MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION - Annual Report for 1995 



National Marine Fisheries Service), then partial or full 

 reimbursement from the agency imposing the require- 

 ment could be sought. 



Other provisions of H.R. 2275 would exempt 

 captive-bred wildlife from coverage under the Endan- 

 gered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection 

 Act, and other wildlife statutes if the progeny are not 

 intentionally released to the wild. This could cause 

 conservation problems for some listed species by 

 allowing unrestricted imports and trade even when the 

 captive breeding program is based on capturing 

 parental stock from the wild at an unsustainable level. 



Listing decisions would be made subject to addi- 

 tional review. Before proposing a listing, the Secre- 

 tary would be required to solicit status information 

 from the public for a minimum period of 180 days. 

 Public hearings on the listing proposal would be 

 mandatory in each state where the species occurs. 

 Designation of critical habitat along with a species 

 listing, however, would be made discretionary. In 

 addition, all listing proposals would be subject to a 

 formal peer review requirement. Findings of biologi- 

 cal opinions issued under section 7 would also be 

 subject to the new peer review requirements. 



Under H.R. 2275, once a species is listed, the 

 Secretary would establish a conservation objective, 

 ranging from recovery of the species to merely 

 prohibiting intentional taking. A conservation plan to 

 achieve the stated objective would then be prepared. 

 Generally, incidental taking would not be prohibited 

 and consultation would not be required until a conser- 

 vation plan is adopted. 



Appropriations for activities under the Act would 

 be authorized by the Young-Pombo bill through fiscal 

 year 2001 at significantly increased levels. However, 

 as is the current procedure, actual funding levels 

 would be set through enactment of annual appropria- 

 tions measures. 



Believing the Young-Pombo bill to be too sweep- 

 ing, Representatives Wayne Gilchrest and Jim Saxton 

 introduced more moderate proposals. Representative 

 Gilchrest introduced H.R. 2374 on 21 September. 

 Representative Saxton introduced H.R. 2444 on 29 

 September. Inasmuch as the Young-Pombo bill was 



reported out of House Resources Committee on 12 

 October, the fates of these bills is uncertain. 



On 26 October Senator Dirk Kempthorne intro- 

 duced a package of three bills related to the Endan- 

 gered Species Act. The primary bill, S. 1364, would 

 amend and reauthorize the Act. The other two bills, 

 S. 1365 and 1366, would amend the federal tax code 

 to provide incentives for landowners to enter into 

 conservation easement agreements to protect endan- 

 gered species habitat. 



S. 1364 has many features in common with the 

 Young-Pombo bill. The Kempthorne bill, however, 

 has several unique provisions. The term "Secretary" 

 would be redefined, effectively shifting Endangered 

 Species Act responsibilities for marine species from 

 the Department of Commerce to the Department of 

 the Interior. The term "species" would be redefined 

 so that subspecies and distinct vertebrate populations 

 could be listed only if there is a complete lack of gene 

 flow between population segments. Moreover, if a 

 distinct population segment is listed, only minimal 

 protection would be provided unless a special finding 

 of national significance were made. The definition of 

 an endangered species would be amended to require 

 a showing that, without listing, the species would be 

 placed on an irreversible course to extinction within 

 40 years. A threatened species would be one that 

 would become an endangered species within 100 years 

 without the protection afforded by the Act. The term 

 "take" would also be redefined to eliminate those 

 aspects that do not entail physical injury or capture 

 (e.g., harassment and pursuit) and to restrict the types 

 of habitat modification that would constitute a taking. 



The Kempthorne bill, like the Young-Pombo bill, 

 would establish a right to compensation for the 

 diminishment of property values resulting from 

 Endangered Species Act activities. The right to 

 compensation under the Kempthorne bill, however, 

 would not be subject to a 20 percent threshold — any 

 diminution in value would be compensable. 



Another unique feature of the Kempthorne bill 

 would be the creation of a five-member Endangered 

 Species Commission. Each member would be a 

 recognized authority in one of five disciplines — 

 botany, zoology, ecology, resource management, or 



