[Senate Hearing 115-424]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-424
FROM YELLOWSTONE'S GRIZZLY BEAR TO THE CHESAPEAKE'S DELMARVA FOX
SQUIRREL--SUCCESSFUL STATE CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND MANAGEMENT OF
WILDLIFE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
OCTOBER 10, 2018
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
S. Hrg. 115-424
FROM YELLOWSTONE'S GRIZZLY BEAR TO THE CHESAPEAKE'S DELMARVA FOX
SQUIRREL--SUCCESSFUL STATE CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND MANAGEMENT OF
WILDLIFE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 10, 2018
__________
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.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-666 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JERRY MORAN, Kansas JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
JONI ERNST, Iowa CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 10, 2018
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 3
WITNESSES
Kennedy, John, Deputy Director, Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 27
Senator Carper........................................... 29
McCormick, Mike, President, Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso...... 44
Response to an additional question from Senator Carper....... 45
Dohner, Cindy, Cindy K. Dohner, LLC and former Regional Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service................................. 46
Prepared statement........................................... 49
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Hon. Dan Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, from the Center for Biological Diversity et al., June
26, 2014....................................................... 219
Letter to Hon. Matt Mead, Governor of the State of Wyoming, Re:
Please intervene to stop Wyoming's grizzly bear hunt, from Tom
Mangelsen, Images of Nature, et al., May 18, 2018.............. 222
Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper, Re: October 10, 2018
Oversight Hearing--``Successful State Conservation, Recovery,
and Management of Wildlife,'' from Family Farm Alliance,
October 24, 2018............................................... 228
Large Carnivore Conservation. Integrating Science and Policy in
the North American West, edited by Susan G. Clark and Murray B.
Rutherford, The University of Chicago Press, copyright 2014.... 236
Crow Indian Tribe, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States of
America, et al., Federal Defendants, and State of Wyoming, et
al., Defendant-Intervenors..................................... 276
Wildearth Guardians, a non-profit organization, Plaintiff, vs.
Ryan Zinke, as Secretary of the Department of the Interior; the
United States Department of the Interior, a federal department;
Greg Sheehan, as acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a
federal agency, Federal-Defendants............................. 298
FROM YELLOWSTONE'S GRIZZLY BEAR TO THE CHESAPEAKE'S DELMARVA FOX
SQUIRREL--SUCCESSFUL STATE CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND MANAGEMENT OF
WILDLIFE
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito,
Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Gillibrand, and Van Hollen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
Today the Committee is going to examine several of the
important roles that States play in successful conservation,
recovery, and management of wildlife. Across the Nation, State
wildlife and conservation agencies are on the front lines of
preventing species from becoming endangered, of recovering
threatened and endangered species, and of preventing the spread
of invasive species.
States--not Federal agencies--have primacy over wildlife
management. States have made significant investments in
research and on the ground conservation.
According to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
States employ over 50,000 wildlife professionals, including
more than 11,000 degreed wildlife biologists, 10,000 wildlife
law enforcement officers, and 6,000 employees with advanced
education degrees. They also leverage the efforts of over
190,000 volunteers.
States contribute and carry out more than $5.6 billion in
conservation efforts. These enormous resources supplement over
11,000 Federal employees and $2.35 billion in annual spending
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Services.
In Wyoming, we know the importance of responsible
environmental stewardship and habitat management. Our wildlife
and the habitat that our States provide is diverse and
abundant.
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has done a tremendous
job in safeguarding Wyoming's wildlife resources for present
and future generations. Our wildlife biologists partner with
others in the region and with Federal agencies to successfully
recover numerous threatened and endangered species such as the
bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the gray wolf, and the
grizzly bear. They also actively manage thriving populations of
other native wildlife: elk, deer, bison, sage-grouse, and
antelope.
States work to manage invasive species. One example,
cheatgrass, increases the risk of wildfires; it lowers the
quality of forage for wildlife and for livestock; it
unnecessarily burdens already stressed water supplies; and it
poses one of the most significant threats to sage-grouse
habitat conservation efforts.
They also manage the zebra and the quagga mussels, which
threaten our aquatic ecosystems and cause millions of dollars
in damage to dams, municipal water systems, and agricultural
irrigation systems. They monitor and manage mule deer and elk
after harsh winters. They study and mitigate the risk of
brucellosis for elk, and they remain on the cutting edge of
research on chronic wasting disease.
Wyoming demonstrates successful conservation, recovery, and
management of wildlife every day. It is no easy task, and the
State continues to invest countless hours and millions of
dollars. At times, these investments have been dismissed by
litigious groups and activist judges in Federal court.
A few weeks ago, a District Court judge struck down the
delisting of the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. For the second time in a decade, courts disregarded
the biological expertise of both States and Federal agencies.
The ruling is not based on the reality on the ground. In
the delisting, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said, ``The
participating States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and
Federal agencies have adopted the necessary post-listing plans
and regulations which adequately ensure that the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears remains
recovered.''
In 1975 there were as few as 136 grizzly bears in the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Today there are more than 700.
And the bears have more than doubled their range to occupy over
22,000 square miles. The range continues to spread.
Without proper management, they are a threat to public
safety not only to the people in my State, but to sportsmen and
recreationists from across the country who want to experience
Wyoming's national parks, our forests, and other public lands.
Tragically, on September 14th of this year, a Wyoming elk
hunting guide was killed by a grizzly bear and her cub. This
attack happened when the guide, along with his client from
Florida, were cleaning an elk, a normal part of any hunt.
While these are serious examples of wildlife-human
interactions, State wildlife managers work tirelessly to limit
any negative interactions. We have to let Wyoming and other
States do their job.
I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
We welcome our witnesses. I understand Ms. Dohner--I was
talking to her--she tells us her husband is on the run today,
and it has something to do with the big storm, heading for
where, Mobile?
Ms. Dohner. Mobile, yes, sir.
Senator Carper. OK. Well, best wishes to him and a lot of
other people down there, too.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the opportunity to
highlight today one of Delaware's great endangered species
success stories. We hear a lot about failures, but I want to
share a success story today.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considered the Delmarva
fox squirrel endangered before the current Endangered Species
Act was even enacted into law in--I think it was 1973.
Overhunting and habitat destruction were the leading causes of
the squirrel's decline.
The Service didn't develop the first recovery plan for the
squirrel until 1979, and the plan required two sets of
revisions, I think one in 1983, and one in 1993.
Over the course of decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service worked with Delaware, worked with Maryland, and worked
with Virginia to introduce and monitor experimental Delmarva
fox squirrel populations. These populations grew and traveled
onto private lands, creating some unexpected challenges for
landowners. It wasn't easy, but the Service, the States, the
landowners, and other stakeholder groups worked together to
address these challenges while advancing the squirrel's
recovery.
As a result of this collaborative conservation approach,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the Delmarva fox
squirrel from the Endangered Species List 3 years ago, in 2015,
nearly 50 years since the date of listing. The delisting was a
shared success among the States, the Service, and all parties
that participated in recovery actions. Notably, the delisting
did not, did not result in any litigation.
So, I want to underscore the importance of the strong
Federal role in the recovery of the Delmarva fox squirrel.
Without Federal coordination across State lines, the squirrel
may not have recovered. While rate efforts have driven many
species' conservation success stories, the backstops and
incentives provided by the Federal Endangered Species Act are
absolutely critical.
I believe the Delmarva fox squirrel story is the rule for
species recovery, not the exception. Most species become
imperiled over the course of many years. In this case, the fox
squirrel population had likely been decreasing for about a
century. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that species
recovery can take decades, as it did for the Delmarva fox
squirrel.
Lengthy recovery times do not mean that the Endangered
Species Act isn't working, as some of our colleagues may
suggest. When the Endangered Species Act is adequately
resourced--adequately resourced--it actually works quite well.
In addition to the Delmarva fox squirrel, the Endangered
Species Act has helped recover bald eagles and is currently
helping recover the red knot and the piping plover birds in
Delaware and up and down the East Coast. Birders come from near
and far. They come to observe these species, and when they do,
they support our ecotourism industry.
I also hear from some of our colleagues raising concerns
about litigation, especially litigation regarding declining
species. Sometimes disagreements between wildlife managers and
stakeholders result in litigation, particularly around highly
charismatic, nationally beloved predatory species. These
disagreements are unfortunate, but judicial review remains a
necessary part of the Endangered Species Act.
As we will hear from at least one of our witnesses today,
litigation can even forge stronger relationships between the
States and Federal agencies as they work to improve species
conservation outcomes and overcome lawsuits.
I recognize there may be difficulties associated with
litigation, but litigation over delisting decisions is quite
rare. In fact, I am told that environmental nonprofits, which
provide a voice for the public, have sued in only 9 percent of
all delistings. The courts have sided with these NGOs on just
two species, grizzly bears and wolves.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that both of these species live in
your great State, that would be the grizzly bears and the
wolves, but I think it is important for us to acknowledge that
we are not talking about a systemic issue here. As such, I hope
our Committee will focus much of its efforts on addressing the
severe funding constraints that are limiting both State and
Federal abilities to better conserve species.
When States work collaboratively with Federal agencies and
diverse stakeholders, I believe that our environment, our
wildlife, and our economy can prosper together. That is
certainly our experience in Delaware. I hope the same is true
in all of our States.
Let me conclude by saying we look forward to hearing the
testimony from each of you today.
And we want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for bringing
us all together for what I believe will be a valuable
conversation.
I have another committee--in fact, we all have committees
that are meeting at the same time, and I am going to be coming
and going. I don't mean to be rude, but please bear with us,
and we will be with you as much as we can. Thank you all for
joining us today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
We are now going to hear from our three witnesses. We will
be hearing shortly from Mr. John Kennedy, the Deputy Director
of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. I will more formally
introduce Mr. Kennedy in a minute.
We also have joining us today Mr. Mike McCormick, the
President of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation; and Ms.
Cindy Dohner, who is the former Regional Director of the
Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I want to remind each of the witnesses that your full
written testimony will be made part of the official hearing
record, so please try to keep your statements to 5 minutes so
that we will have time for questions.
I would now like to introduce Mr. John Kennedy, who serves
as the Deputy Director for Internal Operations at the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department. He began his career at the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department in 2004 as the Service Division Chief.
In that role, his duties included coordinating the agency's
management of wildlife habitat, as well as conservation
education.
Now, as Deputy Director, Mr. Kennedy is responsible for the
agency's oversight of the fish, wildlife services, and the
fiscal divisions. He also serves on a number of committees of
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Each of these
positions has provided Mr. Kennedy with valuable wildlife
conservation, recovery, and management expertise. He also is a
proud and distinguished graduate of a program that I have also
attended and graduated from, Leadership Wyoming.
Mr. Kennedy, it is a privilege to welcome you today to the
Environment and Public Works Committee. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KENNEDY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WYOMING GAME AND
FISH DEPARTMENT
Mr. Kennedy. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
Member Carper, and members of the Committee. My name is John
Kennedy, and I am with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the reference to the work that
is taking place in Wyoming with the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department. I appreciate that and will be sure to pass that on
to our employees.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about
wildlife conservation in Wyoming.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as you know, the
50 States have the primary legal authority and management
responsibility for a great deal of the country's wildlife
resources. States have specific authority for wildlife
management within their borders, including most Federal lands.
In the late 1800s the Nation's wildlife resources were
depleted due to unregulated hunting and habitat loss. In order
to protect the resource, hunters and anglers advocated for
regulations for hunting and measures to protect valuable
habitat. These efforts led to the creation of the North
American Model Wildlife Conservation, which has two main areas
of focus: fish and wildlife belong to all citizens and wildlife
management for perpetual sustainability.
To carry out the management charge granted by the
Constitution, every State has an agency dedicated to managing
wildlife resources within their borders. In spite of limited
funding, State agencies have garnered considerable expertise in
response to the growing need to address at-risk and imperiled
species, and to carry out management responsibilities across
the country.
On average, 60 to 90 percent of State wildlife agency
budgets are derived by hunters and anglers. Management of
wildlife and the habitats that support them is partially funded
through excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment collected
under the Federal authority of the Pittman-Robertson and
Dingell-Johnson Acts, which have been a critical source of
wildlife conservation funding in the United States for over 80
years. The sale of hunting and fishing licenses significantly
contribute to the conservation efforts at the State level. In
Wyoming, hunters and anglers fund the Department's work almost
entirely.
The collective annual budget of State wildlife agencies is
significant: $5.6 billion. Nearly 59 percent--that is $3.3
billion--comes from hunting and fishing related activities
either directly through the sale of licenses, tags, and stamps,
or indirectly through Federal excise taxes on hunting, fishing,
and recreational shooting equipment.
Despite this hunting and fishing specific funding model,
State wildlife agencies have a long history of success in
restoring many species, both game and non-game. It has been
long recognized that the traditional focus of State wildlife
agencies has been on the conservation of game species, but more
attention and funding has been directed toward the conservation
of non-game species. This shift was the impetus for development
of State Wildlife Action Plans and the State Wildlife Grants
program. Each State has a plan developed that identifies the
species of greatest conservation need in the State and provides
for the inventory, research, and management actions necessary
to conserve those species.
The need for new and broader funding is reflected in one of
the recommendations made by the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies Blue Ribbon Panel on sustaining America's
Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources. That recommendation is to
secure an additional $1.3 billion for the Wildlife Conservation
Restoration Program and is the impetus for our current work on
the Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
In Wyoming, the responsibilities of the Department are
defined in Wyoming's statute and charge the agency to provide
an adequate and flexible system for the control, management,
protection, and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife. The
Department manages over 800 wildlife species. The Department's
core priority is to manage wildlife using sound scientific
principles, while maintaining stakeholder satisfaction. This
includes actively monitoring wildlife populations, adjusting
regulations to ensure sustained use, conducting research,
enforcing wildlife laws and regulations, conserving and
restoring habitat, and maintaining an increasing public access
for hunting and fishing.
While there are significant challenges to managing certain
species and habitats, State wildlife agencies are the best to
address those challenges, just as Wyoming has done with the
greater sage-grouse, black footed ferrets, grizzly bears, and
wolves. It is also worth noting the dozens of wildlife that
faced serious challenges nearly 100 years ago that were brought
back through State led collaborative conservation efforts,
including mule deer, moose, elk, and pronghorn antelope.
As you can see in my written testimony, there are many
examples of successful State conservation, recovery, management
of wildlife in Wyoming, including work on threatened and
endangered species, non-game and game. This includes successful
conservation work on the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and
again, sage-grouse, grizzly bears, gray wolf, and black footed
ferrets.
Mr. Chairman, as you referenced in the introduction, there
are also examples of successful State management of invasive
species. In terms of aquatic invasive species, we have been
successful in keeping two species of concern out of our waters,
those being quagga and zebra mussels. And although managing
cheatgrass has proven to be extremely challenging and costly,
we have accomplished successful site specific treatments in
certain areas of Wyoming. We are also controlling certain
terrestrial invasive species on wildlife habitat areas that we
manage throughout the State.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today and to talk about Wyoming's
work to conserve, recover, and manage wildlife. I am happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you for your testimony. We
are grateful to have you and your testimony here today. Thank
you.
Mr. McCormick.
STATEMENT OF MIKE MCCORMICK, PRESIDENT,
MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Mr. McCormick. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper,
and members of the Committee, my name is Mike McCormick. I am
the President of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, and I
am pleased to be here today to offer my testimony on several
issues of importance to farmers and ranchers across the
country.
On behalf of the nearly 6 million Farm Bureau member
families across the United States, I commend you for your
leadership in providing oversight of successful State work to
conserve, recover, and manage wildlife.
I would like to devote my time today to primarily discuss
several examples of species which have witnessed positive
conservation goals and recovery largely due to the effective
partnerships between private landowners and State wildlife
agencies.
A great example of local and State partnerships is a
stewardship program that Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation and
the Mississippi Department of Agriculture developed to protect
and manage pollinators. The Mississippi Bee Stewardship Program
is the result of a series of collected discussions held among
stakeholder groups to discuss ways of fostering better working
dialogue among the State's row crop farmers and beekeepers, all
in the spirit of conservation, coexisting, and cooperation to
protect pollinators through voluntary efforts.
Three pillars of the Bee Stewardship Program include
communication, cooperative standards, and habitat restoration.
With these efforts primarily tailored to the relationships
between the farmers and beekeepers, we feel the standards they
develop will be beneficial to native pollinators as well.
This program was used as a model nationally and was adopted
by several other States and included in the President's
Pollinator Partnership Action Plan. Much of the success can be
attributed to the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency
and other Federal agencies supported the effort but allowed
local partnerships to develop and implement the plans.
Additionally, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife
Fisheries and Parks has done a tremendous job with the
preservation and recovery of numerous other species. To restore
Mississippi's wild alligator population after it was placed on
the Endangered Species List, the Mississippi Game and Fish
Commission relocated nearly 4,000 alligators to the State. The
Mississippi Game and Fish Commission's relocation efforts,
combined with Federal regulations of protecting alligators,
have allowed the alligator population in Mississippi to
rebound.
After 24 years of dedicated recovery efforts by private
landowners, farmers, and State Federal agencies, the Louisiana
black bear was removed from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife in 2016.
During the 1800 to 1850 time period the white-tailed deer
population in the State disappeared from much of their range,
mostly east of the Mississippi River. Due to strict protection
of antlerless deer and partnerships among private landowners,
farmers, and State agencies, the Mississippi white-tailed deer
herds have grown rapidly, and today Mississippi deer herds rank
among the most abundant in the United States.
Another very successful program in Florida is the Landowner
Assistance Program. The Landowner Assistance Program, housed at
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, has a
history of cooperative working relationships with private
landowners and managers. The program assists with measures to
conserve wildlife habitat, while keeping land productive for
many agricultural and recreational uses. Specifically, this
program works with landowners to preserve habitat and protect
species such as white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey,
bobcat, panther, gopher tortoise, kite, and caracara.
The final example of landowners working hand in hand with
Federal and State partners is in the State of Kentucky. Black
vulture depredation was recognized as an issue in Kentucky
around 2004, when cattlemen began noticing a new type of
behavior by vultures. This bird was having a devastating impact
on cattle farms when newborn calves were birthed and these
vultures would attack the calf and would typically result in
the loss of the newborn.
After numerous conversations with stakeholder groups and
State agencies, the USFWS encouraged the Kentucky Farm Bureau
to submit an application for depredation permits. In 2013 the
Kentucky Farm Bureau was allowed to issue depredation permits
with close oversight by the USFWS. Today, the Farm Bureau is
issuing permits with close support by the Kentucky Fish and
Wildlife Service.
One key ingredient that has been vital to the success in
the examples I have just highlighted is the positive working
relationship that exists between stakeholder groups and all
Federal and State agencies in those respective States.
Additionally, the success of many of these programs would not
be possible without the support of our land grant universities,
which provide a vital service to agriculture in our State.
I am joined here today by my staff, as well as a
representative from the Department of Agriculture and Commerce
that has extensive background in wildlife management. Their
presence here today is another reflection of the strong working
relationship that we have with our State and agency partners. I
believe they also have a letter of support that has been
introduced in the record.
In closing, the American Farm Bureau Federation appreciates
the Committee's commitment to promoting successful examples of
conservation and wildlife recovery achieved through
partnerships with private landowners and State and Federal
agencies. The continued commitment to stewardship and
conservation by American farmers and ranchers cannot be
overstated. We look forward to continuing to work with you in
advancing the shared conservation goals which I have
highlighted today, and I look forward to your questioning.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCormick follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so very much for your testimony.
We appreciate you being here and joining us today.
Now we look forward to what you have to say. Thanks, Ms.
Dohner, for attending.
STATEMENT OF CINDY DOHNER, CINDY K. DOHNER, LLC AND FORMER
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ms. Dohner. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and members of the Committee. I am Cindy Dohner, and I
work in the environmental field since I retired from the
Service last year. I served as the Southeast Regional Director
and provided leadership and oversight for the Service's species
conservation work across 10 States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Since leaving the Service, I continue to find new ways to
advance species conservation, and I am helping lead a
conservation effort called Conservation Without Conflict, that
started last year. This new effort is both an approach and a
coalition. Members have diverse goals and values, including
economic profit, hunting, fishing, conservation, and national
security. They all come together around common conservation
interests and a sense of good land stewardship, and we are
making a difference.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to add my
perspective on the conservation, recovery, and management of
wildlife. As the Regional Director in the Southeast, I worked
hard to balance the conservation of natural resources with the
needs of the public on the landscape.
This Nation values land and the well-being it provides
family, the recreational opportunity it affords, and the
wildlife it sustains. I was also committed to making the ESA
works for the American people.
I believe the Act provides a critical catalyst and has
inherent flexibilities, although not always used, that allows
those in the landscape to work together in an effort to
conserve species. Not only do I believe it, but I have seen the
successes in the South.
The States and the Service conservation efforts in the
South have resulted in more than what we call 185 wildlife
wins. That includes species not needing the Act's protection or
those that have been recovered, down listed, or delisted. Today
I would like to give you a few examples.
We work closely with the State fish and wildlife agencies
throughout the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. That includes 15 southeastern States, and that is 5
more than my region had. We had a common sense approach to
species conservation. We forged a unique relationship between
the Service and our State partners, sometimes referred to as
ensuring there is no daylight between us. This didn't mean that
we agreed all the time, because the missions varied, but that
we agreed on as many things we could, and we didn't surprise
each other.
Since the South is rich in biodiversity, it isn't
surprising to find at least five States in the South have the
highest Federal listings, with Alabama being one of the States
with the most aquatic diversity in the Nation, having 127
federally protected species. However, you don't hear much
controversy in this region because we work hard to advance
conservation without a lot of conflict. This type of working
relationship was forged almost 20 years ago, when both the
Service and the State of Florida, the Florida Conservation
Commission, were sued over manatee recovery issues. We realized
at the time, if we worked together we were stronger, and we
were able to provide more conservation for the species, and
both the State and the Service played important roles.
But agencies have limited resources to conserve species
under the Act, and sometimes difficult choices need to be made.
Because of the two lawsuits, the State and the Service came
together to share resources to address high priority actions
available under their oversight and their laws. The manatee is
now one of the species that has been down listed, but it took
the collective recovery efforts of both agencies, many
stakeholders, and others to make a difference. The species has
now been down listed.
One thing the Service and the State agreed on is the desire
to reduce the regulatory burdens on landowners. As RD, we
explored many processes available to streamline the regulatory
process by using tools like safe harbor agreements for private
landowners.
In some cases, we developed new innovative tools to reduce
regulatory burdens. A unique example is the Section 6 agreement
we have with the State of Florida, the Service has. This
agreement streamlined the permitting process by giving the
Commission the ability to issue Endangered Species Act permits
for the Service, resulting in the elimination of duplicate
permitting for the same action. The State of Florida, though,
had to change its laws to ensure they could meet the Act's
requirements.
Another major challenge I dealt with as the RD came with
the Service's multi-district litigation settlement in 2011 and
numerous ESA petitions. As a result of these actions, the
Southeast was required to determine the status of more than 450
species. There were concerns that if all the species were
listed, it could have resulted in more than doubling the number
of species listed, which would have significantly increased the
regulatory burden on the landowners.
As RD, I knew this was a challenge that would require a
collaborative effort to get durable outcomes, so I approached
the State directors in the Southeast Association to discuss the
issue. Needless to say, they were surprised, concerned, and a
bit worried over the sheer number of species needed to be
evaluated. They were not too happy that I was also changing
their priorities, and to be honest with you, I didn't blame
them. However, because of our dialogue and deliberations, in
2011 we embarked on the At-Risk Species Conservation Strategy.
With sound science as our guide, we, along with Federal
agencies, private landowners, industries, and NGOs, began the
process of proactively conserving as many species as possible.
Through these efforts, the Service has determined that Federal
listing is not warranted for 171 species. I am proud of the
many actions taken by the Service across the South to conserve
at-risk species during my time as RD, especially the
partnerships we formed with the States, private landowners,
industry, and other Federal agencies.
Private lands comprise about 90 percent of the landscape in
the South, and these lands provide habitat for about 80 percent
of our Nation's imperiled species. But other Federal agencies,
industries, and NGOs all play a role.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize the
importance of both the Service and the States' roles to
conserve species. The Act has provided a critical framework
that has catalyzed an approach and created successful
partnerships to conserve species. When the law is implemented
more effectively and collaboratively, and with a common sense
approach, you get benefits for species and landowners.
Both the States and the Service rely upon having a science
driven and transparent decisionmaking process where people and
businesses in affected communities can participate easily and
effectively. I know the Service and the States are committed to
conserving fish and wildlife by relying upon strong
partnerships and creative, voluntary solutions to achieve
conservation, minimize the regulatory burden, and keep working
lands working. Their commitments have been demonstrated by the
conservation successes in the South.
I believe the Act is already inherently flexible and allows
us to recover and conserve species, but these flexibilities are
not always used today. I am also aware various bills have been
proposed to amend the law. We have learned much since the law
was originally passed.
If ESA amendments are considered, I think it is important
to think strategically about what works and what is really
needed to improve the effectiveness of the Act. What we really
need are new, innovative tools, adequate resources to implement
the law, more people that use a common sense approach to
implement it, and time.
Thank you for your interest in recovering and conserving
species, and the implementation of the Act. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify and have submitted a written testimony
with more detail.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dohner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. And that will be included as part of the
permanent record.
Ms. Dohner. Thank you, sir.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks for being here.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking me out
of turn. We have a conflict in the Armed Services Committee,
but this is so significant to me that I wanted to be sure to
get on record, as we have many times before, back at the time
when I used to be chairing this Committee.
Our Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation has been
doing a great job conserving species in my State of Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Paddlefish Management Program was responsible for
the fact that it is now thriving in Oklahoma, and yet other
States are on the decline. The same thing is true--in fact, it
has been taken off the listing of our swift fox, our mountain
plover, which is a bird, have been withdrawn from the petition,
so good things are happening there.
I would mention, though, that the lesser prairie-chicken
was not one of our successes. I would say to Mr. Kennedy, we
partnered, about 4 years ago, with New Mexico, Kansas, Texas,
and Colorado, so the five of us, our States partnered together,
put together a program for the lesser prairie-chicken, and it
is one that was very, very successful. We increased the
population. We had some buy in of various stakeholders to
prevent threatening and listing, and yet the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife--you have to keep in mind when you are dealing with a
bureaucracy, there is this idea that they do a better job than
we do at the State level.
Mr. Kennedy, I think some of the listings actually have a
negative effect on the conservation efforts. Don't States have
more flexibility when it comes to conservation efforts over the
ESA? What is your experience?
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee,
Senator, I think that you explained it quite well. There is
some frustration, and that frustration comes into play when you
get passt the science and the good work that is taking place on
the ground. There is some bureaucracy that can come and get in
the way, certainly. I would agree with that.
These listings take a lot of time, and we have limited
staff resources to deal with these, and certainly the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has limitations. If you look at the number
of listings nationwide that takes place and the work that is
required, there is no wonder why these things take a lot of
time. It also diverts a lot of time and expertise away from the
States and their current priorities that they are working on to
work on these recovery goals and listing decisions.
So, in my opinion, the Endangered Species Act, I think I
agree with all the comments that have been made and the
testimonies that have been provided, but it has become a
regulatory tool for litigants to direct Federal land management
activities and/or State wildlife management goals, as opposed
to a conservation measure.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that.
Mr. McCormick, I know the Farm Bureau has been very active
in activating people, this concept that they care more about
their land than any bureaucrat in Washington does. As a matter
of fact, we had Dan Ashe, who is the head of the Fish and
Wildlife of the last Administration, and he actually learned
himself. During his confirmation, I got a commitment for him to
make two trips out to Oklahoma to talk to our landowners, and
he came back with the idea that, in fact, that is a better way
of doing it.
What has been your experience?
Mr. McCormick. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity
to be here.
Senator Inhofe, I think you are exactly right. Farmers have
but one goal, and that is to pass our land, our farms along to
the next generation better than we found it today, and we
certainly want to have wildlife there for our children and
grandchildren.
Senator Inhofe. And you are aware of the Partnership
Program? The Partnership Program is one that brings the
landowners in with Fish and Wildlife, and that was what was
expanded dramatically during that time, when the Administration
actually was initially opposed to it.
So, is that working in Mississippi?
Mr. McCormick. I am not aware of that, Senator, but I am
sure our staff is.
Senator Inhofe. It is working well. Tell your staff they
are doing a good job.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Let me just wait. I can stay now. If others
would like to go ahead. I am going to be here until the very
end.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you.
First, let me thank our witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I have been to Yellowstone several times. I
have been able to, at one time, observe a wolf. I think the
wolf knew I was a member of the Senate because it took off
right away, out of fear.
Senator Barrasso. Professional courtesy?
Senator Cardin. I think so. And I have observed bears at
Yellowstone at safe distances, and safe distances is having
someone smaller than you in front of where I was. I did that
also.
I have never seen a grizzly. Have no desire to see a
grizzly out in the wild, but I am glad to see that recovery is
taking place.
I do take pride in Delmarva fox squirrel being delisted. I
was in the Maryland part of Delmarva with the Secretary of
Interior when we announced the delisting at Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge, which is one of the areas that expanded its
capacity to have the habitat necessary for the Delmarva fox
squirrel to be able to recover.
I have also been to Florida and seen many times manatees in
the wild. It is an incredible sight to see and know the
challenges at work there.
So, I am a strong supporter of the Endangered Species Act,
recognizing that at times it does cause conflict. But in the
way that it has worked over its years, it has been a
cooperative effort. As Senator Carper mentioned in his opening
statement, in most cases the listing and delistings occur in a
cooperative way, not in litigation, although at times
litigation is necessary. And as Ms. Dohner pointed out,
litigation has brought some good results, and I appreciate that
very much.
Ms. Dohner, I want to get to the point that you raised. I
thought it was a very telling point. And that was that it is
not just the listed species that benefits from the recovery
work, but other species benefit as well. That has certainly
been true in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. What is happening at
Blackwater is not just affecting the Delmarva fox squirrel, but
you can look at bald eagles, you can look at so many other
species that are flourishing as a result.
Could you just comment briefly that the Endangered Species
Act and the recoveries that have taken place under that, the
impact it has on the general environment, not just those listed
species?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir. Thank you for that, and thank you for
your work in the Chesapeake Bay, because I grew up in that
area, and I got to enjoy it all the time.
I believe that the Endangered Species Act is a very
important law and one that serves as a catalyst to bring people
together. I think that you have heard from some of the work
that the other witnesses talked about, that the conservation
efforts, when you bring people together, you can actually get a
lot of work done, and the fear of regulation is one thing that
brings people to the table.
Private landowners on the land want to work their lands.
Military bases want to ensure that they can train. Timber
companies want to ensure that they can cut their timber. And
when you look at additional regulation, that could impact all
of those sources and those aspects of the use of the land, so
one of the things, when we got that large petition, is it
brought everybody together. Everybody came together. It
coalesced the interests so that we could work real hard to
minimize the regulation that would go onto the landscape.
By doing that, we were able to find ways to conserve
species. I said there was 171 that were conserved so far that
don't need the Act's protection, which in itself is a success
story. And you are able to go forward with all the lands that
are continuing to work.
Senator Cardin. Thank you for that.
I just want to mention one other area that has me
concerned, and that is the challenges we are seeing on climate
change and whether the Endangered Species Act is even strong
enough to deal with some of these new challenges.
In Florida, red tide, we don't know exactly what has caused
it, but it is unprecedented, the range and length of this red
tide episode. They believe weather conditions have added to
those concerns.
Do we need to look at our environmental laws, including the
Endangered Species Act, as to whether it is adequate to deal
with the challenges that we are facing as a result of climate
change?
Ms. Dohner. Sir, thank you for that question. I think the
Endangered Species Act, the way it is currently written,
requires the Service to work closely with the States and to
evaluate the status of the species, and that includes anything
as far as changes to the status of the species, so impacts from
climate, impacts from habitat degradation, and those types of
things. The judicial reviews that happen as part of the
Endangered Species Act and the things similar to what the
manatee was, they are challenging, they are frustrating, and it
is hard work, but that process also brought everybody to the
table and brought the Endangered Species Act evaluation open,
it opened it up, and it was more public, and we were able----
Senator Cardin. We will see how your successor deals with
red tide. To me, that is going to be an incredible impact on
species preservation in that region.
Ms. Dohner. Right. That is all the way over to where I live
in Destin, sir, so I understand that concern. And I do think
that the Acts are going to be able to address those impacts in
the future.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record a letter signed by 73 scientists
expressing concerns regarding grizzly bear hunting in the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Once again, thanks to the witnesses.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Mr. Kennedy, we have some poster boards from your agency,
and they show the growth in the human-bear incidents. There are
a couple over there--I think it was 1990s, 2013--as the bear
continues to spread out beyond the Yellowstone area into places
south of Jackson, into the Wind River Reservation, surrounding
communities.
How is this relisting of the bear complicating your efforts
to manage the human-bear incidents that continue to occur?
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee,
as you can see with these representations up in front of us,
the conflicts, that is, the conflicts in yellow in a different
period of years, have increased significantly since 1990, that
is for sure, and that is consequential to the increase in both
density and distribution of grizzly bears as the population
reached and exceeded recovery.
As you mentioned early in the introduction, Chairman
Barrasso, the most grave example of increased conflicts is
illustrated by the number of human deaths attributed to grizzly
bear attacks. Prior to 2010 it had been over two decades since
a person was killed in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem by a
grizzly bear, and since then, unfortunately, there have been
seven, with the most recent occurring just a few weeks ago, as
you had referenced.
The process now is complicated, certainly compared to when
it is under the State's management responsibilities. Dealing
with conflict grizzly bears will now require authorization by
the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in any case where a bear needs to be removed
from the populated or translocated, so this often means that a
person from the Federal Government who does not live in Wyoming
or have any experience dealing with conflict bears makes the
final decision as to how to handle these cases.
Having said that, I would say that since this most recent
decision to relist, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
supported our recommendations to date. So, other than a more
complicated process and perhaps more time, we are able to deal
with these conflicts as fast as we can.
Senator Barrasso. You said someone living outside of
Wyoming, never ever been there; I would like to read a quote
for you from the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation regarding bear management. This is what they said.
They said, ``As bear populations increase, and more people
choose to live and recreate in areas occupied by bears, human-
bear conflicts also increase. Thus, managing bear populations
is critically important, and managers are challenged to balance
diverse public interests in bears with concern for public
safety.''
So, in 2017, let's talk about what State wildlife officials
permitted the taking of around the country. I think you are
going to see the slide over there. Oregon, 1,700 black bears;
New York, 1,400 black bears; Vermont, over 600 black bears; New
Jersey, over 400 black bears; Massachusetts, 268 black bears.
Now, Wyoming proposed to only take 22 bears in 2018 as a
part of a hunt.
Do you agree with the statement from the New York
Department that managing bear populations, including through
hunts, is necessary to balance the needs of the bears with
public safety?
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee, I
do agree with that. I do agree with that statement, and we have
seen that, and the States have a proven track record with
respect to the regulated hunting of other species. And the 22
bears that you referenced in Wyoming for the grizzly bear, what
was the proposed grizzly bear hunt, was extremely conservative.
Hunting has played an instrumental role in the recovery and
health of wildlife populations; it is not only a pragmatic and
cost effective tool for managing populations at desired levels,
but as you point out, Chairman Barrasso, it also generates
public support ownership of the resource and funding for
conservation. And almost of equal importance, it provides a
greater tolerance for some species such as large predators that
may cause safety concerns, as we are talking about here.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate that.
Mr. McCormick, we are going to show a chart that talks
about additional species being considered for listing under the
Endangered Species Act. I think you are familiar with this.
What we are looking at, by 2023 it looks like the State of
Mississippi is expected to get anywhere between 21 and 40 new
Endangered Species Act listings coming up in the next couple of
years. In fact, the entire Southeast seems to be getting a
disproportionate number in terms of the impact, so each listing
could have serious economic impacts to farmers and small
business owners in your State.
I see Senator Boozman looking at it. It looks like Arkansas
is in exactly the same situation, with anywhere from 21 to 40.
Is there concern among farmers in your State about
litigation, activist judges who may move the goal posts,
ignoring what your State wildlife conservation efforts have
been doing if these new listings in Mississippi occur?
Mr. McCormick. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
Absolutely would be the short answer. It seems that this has
been more of a western issue that is now spreading into the
Southeast, and I think the biggest thing that we probably need
to recognize there is in the western States you are dealing
with a lot of public lands. In the State of Mississippi, 89
percent of our land is owned by private landowners, and I
suspect that to be the same in Senator Boozman's State and
across the Southeast.
So, you are talking about a bigger impact on a wider range
of our population that owns that land, so it is going to be
challenging for us, as an organization, to get the information
out on how to comply with these new regulations to those
farmers and ranchers that may have smaller areas that they are
going to have to deal with. But certainly, our biggest issue
would be to make sure that the information flow gets out to
those individuals. We want to work with the State agencies
because we have a common goal, and that is for conservation of
our land.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Before I ask some questions of our witnesses, I want to
make a unanimous consent request. I received any number of
letters and written testimonies in response to this hearing,
including a letter from the Delaware Division of Fish and
Wildlife, stating the importance of the Endangered Species Act
and Federal agencies in species recovery.
I also received letters from Dr. Jane Goodall, from
Patagonia, from tribal leaders and Members of Congress, and I
would just ask unanimous consent to enter these letter and
other supplemental materials into the record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. First question I would like to ask of you,
Ms. Dohner. I understand you have helped create an exemplary
model for collaborative species conservation in the Southeast
region. Is that true, yes or no?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
This model works for species and for landowners. Is that
true, yes or no?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. We know that the Fish and Wildlife Service
can do more for species with additional financial resources.
Would you elaborate on how the Service could provide better
regulatory certainty for landowners with additional financial
resources and do so within the current framework of the
Endangered Species Act?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the question,
sir. So, as part of conservation for conflict, one of the
things that the Service and the whole coalition--which is
industry, States, private landowners all working together, and
NGOs--is to use the incentives and the tools already
established through the ESA, safe harbors, candidate
conservation agreements with assurances.
But sir, it takes time, and it takes staff to develop those
resources. It takes the Service staff; it takes the staff of
the States, because species that aren't listed are the State's
jurisdiction, so the State and the Service both need resources.
You also need time and the private landowners need help.
Private landowners need to get better engaged in these efforts.
The Fish and Wildlife Service could also improve the ESA
through Section 7 consultation and recovery, and I would just
like to give you one example. In the Southeast, where I was
Regional Director, we had about 389 species that were currently
listed, not counting those we had to evaluate.
We had $14 million in our recovery budget. About five of
those species took about $1 million apiece; the rest had to go
to the 384 species on how we would do things. It is just an
example of how the resources are not adequate and how you have
to make difficult decisions.
Senator Carper. OK, thank you.
If I could, maybe a follow up question for you. This is
with respect to judicial review, which several people have
discussed today.
In your testimony you mention litigation challenges.
Litigation over new listings led to the development of the
Service's 7 year workplan, which is helping the Service
prioritize listings and critical habitat designations.
In the case of the Service's relationship with Florida, you
stated that litigation regarding manatee recovery actually
improved your relationship with the State, actually improved
your relationship with the State.
Would you further elaborate on the importance of judicial
review and how you believe the Service can work through
litigation to maintain public trust and improve species
conservation?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. We were
sued by the Save the Manatee Club, and both the State and the
Fish and Wildlife Service had their lawsuits in different
districts. The first thing we realized is that we were having
challenges as we worked through the lawsuits because they were
very similar lawsuits, so we worked together, and we actually
had the suits combined and we worked through those together.
Because of this, we realized that we had to figure out how
we could make a difference by the State using their authorities
and the actions they could take and the Service using their
authorities and the actions they could take together to deal
with the lawsuit and the recovery of the manatee. Part of that
process was to bring all the stakeholders together to talk
about the science, to talk about the actions, and to talk about
the issues we were addressing.
That included boat dock builders, the Army Corps of
Engineers, private landowners, all that were being impacted,
because when we were sued, all boat dock buildings in Florida
had been shut down, so nobody could do anything at that point.
We had to figure out how we could find a creative solution to
go forward, allow those on the lands or the waters to work and
conserve a species.
Before we got sued, the Service and the State of Florida
didn't get along the best. After the lawsuit, to this date, the
Service and the State of Florida, and the Southeastern States
with the Southeast Regional Director, work well together, in a
collaborative fashion, and many times we work seamlessly on
restoration, recovery, conservation issues for endangered
species.
Senator Carper. All right; well, thanks.
I have another question or two. Maybe we will have a second
round. If we do, I would like to ask those. Thanks so much.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Director Kennedy, as you know, States have
periodically been required to submit for approval State
Wildlife Action Plans to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
order to qualify for State and tribal wildlife grants. How
would you characterize the State of Wyoming's relationship with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee,
Senator, in relation to specifically State Wildlife Action
Plans, or in general?
Senator Rounds. Yes, State Wildlife Action Plans.
Mr. Kennedy. Our development of State Wildlife Action Plans
and our work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through
the State's Wildlife Grants program has been extremely
productive. Certainly, in Wyoming, we have developed a very
aggressive State Wildlife Action Plan to address those species
that aren't listed yet.
And all this discussion about the Endangered Species Act
and the importance of keeping species off the list, that is
exactly the primary purpose of those State Wildlife Action
Plans. And again, our relationship with the Fish and Wildlife
Service has been mostly in the form of review of those plans
and the provision of funding to accomplish projects.
Senator Rounds. Are there any legislative changes that you
would see helpful with regard to promoting and furthering that
relationship?
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Barrasso, Senator, I think the
relationship is working just fine. There could be some
improvements, certainly, in the level of funding that is
provided to State fish and wildlife agencies specific to
sensitive species, especially when you look at the fact that
our model is very specific to being provided by hunters and
anglers. There is a lot of money needed to go into those
species for that constituency.
But in terms of general coordination with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for State Wildlife Action Plans, I guess I
don't see the need for additional legislation.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Mr. McCormick, I believe you would agree with me that the
greatest conservationists this country has are its farmers and
its ranchers. However, Congress has responsibility to the
farmers and ranchers to provide them with tools, when
available, to protect habitats and prevent environmental
degradation.
One of those tools in my home State of South Dakota has
been the Conservation Reserve Program. Many of us would like to
see as many acres of CRP in the upcoming Farm Bill as we can
get. Could you speak to the value of this program from a
conservation perspective?
Mr. McCormick. I can speak to the value of the program on a
personal basis. My father-in-law's farm is in CRP, or was at
one point in time, and it was a highly erodible tract of land
that should have been in there and has been a big tool to be
used for the enjoyment of wildlife and the protection of
wildlife in the area, so it has been a good program.
The Farm Bureau has supported the CRP program. We
understand that it has some challenges when it becomes
competitive with farmers that may want to lease the land and
put it back in production, and that it may have some unfair
advantages there to keep that land out of production, so I
think we are in the corner of supporting the Conservation
Reserve Program. We know that it has been a valuable tool to
not only help our farmers, but to protect wildlife around the
U.S., and we support the program.
Senator Rounds. Really, the issue there should be to get
the land which is the most vulnerable, which is probably the
least productive land, and yet that is the land that really
belongs in the CRP program.
Mr. McCormick. Yes, Senator, I completely agree. I spent a
number of years on our county committee for farm service
agency, and it was disheartening to see that maybe some of the
land that should've been in the program didn't rank high
enough, and then the most productive land that needs to be out
growing crops to feed our Nation was put in because it scored
higher. I guess that is what I am saying, is that when we write
these rules, we need to be aware that the land that we are
trying to protect is probably best for the habitat for our
wildlife needs to be the ones that scores the highest.
Senator Rounds. Couldn't agree more with you. Thank you.
Ms. Dohner, I am just curious. You indicated flexibility is
not always being used today with regard to the programs. Could
you elaborate just a little bit in terms of who has that
flexibility? Can you think of a time in which that occurred
that you were thinking of when you made that statement?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for that
question. Sir, I was actually in the Washington, DC, office
when the Service developed Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe
Harbor agreements, and the Kennedy Conservation agreements.
Then I moved to the Southeast. At the time they weren't known
that well, what those flexibilities are. They are basically
voluntary programs that provide assurance or incentives to
private landowners to get involved, and they have no additional
regulatory burden as they go forward with these.
So, part of the problem is people don't know how flexible
they can be and how you can use them. They also don't
understand how to use them sometimes. So that is part of the
problem.
I believe, sir, that there are also other flexibilities
that we could use when it comes to recovering and conserving
species, and some of the work that we did in the Southeast,
working closely with the States, together with the States,
sometimes the States lead, sometimes the Service leads. I think
that we need to do that type of work more.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman, and
thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Kennedy, welcome. I am from Rhode Island, which is very
different than Wyoming in a lot of respects. Your Senator and I
have done a lot of good work together on a variety of issues,
and I have come to know a little bit about the Wyoming
ecosystem, and I have had the pleasure of visiting out there,
both hiking in the high timber areas and fishing for your
wonderful trout. So, although it is beautiful in a different
way than Rhode Island, it is a very beautiful place.
There is a Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan from 2017,
and it has a 34 page report in it on the effect on climate
change on your State in particular, and I would like to ask you
about the two areas that I just mentioned. In one part the
report says, ``Warming water temperatures may drive cold and
cool water fish species''--and I think we agree that trout is a
cold and cool water fish species--``to new ranges or lead to
local extirpation or extinction.''
I am wondering what you are hearing from Wyoming fishermen
and outfitters about the effect of climate change on trout
streams.
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee,
Senator, thank you for the question. We had talked earlier
about making reference to our State Wildlife Action Plan, and
we certainly take that plan very serious.
Senator Whitehouse. May I just interrupt? Is that in the
record of the proceedings? If not, I would like to ask that the
34-page section on climate change be added to the record of the
proceedings, since we are talking about it.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Please go ahead, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for the question. We take it quite
seriously. We have not heard a lot of negative perspectives or
input yet from our constituents with respect to the fisheries.
I think that reference in the report we are anticipating and
seeing that in other areas, and certainly scientists are
recommending to us to be ready to be flexible and adaptable in
that regard.
But our fisheries right now in Wyoming, cold water
fisheries, trout fishing, as you have referenced you have taken
advantage of recently, is the best in the country, and it is
really, really good right now. So, it is just a forecast for us
and a standby to be ready to be flexible in our management, if
necessary.
Senator Whitehouse. And the other element is the sort of
high timber in Wyoming, which is beautiful for backpacking and
hiking and riding, and all of that. The report says on that
that ``Long periods of drought may cause a decline in forested
area as the land becomes too arid to support forest ecosystems
and may further increase the susceptibility of forests to
insect epidemics.''
I assume by insect epidemics they are primarily referring
to the bark beetle and that infestation. I have flown over and
seen these what look to me like miles of formerly verdant
forest that is now dead sticks, brown and gray, across the
mountains.
What are you hearing from your outdoor and lumber
industries about what is happening in the forests, and the
changes that are happening there?
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee,
Senator, we are hearing quite a bit in that regard when it
comes to forest conditions and forest health, and insects and
some high mortalities that we are seeing with our trees and our
forests in Wyoming. We do hear from our sportsmen in that
regard. We have forests and trail systems in Wyoming that are
impassible right now. We have places that historically you
could get back and hunt off of horses, and hike, where we
simply can't do that right now.
The other big concern is these forests, because of this
unnatural condition that they are in with the high mortality
from the beetles, have burns that are much different than
historically they were, so they are burning very hot, very
fast, and then we have big problems with invasive species like
cheatgrass. So, we are hearing from our sportsmen in that
regard.
Senator Whitehouse. Sadly, we are seeing nationally a lot
of loss of life with firefighters who are heroically going in
to fight these fires, but sometimes, because they are so
unusually fast and dangerous, these brave firefighters are
surprised, and their lives are lost.
Final question to Ms. Dohner. I am from Rhode Island.
Particularly in the ocean side, we are looking a lot more at
ecosystem based management as a way to look at how to keep
environments healthy, more so than species specific programs.
Could you talk a little bit about where ecosystem based
management should be in our planning on this issue?
Ms. Dohner. Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
I believe that we have to look at ecosystem based planning or
landscape scale planning. The Fish and Wildlife Service adopted
strategic habitat conservation years ago, and that was planning
at the ecosystem level or larger watershed level or landscape
level plan.
In the Southeast, the Fish and Wildlife Service actually
works with the States, and it is a joint effort to develop what
they call the Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy, sir,
and it is based in science, and it provides a map that is an
interactive map, predictive map out to 2050 that will
constantly be updated, but that provides priority areas that
the Southeast needs to look at; and that is, again, something
led with the States and the Service, and there are partners,
all types, university partners, other Federal agencies are
involved, NGOs and private landowners are involved in this
adaptation.
I believed that you have to look at ecosystem based as you
are going forward. You also have to ensure that you have
corridors if you have increased development and those types of
things as you are going forward. And we need to look now so
that we can, as we know development is coming, we know climate
change, we know that we are going to have increased storms. We
have one right now on the coast. So, we need to figure out how
we adapt with that, but we need to work with everybody on the
landscape to do that, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
I have two letters, one from the Wyoming Wool Growers
Association and a second from the Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, recognizing the recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly
bear and expressing support for State management.
If there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent to enter
these letters into the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Additionally, a number of us are going to
have to leave and go to the floor for the vote on the upcoming
America's Water Infrastructure Act, so Senator Capito will be
chairing the Committee as I get ready to turn the questioning
over to Senator Boozman.
There are a number of things that I would like to follow up
on with our witnesses, including this concept that more
regulation creates new or improved relationship. I am not sure
that is the case for Wyoming and for other States.
So, I just thank all of the witnesses for being here. I
appreciate your time and your testimony.
With that, I would like to turn to Senator Boozman. Thank
you.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and
our Ranking Member for your hard work in making it possible
where we get to vote on this major infrastructure package. We
really do appreciate you, and always your staffs for their hard
work.
Senator Barrasso. It was that incredible amendment that you
introduced on the WINN program that really made the big
difference and that carried the day, and I think that's why it
passed yesterday 96 to 3. Thanks for your leadership.
Appreciate it.
And of course, the Mississippi effort on that as well.
Senator Wicker. I got in the room real quick.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Well, it was a magnificent bipartisan
effort, really, that came out of this Committee, 21 to nothing,
with everyone here at the podium. I am very grateful for all of
your help, especially yours, Senator Carper, for your
leadership.
Senator Carper. I would call it a labor of love.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Ms. Dohner, as you know, Arkansas has been blessed with a
number of natural resources which we are very, very proud of
it; lots of opportunities for outdoor enthusiasts, really,
everything from just all kinds of opportunities, hunting,
fishing, mountain biking. All of those are important to our
State's economy and play a crucial role in conservation
efforts.
I would like to quickly discuss the Arkansas project. That
is a cooperative effort between Ducks Unlimited, the Arkansas
Game and Fish Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, as well as
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
The program was developed to help ducks and other waterfowl
by offering assistance to private landowners who are interested
in wetland restoration. Started in 1993, the Arkansas Project
has restored 150,000 acres of waterfowl habitat.
In your previous role as Southeast Regional Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service, what did partnerships like the
Arkansas Project mean for conservation in your region?
Ms. Dohner. Sir, thank you very much for the question. So,
the Arkansas example that you just gave is one of the great
ones that we have, where you have everybody working together to
conserve lands, the priority lands that wildlife needs, but it
also works through what is needed on the landscape for working
lands to work so people can continue with timber or
agriculture, things like that.
Those conservation efforts have been employed throughout
the Southeast, shared with the States. It has been a joint
effort doing the at-risk species conservation effort; and to
date, we have been able to conserve 171 species, which means
less regulations on private landowners. And that is the
important thing. The more regulations, the more restrictions,
so, we don't want to incur more regulations. So that gives us
the flexibility to ensure you can, one, keep the working lands
working and then conserve the species, sir.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCormick, are you an Ole Miss guy?
Mr. McCormick. No, sir. Senator Wicker is.
Senator Boozman. This is the battle of the cellar dwellers
in the SEC West this weekend, with Arkansas and Mississippi.
Mr. McCormick. I am a fan of all Mississippi schools.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McCormick. How about that, Senator Wicker?
Senator Wicker. As am I, I hasten to add.
Senator Boozman. In your testimony, you shared several
examples of successful wildlife conservation efforts. Incumbent
upon this success, you attributed positive working relations
between stakeholder groups and Federal and State agencies.
In your experience as President of the Mississippi Farm
Bureau Federation, what actions can Federal and State agencies
take to maintain positive working relationships? Likewise, how
do you believe stakeholder groups can ensure these
relationships remain effective?
Mr. McCormick. I think from the stakeholder group
perspective, we must come together and create dialogue and keep
the information flow between the landowner and the State
agencies. That is the key. When we all stay on the same page,
and we listen to the concerns from both sides, I think we all
can come to an understanding of what the right direction is.
I think our State agencies in the State of Mississippi--I
can't speak for other States, but in the State of Mississippi
we have a great working relationship with our Department of
Wildlife officials and our Department of Agriculture. Our
Department of Agriculture brought one of the key members of the
wildlife group over to their office, and he is with me today,
Chris McDonald. Chris works well with us to keep us informed as
farmers on the regulations that are important to wildlife and
how we can best manage those.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
We appreciate all of you being here. Sometimes we tend to
dwell on the negative stuff, but there really are a lot of
great stories out there where the agencies, State, and private
entities have come together and really are making a huge
difference in this area. Thank you very much.
Senator Capito [presiding]. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. I thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank all of you for being here today.
I know Senator Cardin and Senator Carper mentioned the good
relationships we have working with State agencies in the
Chesapeake Bay area; very good partnerships between our natural
resources organizations and Fish and Wildlife and Department of
Interior, as well as our State environmental agencies.
Ms. Dohner, while you are here, I want to take advantage of
the fact that I believe in your earlier capacity you served as
the Southeast Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and that included being the Department of Interior's
authorized official overseeing the recovery and restoration
after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Is that right?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir.
Senator Van Hollen. All right. So, one of the things we
treasure, of course, is protecting the Bay, as well as our
coastal areas. We also have a number of wildlife refuges like
the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge that serves as a refuge for
migratory birds. After the oil spill, after the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, you and the team at the Department of
Interior used your authorities to collect payments from BP and
others, I believe, for the massive killings of bird life, is
that correct?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir.
Senator Van Hollen. And where did those funds go? Those
funds go into, I think, an account to help protect wetlands, is
that correct?
Ms. Dohner. The funds that were generated through NACA
would go to protect wetlands, but we also had a settlement that
went through the Oil Pollution Act.
Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
Ms. Dohner. So, there were different settlements.
Senator Van Hollen. Got it. So, I want to ask you about a
change that has been made in the Department of Interior's
guidance. A few months back they issued something called an M
Opinion. Are you familiar with those?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir, I am.
Senator Van Hollen. OK. And what is an M Opinion?
Ms. Dohner. It is a legal opinion. The Department of
Interior takes an issue and does a formal legal opinion about
that issue.
Senator Van Hollen. Right. And they issued an M Opinion
that changed the liability rules regarding responsibility for
mass killings of wildlife as a result of a big accident like an
oil spill, is that right?
Ms. Dohner. Yes, sir.
Senator Van Hollen. Can you talk a little bit about your
interpretation of the changes that they have proposed?
Ms. Dohner. So, I read the M Opinion, but since I retired I
don't do as thorough of an analysis as I would have as the
Southeast Regional Director. But the M Opinion basically is
going to have what I believe are pretty big impacts on bird
conservation. I served as the Service representative for the
Regulations Committee and I also served on a board for the
Joint Venture Migratory Bird. Both of those are for
conservation of birds.
This M Opinion can impact the conservation of birds and how
we go forward. I believe it was $100 million was the fine that
was settled from the NACA, from the violations and the impacts
of the birds. In fact, with the BP oil spill there were 100
different species that were impacted, and the total BP oil
spill settlement was $20 billion. Because of the M Opinion, in
the future, the Service or the Department of Interior, through
those types of natural resource damage assessments, may not be
able to consider migratory bird impacts.
Senator Van Hollen. Right. My understanding is that they
said that you can only get a recovery in the event that there
was intentional wrongdoing. Obviously, the BP oil spill was not
an intentional act; it was an accident. As I understand their
rewrite, we would not be able to recover on behalf of the
public unless someone could prove that BP, an oil company, or
whoever responsible for a spill, actually intended the spill,
which is obviously highly unlikely.
Is that your interpretation of what they did?
Ms. Dohner. That is my understanding, sir, yes.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, I serve on another committee,
Appropriations Subcommittee. When I asked Secretary Zinke about
this, he denied that this was the accurate interpretation. Now
they find themselves in a court proceeding, so we will be
following up with them directly, because if that was not their
intent, then there is no reason they should be litigating it
right now.
So, thank you for the opportunity.
Ms. Dohner. Thank you, sir.
Senator Capito. Senator from Mississippi.
Senator Wicker. Madam Chair, I have a letter here from Andy
Gipson, the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and
Commerce of the State of Mississippi. In essence, Commissioner
Gibson is writing to support Chairman Barrasso's efforts to
bring transparency and State input back into the consideration
of endangered species, and I would like to ask that this letter
be included in the record at this time.
Senator Capito. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wicker. Mr. McCormick, we are delighted to have you
before us. I want to ask you about two programs that we are
kind of proud of in the State of Mississippi and in the
Southeast as a way to balance economic activity with species
conservation. One would be the Mississippi Bee Stewardship
Program. It might come as a surprise to some of our viewers and
listeners this morning at this hearing that we would even need
a bee stewardship program. Talk to us about that.
And if you don't mind, shift over then to the fact that the
Louisiana black bear, we have been so successful in providing
habitat for them that we have been able to delist that species
from the Endangered Species List.
So, if you would talk about those two, it would help us a
bit.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Senator. It is an honor to be
here with you today and with the Committee.
We are very proud of the bee pollinator voluntary program
that we have that we developed in the State of Mississippi. I
think that we are on the cutting edge of realizing that this
was going to be an issue nationally and that we need to address
it in Mississippi with our farmers and our beekeepers and with
our agencies to see what we could do better for all of us to
work in our industries and foster a good relationship between
us.
So, we sat down with our beekeepers and our farmers and our
governmental agencies, including the Department of Agriculture
and Mississippi State, and just created a dialogue to see what
was the issues, how could we work better together, what
resources were needed; and we felt like that if we could come
up with the answers to those where we could all work together
on our farms to keep something being mandated and do it on a
voluntary basis, certainly our farmers and our beekeepers would
be much better off.
What we found that has happened is we have opened up a
dialogue between our beekeepers and our farmers to where we
have a good working relationship. We have seen in other parts
of the Nation where those conversations can be contentious, but
our group has found that they understand that a beekeeper is a
guest of a row crop farmer when his hives are on their
property, and the row crop farmer finds value of those bees
being there. We just have to find a common goal and some
commonality on how we can protect one another and continue to
have economic gain on our farms.
So, the program itself was pretty simple. The basis of it
was just continuing a dialogue. We have found things that were
very helpful, like our Bee Aware flag that we developed that
you can put near hives to keep the crop applicators from
accidentally spraying bee yards. That was very positive, and
everybody found that to be something of use.
Senator Wicker. The bottom line is it is a voluntary
program.
Mr. McCormick. Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. Consensus among the parties, and it has
been successful.
Mr. McCormick. It has been highly successful and adopted
across the U.S. as the best voluntary program to get beekeepers
and farmers working collaboratively together.
Senator Wicker. Now, we also have a right to be proud of
the fact that we have been able to delist the Louisiana black
bear.
Mr. McCormick. Absolutely. And farmers, I think, have been
a big part of that. The habitat that the bear enjoys, a lot of
it along the Mississippi River, where I live, is bear habitat,
and I think a lot of the work that we have done as farmers
creating and maintaining the habitat for the black bears has
been crucial in delisting that. We enjoy seeing them.
Senator Wicker. One other thing quickly, Madam Chair, if I
might.
The double-crested cormorant is legally protected according
to the migratory bird treaties in law, but also it can be a
pest to fisheries and aquaculture. Is it your position that the
State of Mississippi is in a better position to deal with this
on the State basis, rather than being mandated federally?
Mr. McCormick. Very clearly, Senator. The State has the
resources to have the biologists and the wildlife officials out
on the farm, so they can get there quicker, they can determine
the problem and the solution a lot faster from a State basis
than we could from a Federal basis.
Senator Wicker. And the impact of this cormorant on
fisheries and aquaculture small business is enormous if we
don't handle it right, is that correct?
Mr. McCormick. Yes, sir. It is the No. 1 issue that I hear
when I talk to our catfish farmers, is this depredation issue.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being
with us.
And thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Dohner, before I begin my questioning, I would like to
recognize that last year you were awarded the prestigious C.W.
Watson Award for your contributions to wildlife and fish
conservation in the Southeast, and I note that you were the
first woman to receive the award since the creation in 1964, so
congratulations on that.
Ms. Dohner. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Gillibrand. I appreciate you all being here today,
along with both of you for your work and expertise on the
collaborative work States and Federal Government are already
doing to protect threatened and endangered species.
Where I am from, in eastern New York State, we have the
recent example of the New England cottontail to demonstrate
that cooperation and voluntary conservation efforts under the
current Endangered Species Act framework can yield positive
conservation results.
Ms. Dohner, as we all know, wildlife does not recognize
State borders. Conservation efforts often must transcend State
lines, despite differences in priorities and resources among
various States. These differences can be substantial. For
example, three-quarters of the States do not provide any
mechanism at all to protect critical habitat for any endangered
species.
What role does the Fish and Wildlife Service play to ensure
that conservation and recovery goals for threatened and
endangered species do not vary widely across State lines when
those species reside in multiple States?
Ms. Dohner. Thank you for that question, Senator. The Fish
and Wildlife Service needs to look at the entire range of a
species, whether it is across State boundaries or in one single
State, or it is across international boundaries. The Fish and
Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fishery Service, as the
lead for implementing the Endangered Species Act, is the one
agency that looks across all the different boundaries and helps
ensure that the species is protected across the range as
needed.
Senator Gillibrand. If the Federal role under the
Endangered Species Act is diminished, how are States going to
protect critical habitat for conservation if many do not have
the authority under their own States to do so in the first
place?
Ms. Dohner. Thank you for the question. So, I would use the
example that was with the State of Florida. The State of
Florida actually has a shared Section 6 agreement with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, so they can issue endangered species
permits. They--at the time--did not have the authority to
enforce the take a habitat that a species depended on, and as
such, they needed to actually change their State laws.
So, in order for them to properly protect habitat as
needed, I would assume States that don't have those authorities
would have to determine what they needed to do to ensure that
they could protect that habitat. And I don't know what number
of States do or do not have that authority, ma'am.
Senator Gillibrand. OK. And do all States and territories
have sufficient capacity and resources to coordinate species
conservation efforts with their regional neighbors?
Ms. Dohner. No, ma'am. I am not sure that all--I think both
States and the Service need additional resources to conserve
both those species not listed and listed species.
Senator Gillibrand. In your experience, would you agree
that the Endangered Species Act already provides meaningful
opportunities for States to collaborate and work cooperatively
with Federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service,
when species are at risk of becoming threatened or endangered?
Ms. Dohner. Thank you for the question. I think that
Section 6 under the Endangered Species Act defines the roles,
but I think that the Service and the States should work
together to better define those roles and figure out how we can
work more collaboratively together, like we did in the
Southeast, because it is a seamless process.
Senator Gillibrand. What would be the most effective way
for Congress to improve the ability of States and the Federal
Government to recover species more quickly and protect species
before they reach the point of becoming severely threatened or
endangered?
Ms. Dohner. I am sorry; could you ask me again?
Senator Gillibrand. What would be the most effective way
for us, Congress, to improve the ability of States and the
Federal Government to recover species more quickly and protect
species who might be endangered?
Ms. Dohner. Thank you very much. I think one of the ways
that we could improve the Act, if we actually made sure that we
had the resources that we needed. The House Appropriations
Committee started. The House Appropriations Committee added
language that directed the Service to do more conservation like
is being done in the Southeast. The next year they actually
gave the Service a small increase in their budget and said that
increase was to be directed to regions that were working
collaboratively, like was done in the Southeast.
But I also think that the States need funding in addition
to that, through either the Section 6 or the Wildlife Grant
program that they have. In addition to that, we need to be able
to provide the opportunities for everybody on the landscape to
come together and work together. We need the right people in
the right place at the right time. They need to have shared
goals; they need to actively listen to each other, like Mr.
McCormick was talking about, and they need to have a shared
commitment that is founded on mutual respect and out of the box
thinking to use the tools.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Thank all of you. It looks like it will just be me to do
the final questioning here.
I wanted to just begin by thanking you. I think we have
sort of a repeating theme here of interest across the board and
appreciate you all sharing your stories.
I am from the State of West Virginia, which we have a
vested interest in wildlife conservation. Our State motto is
Wild and Wonderful, and we want to keep it that way, and a lot
of that has to do with the tourism industry and the beautiful
species that we have all throughout the State of West Virginia.
We have had many experiences with the Endangered Species
Act; some of them positive and some of them not so positive.
But I believe we are working together to create the balance of
conservation with economic development.
West Virginia has had numerous success stories in
recovering listed species, and also preventing species from
being listed in the first place but couldn't do it without the
men and women of our Department of Natural Resources. They have
been instrumental in now working to delist species, ranging
from the bald eagle to the northern flying squirrel, and I
appreciate their efforts.
Mr. Kennedy, my first question was going to be on the
coordinating aspect, but I think we have pretty much covered a
lot of that. We have a very strong relationship with our
regional office, but they come to our State to get our view,
like you said, Mr. McCormick, of what is actually happening on
the ground, talking to our botanists, our animal experts, our
data bases and our technical know-how on how to implement, so I
am going to kind of fast forward here because of our strong
relationship that we have with our Northeast region and Region
5, we have had numerous projects working together in
assessments. So, I am not going to ask you to repeat the
productive relationship, although it is probably, in this day
and age, worth repeating the productive mutual relationship.
You touched, Ms. Dohner, on one of the things that we run
into in our State a lot with our local DNR or local projects
that are moving forward, whether it be timbering in particular
or any kind of exploration, energy exploration. Our Fish and
Wildlife folks are so strapped in terms of resources and time
and amount of people that are actually able to help in this
coordinating capacity.
Mr. Kennedy, have you run into that, where your timelines,
your deadlines get so lengthy and long, and a lot of it has to
do with Fish and Wildlife just doesn't have enough people on
the ground to be able to go through these permitting processes?
Mr. Kennedy. Madam Chair, thank you for the question. I
have seen that. We have seen that in Wyoming and throughout the
country as we work through the association of fish and wildlife
agencies. We come together a couple times a year as committees
and talk about these issues, and capacity and time management
and funding are real. It is a concern.
Senator Capito. Mr. McCormick, did you want to speak on
that issue?
Mr. McCormick. I am sure that we are strapped financially
in the State of Mississippi and could use more funds for our
wildlife service. They do a great job with the resources that
we have, and I just appreciate the working relationship that we
have with those groups.
Senator Capito. I am going to phrase the question a bit
differently, since you have experience in this field.
When it comes to a resource challenge within the Department
of Fish and Wildlife, how do you prioritize when you do have
these strapped resources? Are you going to something that has
maybe a seasonal impact, if we can't timber past November or
December, so we need this decision before that? How do you
figure that out when you have difficulty meeting all the
challenges?
Ms. Dohner. Thank you for the question. Some of it relates
to the way you raised the question as far as do we have actions
that are going to happen and impact a bird before it nests. So,
we could possibly expedite those so that we ensure that the
actions are completed, and then the bird can successfully nest.
You also have to look across the board as far as what the
priorities are and how you are impacting those on the lands.
For the manatee example that I gave, I knew that that was a
priority because we basically shut down a lot of businesses.
Nobody could build docks; nobody could go out in certain areas
to go boating; no recreational opportunities. We knew we had to
focus on that, and we knew we had to figure out a way to do it.
So, you look at different things when you are prioritizing,
ma'am.
Senator Capito. Right.
Well, I thank you all very much. I think this concludes our
hearing.
If there are no more questions for today, members may also
submit follow up questions for the record. The hearing record
will remain open for 2 weeks.
I want to thank the witnesses for your time and testimony,
and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
Ms. Dohner. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]