    [Senate Hearing 114-37]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 114-37

       THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE FISH AND
                                    WILDLIFE
          SERVICE AND LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON ENDANGERED SPECIES BILLS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 6, 2015

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    94-995 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                      JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              BARBARA BOXER, California
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska

                     Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
                   Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  MAY 6, 2015
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Enzi, Hon. Mike B., U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming.......     1
    Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.........     3
    Gardner, Hon. Cory S., U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...     5
    Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey..    23
    Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota....    29
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...    30
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...    32

                                   WITNESSES

    Ashe, Hon. Dan, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.........    44
        Prepared statement...........................................    47
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    63
            Senator Booker...........................................    86
            Senator Cardin...........................................   100
            Senator Sessions.........................................   101
            Senator Vitter...........................................   102
    Bernhardt, David, Partner, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
      Former Solicitor, Department of the Interior...................   136
        Prepared statement...........................................   138
    Cruickshank, Gordon, County Commissioner, Valley County, Idaho...   143
        Prepared statement...........................................   146
    Barry, Donald, Senior Vice President, Conservation Program,
      Defenders of Wildlife..........................................   153
        Prepared statement...........................................   155

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    May 5, 2015, letter to Senator Inhofe from the Texas General Land
      Office.........................................................   170
    May 6, 2015, statement by the Fur Industries of North America....   172

       THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE FISH AND
      WILDLIFE SERVICE AND LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON ENDANGERED SPECIES BILLS

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of
    the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds,
    Barrasso, Crapo, Boozman, Sullivan, Capito, Cardin, Merkley,
    Whitehouse, Booker, Markey, and Gillibrand.
        Senator Inhofe. Our meeting will come to order.
        Let's do this. We have five members. One is Senator Enzi,
    one is Senator Booker and the other three will be here, who
    have legislation that they have introduced that does affect
    Fish and Wildlife. So we have said we would be happy to have
    them make a brief statement as to their legislation. And this
    is your opportunity, since you are the first one here, Senator
    Enzi, we will recognize you.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE B. ENZI,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I
    appreciate this opportunity to testify before you on S. 736,
    the State, Tribal and Local Species Transparency Act. I
    appreciate the committee's efforts to focus on the Endangered
    Species Act. We have some of the richest wildlife habitat in
    North America and it supports a number of industries, including
    tourism, guiding, recreation, agriculture, just to name a few.
        The successes in Wyoming have come from State management of
    wildlife based on science collected from State, local, tribal
    and Federal wildlife officials. An example of that is we have
    recovered an extinct species. The black-footed ferret was
    considered extinct. Near Meeteetse, Wyoming, I think its
    population is about 85, they found a few of these, they
    captured them, they put them into captivity for a while so they
    could get the best genetic breeding on them. They have expanded
    dramatically and they have been released back into the wild and
    they are doing well out there now.
        That is an effort that relied on science from a variety of
    sources, including State and Federal biologists. It has
    resulted in restoring North America's only ferret species.
        However, these types of partnerships aren't the norm. In
    too many cases, the data Federal agencies rely on to make a
    listing are not shared with the key State partners. Making
    matters worse, there are instances when State, local and tribal
    science is ignored completely.
        For that reason, I introduced this bill to include those
    people. I did it last year with a number of my colleagues and
    again in this Congress. It is designed to ensure that the
    Federal Government adheres to its statutory responsibilities to
    cooperate with the States under the Endangered Species Act and
    second, to ensure that the best available scientific data is
    used in the listing decisions.
        Section 6 of ESA already requires the Secretary to
    ``cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the
    States.'' Despite the statutory charge on the Federal
    Government, States have noted cases where the ESA listing
    decisions are made in the dark, and express that Federal
    agencies often duplicate analyses in conservation plans that
    are already generated by the States.
        We know that science from State, local and tribal officials
    plays an effective role in wildlife management. For example, in
    December, 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list
    the dune sagebrush lizard as endangered under the ESA. Texas
    officials raised concerns that the Fish and Wildlife listing
    proposal depended on scant, outdated data from the 1960s to
    determine the lizard's known distribution and assumed that the
    lizard was locally extinct in certain areas where the State of
    Texas had verified that it was present.
        After research and field surveys conducted in cooperation
    with the States, the local government and other affected
    stakeholders, the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed its
    earlier determination to list the dune sagebrush lizard as
    endangered in June 2012. As a result, the lizard continues to
    co-exist with State economic activities in the area that
    produces 14 percent of the Nation's oil and 47,000 jobs.
        The bill also ensures that the best scientific and
    commercial data available to the Secretaries of Interior or
    Commerce is used in ESA listing decisions. Hearings on this
    bill in the House during the last session of Congress revealed
    numerous examples of Federal agencies not including data or
    information in decisions where they are required to utilize the
    best scientific and commercial data available.
        I can go into an example of grizzlies in Wyoming, they were
    measuring footprints instead of checking the DNA of the hair of
    the bears in the feeding areas.
        The legislation you are considering today is designed to
    address such inadequacies. S. 736 does not favor one science
    over another or require multiple county or State submissions of
    conflicting data. The Secretary of Interior or Commerce would
    continue to have the final decision on what constitutes best
    available scientific and commercial data. However, S. 736 would
    ensure that they incorporate and provide proper respect for
    data provided to them by States, tribes and local governments.
        I will keep my comments short because I know you are
    covering a number of different things today. You are going to
    be taking testimony from others, including Director Ashe. I
    have to say that he has been extremely helpful with the Wyoming
    wolves, improving the Wyoming plan for wolves, which has led to
    an increase in the number of wolves but a decrease in the
    number of conflicts.
        I will say there are a number of these other bills I have
    co-sponsored as well as helped author. In particular, I want to
    recognize Senator Gardner for his work with the Wyoming
    delegation to ensure that States with existing approved or
    endorsed plans are adequately protected under this legislation.
    I thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Enzi. Consider me a co-
    sponsor.
        Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, I would happily defer to
    Senator Heller. I know he will want to speak and leave. I am
    going to be here for the entire hearing. And there is a
    tradition; we are both from the PAC 12. We always let USC go
    before Stanford, because you save the best for last.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. We also have Senator Gardner here, so we
    will go ahead with you, Senator Heller.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. And I say to my fellow Senator, try to keep
    it within 5 minutes. We have a big agenda today.
        Senator Heller. Certainly, I will give it my best effort,
    my best PAC 12 effort, let's put it that way.
        I do want to thank my friend from New Jersey for his help
    and support and for his efforts for his school. I know how
    important that is to him as it is for all of us. Thank you very
    much.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing today.
    I know you have a number of pieces of legislation on today's
    agenda. My bill, the Common Sense in Species Protection Act, is
    one of them.
        As you are well aware, I grew up in the State of Nevada. We
    understand the importance of being good stewards of our natural
    treasures. We are very blessed in our State. But we also
    understand the importance of economic development. As you are
    probably well aware, hunting, camping, horseback riding in your
    State is just as revered in our State. We still to this day, my
    wife and I, when opportunity avails itself, get our horses out
    and we will pack our horses into the Sierras, or take some
    crest trail that spooks my wife a little bit. But we continue
    to do so.
        Needless to say, I just want to make sure that the
    activities that I have enjoyed over the years, my family, my
    children, are continued for future generations. I think that is
    why we are here today. I again appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your
    efforts to hold this hearing.
        I think it is important that we have effective
    environmental laws that balance the need to protect wildlife
    and the environment while allowing for reasonable economic
    development. Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act, I
    believe, is a prime example of a law that has proven to be out
    of date and frankly, ineffective. Since the last time it was
    reformed 30 years ago, it has less than a 2 percent effective
    recovery rate. I know these days you get medals for just
    participating, but when I was in school, 2 percent definitely
    was a failing grade. It is clear the law is not serving
    wildlife or frankly, our western ways of life as it should.
        While my bill is not a cure-all, it is a simple reform
    aimed at modernizing the ESA, making the listing process more
    transparent. When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife makes a listing
    decision, it not only aims to protect the species itself, it
    also affords some protection to the ecosystems that these
    species rely upon.
        They frequently make what is called a critical habitat
    designation, which of the lands that are essential for the
    conservation of that particular species. Activities on these
    lands, as you can imagine, Mr. Chairman, are heavily
    restricted. States like Nevada, where mining, ranching, energy
    production and outdoor recreation all serve as a central
    component to our local economy, these restrictions have been
    and can be very devastating.
        My bill does not take away from Interior's to limit these
    types of activities. What it does require, though, is that the
    Department of Interior report the full economic impact of any
    proposed critical habitat designation to the public before it
    makes a decision. Specifically, rather than a very limited
    economic analysis that they can currently conduct, which by the
    way is very limited, the Service must determine the effect a
    designation would have on property use and values, employment
    and revenues for the States and local governments.
    Additionally, it requires the Service to exclude areas from
    critical habitat designation if the benefit of keeping it a
    multi-use purpose far exceeds the benefits a restriction would
    have for the wildlife.
        Access to all lands, particularly public lands, is vital to
    Nevada's character and its economy. Restricting the multiple
    use of those lands in a non-transparent and irrational fashion
    is not an option for Nevadans who rely heavily on them for
    their livelihood. Whether it is the greater sage grouse, the
    long-eared bat, the lesser prairie chicken or any other species
    the agency is making a decision on, it is critical that at a
    minimum that we had this simple common sense step to that
    process.
        So before I conclude, I would like to briefly touch on
    Senator Cory Gardner's Sage Grouse Protection and Conservation
    Act. I will let him discuss the details of his bill. But as an
    original co-sponsor, I want to underscore the importance of
    this measure to the State of Nevada. Fish and Wildlife is
    expected to make a decision on whether to protect the greater
    sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act this fall. Should
    it get listed, our rural way of life and our local economies
    would be devastated. All grazing, all hunting, all recreation,
    all mining and energy production in over 19 million acres of
    public lands in Nevada would all come to a screeching halt.
        Given the threat of a listing, the 11 western States, home
    to sage grouse, have been working diligently on State-specific
    conservation plans. These plans specifically aim to address
    each State's unique threats to sage grouse while protecting
    their local economies. So it is important to States and the
    Interior has said they play a major factor in their listing
    determinations.
        My time has run out, Mr. Chairman, and I will cut my
    comments short. I again want to thank you for our efforts on
    hearing these bills. I think it is important. We are determined
    in these western States that our rural way of life can be
    strengthened. I think we can work together to make this happen.
        So thank you, and again I want to thank the gentlemen to my
    right and left for their efforts and your committee for hearing
    these bills.
        Senator Inhofe. Very good. Thank you. Senator Gardner.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY S. GARDNER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe. To Senator
    Booker, not everybody can be in the Mountain West Conference.
    We understand that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking
    Member Boxer, for this hearing today on the Endangered Species
    Act, including my legislation, S. 1036. It has been just around
    10 years ago that I first testified before the EPW committee on
    the need to look at how we can do a better job of recovering
    the species under the Endangered Species Act. The Sage Grouse
    Protection and Conservation Act is a part of that continuing
    effort.
        Thank you to co-sponsors here, Senator Heller and others,
    about this discussion and the importance of this legislation. I
    certainly welcome the opportunity to make this a truly
    successful bipartisan effort.
        The Act that we have introduced is designed to allow States
    to create and implement State-specific conservation and
    management plans, State-specific plans that would allow us to
    protect and restore greater sage grouse populations and their
    habitats and require Federal agencies to honor the hard work
    and massive investments by the States to protect sage grouse
    within their borders. It is important to note that this
    legislation is not a mandate. Again, this is an optional
    approach. A State may choose to defer to Federal agencies for
    sage grouse protection. A State opts into this legislation.
        In 2011, Secretary of the Interior Salazar invited western
    States to craft State plans for the management of sage grouse
    on all lands, State and Federal. These plans were to be
    submitted and considered by the Secretary as the preferred
    management alternative for sage grouse within each State as
    part of the land use plan process. My legislation keeps that
    promise and allows States to prescribe management of sage
    grouse within their borders.
        Colorado and other States have spent years crafting these
    plans and spent hundreds of millions of dollars, all with the
    cooperation and participation of interested stakeholders and
    the Federal agencies. Since 2010, States, Federal agencies,
    landowners and stakeholders are voluntarily protecting over 4.4
    million acres of private property for sage grouse. We have made
    tremendous progress, and my legislation seeks to keep that
    momentum moving forward.
        This incredible cooperation among States, the Federal
    agencies, landowners and stakeholders will no doubt end the
    moment that there is a listing of the sage grouse this
    September when the Federal land use plans are released in May
    or June, because those land use plan amendments will largely
    ignore the efforts of the States.
        The Sage Grouse Protection and Conservation Act ensures
    that sage grouse will be managed appropriately, whether they
    occur on Federal, State or private lands. It will prohibit the
    Secretary's proposed withdrawal of 16.5 million acres across
    the west from agricultural activity, energy development and
    outdoor recreation, which will cost jobs and devastate our
    local economies.
        This legislation represents an extremely important effort
    to keep all parties at the table to conserve the species. I
    look forward to working with members of the committee and
    colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to get this important
    legislation across the finish line and signed into law. I would
    like to submit a series of letters we have in support of the
    Sage Grouse Protection and Conservation Act, if I may do so.
        Senator Inhofe. We will put that into the record of this
    hearing.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Gardner. I thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member,
    for the opportunity to be with you today.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Senator Booker.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Chairman Inhofe and
    Ranking Member Boxer, for giving me a chance to talk about my
    Refuge Cruel Trapping Act, which would ban the use of body-
    gripping traps in the national wildlife refuge system.
        Leg-hold traps have been banned in over 90 countries.
    Again, that is 90 countries that have banned the cruel leg-
    holding traps. Yet even in the United States they are not
    banned in wildlife refuges.
        Jaw traps operate by slamming shut with bone-crushing force
    on any animal that trips the device. Terrified animals break
    legs, chew off limbs, dislocate shoulders and tear muscles as
    they try to break free of these traps.
        Strangulation neck snares are perhaps the cruelest of all
    the trapping devices. The snare is designed to tighten around
    an animal's neck as he or she struggles. Animals trapped in
    neck snares suffer for days and days and the death is often
    slow and painful.
        Not only are body-gripping traps gruel but they also are
    indiscriminate. Too often the animals caught in these traps are
    not the animals that are actually targeted.
        I will give one example of this. In 1989, a New York State
    Department of Agriculture study examined the effectiveness of
    using leg-hold traps for coyote control. The study found that
    10.8 non-targeted animals were trapped for every coyote. That
    is more than 10 to 1, the animals caught in these cruel traps
    were not their intended targets.
        And what types of non-targeted animals are being maimed and
    killed by these cruel body-trapping traps? Here are some
    illustrations. The endangered species, such as the lynx, are
    being maimed and killed. The lynx is caught, in this picture,
    in a strangulation snare trap that I mentioned earlier.
        Iconic species, such as the bald eagles, are being maimed
    and killed. At the time this picture was taken, the bald eagle
    was still listed as an endangered species.
        Common, everyday animals, even such as raccoons, are being
    maimed and killed, as we see in this picture. This is a leg-
    hold trap shown here. Last month in Missouri on public land a
    mountain lion paw was found torn off in one of these traps.
    They found nothing but the torn paw of a mountain lion.
        And common animals, such as our pets, cats and dogs, are
    regularly, routinely caught and killed in these cruel traps.
        This last picture is an animal, a beagle named Bella. Bella
    was a 20-month old hunting dog who was killed in the steel jaws
    of a conibear trap. Bella's owner was devastated and obviously
    with anger asked, what was this type of deadly trap doing on
    public land? I wonder that too.
        Our wildlife refuges attract more than 47 million visitors
    a year. Nearly all those visitors, more than 99 percent, are
    using our refuge system for recreational purposes, not for
    trapping. Why would those 47 million visitors need to worry
    about the safety of their pet or even worse, the safety of
    their children? Just 2 days ago a 12-year old boy in North
    Carolina was taken to an emergency room after a body-gripping
    snare snapped shut on his hand while he was doing chores by a
    pond in his neighborhood. It took six doctors hours to release
    this boy from the trap.
        An American public overwhelmingly agrees that we should not
    be using these traps. Seventy-nine percent of Americans believe
    trapping on wildlife refuges should be prohibited. Charles
    Darwin called the leg-hold trap one of the cruelest devices
    ever invented by man. He said, ``Few men can endure to watch
    for 5 minutes an animal struggling in a trap with a torn limb.
    Some will wonder how this cruelty can have been permitted to
    continue in these days of civilization.''
        He said that in 1863. And I echo those words now today. How
    can such cruelty be permitted on wildlife refuges, of all
    places, where we are trying to preserve wildlife habitat? I
    urge my colleagues to support S. 1081 and join me in banning
    these cruel body-gripping traps from wildlife refuges. Thank
    you very much.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Booker. That is a wake-
    up call.
        Our last presenter here with legislation will be a part of
    this committee, he is coming to this committee. Senator Thune.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

        Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    and Senator Boxer holding this hearing today, and particularly
    giving me the opportunity to make a couple of comments about
    this bill.
        On March 4th, I introduced S. 655, which is a bill to
    prohibit the use of funds by the Secretary of the Interior to
    make a final determination on the listing of the northern long-
    eared bat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Listing the
    northern long-eared bat under the Endangered Species Act is a
    misguided attempt by the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect
    the species which is suffering death loss and reduction in
    numbers from a fungus called white nose syndrome, not because
    of habitat loss.
        Mr. Chairman, even the Fish and Wildlife Service has
    acknowledged that ``White nose syndrome alone has led to
    dramatic and rapid population level effects on the northern
    long-eared bat. The species likely would not be imperiled were
    it not for this disease.'' The Congressional Research Service
    has informed me that during the last 10 years, no species has
    been listed in the United States under the Endangered Species
    Act naming disease as a primary factor for reduction in numbers
    in the listing.
        I point that out, that the white nose syndrome has been
    detected in only 25 of the 39 States included in the northern
    long-eared bat's range. Yet as a result of this misguided
    listing of the species, thousands of jobs are going to be
    placed at risk, including more than 1,500 timber industry jobs
    in my home State of South Dakota. My concern is that the Fish
    and Wildlife Service has insufficient supporting data to
    warrant listing the northern long-eared bat as a threatened
    species, particularly given the absence of white nose syndrome
    in so much of its range.
        In addition, I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service failed
    to adequately gather and consider credible information
    available from State government entities and other non-Federal
    sources before making its decision to list the northern long-
    eared bat.
        Mr. Chairman, let me just say, what concerns me the most is
    that with the listing of this northern long-eared bat, once
    again we have a Federal agency that is throwing aside common
    sense and listening to special interest groups that, based on
    their actions, do not have the best interests of the people of
    this Country in mind.
        Along with the listing of the northern long-eared bat, the
    Fish and Wildlife Service has also published a proposed rule
    called the 4(d) rule which was designed to offer protection to
    forest management practices that would actually enhance the
    northern long-eared bat's habitat. It is my understanding that
    litigation filed by the Center for Biological Diversity
    regarding the 4(d) rule raises a purely procedural claim that
    is that the Fish and Wildlife Service must perform NEPA
    analysis on the 4(d) rule prior to finalizing it.
        It is likely that the Center for Biological Diversity will
    seek a stay or preliminary injunction request on the interim
    4(d) rule. If an injunction is granted, forestry practices
    would not be exempt from the take prohibitions of the
    Endangered Species Act, which would be an uncalled for blow to
    the timber industry and other industries in the eastern two-
    thirds of the United States.
        Mr. Chairman, to summarize, many of my colleagues and I are
    deeply disappointed that in listing the northern long-eared
    bat, the Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to adequately
    address the real reason even it recognizes the decline of the
    northern long-eared bat, and that is white nose syndrome, and
    not the loss of habitat. I believe much more progress could
    have been made if the Fish and Wildlife Service had taken the
    funds it is using the list the northern long-eared bat and use
    those funds for research and other tools to diminish the
    effects of the white nose syndrome.
        We all know that Congress stepped in and took control of
    another ESA listing by removing the northern Rockies gray wolf
    off the ESA list because the Fish and Wildlife Service was too
    timid to do it. That may be what is necessary regarding the
    northern long-eared bat. In the case of the northern Rockies
    gray wolf, the Congress stepped in because nearly everyone
    acknowledged that the wolf was a recovered species.
        In the case of the northern long-eared bat, the issue isn't
    whether the species is in trouble, it is whether the ESA
    listing provides the kind of help the species needs and other
    species like it. The answer to that is a firm no.
        So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you all could work with
    me on this issue. It has a very detrimental impact on the
    economy of the Black Hills of South Dakota. And it doesn't
    address the fundamental problem, which is the disease that this
    bat is facing, not the habitat. This will have profound impacts
    on the habitat and on our ability to continue to produce timber
    in the Black Hills, something that is very important to the
    economy of that region and a lot of jobs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Thune. We look forward
    to working on your legislation in this committee. I am sure it
    didn't go unnoticed to Director Ashe that of all the comments
    that were made in legislation that is being proposed here, it
    brings up the problem of a lack of transparency, secrecy, local
    input, these are things that people are concerned about, myself
    included.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. So we will have our opening statements
    here. The last time that we had a hearing on the Fish and
    Wildlife Service budget was when I was chairman many years ago,
    in 2003. It has been that much time since we have had a hearing
    on this. The Endangered Species Act has gone from a well-
    intentioned piece of legislation in the 1970s to one that is
    dictated by environmental activist groups taking advantage of
    the adversarial system.
        In 2011, the Service entered into closed door settlements
    with environmental groups that has required the Service to make
    final listing decisions on hundreds of species but has not
    provided documents about how these settlements were developed
    despite repeated requests from Congress. The species covered by
    these settlements is staggering, covering almost the entire
    Country, as we have been observing. It includes the lesser
    prairie chicken, the northern long-eared bat, the greater sage
    grouse and numerous freshwater mussels and fish.
        The ESA recovery rate is a mere 2 percent, even though the
    entire Federal Government spent $1.2 billion on species
    conservation in 2013. This Administration touts its success as
    delisting more species than any other Administration and it
    has. Yet, when you look at the math on this thing, you note
    that it has delisted 12 species and yet listed several hundred
    at the same time. So we are getting deeper and deeper in that
    hole.
        In recent years, the Service has been too focused on
    listing more species instead of focusing on the goal of the Act
    to recover species. The Fish and Wildlife Service is forced to
    designate habitat because of lawsuits instead of a
    comprehensive understanding of the species and its
    surroundings.
        The Endangered Species Act has to be reformed to clarify
    the focus and achieve real results. It can no longer be an ATM
    machine for environmental groups looking to make money off
    statutory deadlines.
        In addition to a conversation with Director Ashe about the
    budget and how ESA can be fixed, I would like to use this
    opportunity today to examine all legislation within the
    Endangered Species Act nexus. That has been referred to this
    committee.
        Some of these bills are very narrowly tailored to address
    local issues. Others are bills that address overarching
    problems with the direction of ESA. In examining these bills, I
    hope to have a more clear direction in moving forward as to how
    we can modify the Endangered Species Act and return to its
    purpose.
        As a part of the ESA modernization, I want to bring the
    conservation efforts to a more local level. I think we heard
    that from those who are proposing legislation, Director Ashe.
    The Five-State Plan among Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
    Kansas and Texas to address the lesser prairie chicken was a
    thoughtful, thorough plan. It was a plan developed by local
    communities who know the land and the animal population. But
    the Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the lesser prairie
    chicken as threatened, which only works to discourage the
    efforts. And you know the efforts that took place in those five
    States.
        That is demoralizing, when they all come together, they
    work, they spend their money, their resources. I am not saying
    they are totally ignored. Because it could have been an even
    worse outcome.
        But anyway, communities are not incentivized to develop
    their own plans if the Fish and Wildlife Service will
    systematically reject them. I hope we do not see Fish and
    Wildlife make the same mistakes on the sage grouse and other
    species.
        I want to thank our witnesses for their time today. I would
    like to extend a special welcome to Director Ashe. Director
    Ashe came to Oklahoma at my request and we were pleased to show
    him the way that Oklahomans are working to protect and develop
    the species. I believe when you came that you really did listen
    and actually learn some yourself. So I thank you for that.
        Senator Boxer.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

                      Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma

        I said at the beginning of this Congress that our Committee
    would conduct vigorous oversight of the Obama administration's
    environmental policies, and there are few issues more in need
    of oversight than the Endangered Species Act. This Committee
    has not held a hearing on the Fish and Wildlife Service budget
    since 2003, the last time I was Chairman. I am pleased to have
    this hearing today, to hear from Director Ashe and our other
    witnesses about how ESA can be improved and Fish and Wildlife
    Service can be better managed.
        The Endangered Species Act has gone from a well-intentioned
    piece of legislation in the 1970s to one that is dictated by
    environmental activist groups taking advantage of the
    adversarial system. In 2011, the Service entered into closed-
    door settlements with environmental groups that has required
    the Service to make final listing decisions on hundreds of
    species, but has not provided documents about how these
    settlements were developed despite repeated requests from
    Congress.
        The species covered by these settlements is staggering,
    covering almost the entire country, and includes the lesser
    prairie-chicken, the northern long-eared bat, the greater sage-
    grouse, and numerous freshwater mussels and fish.
        The ESA recovery rate is a mere 2 percent, even though the
    entire Federal Government spent $1.2 billion on species
    conservation in fiscal year 2013. This administration touts its
    success as delisting more species than any other
    administration. And it has. Yet when you note that it has
    delisted 12 species yet listed hundreds, with hundreds more to
    be considered, their claim is far less impressive.
        In recent years, the Service has been too focused on
    listing more species, instead of focusing on the goal of the
    Act: to recover species. The Fish and Wildlife Service is
    forced to designate habitat because of lawsuits, instead of a
    comprehensive understanding of the species and its
    surroundings. The Endangered Species Act must be reformed to
    clarify the focus and achieve real results. It can no longer be
    an ATM machine for environmental groups looking to make money
    off of statutory deadlines.
        In addition to a conversation with Director Ashe about the
    budget and how ESA can be fixed, I would like to use this
    opportunity today to examine all legislation with an Endangered
    Species Act nexus that has been referred to this Committee.
    Some of these bills are very narrowly tailored to address local
    issues. Others are bills that address overarching problems with
    the direction of the ESA. In examining these bills, I hope to
    have a more clear direction in moving forward as to how we can
    modify the Endangered Species Act and return it to its purpose.
        As a part of the ESA modernization, I want to bring the
    conservation efforts to a more local level. The Five-State Plan
    among Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas to
    address the lesser prairie chicken was a thoughtful, thorough
    plan. And it was a plan developed by local communities who know
    the land and the animal populations. But the Fish and Wildlife
    Service listed the lesser prairie chicken, which only works to
    discourage local efforts. Communities are not incentivized to
    develop their own plans if FWS will systematically reject them.
    I hope we do not see the FWS make the same mistakes with the
    sage grouse and other species.
        I want to thank our witnesses for their time today. I'd
    like to extend a special welcome to Director Ashe. Director
    Ashe came to Oklahoma at my request and we were pleased to show
    him the ways in which Oklahomans are working to protect our
    development and species alike. I think he would agree that the
    Endangered Species Act can--and must be--improved and that
    States and local governments have answers and real-world
    experience we should be relying on to modernize the law. I look
    forward to hearing from our witnesses and my fellow Committee
    members on this important issue.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Boxer. Thanks so much.
        Director Ashe, thank you for dedicating your working life
    to protecting God's species. I heard them called by Senator
    Thune, I think he said a special interest. Well, let's take a
    look at what they look like. The American eagle, which was
    saved by the ESA, the very symbol of America. If we listen to
    the folks on this side of the aisle and they were here then,
    the ESA never would have passed and we might have lost this
    great symbol. And the lesser prairie chicken also needs to be
    checked out as well.
        So thank you for that and taking all the heat that you
    take. That is a compliment, because it means you are doing
    something and you are fighting for what you promised you would
    fight for.
        Now, I think it is important to note that today, we are
    looking at a series of bills, eight Republican bills and one
    Democratic bill. I want to say to Senator Booker, thank you.
    That is, you know, a heart stopping presentation. I hope we
    will all work together on that bill.
        But today, I received a letter from the following
    organizations against every single Republican bill on the
    agenda. And these are bipartisan groups. Many of these groups
    were started by Republicans.
        We have to remember, I think it was Richard Nixon who
    signed the Endangered Species Act, Richard Nixon. And all these
    back-door efforts we are looking at today have to stop.
        So here are the groups that wrote against every single
    Republican bill. You know, sometimes I have to pinch myself
    that this is really the Environment and Public Works Committee,
    not the Anti-Environment and Public Works Committee. Today it
    feels like the Anti-Environment and Public Works Committee. It
    is a bad, bad thing.
        So let me tell you the groups that wrote against these
    Republican bills. The American Bird Conservancy, the Animal
    Welfare Institute, The Audubon Society, Born Free USA, the
    Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety,
    Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Island
    Institute, Earth Justice, Endangered Species Coalition, Friends
    of the Earth. The Humane Society of the United States of
    America, the International Federation of Fly Fishers, the
    International Fund for Animal Welfare, the League of
    Conservation Voters, the National Resources Defense Council,
    Oceanus, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, the
    Union of Concerned Scientists, the Wild Earth Guardians and the
    Wyoming Wildlife Advocates.
        I ask unanimous consent to place these into the record.
        Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Then there is a Denver Post article, Cory
    Gardner Wrong on Greater Sage Grouse, and an explanation of why
    that is wrong.
        So I just really want to say this, Mr. Chairman. I respect
    your views, I disagree strongly with them, and we will have
    hand to hand combat on the floor if these bills get that far,
    which they may get voted out of this committee.
        But I want to make a point here. Recent polling of the
    American people shows that 84 percent support the Act that was
    signed in a bipartisan way by an overwhelming voice vote in the
    Senate. And again, signed into law by Richard Nixon. It has a
    strong record of success. I showed you the eagle. It is the
    whooping crane, the California condor, the brown pelican,
    species of sea turtle, this is a heritage for America. This is
    just as much a heritage, frankly, as our magnificent rivers and
    streams and mountains and forests.
        So wildlife-related recreation is a significant industry.
    And they are expressing their concern, the fishermen are, about
    some of these radical bills. Wildlife-related recreation was a
    $145 billion activity in America in 2011. Native plants and
    animals can provide life-saving medicines. So this Endangered
    Species Act shouldn't be back-door repealed this way with oh,
    you have to consider even more economics, you have to say that
    State scientists know more than national scientists.
        Let's not turn everyone against everyone. Let's work
    together for the best science and very clear moves to protect a
    species where it makes sense. Where it doesn't make sense, the
    law is already clear, they can't do it.
        So I look forward to working together maybe to moderate
    some of these radical bills. But if we don't moderate these
    radical bills, then we are going to have to get all of the
    people out there in this Country motivated to weigh in against
    what the Republicans are trying to do here today with this
    series of bills that really are a back-door repeal of the
    Endangered Species Act.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The referenced information follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

                       Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer,
                   U.S. Senator from the State of California

        Director Ashe, thank you for dedicating your working life
    to protecting God's species. Thank you taking all the heat that
    you take. That is a compliment, because it means you are doing
    something and are fighting for what you promised you would
    fight for.
        If we listen to the folks on the other side of the aisle,
    and if they were here in Congress when the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) was considered four decades ago, it never would have
    been passed into law. A recent poll of the American people
    shows that 84 percent support the ESA, which was passed by an
    overwhelmingly bipartisan voice vote in the Senate, and signed
    into law by President Richard Nixon. All the back door efforts
    by special interests to undermine the ESA have to stop.
        The ESA has a strong record of success, and without it, we
    might have lost the very symbol of our nation--the bald eagle.
    And the ESA helped to save other species, including the lesser
    prairie chicken, the whooping crane, the California condor, the
    brown pelican, and the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle. These species
    are part of America's heritage. They are just as much a part of
    our heritage as our magnificent rivers, streams, mountains, and
    forests.
        Further, wildlife-related recreation is a significant
    industry--accounting for nearly $145 billion in 2011. In
    addition, native plants and animals can provide life-saving
    medicines.
        I think it is important to note that today we are looking
    at a series of bills--eight Republican bills and one Democratic
    bill. I wanted to say thank you to Senator Booker for
    introducing his bill to ban inhumane traps in National Wildlife
    Refuges. I hope we will all work together on that bill.
        Today, I received a letter from several organizations that
    oppose every single Republican bill on the agenda. The groups
    include: American Bird Conservancy, the Animal Welfare
    Institute, the Audubon Society, Born Free USA, the Center for
    Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, Clean Water
    Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Island Institute,
    Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Friends of the
    Earth, Humane Society, National Federation of Fly Fishers, the
    International Fund for Animal Welfare, League of Conservation
    Voters, NRDC, Sierra Club, OCEANA, Southern Environmental Law
    Center, Union of Concerned Scientists, the WildEarth Guardians,
    and the Wyoming Wildlife Advocates. I ask unanimous consent to
    enter this into the record.
        I would also like to introduce into the record a Denver
    Post Op-Ed, ``Cory Gardner wrong on greater sage grouse,''
    which explains why his legislation is the wrong approach.
        Let us work together using the best available science to
    protect species where and when it makes sense.
        I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, while I respect your
    views, I disagree strongly. We will have hand-to-hand combat on
    the floor if these bills are voted out of this committee. The
    Endangered Species Act should not be repealed in this backdoor
    way.
        I look forward to working together to moderate some of
    these radical bills. If we do not make significant changes, we
    are going to have to get the American people motivated to weigh
    in against what the Republicans are trying to do--repeal the
    Endangered Species Act.

        Senator Inhofe. Director Ashe, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.

     STATEMENT OF HON. DAN ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
                                SERVICE

        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator. It is a joy to be here in
    front of the committee again. I am going to spend my time this
    morning just talking to you about the budget and the context
    for our budget for this year.
        The President's budget is about a $135 million increase for
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a 9 percent increase. We
    certainly realize that in these difficult times that that is a
    significant investment. I hope that you will agree with me that
    it is a good investment.
        When you think about our budget, it really is a budget that
    is built on priority. And that is priority landscapes and
    priority species. We are putting those priorities behind
    efforts grounded in partnership and really epic scale
    partnership.
        The best example of that is the greater sage grouse. We
    started more than 5 years ago by reaching out to our State
    partners and building a framework for cooperative management of
    the sage grouse to hopefully avoid the need for a listing. We
    have worked hand in glove with former Governor Dave
    Friedenthal, a Democrat from Wyoming, and we are working today
    with Governor Matt Meade, a Republican from Wyoming. Wyoming
    has built a great framework for sage grouse conservation.
        We built a sage grouse task force with the Western
    Governors Association, which is chaired by Governor
    Hickenlooper from Colorado, a Democrat and Governor Meade from
    Wyoming, a Republican. We built a conservation objectives team
    report jointly with our State colleagues to identify the
    actions that will be necessary to conserve the sage grouse and
    hopefully avoid the necessity to list it under the Endangered
    Species Act.
        We reached out to the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service and
    they began a public and transparent process of land management
    planning to help conserve the sage grouse. We reached out to
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resource
    Conservation Service has been an exemplary partner, putting
    over 4 million acres, almost $400 million of investment in
    private lands, to incentivize and encourage conservation of the
    sage grouse.
        Another example is in Harney County, Oregon, where we are
    signing candidate conservation agreements with assurances for
    ranchers. We now have nearly a million acres of private ranch
    land signed up in Oregon to conserve the sage grouse. We had a
    rancher, Tom Strong, who coined perhaps the best conservation
    phrase of the year last year, What's Good for the Bird Is Good
    for the Herd, recognizing that there is an economy between
    good, sustainable ranching and good conservation of the sage
    grouse.
        Examples of working with the EPA and the Corps of Engineers
    and the USDA and NOAA and the Great Lakes States to keep the
    Asian carp out of the Great Lakes, and our budget provides
    enhancement for that. Examples in the Great Plains, working
    with the range States to conserve the lesser prairie chicken,
    as the chairman said, not through Fish and Wildlife Service,
    Federal regulation, but by standing behind a five-State, range-
    wide plan.
        These types of examples require field capacity. They
    require innovative, energetic, professional people in the field
    and that is what our budget will do for us.
        Monday, a Washington Post editorial writer, E.J. Dionne,
    began his column with the observation that there are few
    moments of grace in our politics these days. But Mr. Chairman
    and members, I am here to tell you that there are many moments
    of grace every day by the men and women in the United States
    Fish and Wildlife Service and their partners, people like
    Angela Sitz, who forged those relationships and those candidate
    conservation agreements in Harney County Oregon. People like
    Andy Ewing, the manager of San Diego Bay National Wildlife
    Refuge, and San Diego County declared May 20th, 2014, as Andy
    Ewing Day because of his exceptional work with local
    communities.
        People like Jeremy Coleman, our white nose syndrome
    coordinator, who despite this devastating disease in bats,
    maintains an infectious enthusiasm that we can be successful.
    People like Greg Noydecker, who has worked with the ranchers in
    the Big Hole Valley in Montana to avoid the need to list the
    Arctic grayling and who has forged friendships with ranchers
    like Don Reese, lasting, durable friendships. People like Pam
    Scruggs, in our International Affairs program, who worked 2
    years ago in the Convention on International Trade and
    Endangered Species on the listing of sharks to prevent the
    finning practice in sharks. When we went to the CITES COP and
    she met for the first time some of her international
    counterparts, one of them from Germany said, oh, you are the
    famous Pam Scruggs, because she had done such good work with
    them.
        People like Dave Hendricks, who is the manager of Neosho
    National Fish Hatchery. When I went to Neosho, Missouri and met
    with Dave, the mayor came and the city and town councilmen came
    and told me of the role that Dave and his team plan in that
    community. So these are the people and the work of the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service. And they deserve your support.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Director Ashe. We will have a 5-
    minute round of questions, we will not have a second round.
    Because we do have another panel.
        First of all, as I said in my opening statement, Director
    Ashe, the Fish and Wildlife request for fiscal year 2016 is
    another $23 million specifically for listing alone. Now, the
    Service's budget justification references a backlog of 609
    other petitions for listing that are in addition to settlement
    agreements. I would just say, if you look, for example, at the
    burying beetle, that originally came from the east coast and
    the populations now have been expanded and are found in my
    State of Oklahoma and Nebraska, in Arkansas and some other
    areas. We went through this thing.
        When I go back to Oklahoma, it doesn't matter who we talk
    to in the rural areas. It can be farmers who are concerned
    about, can they go out and plow their fields without disrupting
    this critter's habitat? People who might be drilling, people
    who might be doing anything on the land, it is something that
    is very, very costly.
        What about the delisting? You are requesting more money for
    listing, and yet that is not the problem. It is the delisting.
    Do you think that we have an adequate system to address the
    delisting and when is that going to be set in place?
        Mr. Ashe. Mr. Chairman, the increases in our budget are
    actually, we are directed to fulfilling our responsibilities,
    like 5-year status review, which support the analysis of
    species that are already listed and will support our review to
    determine if they should be downlisted or delisted.
        For instance, with the American burying beetle, we are
    initiating next month a range-wide comprehensive status review
    for the species. So we will engage the Service's experts, the
    States, other experts, and we will use that status review to
    determine whether delisting or downlisting of the American
    burying beetle----
        Senator Inhofe. No, wait a minute. You are going to do this
    study to see how many should be delisted? Is this what we are
    looking at?
        Mr. Ashe. We are going to do it to determine the status of
    the species, and then based on that, we could make a proposal
    to downlist----
        Senator Inhofe. Well, no, we are talking about having
    listed, remember the 12 versus hundreds that I used in my
    opening statement? Why is it that we are spending all this time
    on listing and not delisting? We have talked about this for a
    long period of time. I can remember letters sent back, and I
    have copies right here, back to 2011, addressing this, along
    with some sue and settle problems that we have.
        But it is the delisting. What is my answer to the people
    when I go back to western Oklahoma and they say, how much
    longer is it going to be until we do something with this vast,
    this growing beetle or whatever you want to refer to it as?
        Mr. Ashe. It will be this coming month, when we start the
    status review.
        Senator Inhofe. How long do you think that review will
    take?
        Mr. Ashe. I can't really give you that answer right now,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Can you tell me within 6 months how long it
    will take?
        Mr. Ashe. I could tell you it would take 6 to 18 months,
    would be my guess, to do the status review.
        Senator Inhofe. All right, 6 to 18 months, somebody write
    that down. We want to get some conclusion on this thing.
        So the backlog for delisting or downlisting the species,
    right now you can't tell us what the specific backlog is for
    delisting or for downlisting species today?
        Mr. Ashe. I can tell you we have a backlog of species, we
    have over 200 species that are already listed and for which we
    have not developed recovery plans.
        Senator Inhofe. OK.
        Mr. Ashe. And so we have, we definitely have a backlog of
    need to deal with status assessment of species to consider
    delisting or downlisting. But Mr. Chairman, I think what you
    realize, and I hope all the other members realize, we have an
    affirmative duty to list. The law requires us to deal with
    petitions. The law requires us to make 12-month findings on
    listing.
        So by law, our highest priority is to consider the listing
    of species. The law does not give us any latitude to do that.
    When I have a petition, I have 90 days to make a determination
    on the petition. If I make a positive finding on that at 90
    days, I have 1 year to do a status review.
        Senator Inhofe. The mission, though, originally, and you
    probably have done a lot of study on this, all the way back to
    1970, was to list, but also to delist if you are successful.
    You could almost come to the conclusion that you are not
    successful if you haven't found an opportunity to delist some
    amount, some numbers of species, or downlist them, and yet we
    keep adding more and more to the list.
        So that is what I think everyone wants to see, the results.
    I think you would say this morning, recognize the fact that
    sometimes you list something and all of a sudden some programs
    are successful, as in, I would say, the burying beetle, because
    it is now found in places where it never was found back when it
    was originally listed from east coast information. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Ashe. But in order to show that, Senator, you or I or
    others may believe that. But in order to propose a delisting or
    a downlisting, I have to show that. So that is the purpose of a
    5-year review.
        Senator Inhofe. So it might be a flaw in the process,
    though. You are doing your job but perhaps we need to make some
    changes in the Act.
        Mr. Ashe. I think the most important things, Mr. Chairman,
    are the resources to do the job. The job is doable, and I think
    we are showing, as you acknowledge, in this Administration, by
    the end of this Administration if we stay on course we will not
    just have delisted more species than any other Administration.
    We will have delisted more, due to recovery, more species than
    all previous Administrations combined. So I think we are
    focusing on delisting. We need the resources to do the 5-year
    status assessments. We need the resources to do the recovery
    planning. We need the resources to do the delisting.
        So when you are looking at our delisting budget, or our
    listing budget, that is our budget for listing and delisting.
    And so we need the resources to do that.
        Senator Inhofe. My time has expired, but I will show you
    where we got the information in terms of the listing. And that
    is why I wanted to bring it up this morning.
        Senator Boxer.
        Senator Boxer. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, the fact that you are delisting shows that the ESA is
    working. I am just looking at the different Administrations.
    Ronald Reagan administration, they delisted 5 due to recovery,
    Bush 1, Clinton 6, Bush 2, 7 and Obama 11. So that says to me
    you have flexibility in this law. And yet all these bills that
    the Republicans have filed say, well, we just need more
    flexibility. That is just a cover. That is just a cover. That
    is just what they say. They just want to stop this Act from
    functioning.
        I feel that the way the Obama administration has proven
    that this Act works is when you see this recovery. So I want to
    ask you about Senator Gardner's bill which is so controversial
    that there has been a big op-ed in his own paper back home, and
    all these groups oppose it. He basically says, for 6 years, you
    can't do a thing about the greater sage grouse. And as I look
    at the ESA, its beauty is its flexibility. I think we are
    proving it in real terms on the ground.
        So I would like to ask you, what would it mean to this
    particular species if all of a sudden your hands were tied for
    6 years? It would mean that the States would develop the plans,
    you are out of it completely for whatever God knows reason, and
    then the States decide what we can do on Federal lands. So if
    you could tell me how you think that would impact the recovery
    of the sage grouse, the saving of the sage grouse?
        Mr. Ashe. I think as you said, the Gardner bill essentially
    defers completely to State plans that do not exist other than
    in the State of Wyoming, as I said, we have a very good plan
    for sage grouse conservation. But it defers to State plans that
    don't exist and provides no standards for those plans at all.
    So there is no functional standard that goes into place for
    those plans.
        So my sense about the Gardner bill is that it is simply
    delay. In the meantime, what we will see for sage grouse is
    more fragmentation, more loss of habitat and we will move
    toward a crisis by delay.
        Senator Boxer. Right. Well, this bill is even worse. It
    says for 6 years you can't do any listing. So it basically,
    what it does for the sage grouse, it repeals the Endangered
    Species Act for 6 years. It is a make believe there is none
    because we don't like what is happening.
        But your comment, what's good for the bird is good for the
    herd I thought was a real takeaway. The fact is, when we work
    together on this with the flexibility that we have, everybody
    is a winner. I don't see a situation where that hasn't been the
    case.
        In my own State, the Federal Government acting as a
    catalyst has brought together everybody in terms of our
    endangered species. My God, we have had huge successes with
    conservation plans drawn up by the entire region.
        You are pointing out that employees in your shop are being
    cited in San Diego as heroes, this is what it is. This
    shouldn't be about, well, my State scientists know better than
    your State scientists. This isn't about that. It is about let's
    do what is right to protect God's species. That is our job. We
    inherited them. And they are glorious.
        And what right do we have to sit here and say that, who
    cares how many species die off? Well, that is not right. It is
    a moral issue to me. It may not be to the next person, and I
    don't preach about it. They can decide what they think is moral
    and what they don't think is moral.
        But the fact is, if we work together, it is a win-win all
    across the board. So can you tell us a little bit about the
    flexibility in the law that so many people are excited to see
    changed, either changing it by the back door or even perhaps as
    Senator Inhofe said, maybe the law needs to be changed so that
    you have more flexibility. Tell us about the flexibility in
    that visionary law that was signed by Richard Nixon that has
    been supported across the board by bipartisanship and 82
    percent of the people support it in the Nation. Tell us about
    the flexibility.
        Mr. Ashe. There are some key flexibilities in the law, one
    of which was mentioned earlier. When we listed the northern
    long-eared bat, we did so with the 4(d) rule that clarifies
    that white nose syndrome is the principal threat and therefore
    we can provide, we can insulate a broad range of activities
    from the regulatory restrictions in the law. We used the same
    tool with the lesser prairie chicken range-wide plan, where we
    listed the bird as threatened but we deferred largely to the
    well-designed, comprehensive conservation strategy that five
    States worked together on.
        When we designate critical habitat, we can remove areas
    from critical habitat for economic, for social or for reasons
    or national security. And we do that on a regular basis. So
    there are many flexibilities in the law. We provide a candidate
    conservation agreement with assurances, tells a rancher that if
    a species is listed and you continue to implement this
    voluntary agreement, then you need do nothing further in the
    law, so we can provide regulatory predictability for ranchers
    and farmers. We are doing that throughout the Country today.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator. Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Ashe, the challenge in South Dakota in a lot of
    cases is one of trying to coordinate between the agency and
    individual farmers and ranchers that have contracts established
    for landownership or at least the availability for leases and
    so forth. Sometimes there are permanent leases on land. The
    relationship becomes strained on an occasional basis, and it is
    unfortunate.
        Part of it is because of the tactics that in many cases are
    being employed by law enforcement officers who are also doing
    what I believe is their best to make communications with
    landowners. But in this time in which we see across the Country
    a concern about interaction between law enforcement personnel
    and individuals in the public, let me just share with you a
    letter that we got. I have tried to abbreviate a little bit.
    But I want to share with you some of the frustration that
    individual farmers and ranchers that have had leases for years
    with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, what they have shared with us.
        South Dakota landowners and farmers have allowed waterfowl
    production area easements with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    for years. They believe that they have found in many cases a
    rather difficult and uncooperative approach in determining
    which acres are actually protected by the Federal easements. In
    some cases there is no math, it is simply an agreement that had
    been done perhaps back in the 1940s.
        Now, in the particular case that I am going to share, the
    constituent related to us that he had a story about a Fish and
    Wildlife agent appearing in their front yard with a flak jacket
    and side arms, intimidating them simply by his appearance and
    his tone. I am particularly troubled as the taxpayer dollars
    are funding this type of aggressive approach to citizens who
    are voluntarily and proactively enacting conservation measures
    on their own land as they have been doing for generations.
        How do I respond to them when they ask me why they are
    being made to feel as if they are law breakers, as if they are
    at risk? And as if rather than being a partner they are being
    seen in almost an adversarial type of role?
        It is just one example. I have a lot of examples, literally
    relating back to the time in which I was Governor. In fact, I
    actually asked to have one of your officers removed from his
    post because of the interaction with local sportsmen in the
    central South Dakota area.
        But there seems to be a breakdown in terms of the attitude
    of who knows best. Whether or not it is simply a matter of if
    you are a Federal officer, he seemed to have the upper hand
    when it came to the citizens that are literally paying the bill
    for the services. And in a lot of cases, trying to cooperate in
    allowing for easements for waterfowl production areas.
        How do I respond?
        Mr. Ashe. I don't know the specifics of the case, so I
    would like to find those out and I can come talk to you
    personally about that, Senator. I would like to do that.
        Senator Rounds. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ashe. But I will theorize here that if a law
    enforcement officer goes to a landowner in South Dakota, it
    would be because we have purchased an easement. So it would not
    be voluntary. So that would have been an easement that we have
    purchased and the taxpayer has paid for.
        Senator Rounds. On a voluntary basis.
        Mr. Ashe. Sure. It was a voluntary transaction. But the
    taxpayer has an interest in that property because we have paid
    for it. So we do aerial surveys and so they must have seen
    something on the ground that caused them concern. Because we
    don't send a law enforcement officer unless they have observed
    what they believe to be an easement violation.
        Senator Rounds. For an easement violation you would send an
    armed officer in a flak jacket?
        Mr. Ashe. Not always, but it, I mean, our officers are
    like, if a Montgomery County police officer were to come to my
    home, they would have a side arm and they would be wearing
    protective gear that sworn officers wear. So I understand that
    that can be intimidating to people. I do understand that.
        Senator Rounds. It is not a way to get more easements, that
    is for sure.
        Mr. Ashe. But I would say overall, we have an
    extraordinarily positive relationship with landowners in South
    Dakota. We have hundreds of people waiting to have the Fish and
    Wildlife Service secure easements on their property because of
    the relationship that we have.
        So this could be an exception and I would like to look at
    it and come talk to you personally.
        Senator Rounds. I would like that opportunity. My tie is
    expired, but I would like an opportunity to visit further.
        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Chairman Inhofe.
        Senator Boxer keeps talking about Richard Nixon. I would
    rather talk, this was passed in 1973 to a unanimous vote in the
    Senate, as well as a 355 to 4 vote in the House. And President
    Nixon said there is nothing more priceless and more worthy of
    preservation than the rich animal array of life with which our
    Country has been blessed. And that is very true.
        And the success that this legislation has had, it has had
    more success, frankly, than most governmental departments can
    have: 99 percent of the wildlife under its protections have
    been preserved. But more importantly, when it comes to the time
    line, it has often taken the huge task of recovering species
    over decades and the majority of the ones that you are
    recovering are within the original time lines that were
    projected. It didn't go over. This often takes decades to
    accomplish this.
        And you have saved countless species. Senator Boxer put up
    the bald eagle. But there is the Florida panther, the
    California condor, the gray wolf, the American alligator. And
    while these successes are impressive, the reality is we are in
    a global crisis of species extinction that is shocking.
    Shocking. Most people have no idea that it is estimate between
    one-sixth and one-half of all the species of all species on the
    planet earth are threatened with extinction in this very
    century. That is chilling.
        Scientists now believe that the planet is currently faced
    with a mounting loss of extinctions that threaten to rival the
    five great mass extinctions of the past. People are saying we
    are now in the next major mass global planetary extinction. And
    that is unacceptable.
        According to a Living Planet report released in 2014 by the
    World Wildlife Fund, it is estimated that the world's
    populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles
    fell by over 52 percent of all life on earth, 52 percent
    between 1970 and 2010. Stated another way, our planet earth
    lost half of its wildlife in 40 years. That is shocking and
    stunning and has implications that cannot be monetized.
        So I think our focus should be on strengthening rather than
    weakening the ESA. You have talked about flexibilities, you
    have talked about how under the Obama administration, delisting
    has been done more than the previous Presidents since this has
    passed. So I would like to run through questions, keeping your
    answers as short as possible, because the great Senator Inhofe
    runs a tight ship here. Can you do that for me?
        Mr. Ashe. I can try.
        Senator Booker. In relation to the Refuge From Cruel
    Trapping Act that I spoke about earlier, you would agree with
    me that wildlife management within the refuge system should be
    as humane as possible, yes or no?
        Mr. Ashe. Yes.
        Senator Booker. OK. And Director, in your written
    testimony, you describe some trapping activity on the refuge
    system in New Jersey. But I know you are aware that New Jersey,
    similar to other States, has banned the use of leg-hold traps.
        Mr. Ashe. Yes.
        Senator Booker. Yes, you are aware, OK. And in some States
    like New Jersey the ban on leg-hold traps, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service complies with those States' bans and currently
    prohibits the use of leg-hold traps.
        Mr. Ashe. Yes.
        Senator Booker. Go ahead, give a little flavor.
        Mr. Ashe. We reserve the right to do our job. In some
    cases, with States like California and other places where they
    have large-scale bans on certain trapping methods, we do in
    some cases use methods that are not authorized by State law.
    Where we have to for conservation of the endangered clapper
    rail or other things.
        Senator Booker. Very narrowly tailored.
        Mr. Ashe. Very narrowly defined.
        Senator Booker. Very narrowly defined, not the kind of
    trapping that is being proposed to be done on our refuges. So
    Director, in relation to the Endangered Species Act, you would
    agree that listing and delisting decisions are best made by
    science and the available science there is, right?
        Mr. Ashe. Yes.
        Senator Booker. So you would agree that listing and
    delisting decisions should be made by experts, scientists, not
    by Congress?
        Mr. Ashe. Correct, yes.
        Senator Booker. And this is especially true that these
    decisions should be made based on science by the agency, not by
    all the political forces that often work, the science of the
    agency best is insightful in cases like the sage grouse, the
    gray wolf, where political emotions often run awry? But the
    design of your regulatory regime is that science should
    prevail, is that correct?
        Mr. Ashe. That is correct.
        Senator Booker. OK. So finally, in my last 30 seconds,
    Director, I note that funding levels for the Federal Endangered
    Species program have been insufficient, not just for listing,
    but also for the delisting process. So can you please describe
    the importance, especially for those people who are looking for
    delisting, that we have better funding for you to implement the
    ESA?
        Mr. Ashe. As I said to the Chairman, I think that the major
    impediment to further progress on delisting of species is our
    capacity to drive recovery. One of the big increases in our
    budget for this year is in our cooperative recovery program,
    where we are looking for species in and around national
    wildlife refuges, where a relatively small investment can make
    a quantum leap in terms of recovery and getting species off the
    list.
        Just this last year, we delisted the first fish ever due to
    recovery, the Oregon chub, because of that little effort,
    little bit of funding that got it over the edge. So we are
    showing that by some relatively modest effort, we can make
    quantum leaps in recovery and delisting. Those increases are
    reflected in our budget.
        Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging me.
    The more resources you have, the more delisting you could
    probably do. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Ashe. Exactly.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Booker.
        Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    Director, for being here today.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service budget request seeks $164.8
    million for land acquisition. That is $58.5 million in
    discretionary funding and $106.3 million in mandatory funding
    in fiscal year 2016. That is an increase of $117.2 million from
    your 2015 levels.
        Now, the national wildlife refuge system has a deferred
    maintenance backlog totaling $1.28 billion. So why are you
    proposing to acquire more Federal land when we have this huge
    maintenance backlog? I think we should be addressing that. What
    is your response?
        Mr. Ashe. Two-fold. First with regard to the maintenance
    backlog, I need to note that in the last 5 years, we have
    decreased our maintenance backlog by 50 percent, one-half. So 5
    years ago our maintenance backlog was $2.6 billion. We have
    managed that effectively. We got a lot of help from the
    American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. We have scrubbed
    projects throughout the refuge system, we have placed priority
    where necessary. And we have reduced our backlog by 50 percent.
        So I feel like the Fish and Wildlife Service has been an
    excellent steward of our maintenance backlog. Our total
    maintenance backlog now is less than 4 percent of our asset
    value, which I would say any private company would envy that
    type of maintenance backlog.
        So I think we are a very good steward of national wildlife
    refuges.
        Senator Fischer. I have a bunch of questions. With the
    recovery funds, wasn't that just a one-time shot, though? So
    how much of that backlog was reduced due to a one-time shot?
        Mr. Ashe. I can't give you the exact figure, but a
    substantial amount. Because we got a substantial funding for
    facilities and for roads through the Reinvestment Act.
        Senator Fischer. Moving forward then, you still have to
    look at that $1.28 billion that I don't anticipate you are
    going to get another one-time shot to address it.
        Mr. Ashe. But I would say that our acquisitions, those
    planned acquisitions, are not going to substantially increase
    our maintenance backlog. We are actually very careful now too,
    as we acquire lands, that we don't acquire liabilities. So we
    look before we leap in terms of land protection and
    conservation. I think we are doing an excellent job.
        The other thing is, a lot of our effort is geared toward
    easement, particularly in the Dakotas. Our principal investment
    is to conserve lands through easement, conservation, where we
    don't inherit a maintenance backlog. Because we have good
    stewards, those ranchers and farmers on the landscape.
        Senator Fischer. In my State as well. You are looking, I
    believe, at supporting 34 land acquisitions and over 100,000
    acres. Do you have plans for any acquisitions in the State of
    Nebraska?
        Mr. Ashe. We have active conservation projects in the
    rainwater Basin, which we have conservation projects along the
    Platte River. I don't think we have any specific proposals in
    this budget for Nebraska, but we do have active acquisition
    efforts through the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
    and with our Federal Duck Stamp funding and other measures.
        Senator Fischer. Senator Rounds and I were discussing the
    Niobrara Confluence in the Ponca Bluffs Conservation Area. He
    and I have, as you know, a directed interest there. Are you
    moving ahead with plans there on acquiring that land through
    easements? As you know, both Senator Rounds and I have heard
    from hundreds of landowners who have concerns with that.
        Mr. Ashe. I am not aware of that in particular, but let me
    get back to you for the record.
        Senator Fischer. That would be good. Are you going to move
    forward with any acquisition plans or plans to establish a
    refuge or conservation areas if you do meet local State
    opposition?
        Mr. Ashe. Our longstanding policy is that we do not
    establish refuges over the objections of State and local
    parties, and certainly not Members of Congress. I believe we
    have a very strong record in that regard. Just in the last
    year, we have withdrawn efforts in California, in Alabama, and
    we have moved through public controversy in places like the
    Everglades headwaters in Florida where we had significant
    opposition. But we sat down, we worked through those efforts.
        So I think we have a very good track record.
        Senator Fischer. I appreciate that. In the area that I live
    in, we do have wildlife refuges, and it is important to have
    that local buy-in so that you can have a more welcoming
    atmosphere for people to come and enjoy the beauty that
    surrounds us as well.
        Mr. Ashe. We believe the same thing, Senator. I believe we
    have proven that, as I mentioned, Andy Ewing and his role in
    San Diego. Andy is an exceptional individual, but that is not
    the exception in the Fish and Wildlife Service; by and large it
    is the rule.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Endangered Species Act is not broken. Since this
    bipartisan law was enacted in 1973 under President Nixon, it
    has been 99 percent successful in recovering listed species. I
    am a firm believer that our policy should be driven by science,
    especially when it comes to preserving biodiversity in our
    American heritage. No one wants to see a species get listed.
        For example, I don't want to see the sage grouse listed. I
    can tell you a lot of folks in Oregon don't want to see it
    listed. And you can bet the sage grouse doesn't want to see it
    listed. So that means they are close to, or inching closer to
    extinction.
        The fact is that it is our responsibility not to politicize
    the science or the biology needed to recover a particular
    species, but to heed the warning signs given to us by science
    and address the issues so a species can recover. So I am very
    pleased that you are here to testify today.
        I wanted to focus specifically on the sage grouse. I
    understand the Federal plans for sage grouse conservation on
    BLM lands are going to be finalized and we will have that later
    this month?
        Mr. Ashe. Senator, their schedule right now is to finalize
    the plans in early June.
        Senator Merkley. OK, I look forward to that. My
    understanding is that these plans have been developed
    collaboratively with input from States and local stakeholders
    to help inform how it should be designed.
        Mr. Ashe. There has been, over the course of three full,
    more than 3 years, been exhaustive public process.
        Senator Merkley. So there is a genetically distinct group
    of sage grouse in California and Nevada. My understanding is
    that the efforts to preserve them have led to a not warranted
    decision in terms of listing. Are there lessons learned from
    that population that can be applied to the balance of the
    population of sage grouse?
        Mr. Ashe. There certainly are, the bi-State sage grouse is
    shared between Nevada and California. They suffer from the same
    types of threats, largely habitat disturbance. In that case we
    have BLM and the Forest Service commit to conservation plans
    that will conserve the sage grouse. We have Natural Resource
    Conservation Service also engaged there on private lands. We
    had cooperation from the two States.
        So that is a microcosm of the larger discussion and public
    process that we have going on with the greater sage grouse.
        Senator Merkley. There is a plan in Oregon that is called
    SageCon, that is about Oregon working with stakeholders on
    private lands and State lands to try to stabilize the
    population and hopefully to prevent the necessity of being
    listed. Are there insights from that that have been
    incorporated into the plans for the BLM lands?
        Mr. Ashe. Yes, I think the State of Oregon has been a great
    partner in this context. We expect to have a very substantive,
    strong program through the SageCon effort in Oregon. Again,
    they are a very close collaborative relationship between the
    planning at the State level and the planning that BLM and the
    Forest Service are doing. So that kind of ongoing discussion,
    so that the planning process that BLM is doing and the Forest
    Service is doing are informed by the planning process at the
    State level and vice versa.
        Senator Merkley. Excellent. That sort of collaboration
    gives the best chances for success. One of the things that we
    have really been encouraging are the candidate conservation
    agreements with assurances. The Secretary of Interior came out
    and publicized those agreements. Ranchers have taken a close
    look at them. Many have signed up. But few have been fully
    enrolled. That enrollment process has yet to be completed.
        Is there anything that we should do to encourage the
    acceleration of the enrollment process so that these ranchers
    who are willing to enter these agreements on how they manage
    their own lands are protected from future ill effects, if you
    will, of a listing?
        Mr. Ashe. I think some of that is a little bit organic. We
    have to continue to build spokespeople in the ranching
    community, people with whom we have a trust relationship, who
    can help us kind of expand that relationship. I think that is
    happening.
        The other thing is the topic of the day, which is the
    budget resources. We have to have the people in the field who
    can go out and meet with these people. Because a lot of times
    they are not going to sign up----
        Senator Merkley. I am almost running out of time. The point
    I want to make is, many ranchers have signed up. But it is up
    to the Fish and Wildlife Service to complete the enrollment
    process.
        Mr. Ashe. Right.
        Senator Merkley. They are waiting. They are willing
    partners, ready partners. But we need to complete and honor the
    deal.
        Mr. Ashe. That is our resource constraint.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I will certainly work with my
    colleagues. I think both sides of the aisle benefit greatly
    from these sorts of voluntary efforts. Now my time has expired,
    but I hope that these collaborative efforts that are going on
    in Oregon will be effective in stabilizing the population
    preventing the necessity to have a listing.
        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Senator Crapo.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Ashe, I want to use my time to talk with you about
    the greater sage grouse. As I am sure you are very well aware,
    in March 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife determined that the
    greater sage grouse across the 11 western State range was
    warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act, but
    precluded because of other, higher priorities. This decision
    placed the greater sage grouse on a candidate list whereby, due
    to court order, the Service must address its conservation
    status and decide by September 30th of this year whether to
    list the species.
        As a result of that, States across the west, including
    Idaho, have been working with various Federal agencies
    involved, namely Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of
    Land Management, on conservation management plans that will
    protect the grouse and take into account unique circumstances
    within each State. It has been the hope of all of those
    discussing this that we could use this collaborative process to
    avoid a listing and if any kind of activity was required, to
    work on something collaboratively to make it successful.
        However, what I want to focus my questions on is a letter
    that came from your office in October 2014. I ask unanimous
    consent to make this letter a part of the record.
        Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Crapo. You are probably familiar with the letter I
    am referring to. I have a copy for you if you want it, but I
    know you are familiar with it. In this letter, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service seems to have once again moved the goalpost
    and basically acted, at least many of us in Idaho feel,
    unilaterally by proposing land withdrawals on millions of acres
    in sage brush focal areas.
        That seems to us to be contradictory to the collaborative
    effort that we are all seeking to engage in, because now the
    maps that came in conjunction with this letter have essentially
    put parameters on the entire discussion about how to come up
    with sage grouse protection plans that we feel are impediments
    to the collaborative process, rather than helping that process
    move forward. I would appreciate your observation on this.
        Mr. Ashe. Sir, the letter there refers to what we would
    call strongholds, what the BLM has called sage grouse focal
    areas in their planning process. It doesn't move the goalpost.
    What that is is a refinement. Previously we had identified
    priority habitat for the sage grouse. We were looking for
    protections. If we are going to avoid the need to list, then we
    have to show that there are meaningful protections in place
    across the priority habitat.
        The BLM asked us to refine that. Is there a best of the
    best habitat? And so that is what we did. We provided them with
    really what is the very best, highest quality habitat where we
    do need the strongest protections possible.
        So if we are going to reach a not warranted conclusion,
    then we need to see large pieces of the landscape where sage
    grouse, where we are highly confident that sage grouse are
    going to persist into the future. So those strongholds, or sage
    grouse focal areas, are key to that.
        It doesn't mean nothing can happen in there. It means that
    we will have, with oil and gas, we will have no surface
    occupancy without exceptions. It means with grazing that those
    areas will receive priority in terms of the BLM's analysis.
    Because grazing, as we saw in Harney County, Oregon, can be
    helpful to sage grouse conservation. But they will receive
    priority in terms of the evaluation process to make sure that
    we are meeting our grazing standards.
        Senator Crapo. Let me interrupt there. Are you telling me
    that in these areas that there are not necessarily going to be
    automatic withdrawals, but a State like Idaho, for example,
    could propose management plans that would satisfy the
    requirement that these areas would require for proper
    treatment?
        Mr. Ashe. We have recommended that they be withdrawn from
    the Mineral Leasing Act. So from hard rock mining, we have
    recommended that those areas be withdrawn. Because the Mineral
    Leasing Act provides us with no way, once a claim is made under
    the Mineral Leasing Act, provides us with very limited tools to
    protect sage grouse.
        Senator Crapo. So Idaho is more focused primarily on the
    grazing side of this question.
        Mr. Ashe. Correct. And I believe they came to us with some
    legitimate questions and concerns about how grazing would be
    managed. I think we have answered those questions. Many of
    them.
        Senator Crapo. My time has run out. I would just say, there
    is still a very high level of anxiety.
        Mr. Ashe. I understand.
        Senator Crapo. We have a very strong and I think a very
    capable and effective plan and planning process underway. We
    want to be able to collaborate with you to be able to make that
    happen, rather than having rigid edicts come down that
    interfere with our ability to do exactly what the objective is,
    which is to protect the sage grouse.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman.
        Today's hearing unfortunately continues something that
    would have dismayed the predecessor in my seat, John Chaffee of
    Rhode Island, who is to this day revered as an environmental
    leader by his home State. But by my count, we have Republican
    amendments which, eight to zero, go against the protections of
    the Endangered Species Act. We recently had a hearing on the
    Clean Power Plan in which the majority's witnesses were
    completely stacked in favor of the polluter interests. We have
    an absolutely Republican wall of antagonism to the new EPA rule
    protecting the waters of the United States. And their budget
    efforts are a relentless attack against those who protect our
    resources and our godly heritage of nature.
        It causes me to wonder, is there a single Federal
    environmental protection that our Republican friends like
    today. When I consider the Republicans in the past who helped
    build these protections, again, I am somewhat dismayed that
    there is this relentless single-mindedness, apparently as is
    the case now.
        I don't have a sage grouse in Rhode Island. There is not
    one to be found.
        Mr. Ashe. There used to be a sage hen.
        Senator Whitehouse. Was there a sage hen?
        Mr. Ashe. A heath hen, it was the eastern sage grouse. It
    is no longer with us.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, there is an instructive point
    that I did not know. Helps remind us why we do the Endangered
    Species Act.
        I want to ask you a different question. Rhode Island is a
    coastal State. Coastal States are seeing a triple whammy coming
    from climate change. We are seeing the same land habitat
    changes that non-coastal States experience. We are also seeing
    that the margin between land and sea, sea level rise that is
    threatening to or beginning to overwhelm features like salt
    marsh. And third, we are seeing the changes in the seat itself,
    the warming temperatures, the increased acidification. We
    haven't seen acidification of the oceans measured to increase
    like this in, forget the lifetime of our species on the planet
    and millions and millions of years.
        So what particular attention should the Fish and Wildlife
    Service be giving to those coastal areas where the climate
    effects are coming at us through so many different vectors?
        Mr. Ashe. You have hit many nails on the head there,
    Senator. I think the phenomenon of climate change is one which
    is an overarching threat to the conservation of species. Sea
    level rise being one actually where we have given better tools
    to managers than anywhere else.
        So we actually see innovation in places like the Albemarle
    Peninsula in North Carolina where we are working with Duke
    Power and the State of North Carolina and the Nature
    Conservancy and others to begin to plan for an orderly
    transition of that landscape. We manage nearly half a million
    acres of national wildlife refuges there. The future for those
    refuges is to become estuarine habitat, not the pocosin bogs
    that they are today.
        So we are working with partners to kind of realize that and
    plan for the future. But that as well is a resource constraint.
    We need better science. We need more people in the field to
    work with local communities in terms of how we can adapt, how
    we can build alliance with private landowners to better manage
    land, so that we can make an orderly transition occur.
        So certainly sea level rise, whether it is sea turtle or
    piping plover or red knot and horseshoe crabs, climate change
    is a large, overarching factor that we have to understand
    better if we are going to be good stewards of these creatures.
        Senator Whitehouse. With 8 seconds remaining, I don't think
    I can top the way you ended. So I will leave it there. Thank
    you very much.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator
    Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Ashe,
    good to see you. I have so many questions for you that I could
    spend the next 3 days asking you questions. So we are going to
    submit a number for the record, and if you can try to answer
    these succinctly, it would be helpful so we can get through at
    least a couple in the 5-minutes that I have.
        First, I want to talk about the Alaska National Interest
    Lands Conservation Act. Are you familiar with ANILCA?
        Mr. Ashe. I am.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. There are a lot of Alaskans who
    actually don't think your agency is that familiar with ANILCA,
    because there is a strong sense in my State that your agency
    continually violates that important Act. And to Senator
    Whitehouse's comments, I will tell you this, today's hearing
    but more your actions would bring great dismay to one of
    Alaska's great predecessors in the U.S. Senate, Ted Stevens,
    who crafted ANILCA, knew it was a finely crafted balance and
    yet, it is being ignored by your agency, I think, on a daily
    basis.
        Let me give you the latest example. The President's recent
    announcements on the 1001 area, ANWR. As you know, the coastal
    area of ANWR, the 1002 area of ANWR, very important place, laid
    out in ANILCA, whole chapters on it in ANILCA. And critical
    that the Federal Government was tasked with either looking at
    developing it for oil and gas, looking at the resources there,
    recommendations to Congress, or perhaps someday making it a
    wilderness.
        But do you think there is any other branch of government in
    the Federal Government that has the power to either develop the
    1002 area for oil and gas or make it a wilderness besides this
    body, Congress?
        Mr. Ashe. No, I do not.
        Senator Sullivan. OK, then how can the President of the
    United States a couple of months ago say he is going to submit
    a bill to make the 1002 area wilderness, which is fine, he has
    a right to do that, it has to be approved here, it won't go
    anywhere, but then in the meantime say, I am going to
    ``manage'' the 1002 area for wilderness anyway? That is what he
    said on Air Force One to big fanfare.
        How can he manage the 1002 area for wilderness when you
    don't have the authority to do that? Can you explain that to
    me? This is a huge issue for my State. I think you are
    violating the law, I think the President is violating the law.
    How do you do that?
        Senator Boxer. Can we have order?
        Senator Inhofe. We have order already.
        Senator Boxer. He wouldn't let him answer the question.
        Senator Inhofe. Stop the clock and give him at least 1 more
    minute.
        Senator Sullivan. How do you manage the 1002 area for
    wilderness when you don't have the authority to designate
    wilderness, the 1002 area? Go read ANILCA. There is not a
    lawyer in town who thinks your agency has that authority.
        Mr. Ashe. There are lawyers who in the Interior Department
    who agree very much. Mr. Sullivan, we are managing the 1002
    area as we are managing it today for what we call minimal
    management.
        Senator Sullivan. No agency, Republican or Democrat, has
    ever said they are going to manage the 1002 area for wilderness
    with the exception of yours. First time ever.
        Mr. Ashe. We are managing the 1002 area to protect the
    wilderness value that is represented there. That is our duty.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask a follow up question. If there
    is a President in 2017, he is a Republican, he submits
    legislation to develop the 1002 area for oil and gas
    development. It doesn't go anywhere, it is a tough issue. Can
    that President, say it is President Cruz, President Rubio,
    President Paul, can that President say, I am now going to
    ``manage'' the 1002 area for oil and gas development?
        Mr. Ashe. We have produced a comprehensive conservation
    plan.
        Senator Sullivan. Can you answer that question?
        Mr. Ashe. The President would have to, we would have to
    change our conservation plan. We have gone through the lawful
    administrative process of developing a comprehensive plan.
        Senator Sullivan. Not designating 1002 as wilderness
    without congressional approval.
        Mr. Ashe. We have a comprehensive conservation plan for the
    management of the refuge which has been developed through a
    public process.
        Senator Sullivan. Can a President in 2017 manage the 1002
    area for oil and gas, even through a comprehensive management
    plan?
        Mr. Ashe. No.
        Senator Sullivan. Can a President now manage the 1002 area
    for wilderness? The answer has to be no if you said no to the
    other question.
        Mr. Ashe. The President is not managing it.
        Senator Sullivan. The President said he was going to manage
    the 1002 area for wilderness. He doesn't have the authority to
    do that.
        Mr. Ashe. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is
    managing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        Senator Sullivan. No, the 1002 area is different. Look at
    ANILCA.
        Mr. Ashe. No. The 1002 area is part of the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge. The law makes no distinction between the 1002
    area and the remainder of the refuge.
        Senator Sullivan. It makes a huge distinction. There is an
    entire chapter called the 1002 chapter in ANILCA. That is why
    it is called the 1002 area. There is a gigantic distinction.
    Director Ashe, I think that your agency has been violating the
    law. I have so many other questions, Mr. Chairman. We will
    submit them for the record. This is incredibly disturbing and a
    whole host of different ANILCA sections.
        I am going to ask one more question, Mr. Chairman, if I
    may.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Sullivan, you have another good
    minute, because you were interrupted. Please go ahead.
        Senator Sullivan. So in Alaska there is a provision, what
    we believe is the ``no more'' provision of ANILCA. Do you
    believe that that exists?
        Mr. Ashe. It does exist.
        Senator Sullivan. So the ``no more'' clause says there
    should be, that ANILCA, according to Ted Stevens and others,
    was a finely balanced designation. We have almost 60 million
    acres of wilderness. We have State parks that are bigger than
    Rhode Island, individual State parks. We have a lot of
    wilderness; we love our wilderness.
        But we don't think there should be any more, and neither
    did the Congress. Do you think that there can be any more
    wilderness, managed, designated or otherwise, without the
    express permission of this body?
        Mr. Ashe. There can be no designated wilderness without
    congressional action.
        Senator Sullivan. Then how can the President of the United
    States say he is going to manage the 1002 area for wilderness?
    He can't.
        Mr. Ashe. The President has said, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service is going to manage the refuge to protect the
    wilderness value that resides there. We have ample authority to
    manage the refuge in a way that preserves and protects its
    wilderness character.
        That does not mean it is congressionally designated
    wilderness. We have gone through a lawful administrative----
        Senator Sullivan. Are you familiar with 1002(e) of ANILCA?
        Mr. Ashe. Not the number, no.
        Senator Sullivan. That is the one that says there are
    exploration plans that have to be approved by the Secretary in
    the 1002 area. The State of Alaska put together an exploration
    plan under that provision. You rejected it. Why wouldn't you
    want to work with the State of Alaska on a plan like this?
        Mr. Chairman, I will submit the additional questions I have
    for the record.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator
    Markey. Now, I think, Senator Markey, it might be a good time
    for us to relate our story from last week.
        Senator Markey. Please.
        Senator Inhofe. Oddly enough, while we disagree on a lot of
    issues, I have always felt Senator Markey to be a very close
    friend. We bumped into each other with our wives last week. He
    was joking around, I guess I was joking more than he was, after
    meeting his wife, who was really dolled up. She looked really
    good. I told her that, too.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. And they kidded me because my wife was
    wearing blue jeans and her Save the Ridley Sea Turtle tee-
    shirt. Now, are you paying attention to this? The sea turtle,
    yes.
        Senator Boxer. I hope she is not out here today for this
    hearing.
        Senator Inhofe. But anyway, I think sometimes people try to
    say that conservatives or Republicans are not concerned about a
    species. In fact, when you say how many people would answer
    yes, we need a U.S. Fish and Wildlife, I think most Republicans
    would be on that list. It is just that we need some reforms
    there. We will talk about the Ridley sea turtle at a later
    time.
        Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And by
    the way, your wife looked tremendous that day as well.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. There will be no graciousness gap that
    opens up in this hearing. And like you are saying, it did
    demonstrate that there areas of common agreement where we can
    work together. And your wife gave me a deep insight into you,
    that you have been married to her for 56 years. Is that right?
        Senator Inhofe. That is correct.
        Senator Markey. Incredible. That is a reason to believe
    that we can find areas of agreement.
        Senator Inhofe. So welcome, sir, we appreciate your being
    here.
        Senator Markey. On the 1002 issue, as we know, that
    question of whether or not that area is so special, so
    important that there should not be some extra protections,
    especially if there is going to be oil drilling and especially
    if the oil companies then want to export the oil overseas. It
    is one thing to say that they want to drill for America, but to
    drill and simultaneously be saying that we have a surplus in
    America, let's export our oil while drilling on this special
    land is a big question for the Country, very big question. And
    that deserves a big, big debate.
        With regard to Chatham, Massachusetts, which you know very
    well from your long service with the great Congressman Gerry
    Studds, there has been work done on the Monomoy Refuge for
    decades to support conservation efforts while maintaining
    historic fishing practices and small scale bay scalloping. I
    appreciate the Service's work with Chatham as the Monomoy
    Refuge has developed its comprehensive conservation plan. My
    hope is that the final plan will continue the partnership
    between Chatham and the Fish and Wildlife Service that has
    worked so well over the years. Can I get a commitment from you
    that you will keep me informed of the plan developments as it
    moves toward being finalized, so that we can understand how
    closely you are going to be working with Chatham in order to
    ensure that there is a continued comprehensive partnership?
        Mr. Ashe. Senator, I would be glad to come up personally
    and talk to you before we make any final decisions.
        Senator Markey. That is a very important issue to me.
        Critics of the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service's efforts to implement it are often concerned
    with the amount of funds that the President's budget requests
    for supporting endangered species conservation. How do
    inadequate resources hinder the species conservation and
    delisting efforts of the Service?
        Mr. Ashe. I think the lack of support for doing 5-year
    assessments, inadequate support for the scientific
    investigation and information that we need, we have increases
    in our budget this year for our State college, for State and
    tribal wildlife grants. That would be an important investment
    in our State partners' capacity to do work in endangered
    species conservation and to provide us the work or the
    information that we need to make better listing and better
    delisting decisions.
        So resource constraints, in my view, are the principal
    reason that we are not making the progress that we could
    otherwise make.
        Senator Markey. So several of the bills being considered
    today will likely cause the cost of managing the Endangered
    Species program to increase dramatically. Do you believe the
    agency has the capacity to absorb these costs without requiring
    additional Federal funds?
        Mr. Ashe. No, we don't. Several of the bills that are
    before you today would essentially create separate causes of
    action. I hear constant criticism of the sale of litigation
    that we have to deal with now. But if these bills pass, it
    would establish new causes of action against the United States
    Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Senator Markey. And again, I will just list the bills. S.
    112 would require the agency to produce separate economic
    impact analyses for each State and locality affected by
    critical habitat designations. S. 292, 736, 855 would require
    the agency to publish massive amounts of raw scientific data.
    S. 293 would make litigation more cumbersome and delay court
    decisions. S. 736 would force the agency to review potentially
    massive amounts of unqualified scientific information. And S.
    855 would raise takings compensation above fair market value
    and require the agency to relist species every 5 years until
    recovery. Those are massive additional costs that the Fish and
    Wildlife would have to absorb without any increase in
    appropriations.
        Mr. Ashe. Correct.
        Senator Markey. And finally, Director Ashe, last week my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed out a bill
    from this committee that would raise barriers to EPA using
    science to inform its decisions. Today we are considering a
    bill that would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to use
    any information, any information submitted to it by State,
    tribal or county governments in its decisions. Has the current
    best available science and commercial data standard served the
    conservation of wildlife well over the years, or do we need to
    change it?
        Mr. Ashe. I think it has served us very well. And we are
    held accountable. So if a State or local government or tribe
    provides us with information that represents the best available
    and we ignore it, I mean, we are held accountable for that by
    the courts. So I believe that provision has worked miraculously
    well to make sure that these decisions are science-driven.
        Senator Markey. And I agree with you, I think any data
    would just paralyze you. The best available data allows you to
    ensure that you are hearing all of those views that actually
    could substantively impact on the decision which you have to
    make. I agree with you 100 percent, and I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey. Senator
    Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Ashe, welcome. A couple of questions on the
    grizzly bear, sage grouse and the gray wolf. On the grizzly
    bear, the grizzly bear reached their population goal I believe
    several years ago in Wyoming, were delisted. The population
    goal at the time was 500 bears.
        Subsequently, a lawsuit forced your agency to backtrack on
    the delisting to complete a study on white bark pine. The
    result of the study showed that white bark pine was largely a
    non-issue, ultimately you could still move forward with the
    delisting.
        But my question is, what is the current target population
    goal for that same population today? It was 500 initially.
        Mr. Ashe. The 500 was one part of the recovery standard. We
    said a minimum of 500 bears to ensure that the population would
    be genetically connected to the larger grizzly bear population
    in the lower 48 and Canada. So that was one part of our
    recovery standard. We don't have a number that we are shooting
    for, but I can tell you, we agree that grizzly bears are
    recovered. We are working with the State of Wyoming and Idaho
    and Montana literally as we speak to try to put together the
    frame for a potential delisting proposal.
        Senator Barrasso. That would be helpful. People in my State
    feel that the bar has been raised, the goalpost has been moved
    in terms of the total counts. Thank you on your efforts there.
        The sage grouse, the State of Wyoming, as you know, said
    that it has worked very hard to create a plan to protect the
    sage grouse. Your office has been very helpful to us in that
    regard. You have worked collaboratively with our State. Just
    last week, your staff praised Wyoming's plan in a meeting with
    my staff. Wyoming, as you know, has worked in good faith to
    create a workable plan. Because we know that such a listing of
    sage grouse would be economically bad for our State, and
    because we believe we know best how to protect the bird in
    Wyoming.
        With that said, isn't it true that despite all this good
    work, Wyoming's plan isn't enough to avoid a listing that my
    State has tied to all the other States that have to develop
    plans to protect the sage grouse? And if their plans don't add
    up, that Wyoming could still face a listing?
        Mr. Ashe. The Wyoming plan by itself would not be
    sufficient to avoid a listing. So that is why we have come
    together with all 11 range States and the BLM and the Forest
    Service and the Natural Resource Conservation Service. It is
    through that collaborative, comprehensive process that we have
    the potential to get to a not-warranted determination.
        But like with Wyoming, Wyoming made difficult decisions to
    conserve the sage grouse. So conservation involves sacrifice.
    At some level we have to make tradeoffs. Wyoming has made them
    well. And the BLM and the Forest Service are now in the
    process, and I believe they are doing an extraordinary job.
        Idaho has been a good partner. Hopefully we will see other
    States, their plans take shape here very quickly, Oregon,
    Montana, Colorado. But it is that collective effort that will
    get us across the finish line.
        Senator Barrasso. Is it also true that even if all the
    States meet Wyoming's standard and the bird isn't listed by
    Fish and Wildlife that the agency could still be sued, could
    lose in court the position that Wyoming has already faced with
    the wolf delisting and the grizzly bear delisting?
        Mr. Ashe. It is possible.
        Senator Barrasso. We are just concerned, because it seems
    in spite of the agency's best efforts, sometimes the lawyers
    don't have the winning record that we would like in these cases
    when it comes to defending and delisting.
        Mr. Ashe. And I would say, in that context of that
    question, we have a $4 million increase proposed in our budget.
    Because if we were to get to a not-warranted, then we are going
    to have to defend that record. So we are going to have to be
    able to put together an administrative record that we can bring
    to court. We are going to have to have the people power to
    implement the agreements that we have forged in the context of
    this collaborative effort. So we need that capacity dearly.
        Senator Barrasso. And in terms of the gray wolf, has
    Wyoming met every goal that Fish and Wildlife has set to
    protect the gray wolf, including developing a wolf protection
    plan that lives up to your agency's standards?
        Mr. Ashe. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. So do you believe it is time to once
    again delist the wolf?
        Mr. Ashe. I do.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No
    further questions.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Senator
    Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank
    you, Director, for being with us today.
        I am going to talk about the northern long-eared bat, no
    surprise there, we talked about it when you came to visit me.
    It is in 37 different States. I am interested to know what
    steps the Service has taken to prepare for the flood of new
    Section 7 consultations that will be required for the
    development of new transportation projects, additional
    renewable energy exploration, commercial and residential
    construction, electricity transmission projects, forest
    management projects. In this budget that you have put before us
    today, are you making any adjustments there to try to meet this
    heavy demand?
        Mr. Ashe. Makes me tired just listening to you.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Ashe. Yes, I mean, one of the largest increases in our
    budget is for our consultation and planning function within
    what we call ecological services. So I think yes, we are
    preparing for that. One of the things that we have been trying
    to do through the budget is to build that capacity. We know as
    the economy continues to recover that the demands on the Fish
    and Wildlife Service increase. We are anticipating significant
    additional need to have field capacity to deal with it.
        But with the long-eared bat, I think the 4(d) rule, the
    interim 4(d) rule provides significant flexibility. I think
    with the increases that are proposed in the President's budget,
    I anticipate that we will be able to manage that workload well.
        Senator Capito. When do you expect to have the final rule?
    You have an interim rule now?
        Mr. Ashe. We have an interim rule now. We will be going
    through a public comment process. I am thinking by the end of
    the year we should have a final rule.
        Senator Capito. Obviously, the concern there since it is
    such a wide-ranging species and it being in 37 States, and in
    the eastern part of the United States, obviously where West
    Virginia is located, the backlog of consultations and I know
    you are short-staffed in West Virginia anyway. It concerns me
    in terms of being able to move these projects forward.
        Mr. Ashe. Thank you. It does concern me too. I think we
    have built in a responsible increase in the budget that will
    help. The increase that we have in the budget I think is going
    to allow us to hire an additional 50 people in this area. Of
    course, that would be nationwide. But I think that capacity is
    going to be key to us dealing effectively with the northern
    long-eared bat and the lesser prairie chicken and the other
    species that we have listed. But I think again, our record
    shows that we can do that.
        I will note with the long-eared bat that the Indiana bat
    has been listed for over 20 years as an endangered species. It
    occupies much of the same habitat, has the same basic life
    history as the northern long-eared bat. And we have been
    managing that well and without significant controversy. So I
    think with the northern long-eared bat we have excellent
    cooperation from our State partners. And we have been working
    not just with State fish and wildlife agencies, but with State
    forestry agencies and I think we have laid the groundwork for a
    very cooperative, successful endeavor.
        And we will learn as we go along. The interim final rule is
    another innovation in flexibility that the law allows us. We
    put in place an interim rule, now we are going to hear
    additional public comment and make adjustments if necessary in
    the final rule.
        Senator Capito. Thank you so much.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator.
        Director Ashe, thank you very much for the time that we
    have had here. You did an excellent job. I would ask you, if
    you don't mind, to come back to the anteroom so we could have a
    real quick word on something unrelated.
        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator, always, for your kindness
    when I am here.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer.
        Senator Boxer. I want to add my voice of thanks. I think
    that you showed us today you are a voice of reason. I think you
    showed us today the flexibility that you bring to this job that
    is in the Act. And I think you proved today that this number of
    bills that have been put into play in this committee, which are
    very sad to me, because I think they undermine the ESA, are not
    necessary. Because we can deal with you as a human being who is
    smart, you know your way around the block, you understand, you
    have a broad range of knowledge on these issues. Plus, you know
    how to keep your cool under what I thought was rude
    questioning.
        Senator Inhofe. That is getting a little out of hand there,
    Senator.
        Senator Boxer. I have the right of free speech. And that is
    my opinion, and I will say it again, I thought you held your
    cool under what I thought was rude questioning.
        I have done my share of that kind of questioning, so I
    think I can say I know it when I see it.
        So thank you, Mr. Ashe, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Let me applaud Senator Sullivan for his
    passion, his representation of his State. It means a lot to us
    and to the system.
        Mr. Ashe. And Senators, if I could, I would just say last
    night I was looking back, because I do believe that the
    Endangered Species Act should be reauthorized, and I think
    there could be room for improvement of the law. I looked back
    and the last time it was reauthorized was in 1998. You are both
    former members of the Committee on Merchant Marine and
    Fisheries in the House of Representatives.
        The base legislation for that was H.R. 1497 in the 100th
    Congress. The sponsors were Gerry Studds, Democrat from
    Massachusetts, Don Young, Republican from Alaska, Walter Jones,
    the committee chairman, a Democrat from North Carolina, and Bob
    Davis, the ranking Republican on the committee from Michigan.
    So I think it is possible to bring people of goodwill together.
    And we could do the same thing and we could pass legislation
    that improves the law.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Director Ashe. Would
    you mind coming up to the anteroom now, because I want to have
    a real quick word with you. I would ask the second panel to
    please be seated.
        The second panel is David Bernhardt, partner in Brownstein
    Hyatt Farber Schreck. He is the former solicitor for the
    Department of Interior. Gordon Cruickshank, the County
    Commissioner from the Valley County in Idaho; and Donald Barry,
    Senior Vice President, Conservation Program, Defenders of
    Wildlife.
        What I would like to ask you to do is go ahead. Let's start
    with you, Mr. Bernhardt, for your opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID BERNHARDT, PARTNER, BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
         SCHRECK, FORMER SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Bernhardt. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    committee. I appreciate the invitation to testify before you
    today. I request that my written statement be included in the
    record.
        Senator Crapo [presiding]. Without objection.
        Mr. Bernhardt. By way of background, I have worked on ESA
    issues for over 20 years, including while serving as the
    Solicit of the Department of the Interior, as an attorney in
    private law practice, and as a congressional aide. Given the
    scope of the hearing and the time, I will make four brief
    points.
        First, many of the decisions made by the Fish and Wildlife
    Service are decisions of great public consequence, and as such
    they should be made with as much care and as much forethought
    and foresight as our Government can muster. These decisions
    have the potential to greatly impact the particular species at
    issue, but equally important, if not even more so, also people
    and communities where the particular species are present.
        Unfortunately, at times these decisions are driven by
    deadlines, some imposed by statute, some established by courts,
    and some imposed by the Service's own agreement with imposing
    litigants.
        In my opinion, these deadlines often have as their
    consequence less care and thought in crafting the underlying
    decision, less review of the legal sufficiency of the decision
    to be made, and I believe that the arbitrary time lines often
    undermine the credibility of the merits of the decision itself
    with the public.
        But you don't need to take my word for that. Recently, the
    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provided a view of a biological
    opinion prepared under a court deadline on a very significant
    matter. It upheld the legality of the opinion, but it
    questioned whether anyone is served by the imposition of tight
    deadlines in matters of such consequence. The court explained
    the biological opinion as a jumble of disjointed facts and
    analysis. It further pointed out that deadlines become a
    substantive constraint on what an agency can reasonably do. And
    it said that future analysis should be given the time and the
    attention that these serious issues deserve. I ask your
    committee to look at the validity of maintaining these
    deadlines.
        Second, despite the significant conflict and acrimony that
    exists in the implementation of the Act, I believe things might
    have been a lot worse. We must recognize that over the last 20
    years, those charges with implementing the Act, including Don
    Barry, who sits to my left, have developed and significantly
    expanded initiatives primarily related to sections 7 and 10 of
    the Act, such as multi-species conservation plans, safe harbor
    agreements, no surprises policies. Director Ashe talked about
    these earlier today.
        These administrative changes have been meaningful to the
    individuals, to entities, and even entire communities who have
    been able to use these tools to successfully resolve their
    particular challenges while providing the species protections
    under the Act. But, unquestionably, much more can and should be
    done to incentivize private landowners and States to be
    encouraged to engage in meaningful conservation efforts, and we
    should strive to further efforts that minimize conflict while
    still protecting species.
        Third, the controversy and conflict associated with the
    implementation of the Act may actually get much worse than it
    is today if the current Administration finalizes two
    regulations and one policy. One of the regulations is related
    to the designation of critical habitat; one regards the
    interpretation of a term called ``adverse modification''; and
    the policy is one that describes how the Service intends to
    utilize its authority to exclude areas from critical habitat
    designation.
        While the Service and NOAA Fisheries should be commended
    for making the effort to provide greater clarity to its
    employees and to the public on these issues, they have missed
    the mark and they have developed proposals that are untethered
    to the text of the Act itself.
        Finally, regarding the legislative proposals before you
    today, they are quite varied. Some reflect longstanding policy
    debates and others raise new questions. But they should be
    welcomed in the course of a meaningful dialog framed by whether
    the Act of today can or should be improved after the decades of
    experience that we have actually living under it.
        I think we can incentivize and create improvements to the
    Act while at the same time effectively protecting species.
        I welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bernhardt follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Thank you very much.
        We will recognize Senator Crapo for the purpose of an
    introduction.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
    really an honor for me today to be able to introduce my good
    friend, Commissioner Gordon Cruickshank. Today the committee is
    going to hear from Commissioner Cruickshank from the Valley
    County of Idaho, representing the National Association of
    Counties. Commissioner Cruickshank has been a county
    commissioner in Valley County since 2007. Prior to joining
    Valley County's Commission, Commissioner Cruickshank spent 16
    years with the Valley County Road Department, with much of that
    time spent as the road superintendent managing 750 miles of
    roadways and bridges.
        Commissioner Cruickshank's experience as a county
    commissioner and road superintendent enables him to present a
    valuable perspective on the impact of the Endangered Species
    Act on local governments, especially rural counties throughout
    the West with the large presence of ESA-listed species and
    large tracts of federally managed land in their jurisdictions.
        As Commissioner Cruickshank will testify, county
    governments are responsible for a wide range of
    responsibilities, including county government buildings, roads
    and bridges, schools, and municipal water systems. Compliance
    actions and costs associated with ESA listing species present
    challenges to all of these government functions, and the
    challenges are exacerbated when such listings are the result of
    closed door settlements that do not properly address the best
    available science or economic impacts.
        County governments across Idaho and the County are
    committed to clean air and water, and the proper stewardship of
    our natural resources, but ESA listing determinations lacking
    in transparency and absent a proper accounting to the
    socioeconomics and costs to local governments do not help
    commissioners such as Commissioner Cruickshank to manage county
    resources while also preserving viable wildlife populations.
        Again, I thank Commissioner Cruickshank for coming here to
    testify. I think we are going to learn a lot from his wisdom,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
        Commissioner Cruickshank, let me just observe that I am
    sure, as you watched the first panel, there is a tendency for
    people in Washington to think all the wisdom comes from
    Washington. I can assure you that the majority on this
    committee don't agree with that. We welcome you and your local
    perspective on the problems that we are faced with.

     STATEMENT OF GORDON CRUICKSHANK, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, VALLEY
                             COUNTY, IDAHO

        Mr. Cruickshank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and distinguished
    members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to be here
    today on behalf of the National Association of Counties to
    share with you why the Endangered Species Act matters to
    counties.
        Through both my career in public service and involvement
    with NACo, I have seen firsthand the impacts of the ESA on my
    county, my State, and counties nationwide. In the 40 years
    since the ESA was enacted, our Nation has learned many lessons
    about how to protect endangered and threatened species. The ESA
    should be updated and improved to reflect those lessons.
        NACo has identified three key elements that should be
    considered as Congress examines the legislation to update and
    improve the ESA.
        First, ESA decisions must consider the socioeconomic
    impacts, as well as species impacts. Counties recognize the
    importance of the ESA; however, its requirements often result
    in unintended impacts on our local economies and the people we
    serve. For example, Valley County was recently identified as
    the potential site of a mine that could create over 400 jobs,
    1,000 indirect jobs, and provide $20 million in annual wages.
    However, concerns over mine impacts on listed salmon
    populations and threats of litigation have slowed approval of
    the project and the hundreds of jobs that could come with it.
        My county's ability to promote economic growth through
    outdoor recreation and tourism has also been impacted by the
    ESA. Recreation activities in Idaho contribute over $6 billion
    in direct consumer spending and support 77,000 jobs statewide.
    Recent decisions by the Forest Service have resulted in the
    closure of many roads that people rely on. Access has been
    restricted during our peak tourist seasons due to concerns over
    sedimentation impacts on listed species.
        Like 70 percent of counties in the United States, we are a
    rural county, and our natural resources are a vital part of our
    economy. Limiting access to outdoor recreation and natural
    resources limits our ability to grow and thrive.
        Again, the impacts on the local economy must be considered
    by Federal agencies as part of the ESA decisionmaking process.
        Second, the Federal Government must reduce the cost of ESA
    compliance to local governments. Permitting requirements and
    extended review time substantially increase project costs and
    delay project delivery, diverting limited funds from other
    critical county services. In general, for every year a project
    is delayed, the construction costs increase by approximately 10
    percent.
        For example, in Attawa County, Oklahoma, the Stepps Ford
    bridge project was ready to move forward after receiving the
    necessary Federal environmental permits. Construction was
    halted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after it decided
    to reconsider the project's impact on a listed species of
    catfish. Construction sat idle for over 170 days and cost an
    additional $270,000.
        For counties, every dollar spent on regulatory compliance
    or project delays takes away from funds available for other
    critical services like law enforcement, firefighting, and
    ensuring public health.
        Third, State and county governments must be treated as
    cooperating agencies when enacting conservation measures and
    settling ESA litigation. Local governments have every incentive
    to work with the Federal Government to promote species
    conservation, and this collaborative approach has been
    successful.
        For example, a listing of the Bi-State sage grouse would
    have impacted nearly 82 percent of Mono County, California's
    land area. The county took a leadership role in the Bi-State
    sage grouse conservation and cooperated with relevant Federal
    and State agencies in California and Nevada to provide
    technical support to landowners to limit local impacts on
    grouse populations. The county's efforts led to the
    announcement that the Bi-State sage grouse would not be listed.
    Clearly, solutions can be found.
        Counties work every day to protect and preserve their
    natural resources and environment. We are keenly aware of the
    historical, economic, and aesthetic values of our local
    environment, and work diligently to provide a sustainable
    future for our communities. Collaboration and consultation
    between all levels of government is critical to the success of
    the species conservation efforts. Locally driven conservation
    must be given time to work.
        Counties must also be confident that their collaborative
    efforts will be defended in court by Federal agencies and that
    they will have a seat at the table during settlement
    negotiations. Counties stand ready to work with the committee
    and Congress to better promote species conservation while
    safeguarding local economic stability.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cruickshank follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Commissioner.
        Mr. Barry.

    STATEMENT OF DONALD BARRY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CONSERVATION
                     PROGRAM, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

        Mr. Barry. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my written
    testimony for the record and just make a few oral remarks.
        Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
        Mr. Barry. I would like to make basically six key points
    today.
        First of all, not one of the bills before this committee
    would actually promote the conservation and recovery of listed
    species, with the possible exception of the one from Senator
    Hatch, which would authorize the waiver of NEPA provisions for
    doing juniper removal, although the BLM already has that
    adequate authority. Collectively, we think that all of the
    proposals in front of this committee would become the
    equivalent of a legislative wrecking ball, accelerating
    extinctions and not promoting recovery.
        In my testimony I quote Mark Twain, who once said that I
    have lived through many terrible things, some of which actually
    happened. And I have a feeling that when you hear a lot of the
    dire predictions of widespread economic ruin from listings, you
    find that they rarely, if ever, come to pass.
        I would like to submit for the record a copy of an ENE news
    article from last June which highlighted some of the
    consequences that were anticipated for the listing of the
    Lesser prairie chicken that includes a number of quotes from
    folks from the oil and gas industry describing the likely ruin
    that would occur from it; and then it includes quotes from them
    a few months after the listing of the prairie chicken where
    they are basically saying everything is working just fine.
        That, to me, is an example of how, frequently, the
    predicted dire economic consequences really seem to happen.
        Many of these proposals also seem to be extreme solutions
    in search of problems, ostensibly addressing problems while in
    fact the Fish and Wildlife Service already has adequate
    authority and flexibility for dealing with the type of issues
    that are addressed. A good example of that has to do with
    provisions mandating the exclusion of areas from proposed
    critical habitat because of economic consequences. This is the
    one area of the Act where Congress, back in 1973, specifically
    gave permission and authority for the Fish and Wildlife Service
    to take economics into account, and the Service does this quite
    frequently.
        When they designated a critical habitat for the Northern
    Spotted Owl, they cut out 4.2 million acres of land because of
    the economic impacts from including those areas in the critical
    habitat. I think when they designated a critical habitat for
    the jaguar, they cut out something like 94,000 acres of land,
    again, because of economic impacts.
        So the Act currently works for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and gives them authority for taking economics into
    account with critical habitat.
        I think one of the other big concerns that we have in the
    conservation community is that a number of the provisions in
    front of the committee today really distort and attack the
    concept of science and best available science. They decree and
    define what is best available science. In the case of State or
    local and county data, it all is decreed to be best. There is
    an example, I believe, that the Fish and Wildlife Service
    encountered with regards to the Gunnison sage grouse where the
    State said one thing and one of the local counties said
    something exactly opposite.
        So if the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to consider
    them both best available, but they are conflicting, how do
    reconcile something like that?
        We may disagree with a number of the decisions the Fish and
    Wildlife Service makes, but they have the ability right now to
    weigh the strength of the science that they have in front of
    them, to discount those that they think those recommendations
    that come in that they believe are weaker than others. And I
    think that to have Congress coming in and putting its thumb on
    the scale and decreeing some things as best available science
    is inappropriate.
        I think Dan Ashe also, earlier, really hit the nail on the
    head when he said that the big problem here is resources. They
    endangered species program is not broken, it is just starved.
    Over the last, I think, back to about 2007 or 2004, there has
    been an 11 percent actual decrease in funding for the
    Endangered Species Act when you take into account inflation. So
    the level of funding has been coming down while their
    responsibilities have been going up, and I think some of the
    problems that have been discussed before are really a
    representation of the fact that you have way too few people
    trying to do too much. They are doing the best job they can,
    but they are not going to be getting everything at A+ if they
    are stretched to the breaking point.
        Last, I would just say that the ESA, I think, has been a
    success. It has been mentioned that 99 percent of the species
    that are listed are still in existence and have been preserved.
        Dan brought up the last time the ESA was reauthorized. I
    was on the floor of the House with Walter Jones, Sr., the chair
    of the House committee that had jurisdiction over the ESA, and
    we had broad bipartisan support for that bill. I think it is
    possible at times to think back on those days as the way it
    ought to be, but it is hard for me to envision or to imagine
    how even a reasonable package of endangered species amendments
    could make it through this Congress and retain that sense of
    reasonableness and balance.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barry follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Barry.
        You know, I know what you are saying there, but I think
    from a local perspective you have heard several of us talk
    about problems that we have.
        And, Commissioner, when you mentioned a seat at the table,
    that kind of drove home to me a problem that I think we have
    said in several other ways during the course of this hearing.
    Dan Ashe, as I mentioned, came out to Oklahoma and was good
    enough to sit down and talk to the people. We had, on the
    lesser prairie chicken, five States involved, and the five
    States all came in. I think if they were to complain about one
    thing in the way the process worked, and I say this to all who
    are in the audience also, is that they didn't really have a
    seat at the table when a decision was made. They would come in
    and they will present their case, and then that is evaluated by
    the Fish and Wildlife. All of a sudden they pick up the paper
    and their decision has come out, and they weren't a part of
    that, they didn't have the opportunity, and I think you said it
    well, to have a seat at the table.
        Is this kind of what you are getting at?
        Mr. Cruickshank. Mr. Chairman, yes, it is. Quite often we
    are heard, but, however, when those decisions are made, we are
    not at the table; and then that impacts our local residents and
    could impact our economy. And by not having a seat at the
    table, how do you go back to the people that we are closest to?
    We are the part of the government that is closest to the
    people, and you try to explain to them or they try to come back
    to you and say why didn't you fight for us better, when we
    weren't at the table of the decisions to understand why the
    decision was made the way it was.
        So that is all we are asking, is to be involved all the
    time, clear through the entire process, so that it doesn't have
    that big of an impact on the county; and just to be listened
    and to be heard and understand why those reasonings happen. We
    need a seat at the table and we have shown with the Bi-State
    example that came in.
        And I can give you another example in Washington State
    where counties got together and they brought 200 stakeholders
    and helped to restore 3,400 acres of salmon habitat. It took
    the counties to be involved. They were there, they were helping
    with it, and that was a success story.
        So we are just asking to be involved, be educated, and we
    are there to help in any way.
        Senator Inhofe. Obviously, you are an elected official, so
    you have a lot of people saying you must not have the power
    that you should have in this position if you were able to
    present a better case. Is that somewhat accurate of the
    complaints that you hear from your constituents?
        Mr. Cruickshank. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Because I think we have been through the
    same thing, those of us up at this table. The other area that
    has been brought up by this committee is a lot of the things
    that are done in secret and, again, not having a seat at the
    table on the settlements that are made on sue and settle, and
    this is something that a couple of those bills would address
    that for transparency purposes.
        Mr. Bernhardt, do you kind of agree to the seat at the
    table argument?
        Mr. Bernhardt. I think there are certainly ways that the
    Service can--yes, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, there are
    various places in the Act where the Act guarantees a seat of
    the table, for example, certain places in section 7 an
    applicant has a seat at the table. There had been policies
    developed to include State and local governments in
    decisionmaking, but I think what you are hearing here today is
    a view that those don't go far enough; and certainly that is
    something that Congress can look at.
        In terms of the settlements themselves, as any lawyer will
    tell you, you often are looking at best ways to clear your
    docket, and at times when I was solicitor I went down and
    visited with the Service about these large listing cases, and
    what struck me on one of those visits is I sat down with Dale
    Hall, who had been both a career employee in the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and then subsequently was the director during
    the last half of the Bush administration. I went to Dale and I
    said, Dale, look, we have all these cases. There is probably an
    opportunity to settle them. I would really like to get your
    thoughts on this.
        And Dale said to me something that I will never forget; he
    said, absolutely there is no way we should settle those cases.
    And I said, why, Dale? And he turned to me and he said, look, I
    was here the last time as a career employee the last time a
    major settlement was initiated, and I can tell you that there
    was no additional resources and there was a priority of
    timelines that were put down on all of the local offices; and I
    know, I know that packages were developed and sent upstairs
    that didn't pass muster, but went ahead and went into the
    Federal Register because no one was reviewing them, and I don't
    think we should repeat that.
        And I think that was very good advice by Dale Hall, and I
    turned around and walked back up to my office and went on to
    other issues.
        Senator Inhofe. Dale Hall was a very good Oklahoman.
        Mr. Bernhardt. Yes, he is.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, in your testimony, Mr. Bernhardt, you
    discuss the problems with the critical habitat rules, and I
    would ask you do you have any specific suggestions on how to
    overcome that objection or that problem that we are having.
        Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I think Mr. Barry inadvertently
    misspoke when he said that critical habitat exclusions were
    developed in 1973. They actually, if you look at the
    legislative history, you will see that there were changes made
    in 1978 and they were a direct result of Congress seeing the
    TVA v. Hill decision by the Supreme Court and essentially
    saying, oh my goodness, what did we do. So when they looked at
    the Act to revise or improve it, their thought was as follows:
    let's leave the listing part pretty much intact, we think that
    is OK. But at this point of critical habitat designation, we
    would like that determination made at essentially the same time
    as the listing, or commensurate with it; and when you do that,
    secretary, you must look at the economics of the consequences
    of listing plus the critical habitat designation, and for other
    issues we are going to give you the authority, we are going to
    delegate you the authority to exclude certain areas, as Mr.
    Barry said.
        Now, what has happened over the last many years is at times
    the secretary has used that; at other times they have not, and
    it is entirely discretionary. So one thing to look at is should
    that provision be beefed up in some way.
        This Administration has a proposal that would actually say
    there are laying out a policy on how to do these exclusions so
    there is more clarity to their employees, and that is good. At
    the same time, if you are from a western State, their proposal
    is essentially to not use these exclusions on Federal lands, or
    at least use them very rarely. So that is an area that you can
    look at in terms of how you structure an act and ensure that
    these decisions regarding economics that are important to
    people are more robustly factored in. But that is something
    that Congress looked at in 1978 and came to where they wanted
    to be, and maybe the balance needs to be a little differently.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
        Senator Crapo.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner Cruickshank, I have a couple of questions for
    you. I want to focus on the idea of the value or utility of
    relying on people who live where the land is or live on the
    land and in the neighborhood being able to come up with the
    kinds of solutions and protections to put in place to protect
    their land. You have heard even here today where some we will
    call those who think that we need to make some improvements or
    some fixes anti-fish and wildlife or anti-environmental
    protection or species, and that has always frustrated me,
    coming from a beautiful State like Idaho. I first want to just
    ask your observation on this. I would assume that you live in
    Valley County because you think it is a beautiful, wonderful
    place, and that you would like to be able to protect and
    preserve the species and the environmental heritage that is
    there as much as any Washington, DC, or Californian or person
    from any other part of Idaho. Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Cruickshank. Yes, I would, Senator.
        Senator Crapo. And you would also like to have a local
    resource-based economy be able to thrive there, correct?
        Mr. Cruickshank. Yes, I would.
        Senator Crapo. And the question I have is do you believe
    that it is possible for people to live in Valley County and
    protect the beautiful place that they live in and still have
    jobs and build businesses and have an economic future?
        Mr. Cruickshank. Yes, Senator, I do. Over the years, like I
    have stated, we have learned many valuable lessons on how we
    treat the natural resources or how we protect the land. I grew
    up farming, so I grew up nurturing the ground and knowing how
    it could produce, and that is how we made our living. So the
    counties are there. We want to safeguard our Nation's wildlife
    and our fish and our plants, and in my county alone we have
    spent millions of dollars to either resurface roadways or
    change culverts out to make more fish-friendly passageways for
    the salmon recovery and things like that; and I am proud to say
    that the salmon river that flows through Valley County is some
    of the prime spawning areas for that salmon, but while we still
    maintain access to our residents to enjoy that area. And that
    is some of the concerns, because some of those accesses have
    been closed. You can imagine if the road was closed going to
    your home, you would be upset too, and the residents come to us
    and say why is this happening to us. So that is why we are
    involved.
        But we are seeing where we are doing the best we can and
    then being told we are not doing enough. And this all comes at
    a cost to the county, to the time and the efforts that we do,
    but we are not being recognized as we are doing anything to
    really help. But in essence we are, we are doing what we can
    within our financial means. So when you talk about what can we
    do better, when you talk to the local stakeholders, sometimes
    it may not be all about the science; it may be that the local
    stakeholder knows where that population thrives better than
    other areas that have been looked at.
        Senator Crapo. Well, there certainly, I don't think, is any
    substitute for involving people who know the land and who know
    the circumstances around it. I just wanted to get that out
    because sometimes it is a little frustrating to have your
    motives challenged and to have your commitment to protecting
    our wonderful earth challenged because you believe there may be
    a better way to do it.
        Another criticism that happens, though, and happens quite
    often, is that it is said, well, maybe the people who live
    there in Idaho, or maybe the people who live in Wyoming or
    Oklahoma, maybe they really do love the land and really do love
    the environment, but they don't have the capacity, they don't
    have the education, they don't have the experience to really
    protect the land; we have to bring in the Federal Government or
    we have to bring in the experts from somewhere to tell them how
    to do it.
        My question is do you believe that local governments,
    working in conjunction with the Federal agencies and the others
    who are involved in the land management have the capacity to
    provide the necessary protection of the environment and the
    species that we seek to protect?
        Mr. Cruickshank. I believe that it all has to be taken into
    consideration. The science can be brought into the equation,
    but I think what is lacking is that the Federal Government
    explaining how that science works to the local stakeholders and
    the local people that live there. They love the land and they
    love everything about it, and they understand what they see on
    the ground; and quite often what they see on the ground doesn't
    maybe match with what the science says. So I think working
    together, sitting down together, and I have done this with
    groups as well, and we can come and find a lot of common ground
    that we all agree on. Sometimes it is a little bit of that
    right at the very end, the 10 percent or so that we may have to
    try to work out, but a lot of times we agree, but it is just a
    matter of getting around the table, educating, understanding
    what we are trying to accomplish. I believe we can get there,
    and that is why we are asking to be involved all the way
    through the process, and I think the counties are willing to do
    that.
        Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. And I appreciate you taking
    your time to come here to Washington, DC, to share this with
    us.
        Mr. Cruickshank. Thank you, Senator, and thank you,
    Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you. Just kind of building on
    what Senator Crapo is saying, there is kind of an irresistible
    temptation by a lot of people, when their argument is not too
    good, to start name-calling, and I sit here and it is very
    difficult, very difficult to have someone say, well, they
    probably just don't care about endangered species, they don't
    care about the environment. It is just not true at all. That is
    why I brought up this thing with Senator Markey. He and I are
    good friends, and yet we don't agree on very much.
        But when our wives ran into each other and my wife was
    wearing her Save the Ridley sea turtle t-shirt, I was kind of
    reminded. You might remember, in fact, Dan, you might remember
    this, Ila Loetscher was the turtle lady, very famous. She died
    at 100 years old. She was lauded in National Geographic and
    everything else, and the reason is the Ridley sea turtle at
    that time only laid its eggs in two places in the world: Vera
    Cruz and very south Texas, on South Padre Island.
        I can remember growing up as a small child, and with my
    kids, teaching them to do the same thing. During the hatching
    season, we would actually spend the night up there and make
    sure that those little critters that would get out, they would
    hatch and they can make it to the ocean without other people
    either trying to get them for boots or critters trying to get
    them.
        Anyway, I hope people keep in mind that Republicans and
    Democrats are both very sensitive to this beautiful world that
    we have and the environment that we live in.
        You were squirming a little bit, Mr. Barry, when Mr.
    Bernhardt made some comments. Did you want to make any response
    to that?
        Mr. Barry. Well, one of the big challenges, I think, for
    the State fish and wildlife agencies is having adequate
    resources to accomplish their work as well. I was sort of
    paying attention to what was happening with a lot of the State
    fish and wildlife agencies' budgets when the recession hit, and
    they all took a huge beating. There is a wide variation among
    State fish and wildlife agencies as to the amount of resources
    that they have available for fish and wildlife conservation.
    You have some States like California and Florida that are
    putting in a lot of money. Idaho is another one of those States
    that puts in a lot of money. But there are other States that
    are putting in next to nothing. I think Kansas put in something
    like $34,000 last year or in 2013 on endangered and threatened
    species conservation. So there is a wide variation from State
    to State to State, and that is one reason why, I think, having
    sort of a uniform one-size-fits-all approach to activities
    under the Endangered Species Act can be ill advised at times,
    because not every single State, even if they have the desire,
    has the resources to be able to engage as actively as they
    would like to.
        David and I were talking before the hearing. I logged in 12
    years at the Interior Department as an attorney, I was a chief
    counsel for the Fish and Wildlife Service for a number of
    years. I was Jim Watts' wildlife lawyer, if you will. And I
    think the Endangered Species Act has been a remarkably
    successful statute given the amount of work that is involved in
    it. When I spent 8 years under Secretary Babbitt, we adopted
    almost all of the reforms that David referred to, and spent
    many, many years working with State and local officials. I
    spent half my time probably walking in the woods with private
    landowners that owned large forest areas and that. So the Act
    is a challenge. I think it can work. I think it just needs more
    resources.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, I just would observe that the
    complaints that you hear up here and that you heard during the
    course of this hearing really wouldn't be corrected by more
    resources, in my opinion. We are talking about transparency; we
    are talking about getting involved in these lawsuits. The sue
    and settle thing is out in the open. We can participate, and
    then when the decisions are made, to have local participation.
    That doesn't, in my opinion, cost any more.
        Mr. Bernhardt, did you want to say anything about that,
    since you brought that subject up?
        Mr. Bernhardt. Well, first off, I think that a lot has
    changed in our society since 1973, too. If you look at the
    number of biologists at the BLM or the Forest Service, what you
    would see that wildlife considerations, and I think this is
    laudable, wildlife considerations are an important aspect of
    their decisionmaking, irrespective of the Endangered Species
    Act. And that is not to minimize the importance of the Act,
    that is just a reality of where we are as a Country. I think
    that it is very important for these decisions, because I think
    they are important decisions and I think they have great
    consequence, and my view is that it is important for those
    decisions to be transparent, that the transparency facilitates
    public confidence in the decision.
        And I think that there should be ways for a broader public
    to be able to see things like settlement documents, if that is
    required. There are means for Congress to be able to see those.
    There is an ability in this day of electronic media and
    electronic availability to ensure that the underlying basis of
    decisions is available, while still protecting those interests
    that Mr. Ashe raises in his testimony, such as copyright and
    State disclosure requirements and the protection of the
    species. Those things can be worked through. And I think what
    we should do is strive to make improvements that enhance public
    confidence in the Act, while at the same time protecting
    species and trying to minimize conflict.
        Senator Inhofe. That is a good statement.
        Senator Crapo, do you have anything further?
        Let me apologize to the second panel, because we were late
    in getting you started and, as you can see, there is not as
    much participation as there should be. However, every Senator
    up here is represented by staff, and I can assure you that your
    testimony will be very seriously taken into consideration on
    the acts that we are putting together for the future. And I
    thank you very much for being here.
        We are now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m. the committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]