Congressman Dennis Cardoza
18th Congressional District of California

The bill, which has bipartisan support, would streamline the Service’s procedures by requiring the Service to establish a recovery plan for a species at the same time it designates its critical habitat. Currently, the Service designates critical habitat before developing a recovery plan, leading to the hasty, and sometimes unreasonable, determination of land necessary for a species’ survival.

"We’ve seen the effects of the Service’s sloppy decision-making on critical habitat issues, causing unnecessary impacts to agriculture and other landowners, as well at to local governments and to the economy," Cardoza said. "It cannot be allowed to continue."

A recent proposed designation of 1.7 million acres of critical habitat for vernal pool species and plants has received widespread criticism in the Central Valley. Cardoza successfully fought to have the public comment period about the proposal extended so that farmers, ranchers and other concerned parties could voice their concerns. A revised designation of vernal pool critical habitat designation will soon be issued as a final rule.

But Cardoza believes that relying on a prolonged public comment period is not the ultimate solution to critical habitat reform, and that doing so repeatedly will put Valley agriculture and the Valley economy at risk.

"We can’t keep waiting for Fish & Wildlife officials to make their decisions and then attempt to correct them afterwards," Cardoza said. "It’s time we solve this problem permanently and bring some sense to a very important process by reforming it at its core."

On the heels of the vernal pool designation is yet another proposal by the Service to list the California Tiger Salamander as threatened. Listing the tiger salamander would trigger another round of critical habitat designation, resulting in additional far-reaching impacts to property owners, beyond the impacts of the vernal pool designation.

"The cumulative impact of these decisions, without a proper analysis and consideration of the economic consequences, is unacceptable," Cardoza said.

The Cardoza bill would limit critical habitat designations to areas that are "absolutely essential and indispensable to conservation," and where practicable and economically feasible. It also would require the Service to make a more accurate assessment of the costs associated with proposed designations, including an economic impact analysis and a calculation of expenses incurred in the preparation of reports and surveys for landowners.

In addition, the Act would require the Service to consider information from local governments, including data and maps, which are often more accurate than the Service’s resources.

1) Current law requires the Fish & Wildlife Service to establish a recovery plan for listed species. The Service, however, generally designates critical habitat before it has established a recovery plan for the species. In order to provide the most meaningful opportunity for review of proposed critical habitat designations, the public should be made aware of the recovery plan for the species in question.

This bill would require the establishment of a recovery plan concurrent with the designation of critical habitat.

2) Current law requires designation of critical habitat "to the maximum extent prudent and determinable." This provision, however, has been interpreted by the courts to provide very little discretion.

This bill would limit the designation of critical habitat to the maximum extent "practicable, economically feasible, and determinable."

3) Current law limits critical habitat designations to areas which are "essential to the conservation of the species."

This bill would define "essential to the conservation of the species as areas which are absolutely necessary and indispensable to conservation."

4) This bill would exclude areas that are under a habitat conservation program or under a state or federal conservation program if the Secretary determines that such program provides protection for habitat of the species that is substantially equivalent to the designation.

5) This bill would require the Service to consider local resource data, including maps, when considering areas for possible designation.

6) Current law allows the Secretary to exclude areas from critical habitat if he/she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of a designation.

This bill would require the economic impact analysis to consider direct, indirect and cumulative economic impacts of the designation, including the impact of lost revenues to land owners and to federal, state and local governments, as well as to include costs associated with the preparation of reports, surveys and analyses for landowners seeking to obtain approval from state, federal or local permitting agencies.

7) This bill would require the Service to provide information as to how to access GIS maps on the Service’s web site when providing public notice of the proposed designation.