Those of you here today participating in or attending the hearing are acutely aware of the contentious debate over the Endangered Species Act, as well as the morass of legal challenges and great difficulties with implementing the Act. While written with the best of intentions, the Endangered Species Act simply doesn't work for species or people. Conserving our wildlife and fisheries resources to maintain diversity and ensure healthy populations of our indigenous species is a necessary and laudable goal.
I am particularly concerned by repeated reports that implementation efforts are not doing enough to recover species in decline, and, at the same time, are having significant negative impacts on the economic and social health of many communities. Simply put, the ESA is failing to meet its objectives: to conserve, protect, and recover species at risk of becoming extinct.
In response to these concerns, legislative initiatives have been proposed in successive Congresses to address many of the issues raised by reform advocates. However, attempts at comprehensive reform have been slowed by a polarizing debate from many participants. For the benefit of species and people, we must move ahead to find solutions that protect our fisheries and wildlife resources and, at the same time, protect our communities.
Recognizing that comprehensive reform is still necessary, and also recognizing that comprehensive reform is an extremely difficult undertaking, Chairman Chafee, Senator Domenici, and I have decided to take a focused approach to address an immediate and urgent problem regarding implementation of the ESA. This relatively minor fix will have a disproportionately beneficial effect on fish, wildlife, and communities.
S. 1100 would do essentially two things. First, it would establish a deadline by which recovery plans for listed species must be completed. Nothing in the current law requires that a recovery plan be completed in a specified time frame. A recovery plan is the most critical element for the recovery of threatened and endangered species. It is the blueprint for increasing their numbers and maintaining healthy, viable populations. There are many listed species for which no recovery plan exists -- which is why we will establish a deadline for completing the plan two and a half years after the species is listed.
Second, S. 1100 would shift the timing of designating critical habitat. The current law requires that critical habitat be designated when species are listed -- when they are determined to be threatened or endangered. It would be difficult, at best, to scientifically justify how fisheries and wildlife managers could make a determination about the critical habitat of a species when so little is known about it at the time of listing.
The designation of critical habitat often has dire effects on the social and economic stability of communities. During the critical habitat designation for the Northern Spotted Owl, a major economic engine of an entire region of the country was the focus of a confrontational debate on the impact of a critical habitat designation. In my own state of Idaho, we have seen farm loans disappear and economic hardship as a result of the focal point that critical habitat brings when it is designated. Currently, critical habitat is required to be designated when we know the least about a species. We know only that the patient is in the emergency room; we do not know enough about the prescription for recovery.
Because critical habitat designation can create such widespread impact, it is crucial that designations be undertaken at a time that maximizes our scientific understanding of the recovery needs of a species. This will ensure that these efforts are a productive and effective tool in the recovery of species.
For these reasons, S. 1100 would move critical habitat designation to the recovery planning phase of the Act. Critical habitat would be designated as an element of the recovery plan instead of the listing process. This measure would not make any other substantive changes to existing law, nor would it modify petitions or other procedural requirements to designate critical habitat.
I look forward to a productive and educational discussion of this legislation and possibilities of making the ESA work more effectively.