Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005

On 9/15/2005, Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA) introduced HR 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (TESRA). The bill was passed by the House on 9/29/05 with 229 votes. Details of the bill can be found on http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=h109-3824.

Major controversies were generated by this bill. Pombo and his supporters backed the reform saying that “real species recovery can be achieved while minimizing conflict with landowners, businesses, public land managers, and communities”.

Opponents like The National Center for Public Policy Research stated that the bill “would place endangered species at greater risk and would give federal officials even wider powers to violate property rights”. The full analysis is available at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA531TESRA.html. A shorter version of analysis from the same center can be found on http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRTESRAEndangeredSpecies805.html.

The followings are some key changes related to the use of science in determining endangered species:

· Section 3 defines "best available scientific data as scientific data, regardless of source” and gives the Secretary of the Interior power to determine what constitutes the best available scientific data. In other words, political appointee rather than scientists will determine what the best available science is.

· Section 4 “substitutes the criteria of ‘best available scientific data’ for ‘best scientific and commercial data available’ in making determinations of endangered or threatened species.”

· Section 5 repeals the critical habitat requirement and replaced that with “specific areas that are of special value to the conservation of the species”. ESA has clearly defined “critical habitat” whereas areas with “special value” is not defined in TESRA. In short, scientific guidelines may not be used in deciding what habitat should be protected.

· Section 9 requires the Secretary to “consult with states, Indian tribes, or regional or local land use agencies prior to the approval of a new or revised recovery plan”. It means that purely scientific evidence is insufficient to initiate recovery plan. Should there be any land use conflicts; delay in implementation of recovery plan is highly likely.

· Section 11 calls for elimination of the Endangered Species Committee which composes of seven members, and consolidates decision making authority to the Secretary of the Interior.