[Senate Hearing 115-466]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-466
EXAMINING FUNDING NEEDS FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND
MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 15, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-022 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
[email protected].
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
NOVEMBER 15, 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.. 2
Cardin, Hon. Ben, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland........ 5
WITNESSES
Kennedy, John, Director, Wyoming Game and Fish Department........ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 18
Senator Sullivan......................................... 19
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 21
McShane, Michael, At-Large Board Member, Ducks Unlimited......... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 35
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 36
Schwaab, Eric, Former Deputy Secretary for Maryland Department of
Natural Resources & Former Assistant Administrator for National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency................................. 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 50
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 53
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
Outheastern; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies....... 68
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation......................... 72
Alliance for America's Fish & Wildlife....................... 76
Center for Biologicla Diversity.............................. 82
National Wildlife Federation, National Advocacy Center....... 98
Organizations representing wildlife conservationists......... 100
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies...................... 102
The Wildlife Society......................................... 111
Undersigned Organizations of Business and Conservation
Interests Support Dedicated Funding to Recover America's
Fish and Wildlife.......................................... 115
EXAMINING FUNDING NEEDS FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND
MANAGEMENT
----------
THURSDAY, November 15, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Fischer, Rounds, Ernst,
Sullivan, Cardin, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, 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 we are having a hearing to examine funding needs for
wildlife, for conservation, for recovery, and for management.
During the 115th Congress, this Committee has focused on
the important tools that wildlife experts use to conserve, to
recover, and to manage wildlife populations. The Committee has
held hearings; we have debated proposals; we have introduced
legislation to improve the status of the regulations and
programs that support wildlife conservation. Throughout these
hearings we have heard a common refrain: that adequate funding
for wildlife conservation tools deserves further attention.
In Wyoming, we understand that the various wildlife
conservation tools, including funding, often work in tandem to
create success stories on our public and our private lands.
Wyoming is blessed with some of the most iconic wildlife in the
world. We also have some of the most beautiful vistas, where
the elk, the deer, the moose, the bears, sage grouse, antelope
live alongside livestock and people.
Wyoming's State wildlife managers are second to none, and
they work closely with local, with tribal, and with Federal
managers across varied land management jurisdictions.
For Wyoming and other States, it is important to make sure
that both Federal and State wildlife agencies have adequate
resources, including funding, to perform these duties. A number
of proposals in this Committee's jurisdiction address funding
for State and Federal wildlife conservation.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act is State wildlife
funding legislation that provides assistance to State wildlife
agencies. States, not Federal agencies, have primacy over
wildlife management. States take this responsibility very
seriously and already contribute and carry out more than $5.6
billion in conservation efforts annually.
The Senate version of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act
authorizes $1.3 billion to be appropriated annually for State
wildlife agencies to conduct fish and wildlife conservation
activities. That is a lot of money.
I support robust funding for wildlife conservation at the
State and Federal levels, but I believe we must be mindful of
where the money is coming from and what other priorities exist
for these same resources. I would also like to highlight that
this Committee and the full Senate have already passed a
reauthorization of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
as part of the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act,
known as the WILD Act.
Did you come up with that, WILD Act, Wildlife Innovation?
Senator Carper. Wild thing.
Senator Barrasso. Wild thing. That was a song.
Private landowners have as much, if not more, of a stake in
effective conservation of their lands as anyone else. This
legislation would authorize funding for the program for the
first time since 2011 at $100 million a year. It would allow
the Secretary of Interior to continue to provide technical and
financial assistance directly to landowners to restore, to
enhance, to manage private land to improve fish and wildlife
habitats. This program should be embraced as a critical tool
for future conservation efforts.
The Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation
for Wildlife Act, or the HELP for Wildlife Act, which passed
this Committee with bipartisan support, also contains the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act, which would reauthorize $50
million for 5 years to fund grants for water fowl and migratory
bird conservation.
I have also placed a priority on reauthorizing the
Endangered Species Act, which has not been significantly
updated since 1988, 30 years ago. My discussion draft bill
modernizes the ESA to better prioritize resources and ensure
that funds flow more efficiently and more effectively to
species most in need.
During this hearing we have an opportunity to examine these
and other innovative approaches to funding wildlife
conservation, recovery, and management. It is my hope that we
can come together in a bipartisan way to ensure that those
tasked with wildlife conservation, recovery, and management
have the tools necessary to preserve our Country's wildlife
heritage.
I would now like to invite Ranking Member Carper to make an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you for the invitation, Mr. Chairman.
To you, good morning to Ben, my wingman. The three of us
ran for re-election this year and somehow, we all won, so this
is going to be the lineup for a while.
We are delighted that you are in the lineup here today. We
have seen some of you before and it is good to see you again.
Thanks for joining us and for your own service and your
respective roles, and for being here to help us do a better job
in our respective roles. As the Chairman said, the Committee
has held more than a few hearings this Congress on wildlife
management issues, and our staffs have devoted a great deal of
time to this issue.
I notice one major area of agreement, again, the Chairman
has already mentioned it, and that is wildlife conservation is
severely underfunded. States, Federal agencies and partners
would be able to do, I think, a whole lot more to protect and
recover species with some additional financial resources.
Accordingly, the title of today's hearing is an appropriate
culmination of our Committee's consideration of wildlife
matters in this Congress. As we have heard in our previous
hearings, global wildlife populations have fallen by some 60
percent, I think, since 1970, when EPA was created. They have
fallen by 60 percent for many reasons. Among them are
pollution, deforestation, climate change.
The current rate of species extinction is up to 1,000 times
the natural rate of extinction. Once species are gone, as we
know, they are gone forever, and we do not even know the long-
term effects that this biodiversity loss will have on our
planet. We need to act sooner, rather than later, to address
this extinction crisis by developing a comprehensive wildlife
funding strategy and finding a legitimate way to pay for it.
I supported both the WILD Act and the HELP for Wildlife
Act, each of which reauthorized valuable wildlife conservation
programs. However, I believe that Congress may have to go
beyond the status quo of simply reauthorizing programs. And
while sportsmen and sportswomen have contributed a great deal
to wildlife conservation, we can no longer rely solely on their
contributions as the only source of dedicated wildlife
conservation funding.
As our Committee wraps up this session of Congress and
looks forward to the next, I hope we will consider a bolder
wildlife funding strategy going forward that addresses funding
needs for both State-managed and federally managed species.
States and Federal agencies all have important roles and
responsibilities in conserving and recovering species, and each
must be more adequately resourced, I believe, to properly
fulfill them.
We also have to ensure that States and agencies
appropriately balance the needs of our Nation's endangered
wildlife with preventing new Endangered Species Act listings.
Both are important and warrant additional funding and
attention.
States and the Federal Government cannot solve our wildlife
funding problems alone, though. This has to be an all-hands-on-
deck effort. Tribes, private landowners, nonprofit
organizations, and other stakeholders have stepped up, and we
need to make sure that they can continue to do so.
Some of our colleagues and witnesses have advocated for an
expanded role for State and wildlife conservation and recovery.
A meaningful funding solution could actually create an expanded
role for States naturally, but without minimizing necessary
Federal investments and backstops.
For example, Delaware's State wildlife action plan includes
692 species with conservation needs, including 18 that are
federally threatened or endangered. Delaware has experienced
remarkable success working with Federal agencies to conserve
these imperiled species, and we have done so within the
framework of the existing Endangered Species Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Delaware
both helped restore habitat for endangered piping plovers and
threatened red knots at Fowler's Beach and Mispillion Harbor
just southeast of Dover. As a result of these restoration
activities, Delaware was home to 36 piping plover chicks in
2018. I think that is maybe the highest number we have had in
about 15 years.
These areas also provide habitat for numerous other
species, such as red knots and diamondback terrapins and least
terns.
Isn't that a great name, the least terns. That would be a
good name for a band. He and I enjoy music a lot.
Senator Barrasso. Well, you have the pipers piping. How
many pipers did you have there piping?
Senator Carper. A lot.
Senator Barrasso. Thirty-six.
Senator Carper. Additional marsh, forest, and beach
restoration activities will benefit all types of species,
including birds, reptiles, fish, and mammals.
The existing State-Federal partnerships work more often
than not, as it has in Delaware's case. With additional
reliable funding for States and Federal agencies, Delaware
could do even more hand-in-hand with our Federal partners and
other stakeholders. Habitat restoration activities in Delaware
also support ecotourism and the commercial fishing industry.
They prevent coastal floodings. Working to conserve and manage
habitat benefits our wildlife, but also protects our
communities, drives our economies, and preserves the way of
life for a lot of folks who live in Delaware.
I do understand that each State and every species has
different needs and challenges, so we look forward to hearing
more from our panel today. I also stand prepared to work with
our colleagues to tackle wildlife funding issues in the 116th
Congress.
Before I close, I just want to say to the two men on either
side of me how proud I am of this Committee and the way we work
together on infrastructure legislation, the water
infrastructure, WRDA legislation, something that was badly
needed, not easily done, and I think it is maybe one of the
chief accomplishments of the past year, maybe in this present
Congress.
Yesterday, the Senate passed by, I think, a 94 to 6 vote
the reauthorization of the Coast Guard. One of the provisions
that held it up forever, as we know, was the issue of VIDA,
also ballast water. It was a hard one to figure out and we did
that, and I just wanted to commend particularly our staff, who
worked on both of those issues. If we can actually help do a
water resources bill, as we did, I think get a big assist on
the play with respect to the Coast Guard reauthorization, that
maybe encourages me that we can get a whole lot more done in
the next Congress, and I look forward to doing that.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
Senator Cardin, I normally don't call on others, but you
are here. If there is anything you would like to add. The
Chesapeake Bay seems to be doing well.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. If you offer a Senator a chance to talk, he
is going to say yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. First, let me congratulate Chairman
Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper on a very successful
Congress. This has been a Congress, of course, which has been
noted for much of its partisan division, but on this Committee,
I am proud of the incredible record that the two leaders have
provided us.
I join Senator Carper in congratulating Senator Barrasso on
his leadership on this Committee and your re-election in
Wyoming and Senator Carper's re-election in Delaware. We are
going to be together in the 116th Congress and continue this
great record.
Senator Carper mentioned the WRDA bill, which, to me, was a
great accomplishment of this Congress, but we are not finished
yet. This may be our last hearing, I don't know, Mr. Chairman,
but I appreciate the fact you are doing it on examining the
funding needs for wildlife conservation, recovery, and
management.
We have passed some really good bills out of this Committee
that I hope we can still get to the finish line in this lame
duck session. That includes your leadership on HELP for
Wildlife Act. I very much appreciate your help in the
Chesapeake Bay reauthorization, in the Chesapeake Bay Gateway,
in the wetlands conservation, in the neotropical birds. There
is a lot of really good important legislation we hope to get
done yet this year, so I just want to acknowledge that.
Let me use the time, if I might, to introduce Eric Schwaab,
if I might do that out of order, since you have recognized me,
and save a little bit of time for the Committee.
He is a former Assistant Administrator for NOAA and the
former Deputy Secretary for the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. Most recently, Mr. Schwaab served as Vice President
of conservation programs for the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation. Prior to that, he was the Senior Vice President and
Chief Conservation Officer with the National Aquarium.
Now, I need to sort of brag about that because the National
Aquarium is located in Baltimore, Maryland, and it is the
national aquarium because it provides national leadership on
conservation.
Mr. Schwaab, I just want you to know your legacy lived on
as Senator Van Hollen and I were recently joined at the
National Aquarium to announce some of the watershed grants and
had young children from our schools there learning about what
is in the Bay. It just shows that if we are going to preserve
our wildlife, we are going to preserve our environment, we need
to deal with the education of young people, and you have been
in the forefront of that.
You have also served in leadership positions at the
Department of Commerce and directed the National Marine Fishery
Service and performed as acting capacity as the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Conservation and Management.
It is a pleasure to have you here today.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I want to talk about things that we accomplished in this
Congress and how we worked well together. In the last Congress,
one of the things that I think a bunch of us were maybe the
proudest of was finding common ground on TSCA, Toxic Substance
Control Act. The Administration nominated somebody who did not
enjoy broad support in the Congress to head up the agency that
has jurisdiction within EPA on toxic substances and chemicals.
As the Chairman and I have discussed here just in the last
24 hours, we have a nominee before us that we think could well
move toward consideration on the floor and even do that this
month. I think the full potential of our TSCA legislation has
not been realized because of the absence of a confirmed leader,
and we have the opportunity, I hope, to resolve that before we
break for the holidays, and I hope we will do that. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, that is the intention, and thanks
so much for your cooperation on all of this. I think we may
actually have another hearing; we are working on the
finalization of one more hearing before the end of the year.
We will now hear from our witnesses.
We are delighted to have back John Kennedy, Deputy
Director, Wyoming Game and Fish. I will more formally introduce
him in a moment.
We also have Mr. Michael McShane, who is an At-Large Board
Member of Ducks Unlimited. Thank you very much for being here.
And, Mr. Schwaab, we appreciate you returning, your coming
here, and thank you for the wonderful introduce by Senator
Carper.
I would like to now introduce John Kennedy. He serves as
Deputy Director for Internal Operations at the Wyoming Game and
Fish Department. Mr. Kennedy is kind enough to make a second
trip from Wyoming to Washington, after previously testifying
before us just a little over a month ago. He was here at our
hearing to consider successful State conservation recovery,
management, wildlife.
He began his career in 2004 at Wyoming Game and Fish
Department as a Service Division Chief, and in that position
his duties included coordinating the agency's management of
wildlife habitat, as well as conservation education. Now, he is
the Deputy Director of the whole program and he is responsible
for the agency's oversight of fish, wildlife services and
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 experience.
It is a privilege to welcome you back to the Environment
and Public Works Committee, and I would ask that you please
proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KENNEDY, 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 the Deputy Director of the Wyoming Game and
Fish Department. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
about funding for State wildlife conservation, management, and
recovery. I provide this testimony based on 26 years of
experience with State wildlife agencies.
States have specific authority for wildlife conservation
and management within their borders, including most Federal
land. In spite of limited funding, State agencies have garnered
considerable expertise in response to the growing need to
address all wildlife, including at-risk and imperiled species,
and to carry out management and conservation responsibilities
across the Country.
Since 1937, hunters and anglers have been the driving force
for conservation funding in the Country. On average, 60 to 90
percent of State wildlife agency budgets are derived by hunters
and anglers. This funding comes from excise taxes on hunting
and fish equipment collected under the Federal authority of the
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, known as the
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, which have been a
critical source of wildlife conservation funding in the United
States for over 80 years. Clearly, in terms of current funding
for State wildlife management and conservation, the Wildlife
and Sport Fish Restoration Program is critical.
With respect to the need for additional funding for State-
led wildlife conservation, North America's wildlife
conservation model is unparalleled. To continue this work,
State agencies will need to shore up the logistical and
financial underpinnings of the wildlife conservation model. The
State wildlife agencies need additional, permanent, and
dedicated funding for wildlife conservation in North America.
As you know, last month, this Committee held a hearing and
I testified before you on State conservation, recovery, and
management of wildlife. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department
and the other State wildlife agencies across the Country have
many more success stories about reversing species population
declines and bringing species back from the brink of
extinction.
Every success story is directly related to the States' and
their partners' long-term commitments, steady efforts, and
stable funding. Inconsistent funding from year to year can
compromise this work and lead to prolonged recovery times and
even failure. I address several new funding opportunities in my
written testimony.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned some earlier in your
introductory comments. On behalf of the State fish and wildlife
agencies, we truly appreciate this Committee's leadership and
support on those programs.
However, I would like to address two and highlight those
this morning with you.
First, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act. While we know
that enacting legislation that provides dedicated funding may
be a challenging prospect, we also know it is truly the best
solution for wildlife conservation. Recovering America's
Wildlife Act should save taxpayer dollars over time by
precluding the need to list species under the Endangered
Species Act.
Preventing species from listing under the Endangered
Species Act will save millions of dollars for State and Federal
agencies. And while species listed under the Act need these
resources, it is more affordable to deploy proactive
conservation actions that will preclude the need to list
species and over the long term reduce Federal expenditures
while increasing our ability to recover species.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask this Committee to
help enact the Recovering America's Wildlife Act this Congress
with permanent and dedicated funding.
Second, the Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for
Tomorrow's Needs Act of 2017. This Act proposes to modernize
and update the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of
1937 and will ensure continued funding for this important State
wildlife conservation work. Without increasing taxes or
existing user fees, this legislation will ensure user pay
funding of wildlife conservation for future generations.
The bill clarifies that a purpose of the Fund is to extend
assistance to the States for the promotion of hunting and
recreational target shooting, and that State expenditures may
include spending for outreach communication and promotion of
hunting and recreational target shooting. This legislation
would allow States to inform and educate hunters and
recreational target shooters like our agencies currently do for
fishing and boating.
We respectfully request the Committee move the House bill
forward as soon as possible and enact this piece of legislation
this Congress.
States have a proven track record of recovering species
with dedicated funding, as evidenced by over 80 years of
success through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. We can
build upon the States' current efforts to conserve the full
array of wildlife if afforded the opportunity to do so.
Wildlife conservation began more than a century ago, when
hunters, anglers, and other conservationists came together to
restore decimated game populations, but it has grown to
encompass way more than that. The new and dedicated funding
opportunities addressed in my testimony, such as Recovering
America's Wildlife Act and Modernizing the P-R Fund for
Tomorrow's Needs Act, are critical to supplement the revenue
brought in by hunting and fishing to give States the resources
they need to conserve, recover, and manage wildlife.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and
share some perspectives and work to conserve, recover, and
manage wildlife. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. McShane.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MCSHANE, AT-LARGE BOARD MEMBER, DUCKS
UNLIMITED
Mr. McShane. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Carper, and members of this Committee. It is a privilege to be
here from South Carolina today. I am humbled to be in the
presence and sitting beside me two obviously dedicated public
servants, but I am here with great enthusiasm that I provide
this testimony on behalf of the more than 1 million members,
supporters and volunteers of Ducks Unlimited.
Founded in 1937 by a group of concerned waterfowl hunters,
Ducks Unlimited is still the world's leading wetlands and
waterfowl conservation organization. With members and
conservation projects in all 50 States, including sister
organizations both in Mexico and Canada, DU partners well with
its local, State, Federal, nongovernmental, and corporate level
support to conserve an astounding 14 million acres of wetlands
and wildlife habitat to date, with much work to do.
DU habitat conservation projects provide critical habitat
for the diverse array of our continent's migratory bird
resources, supporting them on their key breeding, their
migratory, and their wintering grounds, especially here in the
United States, where the majority of that landscape still
remains in private ownership.
DU takes great pride in working cooperatively with both
farmers, ranchers, and foresters to actively help and
participate in a number of these programs to successfully
achieve that vision of wetlands sufficient to fill the skies
with waterfowl today, tomorrow, and forever.
I personally thank both the Chairman and the Ranking Member
for having today's hearing. Our Nation's wildlife habitat
resources are the backbone of a multibillion dollar outdoor
recreational industry that directly supports more than 6
million jobs. Americans spend nearly $900 billion annually on
hunting and fishing, wildlife viewing, and photography, and it
is important to note, as someone who comes from a rural
community, a number of these jobs provide a critical economic
boost in those areas that are needed the most.
I recommend that one of the best ways to evaluate wildlife
conservation funding efforts into the future is to take a look
at those that have been effective in the past. From Ducks
Unlimited's perspective, none have been more impactful than the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, known as NAWCA. Since
its enactment in 1989, roughly $1.4 billion has been provided
through grants, but it has generated over $4 billion in partner
contributions.
Even though the law only requires a one to one match,
NAWCA's partners, like Ducks Unlimited and other
nongovernmental entities and State agencies, routinely generate
two to three times that grant request. So, as of today, more
than 5,600 partners have contributed more than that $4 billion
in matched funds.
As an example, the State of Wyoming currently has eight
NAWCA projects underway that will conserve more than 45,000
acres of wildlife habitat.
In Delaware, a little over $6 million in NAWCA funds has
generated more than $12 million in partner contributions to
impact 11,000 acres of wetlands and migratory waterfowl.
I am fortunate to come from a State where the impact of
NAWCA has been felt greatly. Over $45 million in NAWCA grant
money has generated more than $350 million in partner
contributions where 66 projects have led to the conservation of
over 300,000 acres of critical, unique, and, in many cases,
ecologically fragile fish and wildlife habitat.
More than 2,700 projects impacting 34 million acres of
wildlife habitat have been completed or underway in all 50
States, Canada, and Mexico. Its demonstrated success is a
voluntary incentive-based approach to conservation allows
partners to work collaboratively with willing private
landowners, especially our farmers, ranchers, and foresters,
who are the key to any wildlife conservation efforts.
We appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's support for
reauthorization of NAWCA at $50 million a year for 5 years, and
the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Preservation for
Wildlife Act, the HELP Act. We strongly believe that NAWCA has
proven to be a successful model for wildlife habitat
conservation. It is the grant seed money that generates that
four-times return on the ground conservation investment. We
believe it is a modest Federal investment in habitat
conservation that can be stretched beyond the requirements of
the law.
We strongly support the reauthorization of our Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program. Additionally, DU supports
Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Need Act
of 2017. As we consider the future of wildlife conservation
funding, it is critical for the stakeholders, especially our
partners at the State Departments of Fish, Wildlife, and
Natural Resources, to have these dedicated adequate resources
to address the problems associated with the listing of any
species, particularly those in peril. They have the mandate, I
believe they have the talent and drive, and as a former State
agency chairman, I have the confidence that those agencies are
ready to take that on.
Recovering America's Wildlife Act would authorize those
dollars dedicated for those resources, and we strongly support
that enaction.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, DU continues to support the
Chairman and the Ranking Member as you work through these
important policy decisions that will have a long-term impact.
We simply ask that, as the Ranking Member mentioned the success
of the WRDA bill, I would submit that these four bills can be
part of that same legacy today, and I strongly encourage this
Committee to move forward on those.
I thank you both very much, and to the Committee members,
for the opportunity to be here, and I certainly stand by ready
to answer any further questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McShane follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, and thank you
for the wonderful work that Ducks Unlimited continues to do on
behalf of all of us.
Mr. Schwaab, you are next.
STATEMENT OF ERIC SCHWAAB, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & FORMER ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC AGENCY
Mr. Schwaab. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
Member Carper. Thank you so much for the opportunity to appear
before you today.
As Senator Cardin introduced me, I am a career conservation
professional with experience in fish and wildlife work at
State, Federal, NGO, and conservation foundation levels. Over
the years, I have had the good fortune to work across
organizations on multiple conservation efforts. My views
expressed here are informed by those experiences, but today are
solely my own.
I would like to spend some time focusing on a couple of key
elements of the written testimony that I submitted.
First, we have many unmet challenges facing wildlife across
this Country. They range from continuing declines of formerly
common species to new problems associated with loss of habitat,
invasive species, wildlife disease, and changing environmental
conditions.
One recent assessment found that as many as one-third of
America's species are vulnerable. Forty percent of our native
freshwater fish species are at risk of extinction. Amphibian
populations are disappearing at a rate of 4 percent a year, and
60 percent of our freshwater mussels are at risk. Monarch
butterflies have faced a 90 percent decline in the past few
decades. At least a third of North America's birds are
declining.
State fish and wildlife agencies have identified more than
12,000 species of greatest conservation need requiring
attention. There are many more species for which we lack status
information.
My second major point is that an effective response will
require an all-hands-on-deck approach. We must better engage
both Federal and State agencies, and private sector partners;
and ultimate success will require use of both existing
conservation science and management tools and existing and new
funding.
Our success in recovering game and sport fish species has
at its root the unique partnerships that exist among State and
Federal conservation agencies. Both State and Federal natural
resource agencies have statutory responsibilities and long
histories in fish and wildlife conservation.
Having personally been on both sides of the State-Federal
table, I can attest to both the fundamental roles of State
agencies and the importance of Federal leadership and
expertise, particularly for wide-ranging species.
In my written testimony I discuss the story of striped bass
recovery on the Atlantic coast. But whether for a State-managed
species like striped bass, federally managed waterfowl and
other migratory bird species, or in the case of interdependent
species like horseshoe crabs and red knots, examples of success
abound. The most successful programs have at their foundation
shared science, collaborative management, and the financial
resources to sustain critical work.
My final key point is that more needs to be done. This
includes new funding for existing programs and dedicated new
funding for broader wildlife conservation efforts. The hunter-
angler-based funding model which resulted in the recovery of
many of our game and sport fish species focused necessary
attention on those target species.
Over the years there have been attempts to broaden wildlife
conservation funding at both State and Federal levels. Several
States have dedicated portions of their sales tax revenues or
implemented voluntary methods such as income tax checkoffs,
license plates, and lotteries to fill this funding gap.
Since 2000, at the Federal level, significant new funds
have been provided through the State Wildlife Grants program.
While these sources are important, they still fall short of
today's needs.
A blue-ribbon panel of business and conservation leaders
tackled this need again in 2014. The businesses involved ranged
from outdoor retailers to oil and gas companies, with all
citing healthy fish and wildlife as essential to their bottom
lines. These leaders estimated the need has now reached at
least $1.3 billion annually across the Nation. They said that
the magnitude of the solution must match the magnitude of the
problem and recommended establishment of a new Federal fund
dedicated to preventing wildlife from becoming endangered.
Strong science and management capacities, working
relationships among agency personnel, and ability to engage at
the community level with landowners has been possible in large
part to dedicated funding of the sport fish and wildlife
restorations programs. Similar dedicated funding will be
necessary to expand on these past successes.
Let me close by emphasizing that taking additional steps
now will have lasting benefits not only for our natural
systems, but for the people who depend upon them. There is
strong agreement that action to prevent wildlife from becoming
endangered is the most cost-effective conservation approach.
While actions to prevent further decline or extinction of
listed species remain critically important and are sometimes
our only option, work to avoid listing in the first place
increases the variety of conservation measures available and
the likelihood of success. Just like treating a common cold
before it turns into pneumonia, taking preventive actions with
wildlife to reduce risk to species saves money and reduces risk
and uncertainty for businesses.
Thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer questions
that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwaab follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwaab.
Let me start with Mr. Kennedy.
The Federal Government is supposed to work in partnership
with States. Under the Endangered Species Act, they are
supposed to do this in order to conserve and recover and manage
species, as you stated. As an example, under Section 6 of the
Act, States may receive Federal funding for the development and
maintenance of conservation plans for their threatened and
endangered species.
The Endangered Species Act amendments that I have been
working on, our discussion draft, reauthorizes appropriations
for the Endangered Species Act for the first time since Fiscal
Year 1992. We are still getting input from stakeholders to see
if the specific funding levels, what they should be.
How important is it for the State conservation efforts that
we adequately authorize funding for this legislation, and what
are the consequences for State wildlife efforts if Federal
agencies are underfunded?
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Barrasso, thank you for the question
and, also, thank you for your leadership and this Committee's
work on that, it is very important. I would bring up an
example. As I testified at the last hearing that we had, we
talked quite a bit about grizzly bears. As you know, in 2018,
the State of Wyoming spent up to $3 million on that species,
and the funding level that we received for that was about
$100,000. I think that is a good example of where the Federal
shortfalls in funding can really help the States.
In our discretionary budget, for example, at the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department, based on current priorities, we have
about $6 million available at our discretion to move around
based on changing priorities. Without the support and
additional funding that is being addressed by the programs that
we are talking about today, we simply don't have the capacity
to do that work.
So, Mr. Chairman, the funding is critical. It is critical
for the work that we want to do to promote hunting and
recreational shooting, and it is very important for our work on
endangered species and to keep species off the list and to
implement our State wildlife action plans.
Senator Barrasso. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program allows U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services to provide
direct technical and financial assistance to private landowners
to improve fish and wildlife habitat. Field biologists get to
work one-on-one with landowners to restore, enhance, and manage
land for the benefit of fish and wildlife.
Now, according to Ducks Unlimited, nearly three-quarters of
America's remaining wetlands are in private lands, so how
effective is funding through voluntary, incentive-based
conservation like that of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program to the on-the-ground conservation, recovery, and
management success, as you see it?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, coming from the State of
Wyoming, where 50 percent of the land is privately owned, and
we have many examples across the Country where there are
similar percentages, our work with private landowners and our
partnerships with private landowners is critical. We cannot
manage wildlife populations without the partnership with
private landowners, so additional funding in that regard would
be very much appreciated and also put to good use.
Senator Barrasso. About 60 percent of the State wildlife
agency funding comes from sportsmen, who pay license fees and
excise taxes on guns and ammunition and angling equipment.
I think, Mr. McShane, you made reference in your testimony
to how much this contribution is made.
According to a 2016 survey by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, a smaller percentage of Americans are hunting in the
past year, so that means fewer dollars for State wildlife
agencies to invest the conservation efforts that we all agree
are so critical.
Do you support modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund to
allow States to use a share of their allocated funds to promote
hunting recruitment and retention? What do see for that
approach?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely see the benefit of
that additional funding for that purpose. As you mentioned,
hunting has dropped by about 2 million hunters based on that
recent survey. That is a decline in total expenditures of 29
percent. At the same time, fishing and wildlife watching has
increased.
The biggest difference with this Modernizing the P-R Fund
for Tomorrow's Needs Act, as you brought up in your
introductory comments, is this would allow States to promote
hunting the way that we are currently promoting fishing and
boating, and I think that provides a really good example. We
have been able to do that through our funding through the
Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Program that we have, when we have
seen an increase in fishing since 2011 of 8 percent, spending
up by 2 percent. I think that speaks volumes to the fact that
with additional dollars the States can do the same with
hunting.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. McShane, could I ask you to maybe
respond to both of those two, because it was your statistics
that I quoted about Ducks Unlimited, nearly three-quarters of
remaining wetlands are on private lands and some of the things
you are doing there, and then, as well, what we need to do to
enhance additional income?
Mr. McShane. Mr. Chairman, I actually could give you the
perspective of both as a private landowner----
Senator Barrasso. That would be very helpful. That would be
very helpful to the Committee.
Mr. McShane. Perhaps to give a little bit of context, as a
family ownership of a large timber recreational property in the
lower part of South Carolina, it is an ecosystem approach. If
we try to manage our interests and ignore the surrounding
community, it becomes very challenging. When we have the
opportunity to work with our neighboring landowners, including
Federal and State partners on that, we have a much more
effective and, I believe, frankly, much more impactful
opportunity that really makes it more efficient in our
operational plan by doing so, so I certainly would encourage
that those resources be provided.
I have seen that time after time in our area, and during my
tenure as a board chairman of a State agency and former
Director Frampton, who I had the privilege of having as
director, I believe is still here in the room, we strategically
looked at his operating plan to be able to work with
landowners. He could not do his entire objective if he did not
have that cooperation with our private landowners.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Schwaab, anything you would like to add on either of
that? If not, I will just turn the questioning over to Senator
Carper.
Mr. Schwaab. I would just say my experience in multiple
situations is that private landowner engagement is incredibly
important not only for achieving the on-the-ground results that
these gentlemen spoke to, but to create the kind of buy-in that
we want to sustain the successes over the long-term.
I also agree that working to enhance participation in
traditional sports of hunting and angling is important. At the
same time, we also need to sort of broaden the scope of
participants not only in taking advantage of these resources,
but in helping to pay for them.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Carper, we have had some broad agreement so far.
Senator Carper. That is good.
I am sorry, I had to go out of the room to take a call and
I may have missed what the responses were to the Chairman's
questioning, but I want to build on broad agreement.
This is an excellent panel, by the way, and I don't say
that lightly. This is a good one. I don't know what we are
paying you guys, but you are worth it. Actually, I know we are
not paying you anything. I commend our staffs for finding you
and convincing you to come today, and a couple of you to come
back for return visits.
Maybe the first thing I could start off with is just to ask
you to tell us where you think the consensus lies in terms of
your views of what you have presented to us. I hear things that
sound like echoes from one another, similar.
Mr. Kennedy, are you one of the Majority witnesses? We call
them Majority witnesses, as opposed to Minority witnesses.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Senator Carper. With a name like John Kennedy, you could
probably be either one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. We call that dual-hatted in the Navy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Ranking Member Carper. I think you
are asking the question, is there consensus up here at the
table?
Senator Carper. Yes. Where do you see the areas of
consensus? It is helpful to us to build consensus. One of the
things we are pretty good at on this Committee is finding
middle ground. We have talked of a couple areas where we have
done that in recent weeks, months, days, actually.
Where is the consensus that you would really like to
highlight for us?
Mr. Kennedy. Ranking Member Carper, what I am seeing and
hearing is consensus with respect to the successes and
accomplishments of the State fish and wildlife agencies during
the last many, many years. Also, at the same time, I am seeing
that there is consensus with respect to there is an urgent need
for additional funding, and that the expertise and the
responsibilities and the scope of the State fish and wildlife
agencies' work goes far beyond just those species that are
hunted or fished.
So, there is consensus that it is of value to the
environment, it is of value to the economy, and it is certainly
more cost-efficient for us to have additional funding to do
proactive work to keep species, for example, off the endangered
species list, as opposed to waiting until it is too late.
Senator Carper. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure.
Mr. Kennedy. Exactly. Exactly.
I would just mention, Ranking Member Carper, I also hear a
lot of consensus with respect to additional funding through the
P-R Program for the States to be able to promote hunting and
hunter recruitment and retention and reactivation similar to
how we are able to promote fishing and boating.
Senator Carper. OK, good. Thanks.
Mr. McShane, what part of South Carolina are you from?
Mr. McShane. Ranking Member Carper, I am actually from
Charleston, South Carolina.
Senator Carper. All right.
Mr. McShane. That is exactly where we think the two rivers,
the Cooper and Ashley Rivers, form to create the Atlantic
Ocean. That is our perspective there, sir.
Senator Carper. I like that. We describe Delaware as the
State that started a Nation.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McShane. Touche, sir.
Senator Carper. Because we were the first to ratify the
Constitution, 231 years ago, on December 7th. But who is
counting?
Mr. McShane. Understood.
Senator Carper. All right, take it away.
Mr. McShane. Ranking Member, I submit that the consensus
from both the perspective as representing Ducks Unlimited this
morning, but as a private landowner and seeing the need
particularly for the recruitment and the retention. In an area
like where I live, where we are seeing probably unbridled
development and growth in a population base, I actually believe
that we might be seeing one of the largest migrations of our
population since some time ago that is coming to, particularly,
our part of the Country. So, we know from a percentage
standpoint many of those coming in have not necessarily had
that experience, yet one of the beauties of our area is that we
offer these natural resources that add to the quality of life.
So, I think the State agencies and, frankly, your Federal
agencies as well, have been very supportive of promoting
because they understand it really just takes that one
generational change. I often hear from many of my peers, who
may now live in a more urban environment, talk about the days
that they would be with their grandparents and would fish or
hunt, and they lost that. And I think once it is lost, it is
lost forever.
So, my own family, I have the pleasure and privilege of
being the father of three daughters, but I have made sure that
they all have that opportunity and appreciate that, and I want
to continue to send that----
Senator Carper. Do you think of them as sportswomen?
Mr. McShane. Pardon me, sir?
Senator Carper. Sportswomen?
Mr. McShane. Spokeswomen?
Senator Carper. Sports. Sports. As opposed to sportsmen.
Mr. McShane. Oh, excuse me. I am sorry, Ranking Member, I
need to adjust my hearing aid, from being a long-time shooter.
They are sportswomen, and they take great pride in that.
Senator Carper. Good.
Let me go to Eric. Same question. We are looking for
consensus.
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you, Ranking Member Carper. I agree
completely. I think there is strong consensus here that we not
only need to continue to bolster the existing tools and
mechanisms at the State and Federal levels, but that
significant new funding is needed, much more diverse funding,
and also dedicated long-term funding, we have heard that word
come through clearly repeatedly, to ensure that both the State
agencies and the Federal agencies have the consistency and the
ability to address these big challenges that we have all spoken
to.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
I have to run up to another hearing. I am going to come
back and try to come back while we still have time to maybe ask
one more round of questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Rounds.
Senator Carper. Could I just say something? When I come
back, one of the questions, just to telegraph my pitch, I am
going to focus on funding, I am going to focus on especially
leveraging Federal funding. Some of you mentioned this in your
comments. In our day and age when our budget deficit for last
year it was like $750 billion; this year it is expected to be
$950 billion, and we are looking for ways to save money on the
spending side and to leverage Federal money more effectively.
So that is what I am going to ask. Thanks.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Director Kennedy, in your position you help
coordinate implementation of Wyoming's State wildlife action
plan. With any large-scale government program, planning ahead
of time is critical to the execution of the plan. That is why I
was very pleased to see Senator Rische introduce the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act. Directing additional Federal funds to
implementing State conservation plans now will save us from
needing emergency funds later, when it may be too late to act.
My question is, at the State level, can you speak to the
value of more consistent Federal funding for conservation?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Senator Rounds, certainly, as
you mentioned, State wildlife action plans are critical plans,
and they are not annual plans, as you know; these are multi-
year plans that require multi-year funding, which makes
inconsistent funding very difficult for us to implement. So, at
the State level, in Wyoming, for example, we have 800 species
of wildlife in Wyoming. We have 229 species right now with a
special status, with the species of greatest conservation need
designation.
I mentioned earlier in my testimony that looking at our
current priorities right now, with our current budget in
Wyoming, we have about $6 million of discretionary money to
meet the expectations and the needs of our constituents in
Wyoming, and that is not a lot of money, so we don't have a lot
of funding capacity to be able to spend on 229 species, let
alone a few of those species. So, any additional funding that
we could secure, multi-year type, stable, consistent funding to
put toward our non-game program and our special status species
and our State wildlife action plan would be critical.
Senator Rounds. So, if we could, No. 1, set up the program
to where you would know, years in advance, that there was an
ongoing funding program available, there would be a significant
benefit to wildlife and to conservation on a State-by-State
basis, particularly if the States were allowed to make some of
those decisions themselves.
Is that of value to you, to be able to make the decisions
on a State-by-State basis, and do you think that is the
direction that we ought to be going?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Senator, absolutely. Absolutely.
And I think the State wildlife agencies have a proven track
record with respect to that. I think that the decisions that we
make, we are as transparent as possible; we are involving other
stakeholders. The partnerships that have been maintained and
created by the State wildlife agencies to implement wildlife
conservation in this Country have been unparalleled.
Senator Rounds. Some of us have expressed concern because,
in the past--and I am going to ask several of you the same
question. I am a firm believer that we should have an ongoing
process in place so that States could understand and recognize
and see the benefits of a continuing revenue source. But what
concerns is it that we also address an issue which a lot of
landowners out there have expressed concerns, and that is the
Federal Government is not necessarily the best neighbor to have
in the case of permit and easements, because once we get a
permit and easement on some land, it would appear that the
Federal Government then is not necessarily the best neighbor in
the world.
Do you think there is a fair tradeoff to having something
short of permanent easements restricted on land as a tradeoff
to having ongoing revenue so that we are not changing the
management decisions for generations to come? Is there a
discussion there that needs to be held?
Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Barrasso, Senator, I think there is a
discussion to have. We certainly would welcome any discussion.
Additional funding for easements, whether they are temporary or
in perpetuity, I think there are times when those permanent
easements make sense. And, of course, we are not going to move
forward, the States don't move forward on easements without
those willing landowners, and we are going to move forward on
an easement on terms that are in agreement with the private
landowner.
Senator Rounds. Would it be fair to say that perhaps more
landowners could consider some easements if they were explained
to them that they didn't have to be permanent and that we could
do shorter term easements? CRP has worked because it is a 10-
year plan or less. But permanent easements, in a lot of cases
people are saying now I am not sure I want the Federal
Government to be a guaranteed neighbor of mine for generations
to come, where the next generations are restricted in their
determinations.
Once we get past the point where we start looking at
ongoing permanent revenue sources, we kind of give up
oversight, and I have a concern about it, but it is something
that I would really like to see us address.
I am going to come to Mr. McShane. Mr. McShane, your crew,
Ducks Unlimited, is one of the finest organizations out there
when it comes to wetlands conservation and so forth. Do you
think it is time we start addressing the issue? Because a lot
of landowners out there are saying if it is a permanent issue,
it has hurt my kids; we lose that direction.
Is it time we start making darn sure that they have
explanations made that they don't have to necessarily do
permanent easements in order to participate with the Federal
Government or with the State government in providing for those
conservation land areas?
Mr. McShane. Mr. Chairman, Senator, I need to give you
three perspectives on that in terms of the hats I wear: as a
board member of Ducks Unlimited, but also as a former State
agency chairman, and as a private landowner who is involved
with properties under easement.
Certainly, the first is that they are all voluntary. So my
expectation would be that the entity that is working with the
landowner needs to be very clear with great clarity about what
the program is being offered; that if in fact there are current
programs, you identified CRP being one previously that had a
shorter timeframe, but if it is a permanent easement, then I
expect great clarity has been made, because this is an issue
that we are starting to see in certain markets, where the
second generational or if it was transactionally sold to
another owner, that there just to be a great education that
takes place about that.
In our area, most of our easements are going to be held by,
generally, nonprofits, whether it is a local land trust or
nature conservancy, or even Ducks Unlimited; and I think that
they understand that expectation that has to be done. There
are, obviously, some other programs that are already in place
that allows shorter time, and I think if that is what the
landowner is willing and really thinks is in their best
interest, certainly we would encourage that be certainly
offered to them.
But I stress again that this has always been a voluntary
program to begin with and that great clarity and diligence.
These are not transactions that generally take place. Even
though I might have the most experience in my area of dealing
with easements, it is still probably an 18-month transaction
from start to actually closing on that before I can get that
done, and I have spent some diligent time and, frankly, some
good legal time on that.
Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate it. I just think it
is really important that as we move forward with permanent
funding, that we also talk about the need to make sure that we
are not trying to make decisions for two and three generations
ahead of us. But I really like the idea of coming up with a
plan for a long-term program to provide those States with some
sort of a revenue source that they can count on year in and
year out.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Senator Rounds.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am
glad this Committee is focused really intensely on wildlife
conservation because the situation is dire globally. We have
lost about 50 percent of wildlife on the planet Earth in just
the last 50 years. Reports are that about 1 in 6 species will
go extinct or threatened with extinction in the next century,
and today species are going extinct 1,000 times faster than
natural extinction rates.
Mr. Schwaab, in your written testimony you speak to the
massive potential for the loss of biodiversity in the way that
I was just describing. Can you elaborate a little bit on that
and can you explain how we are all interconnected and how that
will very much affect, if not threaten, humans as well?
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you, Senator Booker. We only have a few
minutes, but let me maybe perhaps reach and elaborate on one
example that is in my written testimony and that I mentioned
verbally, and that is the plight of monarch butterflies.
There has been a huge amount of attention to an estimated
90 percent declines in monarch butterflies across North
America. This is a species that many of us grew up seeing sort
of in our backyards during their annual migration north and
south. There was a lot of concern that monarch butterflies were
heading toward listing, and that led to both Federal and State
agencies, as well as my former organization, National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, investing heavily in monarch butterfly
restoration.
The important thing to mention is that not only is, as an
iconic species, the loss of monarch butterfly in and of itself
important, but the monarch butterfly is emblematic of lots of
other pollinators, other butterfly species that we either know
nothing about or know are in great decline or bee species that
farmers across the Country depend upon for pollination
services. So, the plight of these species is certainly
important from an intrinsic perspective. But is also important
from an economic perspective. And in the case of monarch
butterflies we see an iconic species that really is, for lack
of a better term, kind of a flagship species for a much broader
array of species that we depend upon for important services.
Senator Booker. And that is really my point, that if
pollinators are in crisis, the very existence of humanity is in
crisis or the food systems are in crisis. This is a deeply
interconnected biodiversity in this planet, not only in our
Country, which leads me to the next question I have very
quickly.
Are there a need, then, for us to be looking 50 years in
the future and doing things now for State level conservation of
at-risk species? Is additional funding really needed for the
work that the Federal agencies are doing? I understand about
State and local, but for the folks that are looking at the
whole playing field, are additional resources needed to protect
those species that are already ESA listed, and can you speak to
that, in the 90 seconds you have left?
Mr. Schwaab. So, absolutely. Just very quickly, I think
that is one of the values of State wildlife action plans not
only at the State level, but around the fact that they are
developed very much in collaboration with Federal authorities
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with other agencies and
the like, and they are able to look out 10 years or more to
think about prioritization of some of the species of concern.
With respect to some of the species that are already
listed, absolutely I think that not only, again, are they
intrinsically valuable, but there are multiple examples around
species that have drawn attention to broader ecosystems. The
longleaf pine forests of the southeast, which are being
restored by the thousands of acres as a result of attention
that was brought to them initially around conservation of the
red cockaded woodpecker, a listed species. So, continuing to
invest over the long-term in those listed species not only
lifts up those species, or at least prevents their further
decline, but lifts up habitats and other species around them.
Senator Booker. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to go back to the monarch butterfly, since it is
the State insect of Illinois. Who knew we had a State insect?
But we do.
In Illinois, our State wildlife action plan seeks to
protect dozens of species, ranging from bats and butterflies to
birds and mussels. These conservation actions benefit both
wildlife and people, as your conversation with my colleague
from New Jersey covered, but, to reiterate what we have heard
today so far, I believe that additional funding for these
efforts, as well as for Federal agencies, will go a long way in
Illinois and across America, which I think is what you are sort
of getting at.
Right now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is studying
whether to list the monarch butterfly as an endangered species.
I understand that funding proposed in the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act could play a critical role in helping recover a
species, but unfortunately, though, there are thousands of
species of greatest conversation need, and the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act does not include a prioritization
mechanism.
So, Mr. Schwaab, do you have any ideas of how this might
better prioritize the most truly imperiled species? Such
changes I think could help ensure that species like the monarch
butterfly are prioritized across State lines. You mentioned
State plans, but this butterfly migrates, so why is a butterfly
that is known mostly for the great displays in Mexico, why is
it a big deal for Illinois? Because we are one of the major
stopping points on their migration route.
Can you talk about the efforts underway in my State, as
well as how other States are prioritizing this and how we can
better fund so that there is a comprehensive strategy and how
we can better fund these strategies?
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I think the
monarch situation is an example where work at the State level
goes hand-in-hand with Federal expertise and engagement because
of the sort of expansive nature of that migration and the need
to coordinate across State lines. I do think that the State
wildlife action planning process, most of which are in their
second generation now, has demonstrated the ability of States
not only to work within the State with stakeholders, but also
to work with experts from academia, from the Federal agencies
and other places to achieve the kind of prioritization that you
speak to.
The last thing I would say is that a number of the States I
know have worked not only to coordinate within their State or
with relevant Federal agencies, but amongst themselves
regionally. So, the Northeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, each State agreed to pool a small amount of
money to look at a cross-region analysis of their respective
State wildlife action plans, and through that analysis they
were able to identify species of common interest and achieve
better coordination for maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. So, do you think this bill
should require that States use a portion of their funding to
help recover threatened and endangered species as part of the
Act?
Mr. Schwaab. I think that is a challenging question because
the need is so great at the State level that to decide to sort
of carve out a portion of those dollars specifically for
already listed species could detract from the ability to get
out in front of some of these other broader diversity
challenges that we have.
In a perfect world, we would invest fully in executing
recovery plans, investing in and executing recovery plans under
the Endangered Species Act and we would allocate appropriate
moneys both at the State level and at the Federal level to the
broader diversity initiatives and needs that are out there.
Senator Duckworth. OK. Thank you.
Associated with that, let's talk about funding for fighting
invasive species. We have a real issue in Illinois. In fact, 62
percent of our wildlife species determined to be in greatest
need of conservation are threatened at least in part because of
invasive species, especially if you look at the fish and what
is happening with the Asian carp population, decimating our
native fishes.
Mr. Schwaab, how is combatting the threat from invasive
species addressed in the Recovering America's Wildlife Act and,
specifically, can Illinois use these funds to execute our
strategy to combat invasive species found in our wildlife
action plan? Because it is not just about conservation; it is
also about combatting the invasive species, as well.
Mr. Schwaab. My understanding is most certainly,
specifically as it relates to threats of targeted species
within those State wildlife action plans. I know in my home
State of Maryland there are funds that are expended under the
existing State wildlife action plan process to address invasive
species that imperil or otherwise threaten targeted species
within that plan.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am over time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so very much.
I have just a couple more questions, and I think Senator
Carper is coming back and we may have some other members
joining us.
Mr. Kennedy, we have spoken in the past about all the great
work Wyoming does in managing wildlife. This includes
monitoring populations carefully to detect issues and acting
quickly to mitigate any harm. Many of these actions are
directed by the State wildlife action plan, so can you talk a
little bit about the current funding and implementation of the
Wyoming State wildlife action plan and how that funding may
differ from funds from general wildlife management and what the
Game and Fish is doing in terms of prioritizing funding for
species of concern?
We had former Governor Freudenthal here, we had current
Governor Meade both talking about $50 million being put in from
State coffers in dealing with the grizzly bear in an effort to
do everything right and then doing everything right and having
a new listing, so can you just talk a little bit about the
State responsibility and role in priorities?
Mr. Kennedy. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
question. It speaks to the urgency of the funding need at the
State level, for sure, with respect to sensitive species. I had
talked about, a little bit ago, in Wyoming we have 800 species
of wildlife, and we have talked about that before. We have 229
species that are listed as species of greatest conservation
need in the State; there are 80 birds, 51 mammals, and 28 fish.
That requires a lot of work.
And then I talked about, at the State level, the amount of
funding we have to move around and adjust for certain
priorities, and we simply don't have the capacity to put into
the non-game program in the sensitive species. So, this funding
that comes in, it is a similar model with respect to the
current funding model with Pittman-Robertson. It can be used
for those species that do not have a secure source of funding
like P-R program currently has; would allow us to allocate
significant dollars to our non-game program.
Right now we use very limited State wildlife grant funds
for our State wildlife action plan. We did receive some general
fund support in the last several years. We have lost that in
Wyoming; we no longer receive any general fund support for any
of our programs in the department. But that did assist in the
past with respect to sensitive species. And we have, for the
bulk of the funding going to our State wildlife action plan, it
is Wyoming Game and Fish Commission funding.
Senator Barrasso. Let me just take a temporary break,
waiting for Senator Carper to return, unless either of you
would like to comment on any of those topics we have just been
discussing, Mr. McShane or Mr. Schwaab.
Mr. McShane. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, as a private
landowner, if the private landowner, in terms of our
sustainable business plan and our operational plan for our
land, that certainty and length of time is always prudent and
certainly gives the incentive of why we are going to invest
what we do, and I would simply submit that if the State
wildlife agency has the same benefit of knowing that they are
going to have a period of time, strategically I think it makes
it a more efficient plan.
I would also just encourage that it be given flexibility to
work with private landowners. Some private landowners, like
myself, may have the resources to be able to do some of the
work that is needed, but other landowners may not have those
resources, and at times I think that we worry too much locally
about whether that is public funds or private funds at times,
when really it is an ecological issue, and if you don't treat
it there, it is going to just continue.
Senator Barrasso. We have another Senator who has arrived.
Mr. Schwaab, anything quickly you want to add on that?
If not, then I am happy to turn to Senator Markey to
continue with the questioning.
Senator Markey. Oh, great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. We welcome our witnesses.
Eric, it is good to see you again. I remember when you
testified back in 2009 before the Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming that I was chairing over in the
House. At that time, you talked about the need to build
community resilience to sea level rise by restoring natural
shoreline buffers.
We already know that climate change is affecting our
wildlife. Scientists estimate that the total number of mammals,
birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish has declined by more than
50 percent since 1970 and that climate change threatens to
accelerate this crisis.
For example, in the Northeast, moose populations are
declining due to climate change. Last winter, 70 percent of the
moose cows died due to a booming tick population caused by a
mild winter.
In your work as Director of the National Marine Fishery
Service and Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, how has and how will climate change affect
wildlife?
Mr. Schwaab. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Markey.
Thanks for that trip down memory lane. I guess this issue of
climate resilience has not gone away.
Senator Markey. No.
Mr. Schwaab. I think that changing climates are affecting
wildlife in all imaginable ways across the Country, from the
loss of shoreline habitat in the case of places where we have
had hardened shorelines that are now challenged by sea level
rise and inundation events to some of the issues that we are
facing in western forests and grasslands right now with respect
to unusually dry conditions, coupled with trees that have been
affected by insect infestations that have marched forward
during mild winters, and, finally, last but not least, changing
rainfall patterns that are presenting huge challenges for
aquatic species in a lot of different ecosystems.
Senator Markey. What are the resiliency measures that we
can put in place to protect wildlife, to help them cope with
climate change?
Mr. Schwaab. They probably range dramatically across the
scenarios that I just described, but when I was here in 2009, I
suspect, I don't recall specifically, that I was probably
talking about work that the State of Maryland was sponsoring to
enhance resiliency in shorelines and, in fact, to sort of shift
the burden of proof away from hardened shorelines in favor of
more dependence on natural systems. We have seen that
throughout the mid-Atlantic now being utilized very heavily to
allow for sort of natural buffering of storm events both for
wildlife, as well as for communities.
I think there is a lot of water planning that needs to
happen in anticipation of changes that are underway in the
fisheries arena, Senator Markey, where you are also very
familiar. Gulf of Maine, ground zero for warming oceans and
responding to some of the changing migrations.
Senator Markey. What is going to happen to our lobster pod
in Massachusetts, Cape Cod? They need cold water and, outside
of the Arctic, we are the fastest warming body of water on the
planet, so, as this water gets warmer and warmer, the code and
the lobster are looking for cold water, so they are heading to
Maine and toward Canada, and we can see it. Our fishermen see
it, our lobstermen see it. Talk about that a little bit.
Mr. Schwaab. Well, right. There are two fundamental
responses. One is mitigation, and that requires a lot of
attention. But despite whatever mitigation steps we might take,
we have certain realities that are already set in motion. And
adaptation, building resiliency into, again, not only our
natural environments and the way that we protect our natural
environments, but also use those natural environments in ways
that can help protect coastal cities or even inland cities from
inundation and flood events. It is a major sort of planning and
reset responsibility in many places around the Country.
Senator Markey. We are starting to see fish species from
Maryland coming up toward New England.
Mr. Schwaab. I am a Chesapeake Bay fishermen, so can you
send them back?
Senator Markey. No, but that is happening.
Mr. Schwaab. Oh, absolutely, yes.
Senator Markey. Talk about that a little bit.
Mr. Schwaab. We have seen, it has been a big issue on the
Atlantic coast, the migration of sort of the center of the
summer flounder, the fluke population that has moved north and
east, very well documented, creating great challenges for
fisheries managers and fishermen on the coast.
You spoke to concerns about lobster. We already saw
challenges in New England Sound and with the southern New
England lobster population now. People are beginning to express
concerns about the Gulf of Maine population. It goes on and on.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate it. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you. Thank you for your
thoughtful questions.
I want to thank all of you for being here. I think Senator
Carper has been delayed in another hearing, which is critical
for his attendance, but I am very grateful that all of you
would be here to share in a very collaborative way and a
constructive way some of the things I think we can all do to
deal with an issue that we think is very critical for our
States, for our Country, and for the planet, so thanks so very
much. I appreciate it.
Some of the other members may submit written questions,
too. We ask that you respond promptly. They will all be part of
the permanent record.
Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]