[Senate Hearing 105-151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-151
NOMINATION OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE NOMINATION OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK TO BE DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
__________
JULY 16, 1997
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-036 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 16, 1997
OPENING STATEMENTS
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...... 7
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 3
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1
Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho...... 4
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 6
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 5
WITNESSES
Clark, Jamie Rappaport, nominated by the President to be
director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service....................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Allard........................................... 29
Senator Boxer............................................ 33
Senator Chafee........................................... 24
Senator Inhofe........................................... 31
Senator Sessions......................................... 39
Senator Smith............................................ 35
Senator Thomas........................................... 27
(iii)
NOMINATION OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, Thomas, Allard,
Baucus, and Wyden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Good morning, everyone. We want to welcome
all here today.
This is a hearing on the nomination of Jamie Rappaport
Clark for the position of director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. The President nominated Ms. Clark on July 9, and it is
my intention to move quickly on this nomination, hopefully to
allow the Senate, if they should so choose, to confirm this
nomination before the August recess.
I am delighted to introduce Ms. Clark to the panel.
I understand you are accompanied by your husband. Is he
here?
Ms. Clark. Yes, sir, here is my husband, Jim.
Senator Chafee. Well, I understand that you have gone the
full measure here, and that you were married on a wildlife
refuge.
Ms. Clark. Yes, I was.
Senator Chafee. Where does that come under the purposes of
the Refuge Act?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clark. I can assure you, it was a ``compatible use.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Compatible use. Well, we won't carry that
any further.
Now, if confirmed, Jamie Clark will be responsible for
developing and carrying out policies to conserve, protect, and
enhance the Nation's fish and wildlife and their habitats. A
number of challenging tasks fall on the shoulders of the Fish
and Wildlife Service Director, including the management of the
National Wildlife Refuge System; implementation of the
Endangered Species Act; fish hatchery management; recreational
fishing programs; management of nonindigenous and exotic
species; conservation and management of migratory waterfowl,
and wild birds.
The breadth of management tools that the service uses to
carry out its mission is no less impressive. The service does
its job through grant programs, land acquisitions, and user fee
programs, such as the ``duck stamp.''
I am pleased to report that Ms. Clark is an outstanding
candidate for the tasks at hand. Throughout her educational and
professional experiences, she has been involved on a daily
basis with the principles of fish and wildlife management. She
worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service for over 8 years,
both at the regional level and at headquarters. For the past 4
years of her tenure she has held the position of assistant
director of Ecological Services.
In her current position as assistant director she has
worked closely with and reported directly to both the acting
director of the Service, John Rogers, and former director,
Mollie Beattie in the implementation of the Endangered Species
Act and habitat protection. She has also overseen habitat
restoration programs, wetlands protection, and other Service
initiatives involving natural resource protection.
Before joining the Fish and Wildlife Service, Jamie Clark
was the lead technical authority for fish and wildlife
management on U.S. Army installations worldwide.
It's my understanding that you are--I hate the term, ``Army
brat''--that your dad was in the service?
Ms. Clark. Yes, Mr. Chairman, he was in the Army.
Senator Chafee. And you grew up, moving around? He was a
professional military officer, full-time?
Ms. Clark. Mr. Chairman, he was in the Corps of Engineers,
and I spent my childhood years moving every year and a half.
Senator Chafee. From 1984 to 1988 she managed the Natural
and Cultural Resources Program within the National Guard. She
was also a research biologist for the U.S. Army Medical
Research Institute and worked for the National Institute for
Urban Wildlife as a wildlife biologist.
Ms. Clark's educational background is equally impressive
and suits her well for the position for which she has been
nominated. She holds a master's degree in wildlife ecology from
the University of Maryland and a bachelor's degree in wildlife
biology--is that also from the University of Maryland?
Ms. Clark. It's from Towson State University.
Senator Chafee. Towson State, in Maryland.
She has worked closely with the committee staff and
committee members on the Endangered Species Act, and I have
heard nothing but outstanding reports of your ability to work
with the Administration and Congress. All of this will serve
you well, if confirmed.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is an agency with the
wonderful but difficult task of serving as an advocate for fish
and wildlife. It must protect these public resources in the
face of much criticism and question. The Service is charged
with fulfilling its own mission in light of competing and
sometimes conflicting mandates of other Federal agencies. It
also must address the contentious issues of private property
rights, water rights, and takings. The Service has done a
remarkable job in recent years of developing initiatives that
deal with many of these issues. The internal guidance documents
for permits; the new safe harbor, candidate conservation, and
``no surprises'' policies; the policy for Native Americans, and
the streamlining initiatives for Federal agencies have all led
to better implementation of the Endangered Species Act, better
public relations and, ultimately, better protection for the
species.
So I am delighted that you have been nominated for this
position. It seems to me that you have the experience, the
insight, and the strength to lead the Fish and Wildlife Service
to continue these initiatives that I have mentioned and to
develop new ones to face the challenges ahead.
Senator Chafee. Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I, also, want to welcome Ms. Clark to this hearing, as well
as her husband, Jim.
I understand that your parents are not here, and it's sort
of a bittersweet moment that they're not here, because they
rarely--if ever--take vacations, and they are now on a
vacation, and you did not want to draw them away from their
vacation.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. But I know that if they were here, they
would be extremely proud of you. We all wish them well, too.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me that Ms. Clark has the
background and experience for this job, but the fact, as you
pointed out, that she married a wildlife biologist at a
national wildlife refuge really shows her commitment to this
line of work.
She has also held a wide range of positions at the Service,
and I believe that this has given her a solid knowledge of how
the agency works. I hope it also has given her a few ideas on
how the agency can work even better.
It is a tribute to her performance that President Clinton
has recognized a career civil servant to lead the Service at
this time. That doesn't always happen, and I'm very happy that
it did happen this time.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the Service faces major
challenges, not the least of which is helping this committee
work through the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
I think we on this committee recognize that the ESA needs to do
a better job of protecting species and being easier for
landowners to deal with; those are the twin demands. It is
clear that Ms. Clark understands that. Since last year, she has
demonstrated her expertise and sound judgment time and time
again as she has helped you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kempthorne,
Senator Reid, and me to deliberate over various legislative
reforms to the ESA, and I thank you for that.
Furthermore, as assistant director of Ecological Services,
she has been instrumental in implementing the various
administrative reforms that have benefited both the landowners
and the species, so I think she recognizes the twin demands
that reauthorization must satisfy to help us achieve our goal.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the timeliness with which you
have scheduled this hearing. The President nominated her only 1
week ago; that's very fast and very speedy, and much faster
than a lot of nominations and appointments, as we all know. I
hope this is a harbinger of a speedy vote in this committee and
on the floor. I look forward to her testimony today and to
working with her in the future.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that there is a lot of interest
in this nomination. At 8:15 this morning there was somebody
standing in line to come into the hearing room.
So you have one person at least, Jamie, who is very
interested in your nomination, and I don't think it was your
husband.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kempthorne, I want to thank you very much for being
willing to chair this hearing when it appeared that I might not
be able to be here, so thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Kempthorne. Happy to do so, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Chairman, I first met Jamie Clark a few years ago when
she came to my office with former Director Mollie Beattie on an
official visit, and I want to say that since then Jamie has
worked closely with me and my staff in our effort to
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. Jamie has distinguished
herself as someone who is able to find innovative solutions to
difficult problems, to listen to others, and to think
creatively. I value that greatly.
I look forward this morning to hearing about Ms. Clark's
plans for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Idaho has over 65
percent of its land in Federal ownership, so we have an up-
close and personal experience with the Fish and Wildlife
Service and other Federal agencies. What isn't owned by the
Federal Government is controlled in one way or another through
the Endangered Species Act. Idaho currently has 26 endangered
and threatened species, so the Fish and Wildlife Service plays
a large role in the lives of virtually every Idahoan.
I will be particularly interested to hear Jamie's
perspective on the reauthorization of the Endangered Species
Act. Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, and I have
been working on a comprehensive bill to improve the Endangered
Species Act since January 1995. The Administration has been
involved from the beginning, and Jamie has played an important
role in our discussions.
On a personal note, I can tell you that we have felt her
absence from the negotiating table this year. I hope that Jamie
will address her views on ESA reform and the role that she can
play to make an improved ESA the law of the land.
I will also be asking Ms. Clark to address some of the very
difficult wildlife issues that we are facing in the State of
Idaho. In just the last month alone, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has issued proposed rules on the reintroduction of the
grizzly bear and the listing of the bull trout. Either one of
these decisions, if finalized, could have a substantial impact
on the lives, again, of virtually every Idahoan. Because of the
very real impact of these decisions, I hope the Service will
make a greater effort to work together with the State of Idaho
and its stakeholders before it takes any final action.
So, Ms. Clark, I look forward to your testimony, and Jamie,
again, you are someone that I think will be very good in this
position.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Wyden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend
you for holding this important hearing and moving ahead in a
timely way. Ms. Clark is one of those rare people who gets high
marks from just about everybody who has worked with her, and I
am pleased to see the bipartisan support.
Mr. Chairman, I am especially interested in working with
Ms. Clark on the approach that Oregon is moving ahead with,
where we are pioneering in the area of the Endangered Species
Act. Our State is going forward with a very different approach
in terms of wildlife management. Recently the Federal
Government indicated that Oregon was not going to have the
coastal salmon listed on the Endangered Species Act because our
State was going to be given a chance to try this new approach.
What the approach essentially says is that our State, with
respect to the coastal salmon, will meet every single
requirement of the Endangered Species Act, every requirement--
all the biological requirements, all of the requirements of the
Act--but that we want the opportunity to first try a home-
grown, locally driven approach to meeting the requirements of
the Act.
I will tell you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, that in our
State this has people working together who never worked
together. In the past, the people who are now working together
on this approach with respect to the coastal salmon were
generally part of what I call the ``lawyers' full-employment
program,'' where they spent most of their day in Federal Court
suing each other. This now has people working together, and I
think it provides a nationwide precedent for trying something
very creative, very fresh.
By the way, along the lines of what Senator Kempthorne has
been talking about in a number of fora over the years, and I am
interested in Ms. Clark's views on this--Ms. Clark, as you
know, we are looking at watershed councils and a variety of
other approaches for pursuing these new policies. There may be
other ways to go about doing it, but I am very hopeful on your
watch, and we are looking forward to seeing you confirmed in
this position, that you will really use this position as a kind
of ``bully pulpit'' to push for these kinds of new home-grown,
locally driven solutions.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time and I look forward
to working with you and Senator Baucus and Senator Kempthorne
and others who have been involved in this statute for a number
of years.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Thomas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Ms. Clark. It's nice to have you here. I had read
of your background and was impressed, but I am more impressed
after your agent has been touting you here. I think that's
fine.
The issue, of course, is where the agency will go and how
the agency will behave with respect to the problems that we
have. Of course, I remember John Turner from Wyoming being the
director not long ago; John was a good friend and continues to
be.
It seems to me that one of the challenges before us is to
take a look, as we have tried rather unsuccessfully over the
last couple of years, at some of the environmental laws that
have been in place for some time, 20 years or so, and learn
from that 20 years how we can make them better--for instance,
the Endangered Species Act. But we haven't had a lot of support
from the Administration to do that, and I think we ought to try
to do it, whether it's wetlands or endangered species or clean
water or natural management of wildlife in National Parks or
brucellosis, which is very much a part of your problem in
places like the Elk Refuge in Jackson, WY. We need to come to
some solutions, and we haven't done that. We've talked a lot
about it, but we really haven't.
You certainly have a good background, and I'm enthusiastic
about your nomination, but I do say that there are some things
we have to move forward on; grizzly bears, for example--when
are we going to delist grizzly bears, when all the scientific
evidence shows that we are much beyond the goal that we
intended, but we continue not to do it? The same is true with
the management of wolves, artificially reintroduced into the
park. Now, what are we going to do when they go out of the
park? We haven't gotten much support from your agency in terms
of how we're going to do it. Our Game and Fish believes that
the Fish and Wildlife Service should manage them until they are
delisted. I don't know exactly how that will work.
So I guess all I'm saying to you--and I hope you will deal
with some of those issues in your statement--is that there are
some things to do, and frankly, not everyone is quite as happy
as others in terms of the performance of this agency. One of
them is dealing with local agencies. We hear a lot of talk
about partnerships, but when it comes down to the bottom line,
it's a one-way partnership. For instance, we have some water
projects in Wyoming in which the Corps of Engineers and the
Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service cannot agree,
and it's gone on for years, and the local people pay the tab.
Now, it shouldn't be that way. So instead of just talking about
partnerships, I hope that we indeed have some.
So I certainly am impressed--and it's nothing to do with
you personally, but I don't think that all is perfectly well
with the agency in terms of its working with other people. It
seems to me that that's probably the key. The Senator from
Oregon talks about doing some things there; well, I hope all
the States have some opportunities. We are quite different in
the way we are structured. From Rhode Island to Wyoming it's a
different operation and we need to recognize that.
So I'm glad that you are here. I look forward to your
statement, and thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Allard.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday I met with Ms. Clark and appreciated her candor
and straightforward answers to my questions. I personally don't
feel there's any problem with the confirmation, but I do want
to bring up several issues relating to Colorado here in my
opening remarks.
First, on the recent agreement reached in the principal
States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, and the Department
of the Interior to protect endangered species on the Central
Platte River, this agreement has taken a long time to reach.
While the principles are agreed to, Fish and Wildlife will
review the program under NEPA over the next 3 years. This
review needs to be thorough and efficient, and I am sure that
the nominee and many members of this committee can share plenty
of examples of how NEPA has run out of control, wasting time
and money, while doing nothing for the environment and the
parties involved.
I will be paying very close attention to this process as it
moves forward. Should the NEPA turn out to be overly cumbersome
and decidedly inefficient, I will not support having Federal
dollars continuing to support a process that ceases to be
helpful to the species and to the water users of that drainage
basin.
Second, to date the Colorado River Recovery Program has
been successful in garnering the support of divergent groups
and numerous States. I want to be assured that if the
additional $100 million in State and Federal money is spent, it
will provide certainty to water users under section 7. The end
result of all the money that we have spent and all the money
that we may spend should be that Colorado is assured that we
can develop our apportionment under the Colorado River Compact.
To that end, I hope, Ms. Clark, you will be able to tell me
today whether the programmatic biological opinion being
prepared on the program will answer this question. Also, will
Fish and Wildlife accept the program for section 7
consultations?
Again, I want to be very clear that my support for this
program is based upon it providing certainty and uniformity to
Colorado water users, and if it does not provide that function,
it merely becomes an unnecessary public works project that we
can't afford.
Finally, I want to address a letter that the Acting Fish
and Wildlife Service Director, John Rogers, wrote to the Farm
Service Agency last November. In that letter he addressed a
section of the Farm Bill that I worked very hard on. This
section limited the ability of the USDA to place an
environmental easement on active farmland or cropland that was
placed in inventory; in other words, it had gone through
foreclosure and the Government had ended up with it.
It is my view that Mr. Rogers' letter was attempting to
undercut Congressional intent by arguing that certain types of
agricultural land were, in fact, not agricultural land, and
therefore should have easements placed on them, thus lowering
the productivity and value of that land. I hope that you will
look over this letter and the law and actually go back into the
committee testimony--I was chairman of that subcommittee of the
Agriculture Committee on the other side--and look at those
comments. I think you will find that the Congressional intent,
certainly my intent, was to use a broad-term approach to what
we call ``agriculturally productive land.'' In this letter he
is saying that haying--you know, there is a lot of haying in
New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska--that it would not
be considered farmland. The clear intent of that committee--and
certainly mine, I believe, if you look at the record--is that
that was designed to be classified as agricultural land. In
that letter from Fish and Wildlife Service to Mr. Butrock with
the Farm Service Agency, from Acting Director John Rogers, he
tries to make the interpretation that we had not intended for
that to be classified as farmland. I think that is a very
important issue for those States that put up a lot of native
hay.
So I would appreciate your taking a close look at those
issues. I felt you were very responsive to our concerns, and I
look forward to working with you in the future.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Now, Ms. Clark, if you want to proceed with your statement,
we will look forward to it.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT
TO BE DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and all of you on the committee.
It is a great honor for me to be nominated by President
Clinton as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Nation's premier Federal fish and wildlife conservation agency,
and to have that nomination considered here today by the
committee.
It is also a privilege as a career civil servant to be
considered for this position from within the ranks of our
agency.
I have met with many of you over the past few days and
found that we have significant common beliefs in the importance
of conserving our natural heritage. I haven't had the chance to
meet with all of you, but I am committed to doing so, and I am
available to meet with any of you if your time permits.
If I am confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work
together with all of you over the next few years, focusing on
our common commitment to fish and wildlife conservation. I care
deeply about what we do at the Fish and Wildlife Service, and I
am committed to our mission to protect, conserve, and enhance
fish and wildlife and their habitats.
I am very proud of the job that we do. Our 7,000 employees
are dedicated, motivated, and professional. They represent the
best tradition of public service. Together we continue to work
to protect that delicate balance of living in association with
our natural environment.
Love of nature and the outdoors has been a major force in
my life since I was a small child. As you know, I grew up in
the military, in the Army, moving on an average every year and
a half. That certainly brought many challenges as a child, but
it also gave me opportunities to see many areas of the United
States. I fondly remember exploring spectacular open spaces on
horseback, seeing new birds and other wildlife, and discovering
unique habitats.
My passion for nature and wildlife eventually led me into
the field of wildlife biology. My studies ranged from peregrine
falcon reintroductions in northern Maryland, to my graduate
thesis that involved working with hunters to evaluate white-
tailed deer populations to ensure optimum herd density.
I learned first-hand the role of hunting as an effective
wildlife management tool, and I share with hunters, anglers,
and other outdoor enthusiasts an appreciation of wildlife that
comes from long hours in the field observing nature.
As we have discussed this morning, I even married a
wildlife biologist. The ceremony took place on Matagorda Island
National Wildlife Refuge off the coast of Texas, where my
husband, Jim, was the refuge manager. Jim is a nature
photographer and writer and we spend all of our available free
time exploring our National Wildlife Refuges, our National
Parks, and forests, looking for new places to observe nature
and, of course, new scenes to capture on film.
During my last 8 years with the Service I have been part of
an agency undergoing significant change. Although the Service
remains committed to its statutory obligations and mandates,
like the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species
Act, I believe--as others do--that we need to continue to look
for new and innovative ways to achieve species and habitat
conservation. Most importantly, we have greatly expanded our
work with partners outside the Service, whether they are State
wildlife agencies, local governments, sportsmen's
organizations, conservation groups, corporations, or individual
private citizens.
In the course of this transformation, the Service is
learning to assume many different roles, depending on our
situation. Our State, Federal, tribal, and private partners
have great capabilities, as many of you have mentioned this
morning, to provide leadership and assistance in the management
and recovery of our natural resources. We recognize this, and
we are refining our ability to be a team player--knowing when
to lead, when to assist, or when to follow, to accomplish
common goals. I expect this process will continue.
I realize many folks associate me with endangered species
programs. Although my years with the Service have focused
primarily on habitat restoration, environmental contaminants,
and endangered species conservation, my early years as a
resource professional were spent working for the National Guard
Bureau and the Department of the Army addressing land use
management and environmental planning issues. I was responsible
for developing and implementing fish and wildlife conservation
practices Army-wide, emphasizing integration of wildlife
management activities with complex military missions.
I spent much of my time in the field, visiting military
installations throughout the country, working to balance
wildlife conservation needs with military readiness objectives.
I also developed land management programs to ensure that
military lands continue to support both wildlife conservation
and military needs. I worked hard with military trainers and
engineers, as well as with other Federal agencies and
conservation organizations to ensure that neither military
training nor wildlife habitat requirements were compromised.
From these experiences early in my career I learned the
importance of listening to all sides, effectively communicating
specific needs, and working collaboratively with others to
achieve multiple goals on land supporting competing demands.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is widely recognized as the
national and international leader in wildlife conservation,
and, if confirmed, I will continue to ensure that that hard-
earned reputation is maintained and enhanced. Again, to do
this, an ever-growing emphasis on partnerships and looking at
the big picture is essential. With more than 1,000 species on
the list of endangered and threatened species, I know too well
the feeling of frustration and failure associated with each new
addition to the list. There is no way that we in the Service or
any other public agency can single-handedly conserve our
Nation's wildlife resources. We must work hard to leverage our
own resources and our expertise with those of others to effect
changes on the ground.
Since transferring to the Fish and Wildlife Service in
1989, I have spent considerable time looking for new ways to
achieve wetlands conservation, to address and recover declining
species, to restore degraded habitats, and to address the
increasing concern about the effect of environmental
contaminants on our natural resources. I have worked in
partnership with folks like the ranchers in southern Arizona
and New Mexico through the Malpai Borderlands Group; private
landowners on Hawaii's Big Island, to prevent the extinction of
the Hawaiian crow, while preserving the integrity of their
commercial farming and ranching operations; and with the States
of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky to balance the economic
needs of the coal mining industry with wildlife conservation.
Again, all of these experiences have reinforced in me the
value and importance of partnerships. Each of these
partnerships was characterized by genuine trust, cooperation,
mutual respect, and a desire for economic and environmental
security. I believe the future of fish and wildlife
conservation depends on collaborative partnerships such as
these.
The Service also must continue our concerted efforts to
reach out to the public and to important constituencies with a
stake in our fish and wildlife resources. I have participated
in numerous partnership efforts and firmly believe that
involving stakeholders and other agency expertise early on
reaps long-term benefits for fish and wildlife resources and
the economy. As the Service gains experience in this way of
doing business, I believe we will all realize the expanded
skills that we must master to learn to listen more effectively,
to work as a team player, to be open-minded, and to be prepared
to take whatever approach is most effective in accomplishing
our task.
I am convinced that as people better understand the
connection between ecosystem health and quality of life, our
success at managing for ecosystems and ensuring economic
viability will continue to increase. The Service needs to
continue to communicate to others the fundamental message that
the fate of wildlife and humans alike is linked to the well-
being of the environment around us.
The Service is dedicated to addressing change, not only in
how we explore new ways to conserve and manage our wildlife
resources, but also in recognizing the importance of a
workforce reflective of our Nation's citizenry. Increasing the
diversity of our workforce is an important element in improving
our efforts to develop unique and innovative approaches and
strategies for wildlife conservation. A skilled workforce--
diverse in cultures, experiences, and ideas--is equipped to
buildupon traditional and successful approaches by identifying
new and fresh ideas for addressing conservation issues. The
richness of this experience is an asset, and its absence is an
enormous liability. I believe I can help the Service continue
to work toward its goal of a diverse and skilled workforce.
Americans are passionate about wildlife, and that passion
fuels the Fish and Wildlife Service. This is an exciting time
to be at the helm of this agency. If confirmed as Director, I
look forward with great enthusiasm and excitement to the
challenge of leading an agency dedicated to conserving,
protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats
for the continuing benefit and enjoyment of the American
people. I pledge to work with you, the American public, other
Federal, State, tribal, and private entities, and with the
outstanding employees of the Service to continue protecting our
Nation's natural heritage for generations to come.
Senators thank you again for the honor of your
consideration.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Ms. Clark.
Now we will have some questions. We will have 6 minutes
each, and everybody will get their chance, and then we'll go
around again quickly.
I have several questions I would like to ask you.
Are you willing, at the request of any duly constituted
committee of the Congress, to appear in front of it as a
witness?
Ms. Clark. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
Senator Chafee. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position?
Ms. Clark. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Now, first of all, I want to join with you
in your praise of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 7,000
employees who are dedicated, motivated, and professional. It
has been my opportunity to work with them, both at home and
around the country, and I think they are an outstanding group
and we're lucky to have them. It's right for you, as the head
of the whole organization, to be proud of this Service and do
everything you can to help them increase in their skills and
educational qualities.
You mentioned that you have seen cooperation and you talked
about cooperation with the other players. I want to stress
that. It isn't that the Service hasn't been doing it, but I
just want to urge you on in working with the State fish and
wildlife organizations, in working with private foundations
that will donate land--the Nature Conservancy, for example--and
through that cooperation, in my State, anyway, we have been
able to acquire substantial pieces of open land that would not
otherwise be available. Frequently we have the situation where
the Nature Conservancy and other private foundations, with the
State, will fund the purchase of additional parcels of land
contiguous to fish and wildlife areas, with the Fish and
Wildlife Service subsequently being responsible for the
policing of the areas and the protection of them because the
Nature Conservancy, for example, doesn't have the personnel to
be able to do that.
You mentioned that you have seen the restoration of
wetlands. I, myself, had the opportunity--Senator Faircloth and
I and some others went down to see some wetlands restoration,
so-called ``mitigation banking,'' just south of the Potomac
here, down toward Fredericksburg. What's your view on that? Do
you think it's been pretty successful?
Ms. Clark. Mitigation banking?
Senator Chafee. Well, just the restoration of wetlands.
Then follow it on with the mitigation banking.
Ms. Clark. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have had numerous
positive successes with wetlands restoration, whether we're
restoring degraded wetlands or enhancing existing wetlands.
It's through programs like our North American Waterfowl
Management Plan and the grants under the Wetlands Conservation
Act, our Partners for Wildlife Program, the work that we're
doing on our National Wildlife Refuges, as well as our
activities with other Federal agencies, that I believe we have
achieved enormous success with wetlands conservation.
However, I do believe we have a long way to go. We still
have wetlands--particularly forested wetlands--that are in
decline, and I think there are numerous opportunities for us to
continue to work towards the goal of conserving and restoring
wetlands.
Mitigation banking is an exciting opportunity. It focuses
on leveraging existing wetlands and to recovering wetlands
complexes, so it has been an important and valuable tool in
wetlands conservation, if applied properly.
Senator Chafee. You think it works pretty well?
Ms. Clark. It has the opportunity to work pretty well. It
has----
Senator Chafee. Have you ever seen one that really works?
Have you ever seen a restored wetlands that you think is nearly
up to its pristine situation?
Ms. Clark. I have not myself, but I have listened to
reports of them.
The challenge for us in conserving or restoring wetlands is
whether we have restored the functions and values. It's not
just making another wet area in the environment; it's whether
we restore the functions and values. There is a lot of science
and research going into wetlands reestablishment, and I remain
optimistic that it can be done.
Senator Chafee. Now, as Senator Kempthorne mentioned, we
appreciate the work you've done on the Endangered Species Act
reauthorization that we are trying to do here, with Senator
Baucus and Senator Reid and Senator Kempthorne and myself. So
you have been spending a lot of time on that and, of course,
the National Wildlife Refuge bill, which passed the House in a
vote that sounds impossible, 407 to 1. I don't know who that 1
was. We'll get to that here, too, very shortly.
Is there any other legislation that you want to bring to
our attention that you've been working on?
Ms. Clark. Well, I have been working----
Senator Chafee. Those are two pretty big ones right there,
so don't feel you have to come up with another one. I'm just
curious.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clark. That's a pretty good day job for me.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clark. The agency, though, has certainly been involved
in many other legislative initiatives, whether it's the
reauthorization of Superfund, whether it's preparing for Clean
Water Act reauthorization, Migratory Bird Treaty Act issues;
but certainly, at the top of our list has been reform of the
Endangered Species Act and passage of organic legislation for
the Refuge System.
Senator Chafee. All right.
Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Clark, I just want to mention a project that occurred
in Montana which impressed me very, very much----
Senator Chafee. Impressed, or depressed?
Senator Baucus. Impressed.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. Very much. It was largely at the behest of
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and it's called Blackfoot
Challenge. You may know about it.
Almost once a month I have a workday at home in Montana. I
show up someplace at 8 o'clock with my sack lunch, and I'm
there to work all day long at this job, whether it's waiting
tables, working in sawmills, mines, nursing homes, whatever it
is. One day I worked with Rick Foot at the Rick Foot Ranch in
the Blackfoot Challenge Program. As you know, the Blackfoot
Challenge Program is an effort by concerned people in the Big
Blackfoot Drainage on the Rick Foot Ranch to reroute the
tributary of the Big Blackfoot going through his place, to
allow bull trout to spawn. In the old days ranchers would just
plow right through those streams, and the water would run fast
and the trout couldn't spawn.
But the Fish and Wildlife Service has been working for
years and years, building up the trust of the people in the
area. You have two wonderful people in the Service who are
based out of Great Falls, MT, and for a couple of years they
would sit down with the ranchers at the local bars and have
beer together, just talking over things, and gradually, slowly
but surely, they would get the trust of the ranchers; and after
the ranchers, some of the townspeople; and then the State
government, and all concerned.
The day I was there we had a backhoe tractor and we were
rechanneling. We were planting willows and putting in some big
rocks and doing all we could to just help change this channel.
I mention this because this was an example of cooperation.
Essentially, these people worked on this project because those
higher up weren't doing the job; that is, the heads of the
agencies weren't talking to each other, whether it was the
State of Montana or the Fish and Wildlife Service or whatnot,
so they, down at the lower echelons, decided to take it upon
themselves just to do it. I guess they got the blessings of
those above, because they all sort of knew each other. Some at
first were very suspicious of each other, but gradually the
trust was built up, and it has worked out very, very, very
well. I mention it also because when I talked to the two Fish
and Wildlife Service people, I said, ``Boy, this is great. Why
isn't there more of this?'' And the answer I got was, ``Well,
gee, there could be more of this; but, you know, we're just a
little part of the Fish and Wildlife Service budget. We don't
get very much.''
I've forgotten the name of their part----
Ms. Clark. The Partners for Wildlife Program?
Senator Baucus. It could have been. I am putting in a big
plug for these people and this section of the Fish and Wildlife
Service because they are doing what I think should be done.
It's at the local level; not Washington, not Helena, MT, but
just the folks locally getting the job done the way they want
it done and the way that works. I just urge you to keep that
up. It works very, very well, at least in my experience in
Montana.
Can you comment on the project that I'm talking about, if
you know about it, or the part of the Fish and Wildlife Service
whose mission it is to try to put these cooperative plans
together?
Ms. Clark. Well, I have heard great things about the
Blackfoot Challenge. It serves as one of our models for
partnerships in the Fish and Wildlife Service, working
collaboratively with all the constituents and stakeholders that
you mentioned.
I can speak about the Partners for Wildlife Program. It's
under my organizational responsibility today. The Partners
Program and the discussion that you just had about partnerships
is what I believe is very much indicative of our entire agency,
whether it's our Partners Program, our North American Program,
our employees in the National Wildlife Refuge System, our fish
hatcheries, in local ecological services or management
assistance offices.
As I said in my statement, it's part of our trend towards
more collaborative partnerships for conservation. The Partners
for Wildlife Program is a program that is predicated on
voluntary partnerships. Our employees, as members of the local
community, go out and leverage our dollars with those of others
to effect conservation on the ground. It's an extremely
positive program and we're very proud of it.
Senator Baucus. I just encourage you to do a lot more of
it, because it's working there.
Ms. Clark. Absolutely.
Senator Baucus. On the other hand, as you know, the
discretionary spending budgets--once you calculate inflation--
are being effectively cut; that is, there's one-half of 1
percent increase, generally, in discretionary spending in the
budget that is going through the Congress over the next 5
years, which effectively is a cut.
What would your priorities be under those circumstances?
Ms. Clark. Our priorities remain balanced among those
programs that achieve the best gain for fish and wildlife
conservation. As reflected in the President's budget, our
priorities are associated with migratory birds, the health of
our Refuge System, endangered species, and wetlands
conservation, and we balance all of our programs to achieve
those mission objectives. Partners for Wildlife is certainly
one of those very positive programs.
Senator Baucus. I'll get back to that.
This may be unfair, but I do pick up at home a bit of a
sense that Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't listen as much,
perhaps, to people as it should, compared with some other
agencies. I've picked that up, too; I've just sensed it
generally. I'll just tell you, there's nothing like going out
early and talking to people way before something happens--or
maybe, not happen--because if you do go out there early,
several things happen. No. 1, you learn something; you learn
something that you might not have known before. Second, you
probably will find a different way of doing it; there are all
kinds of ways to skin a cat. And you engender the trust of the
people.
I urge you to get your people out of Washington, out of
your head offices, as much as you possibly can, to get out in
the field and just see people and talk to people.
Ms. Clark. I would be glad to, myself included.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Kempthorne.
Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Ms. Clark, as you know, the Fish and Wildlife Service
recently issued a proposed rule to list the bull trout as an
endangered species, even though the State of Idaho had
developed a bull trout plan, and various members of the
regulated community were in the process of trying to develop
prelisting agreements for bull trout with the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Is the Service willing to commit to work with the State of
Idaho and public and private stakeholders to develop prelisting
agreements for the bull trout, and to consider these agreements
when it decides whether or not to list the bull trout?
Ms. Clark. Absolutely, Senator. As you know, the bull trout
was proposed as the result of a court order that was part of a
court debate for quite a long time. We have been very much
involved with the State of Idaho and other constituents in
attempting to address the status and conservation needs of the
bull trout early on.
The Fish and Wildlife Service does not believe that adding
species to the list is a success; quite frankly, it's the
opposite. It's a failure. We are very much committed to working
out the status of species and addressing the decline of species
before they have to stumble onto the Endangered Species List.
Quite frankly, we are absolutely very much with you on
addressing the conservation needs of the species early on, and
we will consider fully any commitments and any conservation
programs prior to making a final decision by next June.
Senator Kempthorne. All right. That's very helpful. I
appreciate that.
Now, another one of the issues that we've been dealing with
is the Bruneau Hot Springs snail. Is the Fish and Wildlife
Service willing to commit to work with the State of Idaho--and
again, public and private stakeholders--to develop a
conservation agreement for the Bruneau snail? Will the Fish and
Wildlife Service commit to monitor water levels in the aquifer
for the remainder of the year, and to include the data from
that monitoring in any future decision?
Ms. Clark. The Bruneau Hot Springs snail is a listed
species today, and we are absolutely committed to working with
the State of Idaho and other constituents to address recovery
strategies for this snail. Monitoring is an important part of
that, particularly given the change in water years, and I will
certainly pledge to go back and work with the U.S. Geological
Survey, as well as the service, to figure out the most
appropriate way to ensure a monitoring regime for the snail.
Senator Kempthorne. All right.
Again, the U.S. Geological Survey has put in the wells; we
have seen a recharge of the aquifer over the last 2 years. It
is critical information that should be included.
Ms. Clark. Absolutely.
Senator Kempthorne. With regard to the Fish and Wildlife
Service releasing last week a draft EIS on the reintroduction
of the grizzly bear in Idaho, while the draft EIS would provide
for a citizens' management committee that would include
individuals nominated by the Governor, I am concerned that the
underlying decision to release grizzly bears in Idaho was made
without consulting with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Can you assure me that grizzly bears will not be released in
Idaho within the next 18 months, and that the State of Idaho
will have an opportunity to work with the Service to define the
conditions regarding this issue?
Ms. Clark. I will assure you, Senator, that I believe we
have ample time to work together with you, the State, and other
interested parties to address the concerns of the State of
Idaho, to address the needs of the grizzly bear, and to ensure
that all of our collective interests are met.
Senator Kempthorne. Is the Service willing to commit to
work with Idaho Fish and Game and other State agencies before
the release of any grizzly bears in the State in order to
ensure that public safety is protected?
Ms. Clark. Absolutely, Senator. Actually, there are
discussions ongoing in the States of Idaho and Montana today
which include everything from extending the public comment
period on the environmental impact statement, to addressing
changes in the public hearing schedule, to pulling together a
coalition to address the very issues that you are concerned
about.
Senator Kempthorne. Will the Service provide clarification
on the authority of the citizens' management committee to
ensure that its decisions on the management of any grizzly bear
population in Idaho will not be arbitrarily reversed by the
Secretary?
Ms. Clark. Yes, Senator, we will.
Senator Kempthorne. In your written testimony you made the
statement, ``We need to look for new and innovative ways to
achieve species and habitat conservation.'' I certainly agree
with you in that statement. That's why we have included more
flexible habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements,
and the ``no surprise'' policy in our ESA bill.
What do you envision are the best new alternatives to
conserve species and their habitats, and how do you expect that
the Service will try to implement them?
Ms. Clark. Well, some of the opportunities that you just
mentioned are very much at the forefront. All of the innovative
tools that we have developed thus far, and others we are
looking forward to developing in the future, have common themes
of species conservation, certainty for the regulated public,
and involvement of affected stakeholders. We are continuing to
solicit other creative ideas. We have been working with many of
you and your staffs to do so.
The kinds of activities or programs or policy initiatives
that we are looking at should be predicated on addressing
decline of species before they require Endangered Species Act
protection, and maximizing the opportunities of the States and
other parties to manage the species within their jurisdictions.
So I think the sky is the limit. I think we have tremendous
opportunities, and there are a lot of creative minds committed
to wildlife conservation. We ought to certainly be having those
discussions.
Senator Kempthorne. All right. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Clark, in my view, when the Federal Government gave the
OK for the Oregon Coastal Salmon Plan, that was essentially a
green light for an unprecedented, first-of-its-kind approach
for recovering a species. Do you think that the Oregon approach
has the potential to be a nationwide model?
Senator Chafee. Why don't you tell us a little bit, without
going into too much detail, what is the Oregon approach? Just
now it's Oregon, isn't it?
Senator Wyden. It is. You've got it, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. What it is about--and I'm glad you asked,
because it touches on my----
Senator Chafee. I won't take it out of your time.
Senator Wyden. I thank you.
The traditional approach to saving a species, of course, is
that you list it, and then you have a recovery plan. That's the
way we've always done ``business as usual,'' and of course at
home and in the rural west there is great concern about some of
the economic consequences and some of the disruption.
What Oregon has essentially done is said, ``Give us a
chance to bring people together on a local level with a State
plan; give us some time to make it work; and we will tell the
Federal Government that we will meet all the requirements of
the act.'' So essentially there are two schools to this: the
traditional approach, you list it on a Federal listing, and
then you go on to your recovery plan, and what Oregon is
talking about is a different approach. We have a State plan,
and because the Federal Government is convinced that it is
biologically sound, the State is given a chance to make it
work.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Ms. Clark. Senator Wyden, you touched on the important
points. We are absolutely committed to conservation objectives
that address the biological needs of species and retain as much
management flexibility for the States and others as possible.
Where States, local governments, and individual citizens
step forward to conserve species before they need the
protections of the Endangered Species Act, it is good for
species and good for the potentially regulated public. That's a
win-win situation. That's a direction in which our agency is
moving, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and a
direction that I think is very critical to the future of
wildlife conservation, so we heartily endorse those kinds of
programs.
Senator Wyden. Let's say that the Oregon approach is struck
down on process grounds. The act, as you know--there is
essentially the biology; Oregon has said, ``We're going to meet
every one of the biological requirements,'' but supposing a
judge strikes it down on process grounds and says, ``You know,
my reading of this statute is that you can only do it the
traditional way. You've got to have a listing and then a
recovery plan, and what Oregon wants to do with a State plan
and State dollars and time for doing it doesn't meet the
requirements of the act from a process standpoint.'' Would the
Administration be sympathetic to a change in the law on process
grounds in order to encourage these kinds of State initiatives?
Ms. Clark. Well, Senator, I will tell you that I have spent
a lot of time in courts in the last few years with endangered
species issues. It's a program that has been very much
surrounded by litigation, as you well know.
When we have process debates we oftentimes lose, but in
these particular instances, with candidate conservation
initiatives, addressing the species' needs prior to an
Endangered Species Act listing, the debate will be over the
merits. If we, in partnership with the States or other involved
parties, are committed to the structure and the intent and the
specifics of a conservation plan, we will be right beside you,
arguing for the support of that plan.
Senator Wyden. Well, that sounds encouraging, but I think
we may--I hope with every ounce of my strength that we don't
end up with that here when the Chairman and Senators Kempthorne
and Baucus are dealing with the Endangered Species Act. But I
feel very, very strongly that we ought to keep the biological
requirements of this act. We can do it. People at home want to
do it. They want to protect species, but, by God, there's a
better process, and we've seen it work in our State.
One last question that I wanted to touch on. We in Oregon
in the Willamette Valley have had a very serious situation with
the dusky geese, which is an overpopulation of Canadian geese.
We've had the number triple in the last 5 years and there have
been millions of dollars in crop losses and damage to Oregon's
farmers. Essentially all sides--environmental, the science
community, the farmers--agree that in effect the hand of man
was not involved here.
What might the Service do to reduce the extraordinary
damage that the geese are doing to private lands and crops,
again, consistent with good science?
Ms. Clark. Well, the dusky geese issue has been an
interesting challenge for all of us. As I understand it, the
population declines that have been observed and monitored since
the early 1960's are as the result of an earthquake in Alaska
that allowed for access by predators to the nesting grounds of
the duskies. We have been monitoring the declines, working with
the Pacific Flyway Council.
Collectively, today, we are looking at a number of things,
exploring flexibilities in the hunting season to try to address
the increasing numbers of the other subspecies of geese; and
looking at habitat modification needs. We are very much
committed to working along with the Council and the States to
address the very real depredation that is occurring as a result
of the other, more populated subspecies of geese.
We are concerned, however, and we continue to monitor the
population declines of the dusky subspecies, and as I
understand it, the population is somewhere between 7,000 and
10,000 geese, which is precipitously low for that subspecies.
But I am committed to continuing to try to work, along with the
Council and the State, to look at flexibilities to address both
issues, the long-term health of the dusky and the very severe
depredation that is occurring from the other geese species.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
I'm not sure I understood one of your earlier comments. I
think the question was, would the Secretary override an
advisory committee decision, and you said no. Is that what you
meant?
Ms. Clark. The question on the grizzly bear from Senator
Kempthorne?
Senator Thomas. I don't know where it came from, but it had
to do with an advisory committee, and the question was, would
the Secretary override it, and you said no.
Ms. Clark. I believe, Senator--and Senator Kempthorne might
help me out here--that the question had to do with the
Secretary's override of jurisdiction with the Citizens'
Management Committee that we have developed and put forth in
the draft environmental impact statement and proposed rule for
the reintroduction of the grizzly bear.
The Secretary intends to delegate full authority to the
Citizens' Management Committee, so long as the committee's acts
and decisions----
Senator Thomas. Right. That's the caveat.
Ms. Clark [continuing]. Are in support of recovery of the
grizzly bear.
Senator Thomas. OK. Well, I just wanted to make sure that I
understood, because we've had quite a bit of experience with
that. And to say he won't override it is a stretch. OK.
You talked about partnerships and you apparently have a
number of them. Do you support the idea of having local and
State agencies being cooperating agencies in the NEPA process?
Ms. Clark. In the NEPA process? I'm not a NEPA expert,
Senator, but I certainly support the involvement of local and
State agencies in all of our fish and wildlife conservation
work.
Senator Thomas. Well, we're going to seek to make them. We
can talk about cooperating, but do they really have a seat at
the table? That has to do with being a cooperating agency. So I
hope that when that arrives, that talking about partnerships is
an easy thing to do----
Ms. Clark. Absolutely.
Senator Thomas [continuing]. But having a real role is not
really quite as easy.
What about grizzly delisting in Yellowstone in Wyoming?
That's been pending now for some time. Everyone recognizes that
we have exceeded the goals. What is your position on that?
Senator Chafee. I missed that question, Senator. What was
it?
Senator Thomas. Delisting grizzly bears in Yellowstone and
the Wyoming area.
Senator Chafee. I think that is a good question. I'm
interested in this whole delisting process. But never mind, the
question was strictly with the grizzly bear.
Ms. Clark. OK, let me respond to grizzly bears first.
We are absolutely supportive of delisting the grizzly bear
when appropriate to do so. I believe there is a huge debate,
and I would be glad to get more specifics back to you for the
record, Senator--over whether or not all of the goals outlined
in the recovery plan for delisting the Yellowstone population
have been met.
Ms. Clark. The last 2 years we have had higher than normal
mortality of our female bears with cubs. That is being closely
monitored by us and some of our constituents, as you probably
well know. We are very much committed to delisting the
Yellowstone population as soon as possible. We are working on
habitat-based criteria as a result of a lawsuit settlement, and
we intend to complete that as soon as possible. As for the
specific timeframes and more of the specifics I would be glad
to get back to you on it.
Senator Thomas. I wish you would. I mean, the Yellowstone
officials and others for several years have said that it ought
to be delisted, but it doesn't seem to move.
I think you need to be a little more specific sometimes. To
say, ``Well, as soon as all the conditions are met''--well,
that could be never, if you want to continue to stress it. I
just think people have lost some confidence in what you
indicated when you said, ``These are the goals,'' and then when
most people are persuaded that the goals have been met, still
nothing happens.
Ms. Clark. I agree with you, Senator. I certainly believe
it's our responsibility to articulate the specific requirements
of a delisted population. I believe there has been a lot of
confusion and debate over the grizzly bear population. I will
certainly get back to you with some more specifics.
Senator Thomas. I would be grateful if you would. There has
been a considerable amount of, frankly, loss--not only of
domestic animals, but even the people are concerned.
What about the brucellosis issue with the livestock that
surrounds Yellowstone Park? Do you have a role? Do you have a
suggestion? Do you have any remedies for what you're going to
do there?
Ms. Clark. Our agency certainly has a role. We have been
working with the team of State and other Federal agency experts
that are dealing with the brucellosis. I don't know much about
the brucellosis issue, but I'd certainly be glad to get you
back some specifics for the record.
Senator Thomas. I think specifically, of course, is the
management of the buffalo herd in Yellowstone which is, I
suppose, largely a function of Yellowstone Park management.
Ms. Clark. Right.
Senator Thomas. But the Elk Refuge, which is in your
agency, is also a very real part of that.
Ms. Clark. Yes, it is.
Senator Thomas. So it's something that needs to be
resolved. I hope that we can find some solutions so that we
don't run into the same kind of thing that we did last winter,
which was not very pleasant for anyone, certainly.
Ms. Clark. No, it wasn't.
Senator Thomas. As I understand it, you have in your agency
nearly 92 million acres that you manage. Do you have notions of
additions to that? How do you see the future in terms of
acquisitions, in terms of additions to that 92 million acres?
Ms. Clark. Well, certainly, Senator, we support additions
where they meet the needs of the intent of the Refuge System.
We have a modest land acquisition budget on an annual basis
that is aimed primarily at rounding out refuges. What I mean by
that is addressing the in-holdings on our refuge lands
primarily. So certainly our acquisition program continues, but
it is very focused and specific.
Senator Thomas. What would be your impressions of some kind
of a policy that, if you have significant new acquisitions,
that there be some tradeoffs? Somebody mentioned that in the
west, 65 percent of the land belongs to the Federal Government
now. What would be wrong, if you wanted to acquire a thousand
acres from another agency, with disposing of a similar value,
such as BLM?
Ms. Clark. Well, that's a great question, Senator. What I
will say--and I won't speak for BLM or any of the other Federal
land agencies----
Senator Thomas. Go ahead, if you want to.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clark. Not with a microphone, I won't.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clark. But what I will tell you is that the National
Wildlife Refuge System is a unique network of lands, committed
to fish and wildlife conservation. That's a very different
mission than some of our other----
Senator Thomas. I understand that, but I hope you
understand that there is some concern in the west about
increasing Federal ownership, when some States are up to nearly
90 percent. Certainly, inevitably, there are some excess lands.
It's an idea that I think we ought to pursue.
Senator Chafee. She'll take all the money you've got for
new land purchases for wildlife.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Anything extra, send our way.
Senator Thomas. If you want to purchase some, Rhode Island.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Anything else, Senator?
Senator Thomas. No, thank you.
Senator Chafee. As I mentioned, we are going to have a
committee business meeting here a week from tomorrow, the 24th,
at 9:30, and it would be my hope that we could then consider
this nomination. As I mentioned before, I am anxious to get it
out on the floor, and if the committee and the Senate so
approves, to have it all completed before we leave for the
August recess.
I would just like to bring to everybody's attention the
success of some of these programs that we've had here that have
come through this committee. One of them that has had great
success--you mentioned it, Ms Clark--is the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, which was signed just 11 years ago
by the United States and Canada and later Mexico joined in on
it. To date, under that, over 4 million acres have been
protected, restored, or enhanced in the United States and
Canada, and 20 million additional acres have been protected in
Mexico.
Our statistics show--and I would be curious to know if this
coincides with your statistics--that the wetlands conservation
efforts are really paying off. Not since 1955--these are some
statistics that I compiled this year, actually--not since 1955
have we seen such a spectacular migration of waterfowl as
during the past 2 years. In 1996, an estimated 89.5 million
ducks, which is 6.5 million more than in 1995 and 18.5 million
more than in 1994 and 24 million more than in 1993--in other
words, these are the largest figures in the past 40 years. I
gave you an awful lot of different figures there, but I think
the key one is that in 1996, 90 million ducks migrated south
for the winter. That's an incredible figure, and the largest
since 21 years earlier.
Is that what your figures show?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clark. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clark. I'm sure you have good figures.
Senator Chafee. Thank you. So you are an enthusiastic
supporter of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan?
Ms. Clark. Absolutely. It has been great. We need to be
mindful that it is partnerships like the North American that
have achieved the kinds of statistics that you were just able
to share, and have gone a long ways toward achieving both
wetlands and migratory bird conservation.
Senator Chafee. All right.
Well, I don't see any others here with questions. There may
be some questions submitted in writing to you, and I would ask
that you get those back very promptly.
Senator Chafee. As I mentioned, it's my intention to
consider this nomination a week from tomorrow.
Thank you very much, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statements and additional information follow:]
Senator Chafee. That completes our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
Prepared Statement of Jamie Rappaport Clark, Nominee for Director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. It is a
great honor to be nominated by President Clinton as Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nation's premier Federal fish and
wildlife conservation agency, and to have that nomination considered by
this committee. It is also a privilege, as a career civil servant, to
be considered for this position from within the ranks of the agency.
I have met with many of you over the past few days and found that
we have significant common beliefs in the importance of conserving our
natural heritage. If I am confirmed, I look forward to continuing to
work together with all of you over the next few years, focusing on our
common commitment to fish and wildlife conservation.
I care deeply about the work we do at the Fish and Wildlife Service
and I am committed to our mission to conserve, protect, and enhance
fish and wildlife and their habitats. I am proud of the job we do. Our
7,000 employees are dedicated, motivated, and professional. They
represent the best tradition of public service. Together, we continue
to work to protect that delicate balance of living in association with
our natural environment.
Love of nature and the outdoors has been a major force in my life
since I was a small child. I grew up in the military, moving on an
average every year and a half. That certainly brought many challenges,
but it also gave me opportunities to see many areas of the United
States. I fondly remember exploring spectacular open spaces on
horseback, seeing new birds and other wildlife, and discovering unique
habitats.
My passion for nature and wildlife eventually led me into the field
of wildlife biology. My studies ranged from peregrine falcon
reintroductions in Northern Maryland to my graduate thesis that
involved working with hunters to evaluate white-tailed deer populations
to ensure optimum herd density. I learned first hand the role of
hunting as an effective wildlife management tool, and 1 share with
hunters, anglers, and other outdoor enthusiasts an appreciation of
wildlife that comes from long hours in the field observing nature.
I even married a wildlife biologist. The ceremony took place on
Matagorda Island National Wildlife Refuge, where my husband Jim was the
refuge manager. Jim is a nature photographer and writer and we spend
all available free time exploring national wildlife refuges, national
parks, and forests looking for new places to observe nature and, of
course, new scenes to capture on film.
During my 8 years with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I have been
part of an agency undergoing significant change. Though the Service
remains committed to its statutory obligations and mandates like the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, I believe, as
others do, that we need to continue to look for new and innovative ways
to achieve species and habitat conservation. Most importantly, we have
greatly expanded our work with partners outside the Service--whether
they are State wildlife agencies, local governments, sportsmen's
organizations, conservation groups, corporations, or individual private
citizens.
In the course of this transformation, the Service is learning to
assume many different roles, depending on the situation. Our State,
Federal, Tribal, and private partners have great capabilities to
provide leadership and assistance in the management and recovery of
natural resources. We recognize this and we are refining our ability to
be a team player--knowing when to lead, when to follow, or when to
assist to accomplish common goals. And I expect this process to
continue.
I realize that many folks may associate me with endangered species
programs. Although my years with the Service have focused primarily on
habitat restoration, environmental contaminants, and endangered species
conservation, my early years as a resource professional were spent
working for the National Guard Bureau and the Army as a wildlife
biologist addressing land use management and environmental planning
issues. I was responsible for developing and implementing fish and
wildlife conservation practices Army-wide; emphasizing integration of
wildlife management activities with the military mission. I spent much
of my time in the field visiting military installations throughout the
country, working to balance wildlife conservation needs with military
readiness objectives. I also developed land management programs to
ensure that military lands continued to support both wildlife
conservation and military training objectives. I worked hard with
military trainers and engineers, as well as with other Federal agencies
and conservation organizations, to ensure neither military training nor
wildlife habitat requirements were compromised. From these experiences
early in my career, I learned about the importance of listening to all
sides, effectively communicating specific needs, and working
collaboratively with others to achieve multiple goals on lands
supporting competing demands.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is widely recognized as the national
and international leader in wildlife conservation, and, if confirmed, I
will work to ensure that hard-earned reputation is maintained and
enhanced. Again, to do this, an ever-growing emphasis on partnerships
and looking at the big picture is essential. With more than 1,100
species on the list of endangered and threatened species, I know too
well the feeling of frustration and failure associated with each new
addition to the list. There is no way the Service or any other public
agency can single-handedly conserve our Nation's fish and wildlife
resources. We must work hard to leverage our own resources and
expertise with those of others to effect change on the ground.
Since transferring to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1989, I have
spent considerable time looking for new ways to achieve wetlands
conservation, recover declining species, restore degraded habitats, and
address the increasing concern about the effect of environmental
contaminants on our natural resources. I have worked in partnership
with folks like the ranchers in southern Arizona and New Mexico through
the Malpai Borderlands Group; private landowners on Hawaii's Big Island
working to prevent the extinction of the Hawaiian crow while preserving
the integrity of their commercial farming and ranching operations; and
the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky to balance the economic
needs of the coal mining industry with wildlife conservation. Again,
these experiences reinforced in me the value and importance of
partnerships. Each of these partnerships was characterized by genuine
trust, cooperation, mutual respect, and a desire for economic and
environmental security. I believe the future of fish and wildlife
conservation depends on collaborative partnerships such as these.
The Service also must continue our concerted efforts to reach out
to the public and to important constituencies with a stake in our fish
and wildlife resources. I have participated in numerous partnership
efforts and firmly believe that involving stakeholders and other agency
expertise early on reaps long-term benefits for fish and wildlife
resources and the economy. As the Service gains experience in this way
of doing business, I believe we will realize the expanded skills that
we all must master to learn to listen more actively, to work as a team
player, to be open-minded, and to be prepared to take whatever approach
is most effective in accomplishing the task.
I am convinced that as people better understand the connection
between ecosystem health and quality of life, our success at managing
for ecosystems and ensuring economic viability will continue to
increase. The Service needs to communicate to others the fundamental
message that the fate of wildlife and humans alike is linked to the
well-being of the environment around us.
The Service is dedicated to addressing change, not only in how we
explore new ways to conserve and manage our wildlife resources, but
also in recognizing the importance of a workforce reflective of our
Nation's citizenry. Increasing the diversity of our workforce is an
important element in improving our efforts to develop unique and
innovative approaches and strategies for wildlife conservation. A
skilled workforce, diverse in cultures, experiences, and ideas is
equipped to build upon traditional and successful approaches by
identifying new and fresh ideas for addressing conservation issues. The
richness of this experience is an asset, and its absence is an enormous
liability. I believe I can help the Service continue to work toward its
goal of a diverse and skilled workforce.
Americans are passionate about wildlife, and that passion fuels the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is an exciting time to be at the
helm of this agency. If confirmed as Director, I look forward with
great enthusiasm and excitement to the challenge of leading an agency
dedicated to conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife
and their habitats for the continuing benefit and enjoyment of the
American people. I pledge to work with you, the American public, other
Federal, State, Tribal, and private entities, and with the outstanding
employees of the Service to continue protecting our Nation's natural
heritage for generations to come.
Senators, thank you again for the honor of your consideration.
Responses to Additional Questions From Senator Chafee
Question 1. It is rare indeed when a career civil servant rises
through the ranks to become the director of an agency, particularly in
the span of time you have been with the Fish and Wildlife Service. How
will this background and experience shape your duties as Director, with
respect both to policy issues and to the management of the Service?
Answer. During my 8 years with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I
have been part of an agency undergoing significant change. It is
increasingly clear to me, and to my colleagues in and out of the
Service, that we need to continue looking for new and innovative ways
to achieve species and habitat conservation. Identifying new and
innovative conservation measures for both species and habitat will be
my goal as a policymaker; implementing these measures effectively will
be a measure of my success as a manager. Service employees, other
government agencies, and non-government organizations are finding
creative approaches to conservation questions almost every day.
Ensuring that those approaches are successful is our greatest
challenge. The Service must work hard to leverage our own resources and
expertise with those of State wildlife agencies, local governments,
sportsmen's organizations, conservation groups, corporations, and
individual private citizens to effect change on the ground. We must
refine our ability to be a team player--knowing when to lead, when to
follow, and when to assist to accomplish common goals. That is the
direction I intend to set.
I believe my experience has given me a unique and useful
perspective on working with the Service's partners to achieve the
Nation's conservation goals. My early years as a resource professional
were spent working for the National Guard Bureau and the Army as a
wildlife biologist addressing land use management and environmental
planning issues. I was responsible for developing and implementing fish
and wildlife conservation practices Army-wide; emphasizing integration
of wildlife management activities with the military mission. As a
consequence, I recognize and understand the need to balance wildlife
conservation needs with other objectives. Working to achieve balance
also meant that I was actively engaged with military trainers,
engineers, other Federal agencies, and conservation organizations in
developing and implementing real world solutions. From these
experiences, I learned about the importance of listening to all sides,
effectively communicating specific needs, and working collaboratively
with others to achieve multiple goals on lands supporting competing
demands.
Since joining the Service in 1989, I have spent considerable time
looking for new ways to achieve wetlands conservation, recover
declining species, restore degraded habitats, and address the
increasing concern about the effect of environmental contaminants on
our natural resources. I have worked in partnership with folks like the
ranchers in southern Arizona and New Mexico through the Malpai
Borderlands Group; private landowners on Hawaii's Big Island working to
prevent the extinction of the Hawaiian crow while preserving the
integrity of their commercial farming and ranching operations; and the
States of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky to balance the economic needs
of the coal mining industry with wildlife conservation. I believe the
future of fish and wildlife conservation depends on collaborative
partnerships such as these.
Question 2. In recent years, the Service has undertaken many
initiatives in implementing the Endangered Species Act. These include
the ``no-surprises'' policy, the safe harbor and candidate conservation
policies, streamlining agreements, among other. Some of these
initiatives are being considered in the context of legislation; and
some of these initiatives have been considered fairly controversial. I
am certain that all of these have significant consequences to both the
agencies and individuals subject to the law. I have two questions.
(a) First, with respect to Federal agencies, how have these
initiatives affected the Service's interaction with other agencies?
Answer. These three recent initiatives are currently under review
by the public, including the States, and other Federal agencies. The
Service is now collecting and evaluating these comments. To date, the
reaction from other Federal agencies has been favorable. The policies
should benefit Federal agencies because they encourage greater
participation of all stakeholders in recovery of listed species, or, in
the case of the Candidate Conservation Policy, in precluding the need
to list species. In the case of the No Surprises and Safe Harbor
policies, if the public voluntarily assumes a greater role in recovery
of listed species, Federal agencies may have their role lessened and
species may be recovered in less time. Removing species from the list
of protected species removes a regulatory burden from both the public
and from Federal agencies. In the case of the Candidate Conservation
Policy, if candidate conservation agreements sufficiently remove the
threats to candidate species and the need to list the species is
precluded, both the public and other Federal agencies benefit. There is
no need to impose regulations and the cost to both the public and
Federal agencies is lessened. The Service has numerous candidate
conservation agreements with other Federal agencies for species
occurring on Federal lands. The conservation agreement for the Jemez
Mountain salamander with the U.S. Forest Service in New Mexico has been
working to conserve this species for more than 5 years.
Question 2(b). Second, with respect to private landowners, how are
you monitoring the effectiveness of these initiatives?
Answer. The Service has a monitoring obligation for any agreement
designed to conserve species or minimize the impacts of activities on
species. Such agreements include Section 7 biological consultations,
Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits that accompany Habitat Conservation Plans,
No Surprises agreements, Safe Harbor agreements, and Candidate
Conservation agreements. Monitoring is composed of two functions:
monitoring implementation and monitoring effectiveness. In monitoring
implementation, it is the Service's responsibility to ensure that the
measures included in the agreement are being implemented by the action
agency or permit holder. The Service takes this responsibility
seriously. To a large degree, the increases the President's fiscal year
1998 Budget requests for the Consultation Program and the Recovery
Program are designed to ensure that the Service has the necessary
resources to monitor the increasing number of biological opinions,
permits, and agreements. The Service also plays a role in monitoring
the effectiveness of the measures intended to conserve species.
Sometimes Service biologists collect and interpret the relevant data.
More often, the responsibility to monitor the effectiveness is part of
the consulting Federal agency or permit holder's responsibility. The
agreement in these cases provides that these other parties use agreed-
upon methods to monitor for effectiveness, and report the results to
the Service.
Question 3. Recently, the Service has lost a number of court
decisions regarding its decision not to list certain species or
designate critical habitat for certain species. Specifically, the
Service has lost decisions relating to the Barton Springs salamander,
the bull trout, and two species in the Tongass National Forest, in
which the Service relied on ongoing or developing conservation
initiatives. I am a little concerned both with the track record of the
Service and the underlying bases for the Service's initial decisions
not to list these species. It would be one thing if those decisions
were upheld by the courts, but in light of the rejection by the courts,
are you developing any guidance on how to incorporate newly developed
conservation efforts into your listing decisions?
Answer. Yes, the Service is currently developing guidance
concerning the role conservation agreements and other conservation
measures should play when making listing determinations.
I believe that it is important to engage the public and private
sectors in conserving declining species, preferably before species
reach the point where they require listing. The Service has entered
into approximately 40 candidate conservation agreements in the last 4
years and 5 of these led to withdrawals of listing proposals. One such
conservation agreement is the northern copperbelly water snake
agreement, where numerous coal companies and the States of Illinois,
Indiana, and Kentucky ensured conservation of the species habitat,
resulting in removal of threats to the species sufficient to preclude
the need for listing under the Act.
Your question refers to adverse court decisions on the use of
conservation agreements. The Barton Springs salamander is the only
agreement where a court ordered the species to be listed despite a
conservation agreement. This court decision was based on an unusual
record, where the FWS had addressed the listing issue over several
years, with the conservation agreement coming very late in the process.
We do not regard this court decision as generally applicable to other
cases.
In the case of the Queen Charlotte goshawk and the Alexander
Archipelago wolf on the Tongass National Forest, the court set aside a
not warranted listing determination. But here the Service's primary
reasons for determining that listing was not warranted was that there
was insufficient information to substantiate threats to either species.
We also concluded that given the Forest Service's mandate to manage for
viable populations of all native vertebrate species, the wolf and
goshawk would likely not need the protection under the Act after a
revised forest management plan was issued. Now that a revised plan has
been issued, the Service will review whether the species need the
protection of the Act.
The Service's original bull trout petition finding, which was
challenged in court, was that listing the bull trout in the U.S. was
``warranted but precluded'' by other higher priority listing
activities. This decision was based in part on planned protective
measures on public lands. The court determined that the Service should
not have relied upon future management actions like those planned
measures when making its determination of threats. The Service did not
rely on these conservation measures when making a final determination,
but used them only in its attempt to prioritize use of its limited
resources in order to first protect other species that do not enjoy
ongoing protections. The Service believes, in the case of the bull
trout, this was the right decision. Nevertheless, the Service
recognizes that the Court has raised a valid question, and we are
currently developing guidance to address this issue.
The Service has an overall outstanding record when making
determinations on whether species need the protection of the Act. For
example, since the listing moratorium was lifted in April 1996, the
Service has published final rules for 133 species, proposed rules for
18 species, and withdrawals of proposals for 9 species, for a total of
160 listing decisions. It is noteworthy that so few of these
determinations have been set aside in court.
______
Responses to Additional Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. What is your view on the role of cost-benefit analysis
with respect to the natural resource damage assessment and restoration
process?
Answer. Under the existing CERCLA natural resource damage
assessment regulation, natural resource trustees consider a variety of
factors, including costs and benefits, in evaluating alternatives to
restore resources lost or injured as a result of hazardous substance
releases. Trustees focus on making the public whole for losses to
publicly owned or managed resources resulting from a release of
hazardous materials or oil. In this process, trustees consider both on-
site and off-site restoration alternatives. I support the
Administration's position that the goals of CERCLA and the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA) are to protect public health and the environment in
the most cost-effective and sensible way. CERCLA and OPA declare that
natural resources are held in trust for the public, and mandates that
those who pollute the environment, not the American public, must be
held accountable for restoring, replacing or acquiring the equivalent
of natural resources injured or lost as a result of their actions.
Thus, costs and benefits are important, but not controlling factors in
selecting restoration actions to make the public whole for losses
sustained as a result of hazardous materials or oil entering the
environment.
Question 2. Under your leadership, how would technical and
financial realities be taken into account in formulating plans for
remediation?
Answer. In conducting remediation under CERCLA, the U.S. Department
of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service follow the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), which requires consideration of
technical feasibility and cost. As you know, the NCP contains extensive
criteria for remedial actions under CERCLA.
Question 3. Would the planned use for the property be taken into
account in formulating remediation activities and requirements?
Answer. In evaluating the adequacy of remedial action alternatives
to eliminate risks to human health and the environment, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service considers future land use. For example, in
remediating contamination on wildlife refuges, we consider the purposes
of the refuge for protecting wildlife, as well as visitor activities on
the refuge.
Question 4. What efforts will you make to ensure that the costs
involved in the restoration of natural resources do not exceed the
value of the property, thereby discouraging redevelopment?
Answer. The FWS has significant responsibilities under CERCLA and
OPA related to its management, control and protection of land and
natural resources. These resources belong to the public and include
migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered species. We will
continue to take our stewardship responsibilities seriously and focus
on making the public whole in those situations where natural resources
have been lost or degraded as a result of contamination of the
environment. In selecfing a restoration action, we consider a variety
of actions, usually both on-site and off-site, and consider numerous
factors (including cost) to identify the most appropriate and cost-
effective restoration alternative.
Question 5. What steps do you intend to take to encourage early and
meaningful participation by PRPs in the assessing and rectifying
natural resource damages?
Answer. The CERCLA and natural resource damage assessment
regulations require us to invite PRPs to join in the natural resource
damage assessment process at the planning stage. The Service encourages
this participation as it facilitates assessment, settlement and
restoration. I will continue to encourage early PRP involvement in the
Service's implementation of the NRD Program. We have successfully
secured the input of many PRPs and they, in tum, have provided trustees
with settlement agreements that provide for restoration either through
payment of damages or through ``in-kind'' settlements. Similarly, I
strongly support the use of Biological Technical Assistance Groups at
the remediation stage, composed of parties with interest and expertise
in the site.
Question 6. Do you support placing a cap on damages or other
mechanisms for limiting liability of PRPs for natural resource damages?
Answer. As you know, the Administration has maintained a steadfast
commitment to maintaining the trustee's ability to effect meaningful
restoration of injured natural resources because it is so vital to the
Nation's well being. For this reason, I support the Administration's
opposition to legislative proposals that would place caps on liability
for restoration, other than what is already contained in CERCLA. Caps
risk denying the public compensation for its losses and could result in
ineffective restoration or completely prohibit restoration for the most
serious cases of injury caused by long-term hazardous substance
release.
Question 7. If not, what measures would you take to promote
expeditious settlements and prompt remediation?
Answer. I will continue to support efforts during CERCLA
implementation that reaffirms the commitment to the principle that the
polluters, not the American people, should be responsible for cleaning
up toxic waste and for restoring resources injured as a result of the
release of the waste. Current implementation by the EPA and the States
allows for remediation decisions to occur as quickly as resources will
allow. The Service, under my leadership, will continue to assist the
EPA and the States to work within the Congressionally mandated
responsibilities of CERCLA to protect public health and the
environment. We have a successful track record of providing technical
assistance to cleanup agencies that has resulted in the adoption of
remediation techniques that have resulted in less injury to natural
resources during response and remediation and the reduction of
restoration challenges that have allowed natural resources to return to
the State they were in before the release.
Question 8. How do you intend to promote the equitable treatment of
PRPs in natural resource damage cases?
Answer. The Service has secured several negotiated settlements with
PRPs resulting in in-kind settlements that have allowed PRPs to
directly provide restoration of injured resources, rather than rely on
trustee implementation. I will continue to encourage the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to invite PRP involvement as early as possible in the
process to not only cut costs, but also to effect restoration of the
natural environment as early as possible. Such involvement by all
interested parties early in the process ensures fair and equitable
treatment of all affected parties. Key issues are identified early,
options can be developed openly among participants, and decisions made
with relevant and up-to-date information. Such coordinated decisions
ultimately treat all participants more fairly.
Question 9. What is the FWS role and involvement in managing the
brucellosis problem around Yellowstone and National Elk NWR?
Answer. The FWS's role in managing brucellosis issues in the
Greater Yellowstone Area is limited to management of brucellosis in the
bison and elk in the Jackson Hole, WY area which frequent the Refuge
during the year. The Service is using a four-pronged approach to manage
brucellosis in these populations: (1) controlling animal numbers, (2)
participating in scientific research efforts to develop an effective
vaccine, (3) minimizing the possibility of transmitting the disease by
rehabilitating an outdated irrigation system to improve forage
production and distributing animals more widely on the Refuge, and (4)
working with partners to secure land or easements to separate elk and
bison to minimize possibility of interspecies transmission.
The National Elk Refuge was created in 1912 to provide elk feeding
areas to mitigate for human encroachment onto elk winter range in the
Jackson Hole area. Elk are a State managed species. Thus, the FWS
manages the habitat, the State of Wyoming manages the animal numbers,
and the State and FWS share costs of supplemental feeding. Because the
perimeter of the refuge is not fenced, the only currently feasible
mechanism for limiting the numbers of animals on the refuge is to
manage the harvest, a State regulated activity. Because the elk and
bison both migrate onto and off the Refuge, Grand Teton National Park,
BLM, and Forest Service property, the Service must work with all of
these partners and the State of Wyoming to accurately assess numbers of
both species so the State can implement effective hunting regulations.
The Fish and Wildlife Service cooperated with the State of Wyoming
in an experimental vaccination program on the Refuge in which
approximately 2000 elk were vaccinated. It was labor intensive and
difficult because of conditions at the Refuge, and was not a
demonstrable success. Scientifically tested, effective, safe, orally
administered vaccine must be developed for vaccination to be effective
in such conditions, and the Service is working with other Federal
agencies to contribute to the development of such a vaccine.
The Service has recently consulted with the Natural Resource
Conservation Service to develop plans for an effective, modern
irrigation system to increase forage production on the Refuge.
Preliminary estimates are that with an updated irrigation system, the
Refuge could produce up to six times as much forage, almost eliminating
the need for supplemental feeding in most years. This would widely
distribute elk across the Refuge and greatly minimize possibilities of
transmission of brucellosis. In naturally distributed populations of
elk, about 1 percent of the population tests seropositive for
brucellosis, and this is just about the same number as the error rate
for the test.
Finally, the Service is working with partners to find wintering
habitat off the Refuge for the small Jackson bison herd. Separating
bison from elk would prevent possibilities of interspecies transmission
of brucellosis.
Question 10. What is the status of delisting the Grizzly Bear? The
``standards'' for delisting have not been clear and the time line has
continually changed. Could you clarify what the ``standards'' are and
the time line for delisting.
Answer. The approved grizzly bear recovery plan delineates 6
separate recovery areas. Each population can be recovered and delisted
separately, independently of the others. Recovery goals include such
things as the number of females observed with cubs, human-caused
mortality levels, human-caused female mortality levels, and occupancy
of bear management units. The required level for each measure will vary
among the 6 areas. The Recovery Plan does not delineate specific
timeframes for delisting because many of the goals are dependent on
exterior forces that are impossible to predict. As an example, the
Yellowstone population is well on its way to recovery: the Yellowstone
population of 33 females with cubs in 1996 exceeds the recovery goal of
15. Occupancy and mortality goals have also been met, but the human-
induced female mortality goal is still being exceeded. In addition, as
a result of a recent settlement of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
lawsuit brought by the Fund for Animals, National Audubon Society and
three dozen other conservation groups, the Service is required to
develop, measure and achieve habitat-based recovery criteria before
delisting the bear. These criteria are being developed now by an
interagency team and will be ready by fall of 1997. In addition, before
the Yellowstone bear can be delisted, Montana and Wyoming must change
State laws that currently allow high levels of bear mortality. The
Service and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) hope to
resolve all the Yellowstone delisting issues in the near future in
order to delist the Yellowstone population as soon as possible.
The Northern Continental Divide population has also met its
``female with cubs'' recovery goals, but not some of the other
objectives. The other three existing populations in the Selkirks,
Cabinet/Yank, and Northern Cascades ecosystems are currently making
little or no progress toward recovery. The Bitterroot recovery goals
will be established by a Citizens Management Committee if and when
bears are introduced into the ecosystem and sufficient scientific and
commercial information becomes available. If 25 bears are introduced
into the Bitterroot over a 5-year period, a tentative recovery goal of
280 bears over the 5,785 square miles of designated wilderness may take
as long as 100 years.
In summary, 2 of the current 5 grizzly bear populations are well on
their way to recovery, but the Service and the IGBC must meet several
requirements before delisting is possible. We hope to meet those
requirements in the near future. Time lines have not been established
for any of the populations because recovery and delisting are highly
dependent on external forces and because bears reproduce slowly.
Responses to Additional Questions From Senator Allard
Question 1. Recently, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska and the U.S.
Department of Interior agreed in principle to a program to protect
species in the Central Platte. Fish & Wildlife will have a crucial role
to play in this agreement because the first stage is a 3 year NEPA
process.
Ms. Clark, I'm sure we have both seen NEPA's run wild. Please
indicate to me how you would intend to ensure that the process is
controlled so that it performs its function in the time allotted and
that it is not an excuse for rewriting the agreement?
Answer. The Central Platte agreement is an excellent example of the
kind of collaborative partnerships that will be key to balancing the
environmental, economic and social needs of society in the future.
Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming all deserve special recognition for the
enlightened approach they are taking in conserving the fish and
wildlife resources of the Platte Basin. The Fish and Wildlife Service
is committed to making this agreement work in order to provide greater
certainty of Platte River flows for a variety of uses, including
agriculture, electric utilities, and other water uses as well as
wildlife. I can assure you that I will do all I can to ensure that the
NEPA process is completed in a timely and effective manner.
I believe there are several aspects of the agreement that will help
keep the process on track. The agreement includes a description of the
proposed program that will be one of the alternatives considered under
the NEPA process. All parties realize that the proposed program must be
properly analyzed in the NEPA process, but they also recognize that it
is in everyone's long-term interest to ensure that the proposed program
remains substantially intact. The agreement also established an 8-
person Governance Committee with representatives from the States, water
users, environmentalists and the Department of the Interior to review,
direct, and provide oversight for agreement activities. Oversight of
the NEPA process will be one of the major concerns of the Governance
Committee. I believe the Governance Committee will have a direct
interest in seeing that the NEPA process is carried out in a timely and
effective manner to reach the agreement's goals. Finally, the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service, as the two Federal
agencies directly responsible for the NEPA process, will be cooperating
closely. Both agencies were intimately involved in negotiating the
agreement in principle and both have an interest in assuring that the
agreement remains essentially intact.
Question 2. What is the status of the programmatic biological
opinion being prepared on the Colorado River Recovery Program?
Answer. The biological opinion dealing with historic projects and
new depletions on the Colorado River above the 15 mile reach of the
Grand Valley is under development at this time, pending completion of
the hydrological analyses being done by the Colorado Water Conservation
Board. A draft biological opinion is tentatively scheduled for
completion in October 1997, with a final opinion to be completed four
to 6 months after the draft.
Question 3. Will this opinion fulfill its intended function of
allowing development of Colorado's apportionment under the Colorado
River Compact and protecting the various fish species?
Answer. The intended goal of the Upper Colorado River Recovery
Program is to recover the endangered fish while allowing the States to
meet their compact entitlements. The Recovery Program is also intended
to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative for water depletion
impacts in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The specific purpose of the
programmatic biological opinion is to determine the degree to which the
recovery program can serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative
for historic and new depletions, considering the status of the fish
populations and the recovery program accomplishments. At this time, the
Service has not made a final determination on this issue. While the
biological opinion being developed must be consistent with the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act, I believe we can protect
species while still protecting Colorado's allocation.
Question 4. Eventually, State and Federal contributions to this
project will be about an additional $100 million. I've heard some
complaints that Fish and Wildlife is not accepting this program as an
acceptable method of meeting Section 7 consultation requirements. Can
you give me some assurances that you will review this program with the
goal of ensuring it provides certainty to those on the Colorado River
and its tributaries?
Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service has consulted on nearly 300
water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin since the
inception of the Recovery Program in 1988. The biological opinions for
each of these projects have identified reasonable and prudent
alternatives that allow the projects to go forward but successfully
offset the environmental impacts. It is difficult to continue to
deplete water from a river system while trying to recover fish species
that depend on the same water. However, all parties have done an
admirable job so far, and I expect this to continue into the future. I
will continue to work closely with the Service's Denver Regional Office
to ensure that the Program continues to function smoothly.
Question 5. Will the new Animas-LaPlata project require any type of
consultation with Fish and Wildlife?
Answer. That will have to be determined as the new project plan is
developed. The Service completed a biological opinion on the Animas-
LaPlata project several years ago based on the planned project at that
time. If the future project is significantly different from the planned
project that the previous biological opinion addressed, a revised or
new biological opinion may be required.
______
Responses to Additional Questions From Senator Inhofe
Question 1. What do you see as the proper role of the State in the
NRD process?
Answer. Each State shares trustee responsibility with the U.S.
Department of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
other Federal natural resource management agencies, and tribes. States,
in partnership with all affected natural resource trustees, are working
cooperatively and collectively to evaluate and quantify injuries to
fish, wildlife and other natural resources and to secure restoration of
injured natural resources. Working in partnership, states, tribes, and
Federal natural resource trustees provide the best assurance for
success in protecting and restoring injured resources.
Question 2. What options would you consider to provide States with
greater opportunities to manage cleanups of sites within their borders
and to promote their pursuit of innovative and cost-effective
restoration programs?
Answer. States are encouraged to continue their cooperative
technical assistance efforts among state, tribal and Federal
organizations responsible for both the cleanup of the site and
protection and restoration of natural resources, as a proven and
effective way to ensure that the risks to both human health and
ecological resources within individual State borders are evaluated
thoroughly during remediation. We have a successful track record in
assisting the EPA and our State partners in selecting response and
remediation decisions that consider and protect fish and wildlife
resources. We are pursuing opportunities for closer coordination of
remediation and restoration activities. EPA is aggressively seeking our
help and the Service stands ready to provide technical assistance to
both the EPA and individual States during response and remediation
decisionmaking to protect fish and wildlife resources. As you know, the
EPA works with States directly to establish remediation goals.
Increasingly, the Service has provided technical advice that has
resulted in the reduction of Natural Resource Damage (NRD) liability by
helping the EPA or the State to identify and/or select response and
remediation techniques and strategies that result in accelerated
restoration of injured resources.
Question 3. A number of states have established programs under
which entities that successfully complete voluntary and mandatory
remediation actions are released from liability for damages under State
environmental laws. As a result of Pennsylvania's model program, for
example, 64 sites have been cleaned up since establishment of the
program in July 1996, compared with 8 of the 103 Superfund sites
located in Pennsylvania that have been cleaned up over the course of
Superfund's 16 year history. As the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, would you support a parallel statutory release of liability
under CERCLA for entities that successfully complete remediation
activities in connection with NRD claims and obtain a release from the
State?
Answer. Coordination between the natural resource trustee entities
of the Federal and State jurisdictions currently provide protection to
fish and wildlife species, whether they are resident populations within
the borders of one or many States as well as for those that migrate
across State boundaries, making temporary stops within any one
individual State. It is the migratory nature of many fish and wildlife
resources and the interstate commerce relationship that created Federal
protective statutes that currently exceed any one individual State's
ability to protect such species during all phases of their migration.
It is this Federal responsibility for protecting migratory fish and
wildlife that serves as a strong complement to every State authority
exercised within their sovereign boundaries. This State and Federal
partnership affords our Nation's fish and wildlife resources their
maximum stewardship and protection not only in any one State, but
throughout entire Regions and flyways. We currently have very strong
working relationships with many of our State natural resource trustees,
and we do currently evaluate NRD liability at particular sites
collectively. As such, when we jointly release a Responsible Party from
NRD liability or grant a covenant-not-to-sue, it is our collective
finding that binds both the State and the Federal Governments. For
these reasons, our greatest strengths and abilities to protect fish and
wildlife resources are afforded by building strong and complementary
partnerships between State and Federal natural resource trustees,
rather than by abrogating our Federal protective mandates through
exclusion of Federal partners from such extensive State decisions.
Question 4. What plans do you have to ensure that the damage
assessment process does not result in the unnecessary duplication of
work by State and Federal entities?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a strong history of
entering into formal trustee agreements with many of our State and
Federal partners to secure cooperative damage assessments and NRD
claims. By entering into such trustee agreements as early as possible
during the pre-assessment phase of the NRD process, all participants
can share information early, plan necessary investigations
cooperatively to take advantage of shared resources, and execute
investigations synergistically to avoid duplicative sampling or
studies. We have also encouraged our State and other Federal trustees
to join us in settlement negotiations. We in the FWS have been
coordinating with our State and Federal partners since the beginning of
the NRD program. We have been able to stretch limited resources with
partnership planning and investigations that have yielded mutually
beneficial results for cooperative NRD negotiations. Examples of such
successful partnerships include settlements for the Tenyo Maru, the
Cantara Loop, and Apex Houston Oil Spills.
The Service takes CERCLA's coordination requirement very seriously.
It was designed to provide safeguards against inconsistencies and
conflicts in both remediation and restoration decisionmaking. Memoranda
of Understanding are in place to ensure effective coordination between
both State and Federal entities on these decisions. Additionally, in
most EPA Regions there are Biological Technical Assistance Groups
(BTAGs) composed of scientists from resource management agencies,
including the States, that work closely with EPA when EPA conducts
ecological risk assessments and cleanups. As Director of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, I will continue to encourage the cooperative
efforts currently enjoyed by the Service's NRD program through its
formal cooperative trustee agreements with its other Federal and State
partners, through cooperative contaminant investigations, through
encouraging public involvement in NRD restoration, and by continuing
the Service's technical assistance capabilities and opportunities.
Further, I will commit myself to ensure there is no duplication of work
by State and Federal entities.
Question 5. What changes or measures would you suggest to increase
the level of cooperation between State and Federal officials?
Answer. The Service has a long tradition of working closely on NRD
issues with our State, tribal and Federal partners. Cooperation could
be greatly increased through encouraging more informal and formal
communication and sharing of information and expertise. The Service is
an avid supporter of State cooperative associations and contributes to
and hosts symposia, conferences, and issue initiatives that provide
informal forums for mutual exchange of information and concerns. I will
continue to support working relationships solidified through personnel
exchanges, such as IPA's, through shared training opportunities among
our National Conservation Training Center and State counterparts, and
through partnered investigations designed to address operational fish
and wildlife issues affecting a broad spectrum of State and Federal
interests. Also, I believe that we can share natural resource data
bases, such as Geographic Information Systems, that are beneficial and
are applicable to a multitude of uses and analyses. The benefits of
using common data bases are immense in terms of consistent claims,
reducing costs, increasing knowledge base among trustees and PRP's, and
expediting settlement and restoration decisions.
Question 6. What steps would you take to support efforts by the
State to reach an expeditious settlement of State claims with PRP's in
order to proceed quickly to the restoration stage?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently works
cooperatively with many of its State and Federal partners to avoid
injury to fish and wildlife resources during response and remediation
actions to minimize restoration challenges after cleanup is achieved.
If after cleanup, restoration actions are necessary, these actions are
pursued as quickly as resources allow in order to provide favorable
conditions for the injured resources to return to the State they would
have been in had the release not occurred. I firmly believe that the
current cooperative nature of the NRD Program is the quickest way to
achieve cost-effective restoration. Cooperation assures not only the
State and Federal trustees that their collective concerns are met, but
also provides the PRP with certainty that all affected parties are
incorporated into the hazardous waste cleanup and site restoration,
thereby effectively negating surprises during planning and
implementation phases of the process.
Question 7. Do you support the listing of the Fox River/Green Bay
area on the NPL?
Answer. Yes, this area is highly contaminated with PCB's, with
injuries to fish and wildlife resources documented for over 30 years.
There have been fish consumption advisories on this site for many years
because the State of Wisconsin has concluded that there is a risk to
human health. The listing of the site by EPA will enable issues of risk
to human health and the environment to be addressed in the remediation
process. The NPL process will assist in identifying the most cost-
effective solutions to the cleanup and provide incentives for the PRPs
to participate in a more significant way. We plan to work closely with
EPA to seek consistency, to the greatest extent possible, of
remediation and restoration activities.
Question 8. Was DOI consulted by EPA with respect to the proposed
listing? What position did it take?
Answer. Yes. The Department supported the listing.
Question 9. How would the listing affect voluntary efforts that are
underway as a result of the January 1997 agreement?
Answer. It will help this effort by adding more financial resources
and expertise from EPA to the cleanup. It also will provide additional
incentives for the PRPs to make commitments to cleanup the river. All
parties agree that a negotiated settlement based on a voluntary cleanup
is preferable to litigation. The NPL listing will provide additional
certainty that the Fox River will actually get cleaned up and restored.
The Service will continue to support all parties working together, and
has agreed to work cooperatively with the State, EPA and the 2 tribes
in a Memorandum of Agreement which was signed on July 11, 1997.
Question 10. Is the NPL listing just another way to assert Federal
control over the restoration process?
Answer. No. Efforts to date have focused on restoration of natural
resources but not remediation of the river. NPL listing will bring EPA
to the site to oversee the remediation process. It is in the public's
best interest, as well as in the interest of the Responsible Parties,
for all relevant units of government to be involved in addressing this
problem so that all cleanup and restoration issues can be resolved. The
Federal Government is an affected and interested party in this matter.
The NPL process will introduce certainty that progress will be made in
responding to threats to human health and the environment and injuries
to natural resources.
______
Responses to Additional Questions From Senator Boxer
Question 1. How will establishment of a regional office in
Sacramento improve service to California?
Answer. The establishment of a regional office in Sacramento will
greatly improve service delivery in California and Nevada. The
reorganization will provide additional service to the public and the
Service's many other customers and partners to meet their needs in the
increasingly complex natural resource environment facing California and
Nevada. In particular, improved services to the public are needed for
the Bay/Delta restoration initiative, the recovery of endangered
species, meeting the demand for habitat conservation planning
assistance, restoring habitats injured by spills of oil or hazardous
substances, and meeting the rapidly increasing expectations for Service
refuge and fisheries facilities. California is already home to more
than 30 million people, and is projected to grow by more than 58
percent by the year 2020. Growth in metropolitan areas of Nevada has
been similarly explosive.
Currently, Region 11, based in Portland, Oregon, has a workload
greater than any other region in the country. Even with the creation of
a new region, the workload in California and Nevada will exceed those
of many other regions. For example, California alone has about 20
percent of the nation's listed species and about 10 percent of the
nation's recovery plans for listed species. The 109 listed species in
California and Nevada comprise 24 percent of the species that need
recovery plans in the future. In addition, California and Nevada have
been national leaders in the development of Habitat Conservation Plans.
The Service is responsible for 112 Habitat Conservation Plans in
various stages of development in those two states and must monitor the
approved plans; this workload far exceeds that of any other region. The
Sacramento office will also serve more than three million acres of
refuge properties within California and Nevada; once again more refuge
land than many other regions. The establishment of a regional office in
Sacramento will improve services by placing a dedicated Regional
Director on the ground in California; streamlining review of section 7
consultations; streamlining approval of Habitat Conservation Plans; and
providing a quicker response to damages. In sum, the Service
decisionmakers will be closer to the customers that the agency serves
and the office will be better staffed to meet the current and future
needs of those customers.
Question 2. What is the Service doing to shorten the review times
for environmental analysis?
Answer. The Service has taken several steps to shorten the review
times for environmental analysis. The Service's current National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures encourage agency personnel
to use streamlining techniques, such as scoping of alternatives and
impact, incorporation by reference, joint process (i.e., public reviews
and joint documents) with other Federal and State agencies, and the
establishment of cooperative agency agreements in planning and
decisionmaking of Service actions. In January 1997, the Service revised
its NEPA procedures to expand and update the list of categorical
exclusions (actions not requiring the preparation of environmental
analyses) and to identify more instances when environmental
assessments, rather than environmental impact statements, are
appropriate. These improvements effectively shorten the time periods
for agency decisionmaking, while still providing consideration of
alternatives and analysis of Service proposals and permit approvals
where environmental impacts are anticipated. The Service has also
developed NEPA training courses for Service personnel, conducted by the
Service's National Conservation Training Center, in Shepherdstown, WV,
that provide instruction on streamlining techniques for Service
activities, including section 10 habitat conservation plans, refuge
comprehensive management planning, and grants programs. Over 200
Service employees are training annually in this effort.
Question 3. Are there any species in California being considered
for listing?
Answer. Yes. A total of 28 candidates are being considered for
Federal listing in California. Candidate species are plants and animals
for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient information on
their biological status and threats to propose them for listing as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. However,
development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other
higher priority listing activities. The candidate species in California
include:
Amole, Cammatta Canyon
Amole, Purple
Buckwheat, Ione
Buckwheat, Irish Hill
Buckwheat, Red Mountain
Campion, Red Mountain
Checkerbloom, Keck' s
Checkerbloom, Parish's
Chub, Cowhead Lake
Larkspur, yellow
Larkspur, Baker's
Lathyrus, tow-flowered
Lupine, Nipomo Mesa
Manznita, Ione
Penny-cress, Kneeland Prairie
Phlox, Yreka
Rabbit, riparian brush
Rat, San Bernardino Kangaroo
Salamander, California tiger
San-verbena, Ramshaw
Shrew, Bueana Vista Lake
Stonecrop, Read Mountain
Tarweed, Santa Cruz
Tarweed, Gaviota
Thistle, La Graciosa
Trout, McCloud River redband
Woodrat, San Joaquin Valley
Yerba santa, Lompoc
A total of 54 species have been proposed for Federal listing as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act in
California, and await final decisions. The proposed species include:
Adobe-lily, Greenhorn
Allocarya, Calistoga
Alumroot, island
Bear-grass, Dehesa
Bird's-beak, soft
Bluecurls, Hidden Lake
Bluegrass, Napa
Bluegrass, San Bernardino
Brodiaea, Chinese Camp
Brodiaea, thread-leaved
Buckwheat, Irish Hill
Buckwheat, Ione
Buckwheat, southern mountain
Butterfly, callippe silverspot
Butterfly, Behren's silverspot
Carpenteria
Ceanothus, Vail Lake
Checker-mallow, Kenwood Marsh
Cinquefoil, Hickman's
Clarkia, Springville
Clarkia, Vine Hill
Crownscale, San Jacinto
Cypress, Gowen
Dandelion, California
Dudleya, munchkin
Dudleya, Santa Cruz Island
Dudleya, Santa Rosa Island
Flannelbush, Mexican
Larkspur, Baker's
Larkspur, yellow
Lily, Pitkin Marsh
Lupine, Mariposa
Manzanita, Ione
Manzanita, pallid
Milk-vetch, Clara Hunt's
Monkeyflower, Kelso Creek
Mountain-mahogany, Catalina
Navarretia, Piute Mountains
Navarretia, prostrate
Paintbrush, ash-grey
Phlox, Yreka
Piperia, Yadon's
Pussypaws, Mariposa
Rattleweed, coastal dunes
Rock-cress, island
Rock-cress, Johnston's
Sandwort, Bear Valley
Sedge, white
Sheep, bighorn (Peninsular)
Splittail, Sacramento
Thistle, Suisun
Valley Barberry, Nevin's
Whipsnake, Alameda
Woodland star, San Clemente Island
______
Responses to Additional Questions From Senator Smith
Question 1(a). As the Chairman of the Senate Superfund, Waste
Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, I am interested in knowing
your views on the Natural Resources Damages (NRD) program of CERCLA and
how you, as part of the Federal trustee team, would work with PRPs and
State trustees to restore confidence in the NRD program. As such, I
request that you respond to the following questions:
According to the April 1996 GAO report on natural resource damage
settlements, as of April 1995, $33.9 million had been collected through
settlements in the five largest natural resource damages (NRD) cases
but only $3.6 million had been spent. The GAO found, however, that
expenditures had gone ``mostly to reimburse trustees for performing
past damage assessments and to pay for preparing natural resource
restoration plans. With the exception of one small experimental
restoration project, no restoration actions had been taken with the
moneys collected as of July 1995.''
A follow-up GAO report issued in November 1996 reported that
settlements had been reached at 62 sites in addition to the five large
NRD settlements discussed in the first report. Only 19 percent of the
funds collected from these 62 settlements had been allocated for
performing damage assessments, planning or restoration. Further, as of
July 1996, restoration had been completed at only one site.
Can you explain why more actual restoration work has not taken
place?
Answer. It is important to note that the NRD process is still
relatively new. We did not receive appropriations until Fiscal Year
1992 and we were developing guidance and procedures to implement these
important Congressional mandates. As settlements are received and
cooperative working relationship between the State and Federal trustees
develop, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) is moving
into an era of undertaking actual restoration work. I would agree that
the pace of spending on actual restoration needs to increase. I am
informed that since the release of the GAO Report, additional funds
have been allocated to assessment and restoration work at a number of
sites, including the following sites listed in the GAO report: Applied
Environmental Services, New York; Army Creek Landfill, Delaware; Bunker
Hill Mine, Idaho; Charles George Reclamation Landfill, Massachusetts;
Coker's Sanitation Service Landfills, Delaware; Crab Orchard NWR,
Illinois; Douglass Road/Uniroyal Inc., Landfill, Indiana; Hi View
Terrace, New York; Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting and Refinery,
Pennsylvania; Saegertown Industrial Area, Pennsylvania; Sharon Steel
Corp., Utah; Southern Ohio Coal, Ohio; and Wide Beach Development, New
York. Of the $27.1 million identified as collected settlements in the
November 1996 GAO report, a total of $9,162,243, or 34 percent, has
been allocated as of July 1997. This is compared with 19 percent
allocated as of July 1996.
Restoration planning is underway at a number of these sites,
including the Applied Environmental Services, Crab Orchard NWR, Hi View
Terrace and Wide Beach Development Sites. Since the GAO Report,
Restoration Plans have been completed for a number of sites including
the Douglass Road Site (Indiana), the Fisher-Calo Chemical Site
(Indiana), the Fish Creek Oil Spill (Indiana), the Envirochem,
Northside Landfill, and Great Lakes Asphalt Sites (Indiana), and the
Coakley Landfill (New Hampshire). Restoration work at these sites will
commence in the near future as working relationships are formalized,
contracts are negotiated and released, and construction begins.
It is important to note that the GAO report to which you refer
focuses strictly on restoration activities for which damages under
CERCLA were collected and deposited to the Department's Natural
Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) Fund. Because of
this limitation, the report omits a number of restoration projects
undertaken as a result of the Service's involvement. These settlement
dollars have been deposited in court registry accounts or represent
``in-kind'' settlements where Responsible Parties (RPs) actually
perform the restoration action under a consent decree or administrative
order. Also, the report does not include restoration projects which
have been undertaken pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). One
example is the Apex Oil Spill (Texas) settlement. At that site the
Service will participate in a $2.2 million dollar project that will
restore and enhance nearly 750 acres of wetland and aquatic habitat.
Another example of such work is the Motco Superfund Site (Texas) where
the RPs created a replacement salt marsh that is now managed as a local
park. The GAO report also does not include restoration projects
undertaken by the RPs either as part of the remediation process in
cooperation with the EPA or undertaken by the RPs at the request of the
trustees to resolve natural resource damage claims. Two examples of
such projects are the purchase and enhancement of about 80 acres of
wetland to resolve a NRD claim for a site in Ohio, and the creation of
a marsh by the RPs at the Wildcat Landfill (Delaware) to replace one
that was filled in the remedial process. These projects, which were
excluded in the GAO report, represent a significant bulk of settlements
in terms of dollars and benefits to the natural resources and the
public.
Question 1(b). As Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
what steps would you take to expedite the pace of initiating
restoration projects under the NRD program?
Answer. The Service is now moving into an era of implementing
restoration projects. By building upon our past successes, we have
increased the pace of our restoration program. We have greater
experience with various restoration techniques that can be applied to
new sites. In addition, we have existing Memoranda of Agreement,
funding mechanisms, and cooperative working relationships with RPs,
other natural resource trustees, conservation organizations, and other
government agencies that provide technical expertise and logistical
support. We can use these tools to get new projects off the ground
faster and in a more focused fashion to the benefit of the natural
resources and the public.
Question 2(a). According to the April 1996 GAO report, agency
officials have explained ``that restoration had not begun at sites
because of continuing litigation, the need to coordinate with the
Environmental Protection Agency's cleanup process and other site-
specific reasons.''
What actions has the agency taken in the past year to respond to
the GAO report's findings?
Answer. As manager of the Department of the Interior's NRDAR Fund,
the FWS has implemented a number of reforms which will ultimately
improve the pace of restorations at NRD sites. These reforms, which
focus on improving communications and providing project funding faster
and more efficiently, include the following:
Streamlined the approval process required for release of
restoration funds from the Departmental NRDAR Fund. Approval and
release of funds can now occur in days, compared to weeks and even
months previously;
Provided training to field staff on simplified mechanics
of NRDAR Fund, with an emphasis on required documentation and how to
request a release of restoration funds. Delays caused by inadequate
documentation have been reduced significantly;
Clarified that reasonable restoration planning costs can
be funded from restoration settlements. Earlier Fund guidance
discouraged use of settlement dollars for planning purposes and, as a
result, restorations were delayed. Since the policy change, restoration
planning efforts have increased substantially;
Improved communications between Fund managers and field
staff. Field and regional staff are now notified on monthly basis of
all settlements and payments received and interest earned; and
Improved working relationships with Justice, EPA, and NOAA
financial staffs in order to more quickly identify and resolve problems
in carrying out financial terms of settlements.
Question 2(b) What plans, if any, do you have to decrease the
amount of litigation and delay that currently plagues the NRD program?
Answer. I will continue to support Service efforts to encourage
meaningful involvement from the PRPs, as well as other Federal, State,
and tribal entities early on in the NRD process. To date, the Service
has secured several negotiated settlements with PRPs resulting in
settlements that have staved off litigation. Involvement by all
interested parties early in the process helps ensure fair and equitable
treatment of all affected parties and helps limit litigation and
unwarranted delays.
Further, the FWS was instrumental in developing a funding mechanism
within the NRDAR Fund to allow Bureaus to work more cooperatively with
RPs in conducting damage assessments. Under the recently approved
process it is easier to conduct RP-funded cooperative assessments,
provide RP's an opportunity to participate in and influence what
studies are conducted, and decrease the likelihood of contentious
litigation, since both sides will share a common source of data.
An effort to revise existing authorizing language in the
Department's NRDAR account is presently before Congress. The proposed
changes seek to clarify the authority of the NRDAR fund to administer
joint NRD recoveries by being able to transfer settlement receipts to
other non-Interior and State trustees to implement joint restoration
plans. Congressional approval of the requested changes will help remove
obstacles to cooperative restoration efforts and will improve
relationships with State trustees. I believe this will ultimately speed
up the pace of restorations.
Lastly, I support the proposal submitted last October by the
Administration that outlined reforms for the natural resource damage
(NRD) provisions of CERCLA. The proposed reforms were designed to
reduce litigation and expedite restoration. Also, they were
specifically designed to shift the emphasis away from spending money on
litigation and to focus instead on spending money on restoration of
injured natural resources. This shift was in response to concerns that
too much time and money were spent on damage assessment and not enough
emphasis was placed on restoring injured resources. I will continue to
support such reforms designed to improve the NRD program by providing
greater clarity concerning restoration, by assuring more timely and
more orderly presentation of claims and by discouraging premature
litigation.
Question 3(a). Regarding the Fox River site in Green Bay,
Wisconsin, I understand that Federal, State and tribal trustees met on
a number of occasions to attempt to reach agreement on division of
responsibilities for the damage assessments to be performed and on the
designation of a lead authorized official but were unable to come to an
agreement. I understand further that in light of the failure to reach
agreement, State officials asserted their authority to serve as the
lead authority for State natural resources and on January 31, 1997,
entered into an agreement with the PRPs, who contributed $10 million
for resources assessment and restoration projects.
What steps could we expect you to take to support the State of
Wisconsin's effort to reduce transaction costs and cooperate with PRPs
to address natural resource damage without protracted and expensive
litigation?
Answer. This question, as well as some of the following questions
regarding the Fox River have been overtaken by events. The Service
initiated the effort to work with the State of Wisconsin to address
natural resource damage in the Fox River/Green Bay environment using a
collaborative approach. Initially, the Governor elected not to
participate. However, in the fall of 1996, we were able to begin
discussions at the staff level regarding how to work together on this
problem. We have always stated our preference to resolve natural
resource damage issues through negotiation rather than litigation. This
culminated in a July 11, 1997 agreement signed by the FWS (representing
DOI), 2 tribes, NOAA, EPA and the State of Wisconsin to work together
by blending the State activities, the FWS NRDA activities and EPA's
activities into one process--with a firm pledge to work together for
the public benefit. I am confident this process will result in a
complete solution to cleanup, restoration and compensation for lost
resource values of the Fox River and Green Bay area. It is our hope
that this joint governmental effort, which has been DOI's goal, will
result in a negotiated settlement with the PRPs that will avoid
litigation.
Question 3(b). It is my understanding that the parties to the Fox
River agreement have encouraged the participation and involvement of
the Federal Government in their efforts and have specifically invited
the Federal Government to become a party to the agreement reached in
January. Is that correct? What was your involvement in that decision?
Answer. The DOI was not involved in the development of the State/
company agreement that was signed in January. It was signed without any
consultation with the DOI, EPA or the tribes that have trusteeship for
natural resources. The agreement contains provisions that are
unacceptable to the Federal and tribal trustees and would need to be
substantially modified. While the agreement contains a commitment for a
$10 million down payment in order to begin cleanup, this is a very
small commitment given the magnitude of the problem. However, it is a
start and we support any effort to begin to cleanup the river and bay.
Question 3(c). Is it true that the Department of the Interior has
refused to participate in this agreement and decided to conduct its own
assessment even though it will cover virtually the same resources
already being addressed by the State and the PRPs under the terms of
the agreement?
Answer. It is not true that DOI has refused to participate in the
agreement and decided to conduct its own assessment. The Interior
Department initiated the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA)
process years ago and invited the State of Wisconsin to participate.
Although the Governor initially declined, we have continued to reach
out to the State to work with us as joint natural resource trustees.
This goal has been achieved as evidenced by our signing an agreement
with the State on July 11, 1997. The assessment called for in the
State/company agreement is limited in scope, and currently not well
defined. Given the potential for duplication of effort with the Federal
NRDA, we have agreed to work with the State to coordinate our
assessment activities through a NRDA workgroup authorized under the
July 11, 1997 Memorandum of Agreement.
Question 3(d). As Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
would you advocate becoming a signatory to this agreement? If not, how
do you plan to pursue assessment and remediation without unnecessarily
duplicating efforts of the State at the taxpayers' expense?
Answer. I would consider becoming a signatory to the State/company
agreement if provisions that are unfavorable to the Federal and tribal
trustees and the public can be addressed satisfactorily. The Department
will explore that possibility with the affected parties in the future.
As explained elsewhere, we have recently entered into a agreement with
the State to collaborate our efforts to clean up and restore the Fox
River and Green Bay environment, which should avoid unnecessary
duplication of effort.
Question 3(e). In your view, is the Fox River situation one in
which the Federal Government has supported State efforts to reach a
negotiated settlement of claims with PRPs in order to move quickly to
planning and implementing restoration activities?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated discussions
with the State in the fall of 1996 for the purpose of merging State,
Federal and tribal efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement with the
PRPs in order to move quickly to cleanup and restore the affected
environment. The initial idea for a ``downpayment'' came from the
Service and is reflected in the State/company agreement. The Service
has always supported the idea of a voluntary cleanup and will continue
to do so provided there are substantial commitments made by the PRPs
toward cleanup and restoration.
Question 3(f). What steps do you intend to take to resolve the
differences between the Administration and the State of Wisconsin?
Answer. As previously stated, the Department of the Interior signed
an agreement with the State of Wisconsin on July 11, 1997 which forges
a new partnership to work together to cleanup and restore the Fox River
and the affected environment.
Question 4(a). It is my understanding that EPA Region V is engaged
in a process that would lead to the NPL listing of Fox River, despite
the explicit and vigorous objection of Wisconsin Governor Tommy
Thompson.
Wouldn't a NPL listing simply require the devotion of additional
time and resources to administrative activities rather than accelerate
the cleanup/restoration process?
Answer. A NPL listing proposal will bring additional Federal
resources to the table to plan and implement the cleanup. EPA has
stated that NPL listing will accelerate the cleanup/restoration
process. It may also accelerate the commitments of the PRPs to the
State's voluntary program so that regulatory or legal actions in the
future by either EPA or DOI are minimized or avoided.
Question 4(b). What steps could we expect you to take to prevent
further delay of restoration activities as a result of the proposed
listing?
Answer: The DOI will be working hard through the new committees
established by the MOA to support the cleanup and restoration efforts.
We do not see the proposed listing as slowing down or delaying the
ability of the PRPs to commit substantial resources to voluntarily
cleanup and restore the river and affected environment. As stated
above, we believe the proposed NPL listing will accelerate the
cleanup--not delay it.
Response to Additional Question From Senator Sessions
Question. I understand there have been some administrative problems
with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act in Alabama with
species being listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service office in
Jackson, Mississippi and conservation plans being implemented by the
Alabama office. As director, do you have any plans which would
streamline the agency's implementation of the Endangered Species Act?
Answer. I am not aware of any administrative problems in the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act in Mississippi and
Alabama. However, I have asked the Acting Regional Director of the
Southeast Region to look into this situation.
Please let me take this opportunity to explain how the Fish and
Wildlife Service delivers the Endangered Species Program across the
Nation. The Washington Office Division of Endangered Species provides
staff support to the Director through the Assistant Director of
Ecological Services, develops policies for the consistent application
of the Endangered Species Act, and acts as the liaison and provides
technical support to the Regional Offices and the field. Regional
Offices provide direct supervision of the Service's field stations and
coordinate Service activities with other Regions and between and among
field stations within their jurisdictional areas. Service Field Offices
are given the responsibility of working with other Federal agencies,
State governments, Native American Indian Tribes, industries, farmers
and ranchers, non-governmental organizations, and the American public
on endangered species issues.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH151.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH151.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH151.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH151.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH151.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH151.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH151.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH151.047