[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]