[Senate Hearing 114-189]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-189
BRIEFING ON IMPROVING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND STATE GOVERNORS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WATER, AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 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
98-669 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex BARBARA BOXER, California (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
OPENING STATEMENTS
Enzi, Hon. Mike B., U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 1
Daines, Hon. Steve, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana....... 2
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 3
Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska........ 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 6
WITNESSES
Ashe, Dan, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.............. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 15
Mead, Matt, Governor, State of Wyoming, Chairman, Western
Governors' Association......................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 73
Bullock, Steve, Governor, State of Montana, Vice Chairman,
Western Governors' Association................................. 76
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 88
BRIEFING ON IMPROVING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND STATE GOVERNORS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan, Barrasso, Capito, Boozman,
Fischer, Rounds, and Inhofe.
Also present: Senators Enzi, Daines, and Tester.
Senator Sullivan. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and
Wildlife will now come to order.
We have a couple special guests here who are going to help
us open this hearing, Senators Enzi, Tester and Daines. So I
welcome my colleagues to make a few opening statements before
Director Ashe and some of our Western Governors assume the
dais.
Senator Enzi.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE B. ENZI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a great honor that I join with Senator Barrasso this
afternoon to introduce Wyoming Governor Matt Mead. Governor
Mead presented earlier today before the Senate Commerce
Committee, so I guarantee that he is warmed up for your
questions. He has a great deal of expertise to share with the
subcommittee on wildlife management and the need to improve the
Endangered Species Act.
He can speak to great detail about the efforts the Western
States went through with the recent decision on the greater
sage-grouse. Governor Mead can also speak to Wyoming's
successes with species recovery, including the black-footed
ferret, which is particularly interesting because Wyoming is
the first State to save an extinct species. It had already been
declared extinct. We found a few of them in Wyoming. Wyoming
built a special facility, captured the remaining ones, and did
a special breeding program to get as much diversity as
possible, and those are now in prairie dog towns throughout the
West.
He has also been very involved in the wolf situation. We
had an experimental population put in Yellowstone Park which
has expanded greatly, and the State, out of concern for its
wildlife and its agriculture, did a plan, and that plan got
approved by Fish and Wildlife Service. Of course, then it was
taken to court, and the decision of the judge is real
interesting because she points out that while the Wyoming plan
did what it was supposed to do, which is to increase the number
of wolves and decrease the human and animal conflict, she
didn't think the wording was strict enough. So it is in limbo
at the moment.
We have also been involved with grizzly bears, which are
expanding into communities at the moment. So there needs to be
some things done with it, and he is an expert on things that
could be done.
Now, I also applaud this committee's efforts to consider
the merits of modernizing the Endangered Species Act. This is
the second time I have appeared before the EPW Committee this
year on the topic, and I am pleased that Chairman Inhofe is
considering a wide variety of approaches. That includes S. 736,
the State Tribal and Local Species Transparency and Recovery
Act, which I introduced earlier this year to ensure that the
Federal Government consider scientific data collected from
State, local, and tribal authorities when making ESA
determinations.
As you are aware, Governor Mead will focus on endangered
species as his initiative while serving as chairman of the
Western Governors' Association. In addition to the current
efforts in Congress, this initiative is an important step
toward identifying how to turn the Endangered Species Act into
a workable recovery program for our wildlife populations.
I am pleased Governor Mead could join the subcommittee this
afternoon, and I am looking forward to his suggestions on this
important Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Enzi.
Senator Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Daines. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, Chairman Inhofe, and Ranking Member Boxer, thank
you for holding this important briefing today about the
Endangered Species Act.
I would also like to welcome our own Governor from Montana,
Governor Steve Bullock, to our Nation's capital, and I thank
you for making the trip out and for testifying here today.
There aren't many Federal laws that impact our great State
more than the Endangered Species Act, with 18 species listed as
threatened, endangered, or candidate species, and some for
nearly 50 years.
Our great State is known for its one-of-a-kind wildlife and
also its bountiful agriculture and natural resources, and it is
important that land management decisions take into
consideration both wildlife habitat and responsible land use,
because too often land management, especially on the Federal
level, is impacted by litigation fueled by the Endangered
Species Act. We see this most often in our national forests in
Montana. Between 40 and 50 percent of timber volume has been
halted by litigation in recent years.
All the while the ESA has only recovered less than 2
percent of the species that have been listed. These
unacceptable results should compel reform. Though well
intended, the ESA is like a 40-year-old ranch pickup: it once
served a useful purpose, but it is in bad need of repair.
As we think about wolves, as Senator Enzi just mentioned, I
am grateful that Montana now manages wolves and wolf
populations. It literally took an act of Congress to make that
change. But now the people of Montana, State Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, we manage wolf populations in Montana. In fact, I have
my wolf tag for 2015 with me. Montanans can go down and buy a
tag over the counter or online, because the people of Montana
now are managing that wolf population. We know how to do it.
One species that has had a lot of focus for many Montanans
is the greater sage-grouse. Although we are happy with the
recent unwarranted determination by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, many Montanans remain concerned about the BLM's land
use plans, and we certainly commend Governor Bullock and the
Montana legislature for their work to launch Montana's greater
sage-grouse conservation plan, an unprecedented effort between
Montana land users and conservation groups.
I look forward to our State plan being up and running this
January, and I truly appreciate the committee for exploring how
States can take the lead in the sage-grouse conservation.
Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Chairman Sullivan. It is
great to be here today and it is an incredible opportunity for
me to introduce my friend, the Governor of the State of
Montana, Steve Bullock. Steve has been a friend and a reliable
partner for bipartisanship in his time both when he served as
attorney general with you, Senator Sullivan, and now as
Governor. He knows that hard work is accomplished in the
middle, and when we compromise, things get done.
Montana is reaping those benefits. The State's economy is
in good shape; balanced budget and $400 million in the bank in
a rainy day fund, and Montana is striking the right balance
between conservation and economic growth. Montana, under the
Governor's leadership, has done great work to conserve species,
to ensure that they don't become threatened in the first place.
Two examples are the Arctic grayling and the sage-grouse.
Steve is here to discuss the collaboration and the
pragmatism that went into conserving habitat both from a
government and from a private sector.
Montana has leveraged Federal resources with its own
funding in tools like the Candidate Conservation Agreements
with private landowners to reduce areas of conflict and to find
solutions with broad benefits, and that is how it should be. We
should strengthen the State and Federal partnerships, and we
also need to ensure that the intent of bedrock laws like the
Endangered Species Act remains both a backstop and a catalyst
for action.
We almost missed our chance with the sage-grouse. The
unprecedented effort from folks like Governor Bullock, from
private landowners, from conservationists, from industry and
governments at all level have protected a landscape that is
fundamental to our Western way of life. In a sentence,
collaboration on the ground works, as we have proven it here
again.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and it is a
pleasure to introduce the Governor of the great State of
Montana, Steve Bullock.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, gentlemen, for your opening
statements.
I am now going to have Director Ashe assume the table.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Good afternoon.
As you have seen from our opening statements from my Senate
colleagues, the purpose of the meeting today is to examine the
Endangered Species Act and how it can be improved and updated
for the 21st century. Today we are fortunate to have an
impressive slate of witnesses: Director Ashe; two Governors who
were just introduced, who I think can bring a lot to bear with
regard to the importance of the States' involvement with regard
to the Endangered Species Act.
As Alaska's Senator, I want to make a point about something
that happened yesterday that might not seem to relate to the
ESA, but it does.
We had an announcement in terms of offshore development
where a large company, Shell, in terms of responsibly
developing oil resources off the coast of Alaska, is pulling
out, for now. There is a lot to that, but one thing that they
certainly mentioned was the uncertainty in the Federal
regulatory environment. This is a company that spent 7 years
and $7 billion to try to get Federal permission to drill one
exploration well in 100 feet of water. That kind of Federal
permitting delays doesn't help anyone in our country.
So I think a lot of people, a lot of Senators on both sides
of the aisle, are looking at opportunities to make our
regulatory system more efficient, timely, and certain, while
balancing the needs, certainly, which we all agree to protect
our species, but also to protect jobs and the private sector.
So that is what we are going to look at today.
The ESA was first enacted in 1973 and hasn't been
modernized or comprehensively updated since 1988. Think about
that. That is a long time for a statute of this importance.
Like a lot of legislation passed many decades ago, it is in
need of an update and modernization to, again, protect species,
certainly, which is what it is focused on, but to balance other
important issues that I think all of us would agree are
necessary to consider.
Too often, as my colleagues in the Senate have already
mentioned, the ESA has been used and abused, more as a
political weapon, more as a means to lock up land by litigants
who sue under it, more as a means to be used as a land zoning
device, as opposed to what it was initially, and I think with
widespread agreement, focused on doing, which is protecting our
species.
Since its passage, the nearly 1600 domestic species that
have been added to the endangered species list, less than 2
percent, as Senator Daines mentioned, have recovered.
There are those who do not agree that the ESA is in need of
improvement, but recovering less than 2 percent of listed
species is not good enough, and we must do better.
Adding more and more species to the list shouldn't be the
goal or the end of the story. The key is recovering species
from population collapses. That should be the goal.
We had a recent example in Alaska, where we worked with the
Federal agencies to delist the eastern stock of the Steller sea
lion, which had dramatically, by thousands, close to tens of
thousands, recovered; and that was delisted, and we are proud
of that fact in Alaska.
But even more surprising is that many species listed on the
ESA do not even have a published or recovery plan. So there is
no plan, which, again, is part of the ESA.
How can the agencies move forward recovering species if we
don't have any idea or plan on how to do that?
Many of the agencies have limited resources and are
spending most of their resources not on these plans, but in
court, in litigation, which has come to be synonymous with the
Endangered Species Act.
In May, at a full committee hearing, Director Ashe offered
the following. He said, ``I do believe that the Endangered
Species Act should be reauthorized, and I think there could be
room for improvement of the law. I think it is possible to
bring people of good will together and we could pass
legislation that improves the law.'' In many ways, that was a
genesis of this hearing.
Similarly, as I believe we will see today, the bipartisan
Western Governors' Association passed a resolution that states,
``Western Governors believe the ESA can only be reauthorized
through legislation developed in a consensus fashion that
results in broad bipartisan support and means the intent of the
Act.''
In my experience, the ESA is often more of a geographic
issue than a partisan issue, where Western Governors, Western
AGs, regardless of party in the Western States, believe in the
need and importance of reform. They also believe in the
importance of more State involvement in the ESA and the ESA
listing process. The ESA itself states that States shall be
consulted. But oftentimes it is a very cursory consultation
process, even though, as I think we will see today from some of
our witnesses, the States often have better information and
better knowledge of the species and how to recover and protect
them than does the Federal Government.
As Alaska's attorney general, I served with Governor
Bullock, and we worked together, again, in a bipartisan way,
many of us, to launch the Endangered Species Working Group of
the Western Association of Attorneys General, again, a
bipartisan group that was very focused on this important issue.
We sought to achieve common ground, and we hope that part of
today's hearing will have ideas and a way to move forward on
that common ground.
Working together, Congress can update, modernize, and
reform the ESA to incorporate innovative solutions that result
in increased species recovery and less impact to the economy,
private property, and jobs throughout our country.
I want to thank the witnesses again for being here. Look
forward to discussing this important topic and exchanging ideas
with all of them.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I know you are going to get
to the opening statement of Director Ashe. This is a
subcommittee meeting, and I am not going to read an opening
statement. I would like to submit one for the record, though,
all right?
Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
I would like to start by thanking Senator Sullivan for
putting this briefing together. I'd also like to thank our
guests, Director Ashe, and Governor Mead and Governor Bullock.
I appreciate your time and participation today so that we all
can get a better understanding of the Endangered Species Act
and how we can improve this legislation.
The Endangered Species Act has been in the news often
recently. Earlier this month, a Federal district judge held
that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not fully evaluate
ongoing conservation methods in its decision to list the lesser
prairie chicken. This is a victory for State and local
conservationists who know that they can positively impact
species recovery and ecosystem management without the
Washington bureaucrats.
Then just last week the Fish and Wildlife Service announced
that the greater sage-grouse is not in need of Federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act. It appears,
however, that the Administration will continue to control sage-
grouse habitat by greatly restricting land use, thereby
removing State and local governments from the conservation
process. I hope we are able to have a discussion today about
the future of State conservation and how we can include more
local efforts into the recovery of threatened and endangered
species.
Last time Director Ashe joined us for a hearing, we heard
from six Senators about their legislation and examined eight
different bills to reform the ESA. Director Ashe said that we
``could pass legislation to improve the act.'' We also heard
from other witnesses that the current one-size-fits-all
approach does not work. The discussion today will build on that
hearing with input from State Governors and an examination of
the Service's proposal to change the listing process.
I also look forward to hearing about the work the Western
Governors' Association has done to address ESA overreach in
their States. We are fortunate today to have both a Republican
and a Democrat Governor talk about how current implementation
of ESA works and what problems they have with it in their
States. We must address the fact that the Service spends more
time and resources fighting lawsuits and listing species than
actually recovering and delisting species. If States and local
conservationists had a larger role in the process, we could use
our resources much more efficiently to ensure that our precious
ecosystems continue to thrive.
I hope to work with our Governors and the Service to
develop a bipartisan legislative proposal to address these
needs and to put the ESA back to work for species recovery.
Again, I thank everyone for coming today, and I look forward to
your testimonies.
Senator Sullivan. Director Ashe, your opening statement,
please.
STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Ashe. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee
members. It is always a pleasure to be here.
The Endangered Species Act is among the Nation's and the
world's most aspirational, important, and successful
environmental laws. Think about what has happened since its
enactment in 1973. World population has grown by more than 3
and a half billion, nearly double. And here in the U.S. over
100 million people have been added to our population, nearly a
50 percent increase. And these people are more affluent. Real
GDP in the U.S. has grown threefold since 1973, and per capita
GDP has doubled in that same period.
So we have more people and more people consuming more
resources, which means, quite simply, that less resources are
available to support the rest of what we call biological
diversity. So we implement this law, facing the challenge of
what many are calling the sixth mass extinction.
But notwithstanding that, I believe that we have forged
amazing success. Ninety-nine percent of listed species have
been saved from extinction. Of the species that have been
listed for more than 5 years, 90 percent are holding stable or
increasing in population.
During this Administration, I think that we have shown what
is possible if we invest in Endangered Species Act success. We
are incentivizing private conservation. Perhaps a seminal
innovation of this Administration is our partnership with the
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource
Conservation Service, what we are calling Working Lands for
Wildlife. Our success in Arctic grayling and lesser prairie-
chicken and New England cottontail and the greater sage-grouse,
which we celebrated last week, are all rooted in this key
collaboration to incentivize private land conservation,
voluntary private land conservation.
We are engaging the States. We have established a joint ESA
task force between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. We helped to form a
five-State range-wide plan to support the conservation of the
lesser prairie-chicken, relying on State-based authorities to
achieve conservation. We have framed an incidental task
authorization agreement with the State of Florida, the first of
its kind.
And with the greater sage-grouse effort, which I just
mentioned, we worked for over a decade with the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, deferring to their
scientific expertise on the sage-grouse. We worked with the
range States to develop a conservation objectives team report,
which was the foundation for the not warranted determination
which we reached. We did that with our State partners and we
joined arm-in-arm with the Western Governors' Association to
form a Federal-State joint task force to address the
conservation needs of the greater sage-grouse, which was,
again, foundational to our success.
We are building collaborative science capacities in a
landscape conservation cooperative network, and that network is
driving an innovative southeastern conservation blueprint
involving all of our State partners across the Southeast,
designing a blueprint through which we will work cooperatively
to avoid the need to list species in the future.
We are recovering and delisting species at a record setting
pace by strategically targeting our investments. We have
recovered and delisted more species than any previous
Administration, and continuing on this pace we will have
recovered and delisted more species than all previous
Administrations combined.
Where we invest, we succeed.
As a long-time friend and colleague, Don Berry said
recently, in testimony before this committee, the Endangered
Species Act is not broken, it is starved. The seminal
improvement that I believe Congress could make would be to
adequately and aggressively fund the law's implementation;
Federal implementation, State implementation. When we do, it
works. In fact, it works quite well.
We saw it last week when we were together in Denver, and I
was privileged to stand with Secretary Jewell, four Governors,
two Democrat, two Republican, two of whom are testifying on the
next panel, along with the National Audubon Society and a
Nevada rancher.
And I will close there by saying that that rancher, Dwayne
Coombs, summed it up best when he said, this is good
Government. Amen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Director Ashe.
I am going to ask a few questions right now in terms of the
proposed rulemaking that you put forward earlier this year
which seeks to add clarity and new requirements in the
petitioning process. I actually think there are some good ideas
in there.
Why did the agency feel it was necessary to take the
action? What was the genesis of that? And I would like you to
respond more broadly. Former Secretary of the Interior
Kempthorne once mentioned kind of famously that the ESA is
perhaps the least flexible law Congress has ever enacted. Does
the proposed rules relate to that statement by the former
Secretary of the Interior?
Mr. Ashe. I will come back to Secretary Kempthorne's
statement. I think the reason that we are proposing changes to
the petition process is we certainly, in the last decade or so,
have seen a surgence in the numbers of petitions that we are
receiving, including so-called mega-petitions, where we get
dozens or even hundreds of species covered by one petition.
So we have endeavored to strategically manage our workload,
and so what we are proposing is to put more burden on
petitioners. I believe firmly that the petition process is an
important ingredient in the fabric of the Endangered Species
Act. I also believe that petitioners should, and can, bear a
greater burden in terms of providing a factual basis to support
their petition, to provide us with more information, to do that
not in a context when they are sending us one petition that
covers dozens or hundreds of species.
I believe that involving the States at that stage, again,
will provide key information to us as we make those initial
decisions about whether a petition is warranted.
Senator Sullivan. Do you believe you have the statutory
authority to make those changes to the petition requirement?
Mr. Ashe. Yes, sir, we believe that we do, and we think
that they are well founded, and we put them out for public
comment, and we are getting vibrant comment on those proposals.
But, again, I think that is key to making the law work better,
as you have said. I think we all have a commitment to ensure
that we are modernizing the law and we are innovating where we
can innovate. And I think our petitioners, people who petition
to list species as well as people who petition to delist
species, should carry a bigger burden to help.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. I want to ask another question
with regard to the States' involvement. As you know, the
Endangered Species Act actually mentions the requirement of
State consultation. In my experience as a former attorney
general, I don't think it happens that well. Do you think there
are reforms that we need to undertake statutorily that would
either grant States the authority to approve of listings or
other kinds of roles, whether it is States, whether it is
tribes, whether it is other people in the States that are
impacted by ESA listings? And also to be able to utilize the
knowledge that States have. As you noted, many of the State
agencies have as much knowledge or sometimes more than the
Federal Government agencies, and traditional knowledge from
tribes and other entities in States.
Mr. Ashe. I think that we can and are taking steps to
engage our State partners. I would draw the line. I think
decisions have to be made, and these are challenging decisions,
and I don't believe that decisionmaking authority can be ceded
or shared with the States.
Senator Sullivan. Why is that? Let me give you a
hypothetical. What if you are in a State where there is a
species that there is a potential designation, and that species
does not exist in another State? So one State, one species, one
Federal Government. Why couldn't you see the State having the
authority to list or have to approve with the Federal
Government a listing decision? What would be problematic with
that?
Mr. Ashe. States have authorities to list species.
Senator Sullivan. I am talking about in conjunction with
you under Federal law.
Mr. Ashe. I think that the Endangered Species Act has, at
its heart, the commitment to look at the science, and the
science only, with respect to the listing of a species, and
these are challenging decisions. I think we can gain knowledge
from State perspectives, and I think we have shown a commitment
to a partnership with States and involving them in these
decisions, as we have done with the sage-grouse.
But even with regard to a species in a single State, say
manatee in the State of Florida, these are decisions that are
about the exercise of Federal authority and they belong, in my
view, with a Federal official. That doesn't mean that States
cannot and should not add value to that decision; they should
and they can, and we can take steps, I think, to enrich that
partnership with States. But this is inherently a Federal
decision about the exercise of a Federal law and that key
decision I think belongs with the Federal Government.
Senator Sullivan. Well, just to be clear, it is about
Federal authority because Congress granted Federal agencies to
make those decisions.
Mr. Ashe. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Congress could also grant States the
authority to make those decisions. So it depends on what is in
the statute, who has the authority.
Mr. Ashe. Sure.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me say I can remember back during
confirmation time I was interested in your coming out, really
taking a look at this partnership plan that we have done in the
State of Oklahoma. You did that. You had actually, I think, a
hearing in Edmund and one in Woodward, I think.
Mr. Ashe. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. And I tell you I appreciated that very
much.
Now, you mentioned the lesser prairie chicken. You know, we
have tried to approach this, along with the greater sage-grouse
and all that. In fact, we even had that on the House version of
the Senate Armed Services bill, which I think we are going to
find is not there any longer. But, nonetheless, it shows the
efforts that we go to.
What is interesting is, and I don't say this in a way where
I am talking about just the current Administration, but it has
always been this problem. You mentioned you may have delisted
or downgraded, I am not sure, you said the largest number, I
guess, of any Administration.
Mr. Ashe. Any Administration.
Senator Inhofe. But that is 16 out of 1600, right?
Mr. Ashe. That is correct. I think, Senator, recovery is a
long-term endeavor.
Senator Inhofe. OK, that is what I want to get to. Why is
it a long-term endeavor? What needs to be done? Because I have
a hard time explaining this to people, particularly our five-
State plan. That was well put together with five States, and I
think you would agree they did a great job, didn't they?
Mr. Ashe. I do agree.
Senator Inhofe. And they came out with recommendations.
Mr. Ashe. And I think what we did to honor that is, to be
honest, Senator, without that five-State range-wide plan, our
decision on lesser prairie chicken would have likely been
endangered. So what we were able to do with a threatened
listing is now defer to State-based regulations. So with the
lesser prairie chicken, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not
written a single biological opinion, has not needed to issue a
single permit. The people of Oklahoma and Kansas and Texas and
New Mexico and Colorado are working with their State
governments to undertake their activities and to achieve
conservation for the lesser prairie chicken. So I think we have
achieved a success there, even though we had to list it.
Senator Inhofe. OK, now, you had a choice, though, didn't
you? You could have either listed it as endangered, as
threatened, or maybe a third choice, not listing it at all.
Mr. Ashe. Correct.
Senator Inhofe. Is that right?
Mr. Ashe. That is correct.
Senator Inhofe. All right. And how much was the five-State
plan taken into consideration that led you to the conclusion
that it should be listed as threatened?
Mr. Ashe. I think that was the dispositive point in that
discussion, because we had a State plan that we were confident
would achieve conservation, and we have seen great results
since that listing determination; population increases, I
believe, of up to 25 percent. So I think we are justified in
having that confidence in that range-wide plan and, like I
said, without that plan the result could likely have been an
endangered listing with less flexibility.
And I think that gets back to Mr. Sullivan's point. I have
the utmost respect for former Secretary Kempthorne, but I
believe the flexibility of the Endangered Species Act is there
when you look for it and you work for it, and I think we have
shown that, again, during this Administration. We have employed
the flexibilities of the law that led us to work with ranchers
in the Big Hole of Montana and get to a not-warranted
determination for the Arctic grayling. We have worked with
timber lot owners in New England to get to a not-warranted
determination for the New England cottontail.
Senator Inhofe. OK. No, I understand that, but this is the
problem I have. Every time we come up with something, and right
now I am talking about the lesser prairie chicken, we go
through all this effort to get it done. And let's just say that
you agree with it. Not in that case, because it was not listed,
so you listed it. But let's say from this point on it is now
listed as threatened. What are the obstacles? Why does it take
a lifetime to get this stuff off? Why is it that we can boast
of the great job that we have done in delisting some 16 out of
1600? It is kind of hard for me to go back to Oklahoma and talk
about that as a success story. What obstacles are out there?
Mr. Ashe. I think the obstacles are pretty clearly
resources to do the job. To drive recovery for a species, take
grizzly bear, for instance, it was mentioned earlier, it took
this country more than two centuries to whittle a bear that
once roamed pretty much the entire lower 48, to whittle it down
to a few dozen that remained existent in the greater
Yellowstone ecosystem. For us then to fight back to recovery
has been a 30-year endeavor, but we are on the verge of
proposing a delisting for the Yellowstone population of the
grizzly bear. But it takes hard work; it takes resources; it
takes effort over a sustained period of time.
For species that are habitat limited, we have to reform
their habitat. So the red-cockaded woodpecker in the
Southeastern United States, we have launched another expansive
partnership to rebuild its habitat. It took centuries to
eliminate that habitat from the Southeastern United States.
Senator Inhofe. But we are not talking about grizzly bears
now, or at least I am not. What about a burrowing beetle? You
don't have to recreate habitat for a burrowing beetle. It is
certainly not going to take two centuries to do.
My time has expired, but I want to get into this where we
can come up with some way to change the law some way that we
can actually get rid of some of these so it doesn't take all
the resources that you are talking about. That is just my
feeling.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Director. You haven't mentioned my species
yet, but I bet you can guess. It is the northern long-eared
bat.
Mr. Ashe. All right.
Senator Capito. As you know, it has been listed as
threatened, as opposed to being endangered, but it is really
causing a lot of issues with a lot of various industries
throughout the State of West Virginia. I think some period of
time you are not allowed to move forward for 6 months out of an
entire year while they are in their mating season, I think. But
my understanding, and you and I talked about this, is that the
white-nose syndrome, which is a disease, is really what is the
predominant threat for this bat, and the problem for us is the
sheer size of the habitat for the bat. It stretches from
Louisiana to Maine, from Montana to New Jersey. So I guess
where are we with this in terms of distinguishing between a
disease that is taking a species down and then trying to
preserve where maybe nature is taking over? I don't know. What
is your response to that?
Mr. Ashe. So thank you for recognizing that. White-nose
syndrome is an exotic fungus that was imported to the United
States. It is devastating bat populations nationwide, the
northern long-eared bat being one that is particularly
susceptible to the disease. There is no doubt that the
existence of the species is threatened, at least. So I think
our initial determination on that was threatened, and what we
did was we provided a special rule, a section 40 rule, which is
one of the great flexibilities in the Endangered Species Act.
We use that to tailor restrictions in the law.
We published an interim final rule, because we acknowledged
at that point that there was probably still more for us to
learn, so we have been working during that time period, again,
a flexibility in the law to publish an interim final, go out
for further comment, which we have done, and we will be here,
before the end of the year, coming out with a final rule that
will provide additional flexibility.
We agree with you that the long-eared bat is not habitat-
limited, so our implementation of protections under the
Endangered Species Act should not impose substantial
restrictions on the use or development of habitat, because the
species is not habitat-limited. But there are key life stages
that we need to protect, like hibernacula and, to the extent
that we know of their existence, roosting trees. So the species
is in great decline. We need to protect, as much as we can,
sensitive life stages, but we can do that with minimal
restrictions, very minimal.
Senator Capito. OK, let me ask you a further question. If
an industry is trying to move on and has a habitat, I may not
use the correct term, but a habitat preservation plan that
comes before Fish and Wildlife, are you under any deadlines of
when you have to issue an opinion on whether that habitat plan
meets muster? Is it a 60-day limit or is it a 90-day limit, or
is it unlimited? Because this is a problem with the response
time.
Mr. Ashe. When we do consultations with a Federal agency
that might be issuing a permit or providing assistance, we have
time limitations.
Senator Capito. What are those?
Mr. Ashe. We have 135 days between the time they provide us
a completed application to issuance of a final biological
opinion.
With regard to a habitat conservation plan which a private
party would submit to us, we don't have any particular
deadlines to work in with regard to issuance of a permit.
Senator Capito. I mean, I think that is problematic,
obviously, if you are moving forward with private investment.
But I am going to move on because I don't have too much more
time.
You have mentioned a couple of times the lack of resources.
I would say, and I think I addressed this with you when I spoke
with you before in our State, we have very limited Fish and
Wildlife resources, and we have a lot of issues in and around
the types of industries that are important to us in West
Virginia and important to the country. So if you could devote
more of those resources to our State, it would be very helpful.
Last, I would like to pay you and Fish and Wildlife a big
compliment. As you know, we have the Canaan Valley National
Wildlife Refuge. They hosted me there, and I am heavily
encouraging you that they do need a new visitor center, so we
need to move that up on the list.
Mr. Ashe. All right.
Senator Capito. But I would also like to say that Wendy
Webber, your regional director who we met with that day, came
to visit me there, and I want to give a shout out to your
biologist, Dawn Washington, Ron Hollis, who hosted us there on
Sunday, my staff, and took us on a bird watching and wildlife
tour. And I also would like to compliment you and those in the
Canaan Valley. We do have a Kanawha Valley, but this is Canaan
Valley, because you have a huge volunteer association, and
Casey Rucker has joined me twice to educate me on the Refuge,
so I really appreciate that. And it was on a Sunday, too, so
thank you very much.
Mr. Ashe. Well, I am sure they enjoyed having you out
there, Senator, and thank you for dedicating the time to do
that.
And I would say, as we think about this, Mr. Chairman, I
think the key for us is field capacity. We are a field
organization. When you go around the country, if you and I went
to the Blackfoot Valley in Montana and were talking to ranchers
like Jim Stone at the Rolling Stone Ranch, he would tell you
that our person, Gary Sullivan or Greg Neudecker, are not just
good Federal employees, they are good friends to those people.
They work with them day in and day out.
When we were working on the sage-grouse, it is a person
like Angela Sitts, who is a private lands biologist. Senator
Inhofe has always been a good supporter and friend of our
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, where we have people
out on the ground who are working with landowners, at the
kitchen table, across the tailgate of a pickup truck, across
the fence line to work out common sense solutions to problems.
So it is those kinds of investments that fuel success with a
law like the Endangered Species Act.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Thanks for being here to visit with us.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. I have a couple questions. Today there
are more than 1,000 species that are listed as endangered by
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Even more are considered
threatened. And yet, in the 40-year history of the Endangered
Species Act, only 30 species have actually been delisted
because they have been recovered. To me, this demonstrates
clear failure of a policy that was established to provide for
the recovery of imperiled plants and animals.
My question has to do with implementation. The
implementation of the Endangered Species Act is notoriously
inconsistent. In their 2013 resolution, the Western Governors'
Association identified seven key goals that your agency should
consider. The first was to require clear, measurable recovery
parameters.
In Wyoming, there have been several cases where your agency
has changed population requirements multiple times through the
listing process. They are moving targets and they compromise
our State's ability to engage in meaningful conservation
activities, and one example is the grizzly bear. The agency has
continued to move the goal post for grizzly bear recovery.
Management of the bears, which are recovered, cost the State of
Wyoming more than $1.5 million a year in conflict resolution
and damage investigations, landowner compensation.
Isn't it fair to say that if the agency continues to use
these moving targets for population, it not only creates a
financial burden for the States, but it also fosters a sense of
distrust with the agency?
Mr. Ashe. Well, it might not surprise you that we maybe
have a little bit of a disagreement about whether there are
moving targets, Senator. I certainly think with the grizzly
bear we have not. We have an interagency grizzly bear committee
which has been a 20-year success story. It involves all of the
States and all of the Federal agencies, and they have a
technical team and committee that works together to identify
the recovery objectives, and we have held to those recovery
objectives. We delisted the bear, actually, in 2007 and we,
unfortunately, lost in a lawsuit, but we have worked again with
our State partners to come back and we are literally on the
precipice of another proposal to delist the species. I think we
will be successful.
But we have not, in my opinion, changed goal posts. I would
say that the law requires us to use best available science,
which means in the course of a 20-year recovery plan, can you
learn new things? Do you have new science that you have to
respond to? The answer is yes. So do we have to change recovery
targets? Sometimes, yes, because we have an obligation to use
the best available science as we make these decisions and we
learn over the course of 10 or 20 or 30 years. But we try to do
that in concert with our State and other partners. Can we do
better? I suspect we can do better, and I hope you see in us a
commitment to do that.
Senator Barrasso. You testified before this committee in
May that Wyoming had met every goal set by Fish and Wildlife,
and it was time to delist the gray wolf. There are other
recovered species that remain protected under the Endangered
Species Act. So the question comes is the management of the
gray wolf and other already recovered species have the
potential to distract from other more pressing and in the
recovery efforts that you need to make elsewhere?
Mr. Ashe. They do do that, Senator, and I think I have been
frank with you and others in this discussion. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, which led wolf recovery, it was our people
out on the ground who were suffering the slings and arrows of
outrage. But we worked through that with our State partners,
and Wyoming has been a great partner in wolf recovery and
wolves in Wyoming are recovered, and it is one of my greatest
disappointments as Director to this point have failed in having
that recognized.
But your point is a good one. We have other species that
need the protections of the Endangered Species Act, that need
the work of the men and women of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and our partners. Wolf is not one of them. We should be
working on bull trout or wolverine or greater sage-grouse or
other species that can be helped with protection and
conservation actions either pre-listing or post-listing under
the Endangered Species Act.
Senator Barrasso. And the final question just kind of
follows up, and you partially answered it, in terms of your
agency is currently considering more than 600 species for
future protection. Many species already listed do not have
active recovery plans, so do you feel you have the time and the
resources to adequately examine any of the petitioned species
with such a significant backlog of those that you have
determined require protection?
Mr. Ashe. We do, Senator, and I think we negotiated a
settlement agreement. It was a hard negotiation, and we
negotiated the timeline for that settlement agreement knowing
the resources that we could expect to receive for our listing
program. So the settlement that we negotiated extended the
deadlines, the statutory deadlines, so through that settlement
we bought more time.
So we matched up the schedule with our priorities,
biological priorities and our resource priorities, so I believe
we have the resources to do the job in terms of the listing
workload that we have now. It is a substantial workload,
though, and it is a growing workload.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Director Ashe, I just want to conclude
with two other quick questions.
First, we are obviously very focused on the species and
protecting them, but we are also focused on the livelihood of
our constituents, on jobs, on a strong economy. I hear from
Alaskans sometimes, hey, there is so much focus on the
Endangered Species Act, what about the endangered jobs act?
What about making sure we take care of employment?
How do you balance that call in terms of the listing of
species and the impact it has on jobs and the economy? And is
there more needed to be done in the statute to make sure that
the Federal agencies are doing the proper balance?
Mr. Ashe. I think, as I have said, we have substantial
flexibility, and I think we have been innovating during this
Administration and exploring where we can find further
flexibility in the law. I believe that the basic question of
whether a species should be listed is a diagnosis. It is either
endangered or it is threatened or it is not, and that is a kind
of fundamental precept in the law, that science-based
determination. After that, when we designate critical habitat,
we can take into consideration national security; we can take
into consideration economic impacts or social impacts. When we
do a consultation with a Federal agency, if we find jeopardy,
the thing we recommend is something called a reasonable and
prudent alternative. So we work with the Federal agency within
their statutory authority to do the best they can to conserve a
species.
So I think the law has flexibility. Certainly, Congress
could explore whether additional flexibility would be
advisable, but I think on that initial threshold decision it
should be a science-based determination.
Senator Sullivan. OK, let me conclude with one final
question regarding climate listings. As you probably know, in
the last few years, Fish and Wildlife Service NMFS have listed
or designated habitat for species, the polar bear, the bearded
seal, the ring seal in Alaska not based on a decline in the
population, a species decline, but, rather, a perceived future
decline as a result of climate change and climate change
modeling that you are predicting there will be a decline. And,
as you can imagine, when you live in an Arctic State like
Alaska and you are making listing decisions based on future
modeling of climate change when the species themselves
physically are actually strong right now, there seems like
there is no limit to the number of species that you could list
in an Arctic State like ours.
So what is the limit and where do you derive your authority
to make listings based on future predictions in computer
models, not based on actual physical declines of species that
are presently occurring?
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I answer that, I
do want to say I am going to have two Governors come up in the
panel after me, and they are beginning an effort within the
context of the Western Governors' Association to explore
additional administrative and potential legislative
improvements to the Endangered Species Act, and we in the Fish
and Wildlife Service have pledged our support and partnership
in doing that. The reason I bring that up is because that is a
question that Governor Mead asked me earlier in the day.
I think that with regard to a species, sometimes we are
certainly conflicted if we wait until a species is on the verge
of extinction.
Senator Sullivan. No, but I didn't say that.
Mr. Ashe. We have limited flexibility. So if we want
maximum flexibility, then we have to look into the foreseeable
future, which the law asks us to do, tells us to do; that we
have to make a determination whether a species is facing an
imminent threat, that is, endangered, or whether they are
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. That
would be threatened. So the law asks us to look into the
future. The best way we can do that is by the use of models.
With regard to species that are principally affected by
climate, it is actually a pretty narrow range of species. All
species will be affected to some degree by a changing climate,
but species for which climate change is the principle threat,
like polar bear or ring seal, there are relatively few of
those. And if you look at how the Fish and Wildlife Service has
made determinations, we were petitioned on polar bear, which we
listed as threatened, foreseeable future. We were petitioned on
the pika, a small rabbit that occupies high alpine in the
Western U.S., and we found that not warranted. We were
petitioned on wolverine and we found that not warranted.
Senator Sullivan. But do you see the concern is that if
there is a population that is not in decline, that is even
increasing, the polar bear population had, over the last
several decades, increased pretty dramatically, and yet we have
a listing based on a computer modeling of what might happen in
the future, particularly if you live in a State like mine, the
species you just mentioned are all in Alaska, it seems like it
is a limitless amount of discretion that you have. You are not
basing it on an actual decline. You could have a healthy
population, which the ring seal, I think most people would
agree is a healthy population, but you are listing it anyways
based on future modeling, which by its very nature is
speculative. I think it just seems like a limitless approach to
doing this. And if you live in a State that is an Arctic State,
there could be no end in sight to the number of petitions and
listings based on this kind of precedent.
Mr. Ashe. I don't agree with you, a limitless. Speculation
is one word. As a scientist, a model is a predictive tool; it
helps you predict an outcome. It is not perfect, but it is the
best we can do. Say our decision on polar bear, the modeling
that we applied was very conservative modeling about projecting
what was going to happen to the sea ice habitat of the polar
bear, and the Beaufort Sea population of the polar bear is in
pretty significant decline, and we know that that is correlated
to the loss of their sea ice habitat. And since we made our
listing decision back in 2008, at every juncture as we have
looked at new information about the rate of sea ice loss, it is
worse than we thought it was going to be.
So when you apply models, you analyze the uncertainty
related to those models. It is not speculation, it is the
application of science. That is how we have 5-day and 10-day
weather forecasts, is we are applying a model to the future,
and it certainly is not perfect, but we all rely on it in
planning our day-to-day activities. So modeling is very
valuable and invaluable tool as we think about analyzing
complex situations.
But I agree with you it is a challenge, but I think, again,
in the Fish and Wildlife Service we have done that
evenhandedly. In the case of the pika, even though that species
is being affected by climate change, it is unequivocal that is
being, we found that there would be populations that remained
stable and secure into the foreseeable future.
Senator Sullivan. Well, I am going to turn to the next
panel here, but there are a lot of issues here with regard to
what is the foreseeable future, how you define that, and,
again, the discretion that seems it can lead to kind of a
limitless number of possibilities if you have strengthened
populations. We are very proud of our strong populations, huge
populations of species in Alaska, but if it is based on not an
actual decline or any indications of an actual decline, but
future modeling, it just seems that almost any species is
available for listing. And as you are seeing through the
petition process from certain groups, they are essentially
trying to do that, certainly in my State, list almost
everything, and it is a little troubling and concerning, but it
is something we can work on.
Mr. Ashe. Well, thank you, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. I only have one question.
It disturbed me a little bit when Senator Sullivan was
talking about what you are doing now anticipating climate
change and all of this. Who establishes the criteria for these
assumptions in the future that you are preparing for? Who does
that?
Mr. Ashe. We rely on the best science available, so in the
case of the polar bear----
Senator Inhofe. Well, no, when you are talking about what
is going to happen in the future to climate, where the climate
is going to change.
Mr. Ashe. We rely on NASA, NOAA.
Senator Inhofe. IPCC?
Mr. Ashe. The IPCC report provides important information,
but mainly, because this was an issue about sea ice, we relied
on NOAA and NASA experts.
Senator Inhofe. What I am saying is you can use what you
consider to be the best science available. I might not agree
with you that that is the best science available.
Mr. Ashe. You might not.
Senator Inhofe. So I assume that we will just have to wait
for another Administration, then, before we can get this done.
One last thing. Senator Barrasso brought up something that
I had already been talking about, and that is if you are
looking at 1600 listings out there and you consider it to be
successful that you have been able to take off the list 16 out
of 1600, I don't think that is very successful, and I think
your answer was it is a process that takes time, it takes a lot
of resources to get done.
My question is that can be changed. That can be changed
legislatively, and I think maybe we should be looking at that.
If it takes that long so successfully come up with 16 off the
list of 1600, I think it is time for a change. And that is my
job, not yours.
Senator Sullivan. Director Ashe, thank you very much. We do
want to work with you on looking at ways to move forward on
smart reforms for the Endangered Species Act. Thank you for
your testimony.
I want to welcome our second panel of witnesses: Hon. Matt
Mead, Governor of Wyoming, and Hon. Steve Bullock, Governor of
Montana.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to introduce Governor Matt Mead, the thirty-second
Governor of Wyoming. Governor Mead was first elected in 2010,
re-elected for a second term in 2014, raised on his family
ranch in Teton County, a law degree from the University of
Wyoming. He has served as county and Federal prosecutor,
practiced privately in law and served the United States
attorney for Wyoming as U.S. attorney from October 2001 to June
2007. He also serves in regional and national leadership roles,
including currently being chairman of the Western Governors'
Association, and serves on the Council of Governors and is vice
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee of the National
Governors Association.
So I am very pleased to welcome Governor Mead here today to
share his remarks on the Endangered Species Act.
Welcome, Governor Mead.
Senator Sullivan. Governor, you have 5 minutes to deliver
your opening statement. Governor Mead.
STATEMENT OF MATT MEAD, GOVERNOR, STATE OF WYOMING, CHAIRMAN,
WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Governor Bullock, for turning on my
mic.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It is a privilege to be
here and a privilege to be introduced by our two fine Senators
from Wyoming.
Thank you, Senator Barrasso and Senator Enzi. It is a
privilege.
We have several Western Governors here, and we have
meetings for the next couple of days, so it is a pleasure to be
with Governor Bullock from Montana. He is not only a fellow
Governor; he is a friend, and he is also Vice Chairman of the
Western Governors' Association.
We are honored to be here, and we look forward to your
questions. I am going to try to keep my comments relatively
brief so we have as much time for questions as possible.
I am Governor of the State of Wyoming, and at the end of
June, I was elected chairman of the Western Governors'
Association, which represents Governors of 19 Western States
and 3 U.S. flag islands. I will serve chairman for 1 year.
Governor Bullock serves as vice chairman and then will take
over as chairman. In addition to our comments today, we have
provided written remarks on behalf of Western Governors as a
group, and we hope you will consider those as well.
As you all know, the West is a vast, varied place, and each
Western State has its own specific concerns and viewpoints.
Yet, Western States share challenges, goals, and opportunities
regarding natural resources, for example, in the area of water,
wildlife, forests, and energy development. Western Governors,
through the WGA, seek areas where we have issues in common,
where we can reach consensus to find solutions, act
cooperatively, and benefit all our States.
Each chairman has an opportunity to designate an
initiative, an area of focus during the Governor's tenure as
chairman. Recent initiatives prior to mine have included
drought and getting outdoors in the West. My initiative is the
Endangered Species Act, and is aimed at reforming and improving
the Endangered Species Act.
Just a couple of numbers that we have, and you all have
mentioned some as well. Currently, the information we have is
listed as threatened or endangered species in the U.S. is
1,567. Outside the U.S., 653, for a total of 2,220. Since 1973,
the total species delisted is 59. Species delisted due to
extinction, 10. Species delisted due to error in original data,
19. Species delisted due to recovery, 30. So of the 59, 10 went
extinct, 19 were removed because of a mistake, 30 have been
delisted because they have been recovered. So totally delisted
for any reason as a percent is 2.56 percent. Total delisted due
to recovery as a percent, 1.3 percent.
When we have worked on issues such as grizzly bears or
wolves in Wyoming, we see the challenges. And the reason I
wanted to choose the Endangered Species Act as an initiative is
that, as I view it, from my experience growing up in Wyoming
and as Governor of Wyoming, the Endangered Species Act, as it
is today, is not working. I think it is broken. There have been
some tremendous successes, no doubt about it, but let me just
give you a firsthand example.
When I came into office, the State of Wyoming had worked
years on trying to get the wolves delisted. So I sat down with
then-Secretary Salazar and Director Ashe. Our offices worked
long and hard, and had face-to-face meetings with one another,
sometimes just two or three of us in the room. Sometimes it was
just me and the secretary; sometimes it was just me and
Director Ashe. And building on a broad coalition with ag
groups, with industrial groups, with sportsmen, we came up with
a plan that we thought would work for Wyoming and make sure
there was a healthy wolf population. We all agreed upon this.
We went forward. We had a hunting season. And during that time
that we had the wolves delisted, not only was our plan a
success; in fact, we showed that the wolves were becoming even
stronger.
So sometime after the fact we get challenged, it goes to
court, and a judge in D.C. says, yes, the wolf is recovered,
but too bad. And this is what leads to this question of
certainty. How do we get to certainty? How do we get to the
finish line?
In Wyoming, there is no question, as in across the West, we
value our wildlife. It provides a quality of life. That is why
many of live in the West. But we also value jobs. We also value
careers for our kids and our grandkids. And when the Endangered
Species Act creates these uncertainties, we get the same
questions that Senator Inhofe gets asked and you get asked,
Senator Sullivan: What about the jobs? How do we keep people
working? How do we keep food on the table? So we do need some
certainty.
And then when you throw in things like modeling climate
change, I am not an expert in this field, but I will tell you
that the ranchers in Wyoming ask me, you know, when they can
tell me when it is going to rain and when I am going to hay,
then I will start listening what is going to happen 10 or 20
years beyond that on the climate.
These are practical questions that people ask, and we are
required to answer those questions. But when you combine
modeling with the foreseeable future, which is also undefined,
the Western Governors have asked for some clarification and
definition on those things to try to find a way forward.
So, in my view, the ESA is broken, and since 1973, when you
have just about 1 percent recovered, that, I do not think is a
success. It leads to economic burdens that impact our States,
our citizens, and our businesses.
The grizzly bear has been mentioned, that is another
example, because as soon as we had wolves delisted for that
short period of time, I wrote Secretary Salazar in, I think it
was, 2012 and I said, next we need to get the grizzly bears
delisted.
Senator Inhofe, you asked the question about why does it
take so long. Well, I understand the answer that it may take 20
or 30 years for species recovery, or 50 years, but once it is
recovered the question is why does it take so long after they
are recovered to get them off the list. When everybody agrees,
including the secretary, including the director, that it is
recovered, why can't we move forward more quickly? Because
nobody says we don't want to care about the species, but once
they are recovered, let's get them off the list not only for
the certainty it provides industry but, in fact, to do a better
job for other species. When we are wasting time, money, and
effort, when we are spending $2 million-plus just in Wyoming
taking care of grizzly bears, what species are we not taking
care of?
So last week was a good example of success. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service decided not to list the greater sage-
grouse. This shows success on a number of levels, the
cooperation that we had with the secretary's office, the
director's office, with BLM, Forest Service, with States across
the West. It was a tremendous effort, and we should all be
proud of that. But I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, that
wasn't because of the Act; it was because of the efforts beyond
the Act, at the local level, county commissioners, city
council, our State legislators, those people in the Federal
Government who went beyond the Act, the people in the State,
starting with my predecessor, Governor Freudenthal, who went
beyond the Act that created the plan. That was not due to the
Act; it was due to the great relationships.
We need more certainty than that, because those
relationships may not always be there. We hope that that is a
model how to go forward in the future, but it would be very
nice to have some statutory sideboards to make sure we can
reach those goals, because everybody rightfully asks the
question: When do we get to the finish line? How do we get
there? We are willing to do it if we know there is a finish
line and we can have this certainty.
So my initiative will be a bipartisan regional
conversation. Governors are particularly well suited to exert
leadership in this area, given State obligations to manage
wildlife and Western States' outstanding conservation record.
We care about wildlife in the West. We, the States, manage it
well and we need a system that works. We stand ready, Mr.
Chairman, to work with the committee and Congress, with Federal
agencies and others to reform and improve the ESA. It is time
to do this not only for our citizens; it is time to do this for
species.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Governor Mead, and thank you for
your leadership on this. And I can assure you we are very
interested in working with the Western Governors Association on
common sense ESA reforms, so we will continue to do that.
Governor Bullock.
STATEMENT OF STEVE BULLOCK, GOVERNOR, STATE OF MONTANA, VICE
CHARIMAN, WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bullock. Thank you so much, Chairman Sullivan, members
of the committee. Chairman Sullivan, it is wonderful to see you
in this role, as opposed to our former role as attorneys
general.
Senator Sullivan. You, too.
Mr. Bullock. And I do want to thank you for the opportunity
to offer my perspective on this topic of significant import.
I'm here today not only as Governor of a State that has great
diversity of wildlife and many experiences with the Endangered
Species Act, but also as the Vice Chair of Western Governors'
Association, an organization that really does embody my idea of
bipartisanship.
WGA has recognized by resolution that the ESA can only be
reauthorized through legislation developed in a consensus
fashion that results in broad bipartisan support and maintains
the intent of the Act. That continues to be our position today.
Looking forward, the stories of two different species on my
landscape in Montana might provide lessons as you consider
steps that Congress could take.
First, I think we need to do everything that we can to make
certain that species aren't listed in the first place, and the
committee and Congress should double down on their efforts as
far as tools and assistance you can offer to incent private
landowners and States. My case study for that proposition is
the Arctic grayling. In the lower 48 States, remnant
populations remain only in Montana, by the 1930s, less than 15
percent of their historic range.
Last August, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined the
Arctic grayling was not warranted for listing. This is arguably
one of the most significant ESA success stories in the Nation
because State and Federal agencies and key partners developed
close relationships of trust with 30 key landowners in the Big
Hole Valley, covering 156,000 acres. Those landowners, many of
them, voluntarily gave up water rights they are legally
entitled to use to conserve this fish. It was possible because
of landowner agreements authorized by the ESA to encourage
conservation of non-Federal land to prevent listing. Under
these agreements, Montana and other partners improved habitat,
water flows, took other helpful steps. Some critical seed money
came from State wildlife grants which are allocated by
congressional appropriation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service touts these agreements, the
Canada Conservation Agreements, with assurances, this is an
example, as an important tool for working with landowners on
endangered species conservation, and I agree. The question is
what more can we do to incent voluntary efforts to protect
species before the ESA ever comes into view. And is Congress
willing to increase funding for State agencies to work on that
active collaborative habitat efforts for risked species? I hope
and think that you should. We know that with sage-grouse, the
NRCS and sage-grouse initiative will play a critical role. We
need to be looking to provide other tools and making these
agreements easier to administer.
Second, let's recognize when the Act has served its
intended purpose, then trust the States to manage the animals
within their borders thereafter. The case study for that is the
grizzly bear, a success story for recovery which still remains
listed. The Governor and I often fight about water, but we
don't fight about at least the grizzly bear.
We are certainly working out our differences with Fish and
Wildlife Services. I am optimistic that we are going to find a
path forward for delisting. There are many aspects of that
story that are positive, like the private landowners that are
engaged demonstrate a remarkable commitment, but the grizzly
bear needs to be delisted and returned to State management. Our
States hold our fish and wildlife resources in trust for all of
our citizens. It is a responsibility that we take so very
seriously. The delisting process must become more
straightforward so we can spend our collective resources on
species that may need more attention.
It is worth noting that I have offered two instances where
the ESA has actually worked or is working. But the Act could
certainly work better, and we could do more to leverage the
role of State and private partners into more resources on the
ground for species conservation. After all, the hard work
really is on the ground and in the community, not always in the
legislative halls.
Just last week I did have the opportunity to join the
Secretary of Interior in announcing the greater sage-grouse was
not warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act. As
I sat with my fellow Governors, Governor Mead, Hickenlooper,
and Sandoval, I couldn't help but think how logical it was for
the Western Governors Association to tackle these issues,
attempt to build a regional consensus, as Governor Mead has
proposed with his chair's initiative; and I will certainly
support him in those efforts. Meaningful efforts to address the
pitfalls and the possibilities of the ESA must begin around
conference room and kitchen tables, determining first what
works on the ground.
Finally, it is worth remembering that the Endangered
Species Act was signed by President Nixon in 1973, who
recognized the Act as an important commitment by our Nation to
conserve and protect the rich diversity of animal and plant
life for future generations. That noble goal does still hold
true today.
Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the
committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bullock follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, gentlemen, and thank you again
for your leadership on this issue. I think it is a great
opportunity in terms of the Western Governors' Association's
focus on this issue with your ideas. I think a lot of times the
best ideas come from the ground, come from the States, some we
are going to be very, very open and encouraging to hear what
your suggestions are with regard to reforming the ESA.
I do want to start by just asking you, in your experience,
and I think a number of us have experience from different times
working at the State level, have you seen the consultation,
particularly when it comes to listings, that is required by the
ESA by Federal agencies, whether it is Fish and Wildlife or
some of the agencies, or, in your experience, has it been more
of an afterthought with regard to a listing, and then they come
and explain it to you later? This, at least in my experience,
has been a frustration because, as the two of you mentioned, a
lot of times the States have more information. You know,
Director Ashe talked about science. Absolutely. But more
science and a sense of how it is going to impact the local
communities better than folks in Washington do. I am curious
what your experience is, both of you, on that issue.
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would say not
just during my time, but what I am aware of, it has been
somewhat inconsistent. Having said that, I mentioned wolves, I
mentioned grizzly bears, the greater sage-grouse. The level of
the consultation on those three species, for example, we
couldn't ask for more. As a matter of fact, I viewed it, these
last couple years, a good day when I didn't mentioned the word
sage-grouse, because we were so involved with the Federal
agencies, and they with us on that issue.
So I think that, as I said, and you brought up the Act does
require that. It absolutely requires that. That, as I have
said, I think historically, I think that may be hit or miss. I
would just tell you my experience on those three species, there
has been no question about the consultation, which is a
different question than agreement.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Mead. But had the consultation.
Senator Sullivan. Governor Bullock.
Mr. Bullock. I would say certainly not enough consultation
when the decision goes contrary to what I believe it should.
Beyond that, I can point to a number of instances, 2009, a
leopard frog, where it was being petitioned. You are looking at
it. Actually, it was with one of the grants that are provided
by Congress. We had the opportunity to do some more studying,
and ultimately it didn't end up listed. The Arctic grayling was
another one where we actually worked together, and I think that
that would be consultation.
So sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it is
something that I think that Governor Mead and we all should be
looking at over the next year to ensure, because I think as you
pointed out in the opening Chairman Sullivan, section 6 of the
Act says you must be consulting with States, and we as States
certainly think that is essential. And our fish and wildlife
scientists and managers are on those landscapes and working
hard for decades, some of them, as individuals, so we do know
what is happening in our individual States.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask kind of a follow up, take this
a little bit further on two ideas for ESA reform. You both
alluded to them in your testimony. One would be a stronger role
for States, even as far as an agreement with the Federal
Government on a listing decision, whether as a group of States
or, as I mentioned, if there was a species that was solely
residing in somebody's State, to have a co-decisionmaking
authority. I am wondering if you have thoughts about that. You
know, Director Ashe mentioned, well, that doesn't happen now.
Well, it doesn't happen now because the law doesn't allow that
now. But the law could allow that if we amended the law.
Second, in terms of judicial review, I think, Governor
Mead, your point is a really good one, that you can even get to
the point with Federal agencies and different groups of what
you might agree with regard to a species, whether to list it or
not, the recovery plan, and then all of a sudden it is thrown
into litigation in the D.C. Circuit or the Ninth Circuit and it
becomes almost a craps shoot; three judges who don't know much
about any of our States, usually, making a call on something
that we have spent months or even years working on.
What are your thoughts on reforming the ESA with regard to
those two issues?
Mr. Mead. The court system is problematic for me because I
have thought about if I could just change the law myself, I
thought I would like a very strong presumption that if the
States and the director agree something shouldn't be listed, it
shouldn't be. But I don't necessarily want it the other way. So
I have had a hard time trying to figure out how exactly how I
want that. But I would say this. I think that that problem is
significant because the coalition we built to get the plan for
the gray wolf, it was not just ranchers, it was sportsmen's
groups, it was environmental groups.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Mead. And we spent a year putting that together and
then getting it through the legislature and getting buy-in, and
we worked on the conservation plan, how are we going to go
about this. So we were all set and the secretary and the
director with me. And then a year and a half or 2 years after
the fact it is all collapsed.
Now, how am I going to go back and build another coalition?
How am I going to go back and get a conservation plan? That is
a significant problem. We don't know the answer to that yet,
Mr. Chairman, but one thing that would certainly help is before
there is a listing, one, it should be a single listing rather
than a multiple listing.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Mead. Western Governors also think that before a
listing is made, that whoever is proposing the listing, that
they get all available scientific data from the States; that
they don't just throw it out there and then go on a fishing
expedition, they get that from the States. The States have
incredible good data. Our Game and Fish department, I think, is
as knowledgeable on the wildlife in Wyoming as anybody. That
they have that. That they not only have that, they put it
together. That they notify the States before they actually make
the request of the Fish and Wildlife Service so that we are
aware of them. That would be not only good for the States, but,
frankly, if a species needs to be listed, don't do it in a
haphazard fashion; get that data, get the scientific data, all
the data that is debatable, before you are allowed to list a
species. And you can only list one species rather than all
these species and which science applies to which species.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Governor Bullock.
Mr. Bullock. I largely concur. You know, I said at one
point, when I was running for office, there are two ways to
become a biologist: one is to go to years of school and the
other is to run for office. And I say that only inasmuch as
wolves are recovered in Montana, or delisted, but there were so
many individual officeholders and folks that really said, as
individuals, that they had all of the answers. I think science
has to guide this, and science, though, back to the initial
question of individual consultation with the States. I am not
sure that it should be vested entirely over to the States.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I plan to be here for the remaining of the meeting, so I
would invite Senator Barrasso to go ahead.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
Thank you both for being with us today to share your
remarks. I appreciate your positions of State leadership
through the Western Governors' Association; I think provides us
a valuable perspective regarding on-the-ground consequences of
the Endangered Species Act.
I would like to point out that Director Ashe has stayed,
and it is a tremendous credit to him and the respect he has for
both of you, because so often Administration witnesses come,
testify, and leave, and don't have the benefit of hearing all
the things that you said. But I am sure it is the personal
respect that he has for both of you and the relationship that
you have developed working together.
And I would say that Director Ashe is not a typical member
of this Administration; I think he has been a partner to work
with. He hasn't been always able to get everything done, but
you heard from his answers today the respect for what Wyoming
has done with respect to the gray wolf and realizing that we
have done the job that anyone has ever asked of us.
Governor Mead, first of all, I would like to say I really
appreciate your work with Fish and Wildlife to ensure the sage-
grouse determination was ``not warranted.'' You spoke about the
way Fish and Wildlife has approached conservation of the gray
wolf and the grizzly bear in Wyoming. Specifically, you
mentioned some of the economic burdens placed on States,
specifically the State of Wyoming, when recovered species
remain listed. So could you provide maybe a couple of examples
of why the Endangered Species Act places economic burdens on
State and local governments?
Mr. Mead. Well, I will give you an example using the sage-
grouse, Senator Barrasso. We export more BTUs than any other
State. We are proudly an energy State, and we are proudly the
No. 1 coal producer. But if the sage-grouse would have been
listed on the maps that we showed, 80 percent of the coal
available, coal mines, would have been affected by that
listing. Two-thirds of potential oil and gas developments in
our State would have been covered by that listing. When you are
a State that exports that much energy, to take away or reduce
two-thirds of your oil and gas, reduce 80 percent of your coal
is significant, significant economic burden.
Those are just dollars that you can sort of point to. But
what you cannot calculate, Senator Barrasso, that is real is
lost opportunity costs. How can I tell a company you can come
into Wyoming and you can start your development, but I don't
know if you are going to get it through in 1 year, 3 years, 5
years, or a decade? I can't calculate that. I can't calculate
that loss to our economy. I can't calculate that lost
opportunity cost.
And if I was able to tell that company, listen, we have a
plan, a recovery plan that is in place, here is how you reach
the goal line, and here is how long it is going to take you,
then they can make that choice. But when it is an open-ended
question, Senator, it may be 5 years or 20 years--and just on
the gray wolf, how many years have we been in court? It has
been a number of years--that has a huge economic cost that we
cannot calculate but we know is very real and very hurtful to
the economy of Wyoming and to the West.
Senator Barrasso. You know, I asked Director Ashe about
moving targets. I don't know if you would like to comment at
all about moving targets, if that has been a frustrating
process for our State in how we try to deal with and meet
Federal goals that I believe keep changing.
Mr. Mead. Director Ashe and I have a little bit of a
different point of view on the grizzly bear and whether the
target was moving or not. What I would tell you, Senator, is we
have negotiated that number where we were. As you recall, I
think it was 2010, the court sent us back and said we have to
look at the white bark pine and how it affects the grizzly
bears. That study was done; we showed white bark pine was going
down, the grizzly bear population was continuing to go up. And
the estimates on grizzly bears, it depends who you talk to, but
we were looking at 300, then 500. Now we think we have over
1200 bears. And there is no question by any account that we
have whatever goalpost they set in the past, we have passed it
or even doubled it. And there is an economic impact on that as
well, because we care about wildlife, and you have to have a
balance in wildlife. You have to have States manage wildlife.
And when you have over-population of grizzly bears or wolves,
it hurts your moose, it hurts your elk, it hurts your
livestock.
And, frankly, I think it is also an important point,
Senator Barrasso, to point out the grizzly bear deaths that we
are experiencing have increased dramatically over the last 5 or
6 years because of the conflict, because of the number of
grizzly bears. So people come to me about that, and it is tough
as the Governor of a State to say I don't have the authority to
manage grizzly bears or any other species in my State.
Senator Barrasso. Governor Bullock, anything you would like
to add to that?
Mr. Bullock. No, I think Governor Mead hit it well.
Director Ashe may be here just because he is afraid of what he
and I might say.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Anything you would like to add, since he
is here to listen to what you would like to say?
Mr. Bullock. No, no. From that perspective, no. In all
sincerity, I think that Governor Mead nailed it. That is one of
the things, we have to work together. The grizzly bear
population extends, it is not limited to Wyoming or Montana, as
we share this park; and I think that we have worked together. I
am optimistic that it is going to get done, but it is the same
frustration at times saying that where I think we can go, I
think more than looking backward, is looking forward, which
hopefully is what this initiative will really do, in part, is
say when is enough enough. And we in the Western States have so
many, especially from the wildlife trying to manage this, can
we offer anything constructive as we work together for your
all's consideration.
Senator Barrasso. OK, thank you to both of you.
Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we better be a little careful here, because my
saying all these nice things about Director Ashe, and then, of
course, Barrasso doing the same thing, we might impair his
relationship with his superior.
Nobody gets it?
First of all, were the two of you here when we had Director
Ashe on the stand?
Mr. Mead. Yes.
Mr. Bullock. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. OK. You might remember I brought up the
issue on when you are looking at things that might happen in
the future, and he said we base it on the best science
available. Remember that discussion that we had? Of course,
they are now looking at climate change as something that
absolutely is going to happen. You know, it is funny to watch
all these people. We had a hearing this morning where, one by
one, each one was talking about, oh, yes, it is a fact, science
is settled, and all that. Well, science isn't settled.
Everybody knows that. In fact, everybody knows it. The polls
show, this Gallup poll, the most recent one, it used to be that
climate change or global warming was always No. 1 or No. 2. Did
you know in the March poll of Gallup, the same criteria, dead
last, right after tropical rain forests? In their general poll
it was number 15 out of concerns for America, out of 15
concerns. So the people know better.
My concern is this. Not to try to plead a case that the
science is not settled, but when they are making decisions that
are predicated on the assumption that certain things are going
to happen, then we find out that the IPCC, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was the basis of all
of that information and that science, after Climate-gate
totally destroyed their reputation, I wonder how this can
happen. It seems to me that it is kind of arbitrary. And as I
observed in the first panel, it looks like that is not going to
change until we have a different Administration.
Now, I only bring that up because from you guys, from a
Governor's perspective, you have to be really concerned,
because they are making decisions that have huge effects, as
both of you have said, on you, on your State, on the job that
you are doing; and yet it is predicated on something you may or
may not believe in. So it is just not a matter of looking to
see what is happening to the numbers of a species that is out
there; it is a matter of how you can project something that
might happen in the future and thereby do something that you
otherwise would not want to do.
I am not sure I am making sense with that, but I am
concerned with that.
Both of you agree that the States do things better than the
Federal Government. Having served on the State level, I even
take it down one more step--the closer you get to the people.
When I was mayor of Tulsa, there wasn't any hiding place there;
we knew exactly what people thought and what we could do
better.
Now, why don't you each one kind of outline what areas you
believe the States are better than the Federal Government in
terms of giving us some ideas so that when the time comes we
can make some changes, real changes, to the Endangered Species
Act? We can kind of use that. Maybe make a couple of comments
and then elaborate for the record.
Mr. Mead. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator. I will do
my best to answer that question.
One reason I think that States are better at managing
wildlife is just sheer numbers. Our folks that work for our
Game and Fish are always going to be more in terms of just raw
numbers than the Fish and Wildlife Service would have
available.
Two is, in Wyoming and I think Western States, we view the
wildlife as belonging to the citizens of Wyoming. And the track
record of our Game and Fish and the data that they have
collected, the expertise on which they work on everything from
mule deer populations to brucellosis, provides to me a track
record that is real for each individual State that I view as
the best data available and the science available.
Two is that when we have, for example, a situation where
there is a question on a species, whether it should be listed
or delisted, the people that I go to first always are my Game
and Fish.
So, Senator, my best answer is by practice and I think the
history of Game and Fish Departments across the Western States,
because we take such pride in our game and fish, that is where
the action is. That is where the data is, that is where the
science is, and that is why I think it is very important,
before a listing is made, that whoever is petitioning to have a
species listed, gather that data up and have all that hard data
available.
Senator Inhofe. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Bullock. Yes, I would largely concur with Governor
Mead. And I think that in some respects, when it comes to some
of these bigger issues, we are probably a little bit better on
the ground, especially from the Governors' perspective as
executives, because we have to. I mean, we can have theoretical
discussions about sage-grouse and the Endangered Species Act,
but at the end of the day we in Wyoming and other States, many
other States did the same thing, did the hard work of bringing
together from the petroleum industry to conservationists to
everybody because we need to get this done. So we are both
closer to the ground and we have to get work done.
Senator Inhofe. Governor Bullock, you mentioned, along with
the decision, the greater sage-grouse, that it doesn't warrant
protection under the Endangered Species Act. Then right after
that BLM comes in with its land program, which I think, if I
look at this, talking about the buffer zones around there,
could be even more serious than if they had determined a
listing for the sage-grouse. What do you think?
Mr. Bullock. Mr. Chair, I don't know that it would be more
serious. In some respects it has been interesting hearing so
many folks that it almost seems like they are upset that there
wasn't a listing. In Montana, if I look at it, over 70 percent
of the sage-grouse habitat is on private or State land, so less
than a third of it, less than 30 percent, is BLM land. So by
ensuring that this listing is not warranted, we are actually
providing certainty in private property rights, in economic
opportunities and other things, for those landowners in
Montana.
Now, I expressed my frustration with the BLM plan. Also,
though, because we haven't been working on it for the 7 years
that Wyoming has, also have gotten, from my perspective, I said
as we are executing this plan, I expect to be able to have
continuing conversations with the Bureau of Land Management to
make certain that we are managing as a landscape, not depending
on who actually owns the properties.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. You know,
Oklahoma is a farm State, and I have a hard time when I am
around the State and people ask questions that we are
protecting the burrowing beetle. You know, we can talk about
grizzly bears, and, by the way, we have a real serious problem
in Oklahoma: we don't have any. They are really in danger
there.
Mr. Mead. We have some we can loan you, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. But, you know, it is kind of hard to answer
the questions why is it, when plowing our fields or if we are
out exploring for oil, we are building roads, we have to build
around these things because of the habitat of a beetle? So it
is a frustrating thing, and I am hoping that you and I are
going to be in a position to overhaul the system. We have
talked about it for a long time. I think now it is time to do
it. And you would be a big part of that, both of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Let me conclude with just a couple of questions. In my
experience, this issue, ESA reform, is a very bipartisan issue.
Unfortunately, none of our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle made it to the hearing today, but whether it was our
time, Governor Bullock, in the Western Association of AGs, or
in the Western Governors' Association, is that your experience
as well? Because what we are trying to do, and hopefully you
are seeing the tone in this hearing, we are trying to get
ideas, trying to be very bipartisan. You know, a lot of
discussion on Director Ashe here. I think we certainly want to
work with him on this. He knows that he and I have some not
just small disagreements, some fundamental disagreements on
some other issues, the 1002 area of ANWR and ANILCA and things
like that.
Don't worry, Director Ashe, we will get to other hearings
on those important issues.
But I do think it is important, even though you don't see
any of our colleagues on the other side. This is not some kind
of partisan issue that we are trying to hold a hearing on where
there is no interest. In my experience, but I am really
interested in yours, from your constituents, in working with
Democrat and Republican Governors, what is your experience in
terms of the bipartisan desire for reform here?
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think if you look at
the resolutions which we submitted as part of our testimony,
you will see very strong bipartisan support on how we improve
the Act, and our plan, so you know, Mr. Chairman, is by June of
next year we will have some resolutions and some
recommendations which hopefully will be of use to you as
Chairman and to this committee. But it is not, and I think it
is not just by chance that Governor Bullock and I are here
together, because we have had the same frustrations. We have
had some same success, and it is a bipartisan issue.
And my goal is not, so you know, to say we don't need an
Endangered Species Act.
Senator Sullivan. Right. I don't think that is any of our
goal.
Mr. Mead. My goal is how do we improve it for the species,
how do we improve it for our citizens, how do we improve it for
industries and businesses. And I think there is ground to be
had there, and in a bipartisan fashion we are going to come
together, we are going to debate this and hopefully be of help
to you, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Great. I think that is a great plan
moving forward.
Let me just ask on two more specific issues. I did ask
previously. You know, I know it is an idea that people just
almost, out of hand, disregard. I certainly don't think it
should be disregarded but, again, going back to the issue of
State input, State involvement, State signoff. Again, we come
from States where our fish and game agencies are some of the
best not only in the country, but in the world, and we come
from States where people care passionately about the species
and protecting the species. But as you two know, being on the
ground as Governors, you also see the balance of the issue of
jobs and an economy, and wanting to make sure our kids can live
and grow up in the States where we live and serve.
So back to the two questions I had asked earlier. Do you
think there would be support from a bipartisan group of
Governors to have States be involved to the degree to which
there needs to be a joint agreement between a Federal agency
and the senior State executives on a listing or delisting?
Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, I will speak now not as Chairman of
the Western Governors', but just as Governor of Wyoming.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Mead. Anything you can do to provide more opportunity
for the States to play a bigger role in this I would be for.
The challenge would be some of these species don't recognize
State boundaries.
Senator Sullivan. Correct.
Mr. Mead. So I could say, Governor Bullock, I want this
species listed, and Governor Bullock would say no. And Governor
Otter would probably say no on anything.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bullock. Inside joke.
Mr. Mead. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Just for the record, Governor Otter is
not here to defend himself.
Mr. Mead. No, he is not, but he can defend himself at
another time.
Governor Otter, the three of us, especially sharing
Yellowstone, we may have different points of view. And while
the three of us get along very well, the next Governors may,
for whatever reason, not have the same sort of cooperative
relationship, and then you get into the question who does that.
So I do think you still, Mr. Chairman, have to have a system
where the director says this is what we do.
But I would say this: there is a lot of room for more State
input. I would love to have the opportunity, and this is one of
the considerations for the director to consider, is does the
State say yes or no to this listing.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Governor Bullock, do you have a thought?
Mr. Bullock. No, I thought Governor Mead was well thought
out. Active participation, active consultation. We do have
challenges with boundaries. But I think it is something that we
undertake sort of our exploration over the next year, because
another thing about Western Governors is that we are not
fearful of expressing where we think additional State
sovereignty should be recognized, but it is something that we
should put on our task list to say what can we come back and
say could be meaningfully.
Senator Sullivan. Well, I am in agreement with you on the
issue of State involvement. In the instance of my State, there
are a lot of times where we are not sharing borders with
anybody but Canada, so there are instances certainly in Alaska
where we are the only State impacted on decisions. I think
there could be room in the reform, whether it is Alaska or
other States where you are the only State impacted with the
Federal Government that you could have some kind of co-
designation authority, and I think that is something that we
certainly want to explore.
Let me just ask a final question. You know, Governor Mead,
you did a really good job of kind of laying out this issue of
uncertainty that can come from listing and trying to create
economic opportunities in your State, and how this uncertainty
can really negatively impact your constituents and jobs. Do you
think that there should be more directly listed in the ESA?
Maybe not, as Director Ashe noted, directly with regard to the
listing, but the way in which you deal in the aftermath of the
listing that gives more focus on employment opportunity and
jobs for our citizens?
And, finally, is there anything else in the 2013 resolution
that you have laid out from the Western Governors' Association
that we have not covered here today that you think it is
important for the record to make sure that you highlight before
we adjourn?
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the latter part of
your question. I think what we have supplied is pretty good of
where we are now. We hope to add to that until June of next
year. Your question is a great one.
Please restate. I am sorry, I totally lost the train of
thought.
Senator Sullivan. On the issue of more direct reference in
the Federal statute as it relates to job opportunities, the
economy, employment of our constituents.
Mr. Mead. Yes. You know, my answer from my standpoint as
Governor of Wyoming is I think that there should be. It is not
scientific and probably not even something that should bother
me, but as we have tried to delist wolves, I will get letters
from people of, say, for example, Chicago, who will complain
about I am not doing a good job managing my State. Well, I
think we have better wildlife than most States. But we in the
West refuse to be a zoo. We have to feed the citizens; they
have to have jobs.
And where we are now, it seems, with the Endangered Species
Act, and you have heard this, I do not ascribe to it and I
don't know of many people that do, but this notion of shoot,
shovel, and shut up, which refers to if you see something,
don't tell anybody, just deal with it. And that is very
unfortunate because we should be at a point where, if you find
a species that is threatened or endangered, that should be good
news. And the way the system works, if it is always put on a
few, a specific industry or a specific rancher or a specific
community, they are never going to view the Endangered Species
Act as good news. If there is a national interest, and there
should be a national interest in protecting species, then you
cannot put it all on one person or one State or a group of
States. That is why I agree with Governor Bullock. If this is a
priority, we have to put resources in it. We have to think of
conservation.
Every time a species is listed, it should be viewed as a
failure. Every time there is a conservation necessary to help
species, that should be viewed as a success. We have to get
away from this is the worst news possible to have an endangered
species. But the reason that is so, it is viewed by Rancher A
and Business B as this is over. What my grandparents and great-
grandparents built is now over because this animal or this
flower has been found. And we have to figure out how to get
away from that so it is celebrated, we promote it, and
everybody has a stake and vested interest in promoting species.
That is where we need to go.
Senator Sullivan. Very well said.
Governor Bullock.
Mr. Bullock. Very well said.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Well, listen, gentlemen, thank you very much.
Director Ashe, thank you for staying.
This is going to be an important emphasis on this
committee. I certainly hope that you and others can help
convince our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
this is an important bipartisan reform: good for species, good
for the economy, and good for the country. And we are going to
work hard on that in the coming months.
So I appreciate the outstanding testimony of the witnesses
here. It is great having Governors in front of the Congress
today.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m. the committee was adjourned.]
[all]