I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1042 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require that certain 

species be treated as extinct for purposes of that Act if there is not 

a substantial increase in the population of a species during the 15- 

year period beginning on the date the species is determined to be an 

endangered species, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2011 

Mr. BACA (for himself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. COSTA, Mr. 

CUELLAR, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, and Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require 

that certain species be treated as extinct for purposes 

of that Act if there is not a substantial increase in 

the population of a species during the 15-year period 

beginning on the date the species is determined to be 

an endangered species, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1042 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Discredit Eternal List3 ing Inequality of Species Takings Act’’ or the ‘‘DELIST 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

6 Congress finds the following: 

7 (1) The Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly 

8 (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis) was listed 

9 as an endangered species under the Endangered 

10 Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) on 

11 September 23, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 49881). 

12 (2) Nineteen years have passed since the Delhi 

13 Sands Flower-loving Fly was listed as an endan14 gered species. 

15 (3) The Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly’s listing 

16 was based on a high degree of threat and a low po17 tential for recovery for a listed subspecies that may 

18 be in conflict with construction or other development 

19 projects or other forms of economic activity. 

20 (4) On September 14, 1997, a recovery plan 

21 was issued for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. 

22 The plan claimed that the resolution of current pop23 ulation data is too poor to effectively evaluate abun24 dance trends or population distributions due to the 

25 cryptic nature and rarity of the Delhi Sands flowerVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:07 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1042.IH H1042

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1042 IH

1 loving Fly. Thus, the recovery plan by definition 

2 could not establish delisting criteria. 

3 (5) The United States Fish and Wildlife Serv4 ice’s report entitled ‘‘Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly 

5 (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) 5-Year Re6 view: Summary and Evaluation’’ (March 2008; re7 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘5-year review re8 port’’) establishes that down-listing criterion 2 can9 not be evaluated with current knowledge of the Delhi 

10 Sands Flower-loving Fly. 

11 (6) None of the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly 

12 conservation areas are currently managed to main13 tain perpetual sand supply. There is currently insuf14 ficient information to determine the extent or long15 term importance of this impact to maintaining the 

16 dune ecosystem. 

17 (7) The cryptic nature and low density of Delhi 

18 Sands Flower-loving Fly complicate efforts to effec19 tively monitor population abundance. 

20 (8) To date, it has proven difficult to conduct 

21 surveys that reliably quantify relevant population 

22 variables (e.g., density and relative abundance), and 

23 no populations are regularly surveyed with sufficient 

24 effort to effectively monitor population trends. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1042 IH

1 (9) Public support for conservation of the sand 

2 dune system upon which the Delhi Sands Flower-lov3 ing Fly depends is limited. 

4 (10) The life history of the Delhi Sands Flower5 loving Fly is largely unknown. 

6 (11) The 5-year review report asserts that the 

7 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly was not used to ex8 plain larval stages of such fly because the population 

9 was too low. Instead, a comparison of entomologists 

10 observed several larvae of Rhaphiomidas trochilus, 

11 and because R. trochilus is closely related to the 

12 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly, these observations 

13 were used to understand larval biology of the Delhi 

14 Sands Flower-loving Fly. 

15 (12) A commenter mentioned in the 5-year re16 view report suggested that the Delhi Sands Flower17 loving Fly may be non-native to the Riverside/San 

18 Bernardino area and may have been accidentally in19 troduced by the early settlers. 

20 (13) There is no new information in the sci21 entific literature suggesting that the range of the 

22 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly is more extensive 

23 than initially identified. 

24 (14) Although the area of potentially suitable 

25 habitat has expanded, no newly discovered occupied 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 1042 IH

1 site supports a major population of the Delhi Sands 

2 Flower-loving Fly that was not known at the time of 

3 the listing. 

4 (15) Within the section of the 5-year review re5 port relating to abundance, it stated that no clear 

6 trends emerge from the demographic data that have 

7 been generated since the listing of the Delhi Sands 

8 Flower-loving Fly. Due to the cryptic nature and 

9 rarity of the Delhi Sands flower loving fly, it is dif10 ficult to accurately estimate abundance or density 

11 for this subspecies. 

12 (16) The 5-year review report claims range13 wide surveys have not been attempted due to lack of 

14 funding and issues with access to privately owned 

15 properties. 

16 (17) The 5-year review report indicated that 

17 United States Fish and Wildlife Service biologists 

18 initiated a study in 2004 designed to improve Delhi 

19 Sands Flower-loving Fly survey protocol rec20 ommendations. This study required the effort of 3 

21 biologists working 6 days a week during the peak of 

22 the flight season, and the data were only marginally 

23 adequate to estimate abundance, density, and detec24 tion probability. This effort indicated that measure25 ment of population demographic trends will likely reVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:07 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1042.IH H1042

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
6 

•HR 1042 IH

1 quire substantial effort unless new techniques prove 

2 effective. 

3 (18) Because most Delhi Sands Flower-loving 

4 Fly habitat is in private ownership and no regula5 tions are in place to address loss of unoccupied 

6 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly habitat, the perma7 nent loss of potential and restorable Delhi Sands 

8 Flower-loving Fly habitat important to recovery 

9 often proceeds. 

10 (19) Most of the existing Delhi Sands Flower11 loving Fly conservation sites are likely too small and 

12 fragmented to sustain Delhi Sands Flower-loving 

13 Fly populations through time. 

14 (20) In addition, while protected from develop15 ment, most of the existing conservation areas remain 

16 susceptible to invasion by nonnative grasses, off-road 

17 vehicle use, and other disturbances. 

18 (21) Most conservation areas do not have moni19 toring programs to track Delhi Sands flower-loving 

20 fly occupancy or habitat quality. 

21 (22) With at least 90 percent loss of historical 

22 Delhi Soils, potential and suitable Delhi Sands 

23 Flower-loving Fly habitat available for conservation 

24 and restoration is extremely limited. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
7 

•HR 1042 IH

1 (23) At the time of listing in 1993, there were 

2 only five small, isolated, extant populations of Delhi 

3 Sands Flower-loving Fly. 

4 (24) The 5-year review report states that recent 

5 observations, and the continued habitat loss and 

6 fragmentation, all suggest that population sizes of 

7 the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly are likely to be 

8 very small. Here, it is clear that the United States 

9 Fish and Wildlife Service does not know the size of 

10 the population. It may be possible that there is no 

11 longer a population to protect. 

12 (25) It is commonly accepted in conservation bi13 ology that small populations have higher prob14 abilities of extinction than larger populations be15 cause their low numbers make them susceptible to 

16 inbreeding, loss of genetic variation, high variability 

17 in age and sex ratios, demographic stochasticity, and 

18 random naturally occurring events such as wildfires, 

19 floods, droughts, or disease epidemics. 

20 (26) Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly populations 

21 were considered to be at risk at the time the sub22 species was listed because of their small size and 

23 habitat fragmentation. We have no information sug24 gesting that these threats have been ameliorated 

25 since the time of listing. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
8 

•HR 1042 IH

1 (27) Monitoring efforts since the time of listing, 

2 though limited, do not suggest population increases, 

3 and it is reasonable to believe that Delhi Sands 

4 Flower-loving Fly populations are likely to be very 

5 small. 

6 (28) Together, small population size, isolation, 

7 populations in fragmented habitat, and increased 

8 vulnerability to introduced predators and competi9 tors increase the risk of extirpation of the remaining 

10 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly populations. 

11 (29) Continued listing of the Delhi Sands Flow12 er-loving Fly as an endangered species is not based 

13 on the best scientific and commercial data available. 

14 The 5-year review report relied on research con15 ducted in 1993 or 2002. The research is 19 and 9 

16 years old, respectively. The 5-year review report has 

17 not shown that the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly 

18 exist nor has there been a substantial increase of 

19 population during the 19 years of protection by the 

20 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

21 seq.). 

22 SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SPECIES AS EXTINCT. 

23 Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

24 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et sq.) is amended by adding at the end 

25 the following new paragraph: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
9 

•HR 1042 IH

1 ‘‘(4) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SPECIES AS EX2 TINCT.—(A) A limited listed species shall be treated as 

3 extinct for purposes of this Act upon the expiration of the 

4 15-year period beginning on the date it is determined by 

5 the Secretary to be an endangered species, unless the Sec6 retary publishes a finding that— 

7 ‘‘(i) there has been a substantial increase in the 

8 population of the species during that period; or 

9 ‘‘(ii) the continued listing of the species does 

10 not impose any economic hardship on communities 

11 located in the range of the species. 

12 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph the term ‘limited listed spe13 cies’ means any species that is listed under subsection (c) 

14 as an endangered species for which it is not reasonably 

15 possible to determine whether the species has been extir16 pated from the range of the species that existed on the 

17 date the species was listed because not all individuals of 

18 the species were identified at the time of such listing.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS