Current Law:
The ESA states that if a species is listed under the ESA, the Secretary must also designate habitat that is critical to the species. In practice, however, critical habitat isn't assigned for most species because of limited resources, according to a report prepared for Congress. As of December 2004, the Fish and Wildlife Service had designated critical habitat for only 37% of ESA-listed domestic species, the report says.
Proposed Amendment:
One proposed amendment, H.R. 3824, repeals the ESA's "Critical Habitat" requirements by striking paragraph 3 from Section 1533(a) of U.S. Code. Click on the text below for the paragraph of the law that would be eliminated by the amendment.
Controversy:
Although there is debate about the efficacy of critical habitat, the Union of Concerned Scientists argues in favor of it in its letter to Congress: "Habitat loss and degradation are the principal reasons for the decline of most species at risk. Habitat protection is essential if species are to be conserved and the goals of the ESA are to be met." Along the same lines, a study conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity found that the recovery of species is correlated with the designation of critical habitat.
Instead of critical habitat, H.R. 3824 calls for the identification of certain areas of "special value" to conservation, says the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There are, however, no guidelines as to what "special value" means, no attention to historical habitat or future habitat the species might occupy, and no requirement or guidelines for habitat protection," according to the Union.