and preserve species that have been identified as threatened or endangered. Over the past 32 years more than 1800 species have been listed for protection. Under the ESA, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has responsibility for plants, wildlife and inland fishes. The Secretary of Commerce through the National Marine Fisheries Service, is responsible for implementing the ESA with respect to ocean-going fish and marine animals. In addition, the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) oversees the import and export of endangered species from foreign countries through the Nation's ports.

Once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, ESA section 4 requires the relevant Secretary to declare `critical habitat' for an endangered species which limits uses of the declared lands or waters. Different protection standards can be issued for threatened species. Section 6 of the ESA authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative or management agreements with States for conservation of listed species. Under ESA section 7, federal agencies whose actions (including actions authorized, funded or directly carried out by the agency) are `likely to jeopardize the continued existence' of an endangered or threatened species must consult with the Secretary. After the consultation, the Secretary is to issue a written `jeopardy opinion' detailing how the proposed agency action affects the species or its critical habitat, and the Secretary may suggest reasonable alternatives to the proposed action which will not jeopardize the species or its habitat. The Secretary may also conclude that the agency action does not violate the ESA or results only in ` incidental take' of the species. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits various actions regarding the species, including the `take' of a species, which includes harassment, harm, pursuit, capture or killing. Section 7 also establishes the Endangered Species Committee to resolve conflicts in the administration of and grant exemptions from ESA. Under ESA section 10, the Secretary may permit any act that would otherwise violate ESA section 9 for scientific purposes or if the `taking' of the species is incidental to and not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity.

The ESA has been marked by conflict, litigation and cumbersome processes and failed to produce the goal all Americans share, recovering and endangered species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, only 10 (or less than 1%) of the roughly 1300 domestic species listed as endangered or threatened have been recovered in the ESA's 34-year history. What is the status of the remaining listed species? According to the Fish and Wildlife Service data: 39 percent of the ESA's listed species are classified as being in `unknown' status, which could include extinction; 21 percent are classified as `declining;' 3 percent are classified as `believed to be extinct,' though they remain on the list; 30 percent are classified as `stable,' though for many species in this category, this classification is a result of corrections to original data error, rather than actual accomplishments of the ESA; and only 6 percent are classified by the Fish and Wildlife Service as `improving.' Moreover, according to official Fish and Wildlife Service data, 77 percent of all the listed species have only achieved somewhere between zero and one quarter of their recovery goals. 1

[Footnote] These are not the statistics of a successful law after more than three decades of implementation.

[Footnote 1: In fairness, this number includes the species in the `unknown' category because of the inability to gauge their status.]

H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (TESRA), will place a new emphasis on conservation and recovery, eliminates the dysfunctional critical habitat provisions that the last two Administrations have recognized as ineffective for conservation, removes the conservation burden that has been unfairly imposed on private property owners and reestablishes a meaningful distinction between endangered and threatened species. It also provides for more transparency in the ESA program, accountability, and stronger scientific safeguards, improves numerous aspects of the consultation program and provides incentives and larger roles for States, local governments and Indian tribes.

Among TESRA's provisions are those aimed at fostering recovery of endangered species, drawing not only on those who have knowledge and skills essential to guide effective conservation efforts but also those who have property or livelihoods affected by species--where any successful program must be made to work--to foster collaborative rather than confrontational recovery programs.

TESRA provides new tools like Threatened and Endangered Species Incentives Program to enlist private property owners as allies in species conservation. The bill provides landowners who participate in Habitat Conservation Plans assurances against surprises. TESRA requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide a clear answer for landowners whether a proposed property use would violate the ESA. In those cases where there is a conflict, TESRA provides for conservation aid that reduces the burden of regulation on property owners when use of their private property has been restricted for conservation, thus ensuring that individual property owners are not forced to shoulder the financial burden of conserving endangered and threatened species for all Americans.

Section 4(d) of the ESA authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce `by regulation' to apply to `any threatened species' any of the prohibitions (most notably the `take' prohibition) that section 9 of the ESA establishes for endangered species. The fundamental purpose of this provision is to allow each Secretary to tailor prohibitions for any less imperiled threatened species that the ESA automatically applies to all of the more imperiled endangered species. While the Secretary of Commerce has interpreted this language to mean that he or she is to issue individual rules tailoring whatever prohibitions are needed to each specific threatened species, the Secretary of the Interior has issued a blanket rule that applies all of the ESA section 9 prohibitions automatically to virtually all of the threatened species whenever they have been or will be listed.

Section 8 of TESRA, as introduced, would have directed the Secretaries to take the approach followed by the Secretary of Commerce. The provision would have required that the underlying intent of ESA section 4(d)--to require the tailoring of, and application to, threatened species on a species-specific basis any of the general statutory prohibitions for endangered species--be accomplished by the elimination of the Secretary of the Interior's blanket applicability approach and the application of any ESA section 9 prohibitions to any threatened species by the issuance of individual rules for particular threatened species (or groups of threatened species whose specific threats or biological conditions are sufficiently similar to

warrant application of identical prohibitions). An amendment striking TESRA section 8 was adopted when members of the Committee pointed out that the problem that section addressed was created by a single U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule which could be remedied by rulemaking without statutory change. The amendment striking section 8 was agreed to on that basis. The Committee expects and directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct promptly a rulemaking to reconsider and eliminate or restructure the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule--50 CFR 17.31(a)--in light of this report and legislative history.

COMMITTEE ACTION

Committee on Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) introduced H.R. 3824 on September 19, 2005, along with Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Congressman Joe Baca (D-CA), Congressman Marion Berry (D-AR), Congressman Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC), Congressman Jim Costa (D-CA), Congresswoman Barbara Cubin (R-WY), Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-NV), Congressman Sam Graves (R-MO), Congresswoman Cathy McMorris (R-WA), Congressman George Radanovich (R-CA), Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR), Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT), Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU), Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA), Congresswoman Thelma Drake (R-VA), Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ), Congressman Don Young (R-AK), Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Congressman Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Congressman Tom G. Tancredo (R-CO), Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK), Congressman K. Michael Conaway (R-TX), Congressman Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Congressman Daniel E. Lungren (R-CA), Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Congressman C.L. `Butch' Otter (R-ID), Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Congressman John T. Doolittle (R-CA), Congressman Collin C. Peterson (D-MN), Congressman John B. Shadegg (R-AZ), Congressman Dennis R. Rehberg (R-MT), Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY), Congressman Ron Lewis (R-KY), Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN), Congressman John Sullivan (R-OK), Congressman Michael K. Simpson (R-ID), Congressman Randy `Duke' Cunningham (R-CA), Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), Congressman William M. Thomas (R-CA), Congressman Steve King (R-IA), Congressman Darrell E. Issa (R-CA), Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA), Congressman Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (D-GA), Resident Commissioner Luis G. Fortun.AE6o (R-PR), Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Congressman Stevan Pearce (R-NM), Congresswoman Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-CO), Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Congressman Howard P. `Buck' McKeon (R-CA), Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega (D-AS), Congressman Charlie Melancon (D-LA), Congressman Mark E. Souder (R-IN), Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA), Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL), Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX), Congressman Frank D. Lucas (R-OK), Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Congressman John Kline (R-MN), Congressman David Scott (D-GA), Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA), Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA), Congressman Michael T. McCaul (R-TX), Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA), Congressman Mark R. Kennedy (R-MN), Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA), Congressman William L. Jenkins (R-TN), Congressman Don Sherwood (R-PA), Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), Congressman John Boozman (R-AZ), Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK), Congressman Charles W. `Chip' Pickering (R-MS), Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX), Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz (D-TX), Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Congressman Chet Edwards (D-TX), Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL), Congressman Jim Ryun (R-KS), Congressman Richard H. Baker (R-LA), Mike Rogers (R-AL), Terry Everett (R-AL), Congressman Jo Bonner (R-AL), Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Congressman Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL), Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Congressman Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Congressman Robert E. `Bud' Cramer (D-AL), Congressman Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), Congressman Tom Osborne (R-NE), Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) (as of the preparation of this report).

The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources. On September 21, 2005, the Committee held a hearing on the bill. On September 22, 2005, the Committee met to mark up the bill. The following amendments were offered:

Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) offered an en bloc set of technical amendments to sections 10 and 13 of the bill. They were adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Tom Udall (D-NM) offered an amendment to strike the definition of `best available scientific data' from section 3 of the ESA. The amendment failed by voice vote.

Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR) offered and withdrew an amendment regarding the application of `jeopardize the continued existence.'

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) offered and withdrew an amendment regarding peer review.

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) offered an amendment to strike the determination of distinct population of vertebrate fish or wildlife only sparingly. The amendment failed by voice vote.

Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) offered an amendment to deem a species as endangered or threatened if the Secretary of the Interior fails to make a determination within 180 days of the species being proposed. The amendment failed by voice vote.

Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) offered and withdrew an amendment which required the Secretary of the Interior to prepare an analysis of the economic impact, the impact on national security and other relevant impact of a determination that a species is endangered or threatened.

Congressman Jim Saxton (R-NJ) offered an amendment to strike section 5 of the bill (Repeal of Critical Habitat Requirements). The amendment failed by voice vote.

Congressman Jim Saxton offered and withdrew an amendment to strike the repeal of the critical habitat requirements under section 4 of the ESA and insert instead provisions on protection of critical habitat and survival habitat.

Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment to strike section 8 (Protective Regulations). The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Jim Costa (D-CA) offered an amendment to section 9 of the bill to include counties along with Governors and State agencies in commenting on regulations issued by the Secretary of the Interior under section 4 of the ESA. Chairman Pombo offered an amendment to the Costa amendment to include units of local government. The Pombo amendment to the Costa amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The Costa amendment, as amended, was adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Jim Saxton offered an amendment to strike the recovery plan process in section 10 of the bill and replace it with a different process. Chairman Richard Pombo offered an amendment to the Saxton amendment to strike all the text but the requirement that recovery plans be prepared or revised within 10 years of the date of enactment of TESRA. The Pombo amendment to the Saxton amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent. The Saxton amendment, as amended, by adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to strike the language in section 10 of the bill regarding the regulatory nature of recovery plans. The amendment failed by voice vote.

Congressman Greg Walden offered and withdrew an amendment to allow the

modification of specific measures in an agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and a federal agency after considering the direct, indirect and cumulative costs and benefits resulting from the implementation of a recovery plan.

Congressman Jim Costa offered an amendment to section 10 of the bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to consult with any pertinent State, regional or local land use agency before approving a new or revised recovery plan. Chairman Pombo offered an amendment to also include the designee of a local land use agency. This amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the Costa amendment to include Indian tribes and to provide a definition of Indian tribes. This amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The Costa amendment, as amended, was adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Rick Renzi offered an amendment to allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with Indian tribes under section 11 of the bill. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to strike alternative procedures for the federal agency consultation requirement under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. The amendment failed by a roll call vote of 12 to 21, as follows:

Insert graphic folio 28 HR237.001

Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA) offered and withdrew an amendment which exempted from the ESA section 7(a) requirements certain agency action that may affect a species for which a permit has been issued under section 10 of the ESA if the action implements or is consistent with any conservation plan or agreement incorporated by reference in the permit.

Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) offered an amendment to change from 90 to 180 days the length of time the Secretary of the Interior has to respond to a request for a written determination of compliance with section 9(a) of the ESA. The amendment also provided a sunset for the written determination and allowed the Secretary to withdraw the determination under certain circumstances. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Chairman Pombo offered an amendment to clarify that the request for a written determination of compliance must apply to a proposed use which is lawful under State and local law. The amendment also required the requestor to send the request by certified mail, that the request must describe the lawfulness of the proposed action under State and local law, as well as demonstrate that the property owner has the means to undertake the use, and the request must describe the anticipated adverse impact to a species. The amendment also allows the Secretary of the Interior to request more information regarding the determination and allows the requestor to supply such additional information. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-NV) offered an amendment to allow the President, after consulting with the appropriate federal agency, to exempt any act or omission from the provisions of the ESA if the exemption is necessary for national security. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) offered and withdrew an amendment regarding an exemption from liability for take of listed aquatic species.

Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-LA) offered an amendment to authorize the President to suspend the application of the ESA in a declared disaster area and directed the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations regarding the application of the ESA in the event of an emergency involving a threat to human health or safety or to property. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) offered an amendment providing a definition of `experimental population.' The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Chairman Richard Pombo offered an amendment to section 14 of the bill to clarify the provisions regarding the distribution of aid, including the legality of the foregone use which would be subject to aid, the timing of the aid, the documentation and calculation of fair market value of the foregone use, and the availability of aid. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Jay Inslee offered an amendment to require that before any aid can be granted under section 14 of the bill, the property owner would also have to demonstrate that the application of ESA section 9(a) to prohibit the foregone use constitutes a taking of privately owned land for which the payment of compensation is required by the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The amendment failed on a roll call vote of 10 to 27, as follows:

Insert graphic folio 30 HR237.002

Congressman Stevan Pearce (R-NM) offered an amendment regarding the reimbursement for depredation of livestock by reintroduced species. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Congressman Greg Walden offered an amendment which deemed certain actions in compliance with other laws to also be in compliance with section 7(a)(2) and section 9(a)(1)(B) of the ESA for a period of time. The amendment was adopted by a roll call vote of 26 to 11, as follows:

Insert graphic folio 32 HR237.003

No additional amendments were offered and H.R. 3824, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 26 to 12, as follows:

Insert graphic folio 34 HR237.004

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title; Table of contents

Section 1 provides a short title for the bill--`The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005'--and a table of contents.

Section 2. Amendment references

Section 2 clarifies that, unless otherwise noted, all amendments are to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Section 3. Definitions

TESRA section 3 establishes a new definition for the ESA and directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to provide guidance and direction on the development and use of scientific data. The fundamental goal of adding this definition is to ensure that sound and defensible science is used in all relevant decisions including: a proposed listing or delisting of an endangered or threatened species; a proposal to reclassify a species from threatened to endangered or vice versa; the development of a recovery plan for an endangered or threatened species; and a biological opinion on a federal agency action.

Each agency follows a regulatory process to list species as threatened or endangered and to conserve or recover a species. Currently, the ESA requires `the best scientific and commercial data available' for listings and other actions. However, this term is not defined, and there are no objective standards to ensure a uniformly high quality of scientific data. Further, many question the cost, magnitude and validity of the ESA's requirements and implementation since the ESA has produced very limited recovery results. This has led to concerns about the adequacy of science supporting implementation of actions under the ESA. To address these issues, this definition is established and the Secretaries are to set standards for the `best available scientific data' that are used to take actions under the ESA.

TESRA section 3 also provides a new definition of `permit or license applicant' to replace the old definition that was tied to the now-repealed Endangered Species Committee exemption process. A permit or license applicant under ESA section 7 is a person who has applied to a federal agency for a permit or license or for another type of formal legal approval to perform an act, such as a bidder on a federal contract.

TESRA section 3 also defines the term `jeopardize the continued existence' of an endangered species or threatened species. The term is used in ESA section 7, under which federal agencies must insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species. Under this definition, the agency action must reasonably be expected to significantly impede, directly or indirectly, the conservation of the species in the long-term. This definition strengthens the current jeopardy standard by adding to the jeopardy analysis consideration of `conservation,' defined in the ESA as the use of all methods and procedures to restore a species to the point where the protections of the ESA are no longer necessary. A significant impediment to conservation is one that, by itself, makes the future use of such methods and procedures unlikely to be successful, thus jeopardizing the continued existence of the species and risking its extinction. Before an impediment can be considered `significant,' there must be sufficient scientific basis in existence at the time of the consultation, such as a recovery plan if one has been prepared under TESRA, to conclude that the conservation is possible. As provided by the definitions of `endangered species' and `threatened species' in the current ESA, a significant impediment must be likely to frustrate, directly or indirectly, conservation throughout all or a significant portion of the species' range, not just in one region or locality, although for some species an action occurring only in one such area could indirectly have significant effects in a broader area. In addition to being significant, the harmful effects of the agency action must persist over the long term, which may vary from species to species. A short-term impediment to conservation, no matter how significant, that has no lasting long-term effects would not support a jeopardy finding under the definition. To find jeopardy, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the effects would be likely to create a significant long-term threat to the ability to successfully conserve the species. Finally, this definition would consider only the conservation of the species in the wild, not taking into account, for example, captive-breeding programs or the maintenance of members of the endangered species or threatened species in zoos, aquaria, or other refuges.

This term, as it appears in section 7 of the current ESA, is not defined, and has been implemented by the Secretary through regulatory provisions. The term is also accompanied by a second standard in section 7 of the current ESA for evaluating federal actions destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Although the greatest threat to endangered and threatened species is habitat loss, and protection of habitat is a key concern of the ESA, the legal concept of critical habitat in the ESA has proven to be poorly understood, controversial and difficult to implement, with both the Clinton and Bush Administrations speaking out forcefully as to its cost in time and money and relative ineffectiveness as a conservation tool. Litigation over the concept's meaning and application in ESA section 7 has also increased dramatically, shifting valuable conservation resources away from on-the-ground restoration to often ineffective process costs. Reflecting these realities, the concept of critical habitat and the second standard in ESA section 7 that incorporates it have been dropped. To assure that ESA section 7 continues to give broad protection for species and habitats, the new jeopardy definition has been added so that, when a future agency action is evaluated for risk of jeopardizing the continued existence of a species, consideration is given to preserving the potential for species' conservation and not just the effect on the species' survival. Habitat will continue to be a central focus of the analysis under ESA section 7 since ultimate conservation of so many endangered and threatened species is habitat-dependent. Moreover, the amendments contained in TESRA to strengthen the recovery planning process increase the focus on habitat, since recovery plans will be required to include the identification of habitat that is of special value to the conservation of the species. This will able the recovery plan to serve a role formerly played by critical habitat to inform the public of the importance of key habitat areas. Additionally, recovery teams can develop plans that incentivize conservation on privately owned lands that have been subject to sound land management practices that have benefitted species but were never acknowledged under the current regulatory-based critical habitat system. Recovery plans can be given the force and effect of law if adopted through other existing authorities, and federal agencies may enter into implementation agreements with the Secretary to enforce recovery plan provisions. In any event the recovery plan should inform all discretionary decision-making under the ESA even where the obligations of the affected agencies or parties differ from the standards of a recovery plan. The Secretary's regulations will have to be updated to implement the new jeopardy definition in the wide range of circumstances that exist among endangered and threatened species.

Section 4. Determinations of endangered species and threatened species

TESRA section 4 provides that the `Secretary shall use the authority * * * to determine any distinct population of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife to be an endangered species or a threatened species only sparingly.' The Senate Report on the 1979 ESA Amendments recognized the `great potential for abuse' in providing an ability to extend the ESA's protections to a `distinct population,' and directed that this authority be used only `sparingly.' S. Rep. No. 96-151 at 7 (1979). TESRA elevates that legislative intent to a statutory directive.

The Committee has done so because, despite the intent in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1996 DPS Policy to designate distinct populations only `sparingly' (61 Fed. Reg.

4722-25 (Feb. 7, 1996)), in practice the `Services have concluded that potential populations qualify as a distinct population over 80 percent of the time.' Geoffroy and Doyle, Listing Distinct Population Segments of Endang