[Senate Hearing 116-345]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-345
OVERSIGHT OF
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
__________
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
42-433 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa 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
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
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
WITNESS
Wallace, Hon. Robert, Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks, Department of the Interior.............................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso..... 15
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 16
Senator Booker........................................... 24
Senator Cramer........................................... 29
Senator Duckworth........................................ 36
Senator Markey........................................... 37
Senator Merkley.......................................... 39
Senator Rounds........................................... 43
Senator Sullivan......................................... 44
Senator Wicker........................................... 47
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
``Hunting is `slowly dying off,' and that has created a crisis
for the nation's many endangered species,'' by Frances Stead
Sellers. Washington Post, February 2, 2020..................... 167
OVERSIGHT OF
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Cramer, Braun,
Rounds, Sullivan, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley,
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.
I will point out that last night, President Trump called on
Congress to pass America's Transportation Infrastructure Act.
He said we must also rebuild America's infrastructure.
He then asked Congress to pass America's Transportation
Infrastructure Act, as he said, ``to invest in new roads,
bridges, and tunnels across our land.''
The Senate is ready to answer the President's call. This
bipartisan legislation passed our Committee unanimously by a
vote of 21 to nothing.
America's Transportation Infrastructure Act is the most
substantial highway infrastructure legislation in history. It
will fix our roads; it will help speed up project delivery; it
will help protect the environment; it will help grow America's
economy.
I specifically want to thank Ranking Member Carper, and
Subcommittee Chair and Ranking Member Capito and Cardin for
their participation and leadership on this legislation, and all
the sponsors of the bill for their hard work, and Senator
Inhofe, for your leadership on this area over the years. I look
forward to sending it to President Trump's desk for his
signature.
This morning, we are here to conduct oversight over the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I welcome our witness, Rob
Wallace, who was confirmed in June of last year to be Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at the U.S. Department
of Interior.
I have known Assistant Secretary Wallace for 35 years, as
he has served in several wildlife conservation leadership
roles, both in Wyoming and here in Washington.
Now, Assistant Secretary Wallace oversees the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, which is under the jurisdiction of this
Committee, and the National Park Service, which is under the
jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Wallace about his
priorities for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I am especially interested to learn more about what the
Service is doing to strike the proper balance between wildlife
conservation, habitat management, and the use of our public
lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforces our Nation's
wildlife laws. It protects endangered species. It restores and
conserves wildlife habitat. It administers our National
Wildlife Refuge System. It manages migratory birds and restores
fisheries.
Over the last 3 years, the Trump administration has worked
to implement policies that benefit our Nation's wildlife and
remove unnecessary barriers to growing our economy. For
example, the Administration recognizes what westerners have
known for years: That the Endangered Species Act needs to work
better for species and for rural communities.
The Administration finalized three rules last year to
improve implementation of the Endangered Species Act. These
rules revised existing regulations to help clarify and improve
standards for making listing and delisting decisions, as well
as critical habitat designations.
The Trump administration also recognizes the important role
that sportsmen and women play in wildlife management and
conservation. Last August, Secretary Bernhardt announced that
the Department of Interior would open more than 1.4 million
acres of lands and waters in our National Wildlife Refuge
System to new opportunities for hunting and fishing.
The President also signed into law two provisions passed by
this Committee that improve the ability of States to use the
Pittman-Robertson Act funds to promote hunting.
This Committee continues to move other significant
bipartisan legislation that will help the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service fulfill its important mission.
In December, the Committee reported America's Conservation
Enhancement Act, or the ACE Act. We did it by voice vote.
Among other provisions, the legislation reauthorizes
important environmental programs, including the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act, the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation Act, and the Chesapeake Bay Program. The ACE Act
also solidifies partnerships among public agencies and other
interested parties that promote fish conservation.
The ACE Act addresses the terrible, degenerative, highly
contagious brain disease known as chronic wasting disease.
Detected nearly 40 years ago, chronic wasting disease has
spread to 26 States and 4 Canadian Provinces. The ACE Act
establishes a Chronic Wasting Disease Task Force at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to address this important wildlife
threat.
The ACE Act passed the Senate in January, and I encourage
the House to pass it without amendment as soon as possible. We
need to get this legislation to the President's desk so the
Fish and Wildlife Service can have the tools they need to
fulfill their mission.
I look forward to hearing more about what the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is doing to both protect wildlife and to
support economic growth. As I have said at other hearings, we
can and we must do both.
I would now like to turn to my friend and Ranking Member,
Senator Carper for his statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Chairman Barrasso, thank you very much;
thank you for your kind words.
I am going to start today by quoting one of our finest
American leaders. I want to quote one of our great American
leaders, who once said these words. He said, ``Along the way, I
have learned so much, especially that no one ever really wins
by winning everything, and that bipartisan solutions are always
lasting solutions.''
Some of you in the room probably don't remember who said
those words, but it was our witness today, Rob Wallace.
We welcome you back, and thank you for those words. I
literally sat last night during the State of the Union Address
thinking about those words. No one ever really wins by winning
everything, and that bipartisan solutions are always lasting
solutions.
If we are going to be successful, as the Chairman has said,
we are going to be successfully moving surface transportation
legislation that actually begins to address our roads,
highways, bridges, and waterworks that needs to be done. And
this extreme climate weather that we are facing the challenges
there. We are going to be able to do that. We have to do it
together. None of us can do it by ourselves, and I welcome the
Chairman's words as he opened his statement.
Let me just say, I know we can agree on a lot on this
Committee, but I think we can all agree on the importance of
promoting urban national wildlife refuges, like two we have in
Delaware, Prime Hook and Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge.
They are treasures to our State, and not just for our State,
they are treasures for our country.
People who come and visit our country and our State from
around the world to visit those wildlife refuges would be very
much in agreement with that. We are proud that people travel
from far and near, from throughout the world to visit us for a
variety of reasons, but especially those refuges.
As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service works to enhance
access to these special places, I hope we can work together to
ensure adequate law enforcement at our refuges and all refuges.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
assistance on issues of importance for the First State National
Historical Park, which serves as one of the newest national
parks in America. It tells a story of early colonial settlement
of America leading up to the ratification of our Constitution,
which we talked about a lot the last few weeks.
Collaborative species conservation is another bipartisan
priority. I think we can all agree that it is better to
conserve species, such as the monarch butterfly, before these
species require Endangered Species Act protection. We look
forward to hearing Mr. Wallace's thoughts on these issues of
bipartisan subjects.
I must, however, also express my continued concerns with
actions the Trump administration is taking that I believe will
harm fish and wildlife.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to
work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the benefit of the
American people.
Unfortunately, too often, this Administration has proposed,
and in some cases, already finalized regulations that are not
in the spirit of that mission. Specifically, I fail to see how
Endangered Species Act regulations finalized last year will
better ``conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants,
and their habitats.''
Just last week, the Administration released its proposed
Migratory Bird Treaty Act rule. This proposal, which has been
met with strong, bipartisan opposition, breaks with every
precedent of law and caters solely to industry, not to the
American people, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission
states it should.
Recent reports suggest that the Department of the Interior
is preparing nearly 100 additional policy changes for 2020. To
be clear, I do not know what all of these policy changes could
be, but given this Administration's track record, I fear we
have reason to expect that these policy changes will be met
with some disagreement from Democrats on this Committee and in
Congress, along with conservation groups and other
stakeholders.
As we look ahead, Mr. Secretary, I hope you can assure our
Committee today, and in the days ahead, that any upcoming
policy changes will be more thoughtful, careful, and inclusive
of all perspectives than some of the previous changes I have
mentioned. We have to remember that our national resources are
precious, and in many cases once they are gone, they are gone.
If there are indeed scores of policy changes on the
horizon, I urge the Administration to work with States and all
stakeholders on those policies because conservation policies
work best when we work together, and as you once said, Mr.
Secretary, bipartisan solutions are indeed lasting solutions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back, Rob.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Senator Carper, for
quoting our witness here today. Those are wonderful words that
I am glad are once again in the record, because they are words
that we can all benefit from. So thank for bringing that to our
attention.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, can I mention one other
thing?
I have my wallet here, and I put it out for a reason. Last
night when the President was talking about transportation
infrastructure, one of the things he did not mention is that
you have to pay for this stuff. I have always believed, I think
former Governor Rounds and my other colleagues believe, if
things are worth having, they are worth paying for.
We heard nothing last night about how we are going to pay
for stuff, and we are looking at a budget deficit this year of
a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars.
I used to, when I first came to the Congress in 1982 as a
freshman Congressman and joined Jim Inhofe, our budget deficit
was about, I don't know, $50 billion, $60 billion, $70 billion.
We thought that was way too much.
We are looking at a trillion dollars this year, and the
idea of passing a transportation infrastructure bill without
any funding would be, I think, just an aberration. That would
be just awful.
I know this is something that you share, views that you
share, and it is important that we not just say we want to
improve the infrastructure, we have to do a lot more on roads,
highways, bridges, but we also have to figure out where the
money is going to come from. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, now, I appreciate that as well,
Senator Carper, because I agree. I think that is something that
we all need to work together on with the Finance Committee. We
are in the process of doing that.
This bill needs to be paid for. I believe we should start
by agreeing that everyone who uses the roads should help pay to
maintain and improve them.
There isn't a single answer, but among other solutions, I
believe that the electric vehicle, which currently pays no
Federal gas tax, actually needs to make a contribution and pay
into the system as well.
Senator Inhofe, do you have a question?
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Let me just make a comment about that,
because I chaired the Committee during the last three of these
types of bills.
It is so popular; that is one of the few taxes that
everyone agrees on. But it is not just taxes. There are other
ways of doing it, and we have studied and we have been able
each time we passed a bill, whether it is any of the last three
bills, to come up with the funding of it because it becomes
necessary and that prioritizes it.
This is going to happen again, so I am glad he said what he
said, and made a commitment to do something that I think a lot
of people, most Oklahomans, are enthusiastic about.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. In my conversations with the President on
infrastructure, Senator Inhofe has been there for a number of
those, the President has actually been very bold in private in
suggesting ways to pay for this. I think that some around him
are concerned that if he is bold in making proposals, that he
will turn around and look for Democrats and Republicans to
support him and not find anybody, if he is bold, and strong,
and honest about the need for funding, including what you just
mentioned.
Folks who use roads, highways, and bridges ought to pay for
them, including folks that are in electric vehicles or hydrogen
powered vehicles and all that.
I realize it is not the jurisdiction of this Committee.
Some of us on this Committee do serve on Finance, and we have
our work cut out, and we need to lean on the Finance Committee
to do their job. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
As we get ready to hear from our witness, Rob Wallace,
remember he was unanimously confirmed July 2019. He is a
Wyoming native. His distinguished career includes 45 years of
service in a variety of positions directly related to
supervising the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
He began his career as a seasonal park ranger in the Grand
Teton National Park. Since then, he has served as Assistant
Director of the National Parks Service, Chief of Staff for
Wyoming's Senator Malcolm Wallop, Staff Director for the U.S.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chief of Staff
for the Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer, Manager of U.S.
Government Relations for GE Energy, President of our Nation's
first cooperative conservation bank, co-founder of the Upper
Green River Conservancy, where he built partnerships among
diverse stakeholders to protect core sage grouse habitat in
southwest Wyoming, served on numerous other organizations and
boards dedicated to conserving wildlife.
Assistant Secretary Wallace, it is a privilege to welcome
you back as a witness before the Environment and Public Works
Committee today. Thank you for being with us. I want to remind
you that your full written testimony will be made part of the
official record here today, so please try to keep your comments
to 5 minutes, so we may have more time to argue among things
among ourselves.
Please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT WALLACE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH,
WILDLIFE, AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Wallace. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
Member Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the mission and work and priorities of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Service is the only agency of the Federal Government
whose primary mission is fish and wildlife conservation. The
Service's conservation mission is carried out by over 8,000
employees stationed at hundreds of wildlife refuges, fish
hatcheries, and field stations and regional offices spread
across all 50 States and all 5 U.S. territories.
I have been fortunate to travel around the country to meet
with some of the Service's dedicated professionals. I have been
impressed with the good work they are doing on the ground to
conserve fish and wildlife for the American public. Their work,
carrying out the laws that you, Congress, pass ensures that
America's wildlife heritage will pass on to future generations.
I will focus my remarks on a few of the priorities that are
being led by Secretary Bernhardt and supported by his team at
Interior. One of the Secretary's priorities is to be a good
neighbor. The Service understands that the conservation of our
Nation's fish and wildlife is not something that it can achieve
alone. Strong partnerships with State and Federal agencies,
tribes, private landowners, and other stakeholders are
essential to successful conservation.
Another area of focus for the Service is partnerships with
landowners. This is especially important because 60 percent of
the land in the United States is privately owned. The Service
invests in keeping landowners on their land and preserving
working landscapes for the benefit of agriculture, ranching,
timber, and traditional land uses. We do that because fish,
wildlife, and plants benefit from the investment in working
landscapes.
Ensuring public access to Federal lands is another high
priority. In addition to its core conservation purpose, the
National Wildlife Refuge System plays an essential role in
providing outdoor recreation opportunities for the American
public, with over 59 million visitors last year.
Access to land of the refuge system also benefits local
communities. We recognize this significant impact, and so, last
year, the Service announced new hunting and fishing
opportunities on more than 1.4 million acres nationwide.
To further facilitate public access, the Service removed or
revised 5,000 site specific hunting and fishing regulations to
more closely align with State law. For example, one of my
favorites, we eliminated the burdensome requirement that
hunters must wear a vest or jacket containing back and front
panels of at least 600 square inches of solid, fluorescent,
orange color. Instead, we aligned our regulations with the
State's less burdensome requirements for just wearing blaze
orange while hunting.
Other ways the Service is expanding access is by promoting
wildlife conservation in hunting and fishing and outdoor
recreation in our cities and getting new, non-traditional
audiences to visit their local refuges. The Service has a new
confirmed director, Aurelia Skipwith, who is a strong leader in
this effort.
There are more than a hundred such urban refuges that are
great resources to connect people with nature. To further this
effort, the Secretary designated September 29th as Urban
National Wildlife Refuge Day.
I will close by highlighting the Secretary's emphasis on
recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The United States is a global leader in species protection and
conservation. The Service is committed to the recovery of
listed species and to returning management of those species to
our State and tribal partners. This will allow the Service to
focus our limited resources on those species of greatest
conservation need.
Already, in this Administration, the Service has issued
final and proposed rules to the list or down list nearly 30
species. For example, the Service recently proposed to delist
the interior least tern, which migrates across 18 States in the
central United States. The tern has come back from just 2,000
individuals, thanks to years of cooperative work with Federal,
State, local, and other partners. These efforts will help
ensure that the continued success of the species, should it be
returned to the State management.
This is one of the many great success stories to show how
ESA can work and the department as a committee to making the
progress going forward. Improving implementation of the ESA
continues to be a priority for the Secretary. We are committed
to making the ESA as efficient and predictable as possible in
accomplishing its purpose of conserving threatened and
endangered species and protecting ecosystems upon which they
depend.
I appreciate the Committee's interest in further wildlife
conservation. I would be happy to answer your questions, and
thank you again for having me here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wallace follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so very much.
We do have a number of Senators here, and some will come
and go due to other requirements of their time.
I wanted to start with a couple of questions on issues that
we are facing, and one is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
determined that the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone
ecosystem has already met its recovery goals. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service said that in 1998, which was more than 20
years ago.
The Bush administration, the Obama administration, the
Trump administration each has agreed, determined that the
grizzly bear is recovered, and that the Endangered Species Act
protections are no longer warranted. That is bipartisan
agreement; now we are at over 20 years.
The grizzly bear was delisted by the Service in 2007, only
to be relisted by an activist judge in 2009. It was again
delisted by the Service in 2017, only to be relisted again by
another activist Federal judge in 2018.
Do you agree that the grizzly bear is fully recovered and
should be delisted?
Mr. Wallace. Yes, Senator, we do. I think the Service
believes that the grizzly bear is biologically recovered.
Senator Barrasso. I guess the next step is where we go from
here, but we don't have enough time in the questioning, so let
me get to another question. But I appreciate the comment there,
and we will visit it additionally.
I wanted to get to that the Committee and the full Senate
has passed America's Conservation Enhancement Act, the ACE Act,
with unanimous support. The ACE Act would provide the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service with additional tools to conserve
wildlife. As mentioned in my opening statement, these include
provisions to help the Service address challenges like chronic
wasting disease, invasive species, wetlands conservation.
Can you please speak about some of these challenges from
the Service's perspective and what the agency is doing to help
address them?
Mr. Wallace. Senator, we have not taken a position on the
ACE Act, but we are certainly aware of the leadership that you
and Senator Carper and the Committee members have taken in
trying to address some of the Nation's most complicated and
challenging conservation issues, everything from the Genius
Prize that you have focused on, Senator, to reauthorizing some
very important partners in the Chesapeake and the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation.
So I think on behalf of the Service, thank you for the
leadership in that role, and we look forward to working with
you going forward.
Senator Barrasso. On Monday, February 3rd, the Washington
Post published an article entitled ``Hunting Is Declining,
Creating a Crisis for Conservation.'' ``Hunting Is Declining,
Creating a Crisis for Conservation.'' The article describes how
sportsmen play such a significant role across the country in
funding the wildlife conservation efforts of States. They do it
through the Pittman-Robertson Act.
It notes that a decline in hunting is cutting into some of
the funding for conservation.
Last year, this Committee passed and got signed into law
two bills to strengthen Pittman-Robertson, the Target Practice
and Marksmanship Training Support Act, and then also the
Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs
Act.
How will these legislative changes help State fish and
wildlife agencies that rely on this Pittman-Robertson funding,
and what is the status of this implementation?
Mr. Wallace. We saw that same article, Senator, and it is
something that the Service has talked about for quite a while.
The decline in hunting and fishing on public lands, or hunting
and fishing in general, has a direct impact on the ability of
State fish and wildlife agencies to be funded every year. So it
is an area that we are paying close attention to.
The Urban Refuge Program that we are starting is a good
first step. I had the privilege of being at the Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge in Eastern Maryland in the fall, where
there is a Freedom Hunters Program going on that gets people
from the inner city area around Baltimore and Philadelphia to
come to the refuges and learn not only about hunting, but
cooking, and the culture of dressing animals.
They even told me they are getting some vegetarian hunters
down there. I looked at them, and I thought they were gaming
the Assistant Secretary, but no, there is a number of people
that donate the organic meat to their friends and use the
hooves for making soap and the bones for wind chimes. It is an
interesting group of people that are coming together on
refuges.
We are aware of it, and we are doing what we can, thanks to
your help, to increase that.
Senator Barrasso. You mentioned the Genius Prize, that is
the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act, the WILD Act,
enacted into law in March 2019. It established Theodore
Roosevelt Genius Prizes. These cash prizes are meant to
stimulate technological innovation in several different
categories for the benefit of wildlife.
Can you tell us a little bit about how far along we are in
implementing these prizes, and when we can reasonably expect
the first prizes to be awarded?
Mr. Wallace. We are now, at the Interior Department,
looking at that Act and trying to understand how best to stand
up the prizes. Do we have to, for example, have a Federal
advisory committee for each of the prizes, or could we stand
that up with our own internal advisory committee? We are
working very diligently on that, but I don't have the exact
answer to you yet, sir.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, several of our colleagues and I sent a
letter recently to Secretary Bernhardt, in November, actually,
inquiring about the status of the Conservation Agreement for
the Monarch Butterfly. Utilities and transportation departments
from Delaware to Wyoming, or Delaware to Texas, or Delaware to
Oklahoma, stand ready to undertake conservation measures that
could preclude the Service from needing to list the monarch
later this year. But this agreement must be finalized before
they can act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has delayed--I am told--
delayed finalization of the agreement for more than 6 months. I
understand that the Service wants to resolve concerns raised by
farmers; that is understandable. However, the proponents of the
agreement believe that stakeholders' needs have been
accommodated, and there are no outstanding legal issues that
should hinder the agreement's effectiveness.
My question is a brief one. What precludes the Service from
finalizing this agreement now and working with agricultural
stakeholders separately to develop an additional agreement for
their continued engagement?
And I would just ask that you would work with us on this
issue. Any comments, please.
Mr. Wallace. Senator, I did see your letter, and I will
commit to you to putting that on my list of things I will
personally drive at the department.
The good news here is this CCAA for monarch butterflies has
created a lot of very positive interest from people that have
an opportunity to participate in that CCAA. The number of
people that have come in to express interest may be one of the
reasons that it has slowed down a little bit.
But please be assured that I am aware of your concern, and
I will keep you and your team, your staff, appraised of it on a
very routine basis.
Senator Carper. Thank you so much. My second question, Mr.
Secretary, deals with the duck stamp. During your confirmation
process, I asked if you would ensure that any changes to the
duck stamp are designed to increase participation in the
program.
In your response, you acknowledged the importance of the
Duck Stamp Program and conserving migratory bird habitat and
committed to studying the program. Since that time, the Fish
and Wildlife Service unveiled a new rule that will require the
duck stamp to reflect the theme ``celebrating our waterfowl
hunting heritage.''
However, sportsmen are not the only participants in the
Duck Stamp Program, as you may know. In fact, the American
Birding Association, which is headquartered, believe it or not,
in Delaware, encourages birding enthusiasts to purchase duck
stamps as well, and they do.
Here is my question. How exactly does this proposed rule
seek to increase sales and participation in the program? What
was the impetus for the change, and what type of research did
the Service conduct to study the potential impacts of this rule
on duck stamp sales and user participation?
Mr. Wallace. Senator, I will answer this in a broad
question with a commitment to come back to you again with a
more detailed explanation. We are looking at the same thing
that Senator Barrasso mentioned earlier about the decline in
sportsmen on public lands, and what that means to Pittman-
Robertson and Dingell-Johnson revenues.
We looked at a way to try to increase that revenue through
duck stamp sales by celebrating the hunting heritage. It was a
focus on trying to get more people, open more lands to hunt and
get more people into the refuges.
That is the general emphasis on that. But the idea is that
to keep your constituents buying duck stamps and hopefully
expand into other groups that don't necessarily think about
even ducks, but they care about wildland conservation to also
participate because it goes directly into habitat conservation.
Senator Carper. All right. I look forward to hearing from
you further on this, please.
Last, I was pleased that the fiscal year 2020 omnibus
included a $2.9 million increase in funding for refuge system
law enforcement over the 2019 enacted level. As you know, lack
of a dedicated full-time law enforcement officer is a challenge
at Delaware's refuges, particularly given the Trump
administration's emphasis on expanding access within the refuge
system. I know this is a concern at other refuges as well.
My question is how well the Service determined which
regions or refuges receive new law enforcement officers with
this additional funding, and will you continue to work with us
to ensure adequate law enforcement at Delaware's two refuges?
Mr. Wallace. The Service has a priority system about how to
identify most urgent law enforcement needs and trying to
allocate funds for law enforcement in those refuges. I hope to
be up in Delaware in the next couple of months to be able to
sit down with the refuge managers up there, understand the
needs of Prime Hook and Bombay Hook, and have a more detailed
explanation about how that specifically affects the refuges you
care most about. But they do, within limited resources, try to
spread that money forward to where is most urgently needed.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks, we look forward to
welcoming you to the First State.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wallace, in Oklahoma, we have two of the endangered
species where there is activity going on right now that is
meaningful, not just for our developers and roads people, our
farmers, it is very important to them.
One is the American burying beetle, and we understand that
now that they are, due to the resurgence of the beetle, that
they are proposing a down listing of the species from
endangered to threatened. That is my understanding, that is
supposed to be some time around June of this coming year, this
year.
The second thing is the prairie chicken. We have had
Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico very active
in promoting and helping Fish and Wildlife out on this issue,
and I think that we are in the position now where a decision is
going to be made as to whether or not to list the prairie
chicken.
I would kind of like to have you respond to this question
as to, where are we now on the burying beetle. I think we are
in good shape on that.
But is there anything else that we can do during the
decision that is going to be made on the prairie chicken? We
are now talking about five States trying to work cooperatively
with you that might impact that decision.
Mr. Wallace. Senator, as to your first question about the
American burying beetle, we are working on down listing from
endangered to threatened, with a tailored 4(D) rule, which
provides more flexibilities in how to manage that to the
States. We feel like we are working cooperatively with
organizations that are impacted by that.
Senator Inhofe. Do the dates still look good in terms of
June 2020?
Mr. Wallace. We are still on track, yes sir.
Senator Inhofe. Good. Good. And then on the prairie
chicken?
Mr. Wallace. The prairie chicken, I believe, we are under
consent decree for spring of 2021 to make a listing decision. I
know there has been a lot of work with the Western Association
of Fish and Wildlife Managers to stand up some conservation
areas that may go toward providing some assurance about the
long term health of the lesser prairie chicken.
Senator Inhofe. And the other question was that, is there
anything that we can do, our stakeholders, the five States that
are involved in this, that would be of assistance in helping
with this decision?
Mr. Wallace. Oh, thank you, I am sorry, I misunderstood.
Let me come back to you on that. When I talked to the Service
in preparation for this hearing, I got the sense that things
were working pretty well with the affected parties.
Senator Inhofe. I think that is right. In my remaining
time, I am concerned also about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The new interpretation of the rule inserts the word
``unintentional,'' damage that is done unintentionally. I think
about if you are doing a bridge project some place and by
accident, something happens, that you would not find yourself
in a situation where you are in a criminal situation.
So I am concerned about that, and I just know that in our
State, our State Highway 3 Bridge rehab project ended up taking
a number of months longer than it would have otherwise, in
order to comply with this. So I am concerned about that.
Can you speak to the length of delays in projects that
happened as a result of criminalizing the incidental take? Now
hopefully, that is going to be changed. Any comments on the
change of that rule?
Mr. Wallace. As you are aware, Senator, there was a
Solicitor's opinion shortly at the beginning of this
Administration that said that incidental take under the
Migratory Bird Treaty is not a prohibited activity, which goes
to your concern about your constituents.
There is a regulation that has been proposed, that was
issued I think earlier this week. It is proposed regulation
asking for 45 days of public comment on that proposed rule, but
it basically puts into regulation what the Solicitor said back
in December 2017.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I am hoping you support that rule.
Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
We will now turn to Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary. Thanks for being here and also for your remarks
about the Chesapeake Bay and the ACE Act, the bipartisan bill
that includes something called the Chesapeake Wild Act, which
will strengthen the cooperation between the Fish and Wildlife
Service and Chesapeake Bay Conservation Partners. So we are
looking forward to passing that.
The Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, you mentioned that. As you
know, that is a very important habitat for migratory birds,
right? Do you agree it is a very important habitat?
Mr. Wallace. I do agree. I was just there.
Senator Van Hollen. Now, Senator Inhofe raised this issue
about the so called M opinion, the Solicitor's opinion, which
actually predated your coming on board. Under your leadership,
it has now migrated from a Solicitor's opinion to proposed
regulation.
Now, you remember that BP Deepwater Horizon disaster,
right? Do we all remember that?
Mr. Wallace. I do remember.
Senator Van Hollen. Massive killing of birds.
But isn't it a fact that the new interpretation of the
Migratory Bird Treaty would now prevent us from getting the
$100 million in damages against BP for the mass killing of
migratory birds, moneys that went into the Wetland Conservation
Fund? Isn't it a fact that the new interpretation would mean
that we could not go after BP on violations to the Migratory
Bird Treaty?
Mr. Wallace. The total settlement, if I recall for the BP
spill, is around $18 billion or $19 billion.
Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary, this is a very simple
question. I am not asking whether you could have gotten damages
under other laws. I am asking you, isn't it true that you would
not be able to seek the $100 million damages under the
Migratory Bird Treaty? Isn't that a fact?
Mr. Wallace. Unintentional taking, that is correct.
Senator Van Hollen. Even though it was a massive killing.
We are not talking about one bird that got killed while
building a bridge. Obviously, that is not the intent of the
Migratory Bird Treaty.
But it is to protect migratory birds, is it not? How does
it further the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service to take
away the ability to fine a company like BP when its disasters
kill masses of birds? How does that further the goal?
Mr. Wallace. If you would indulge me for a couple of
minutes to maybe understand our thinking about this issue, and
hopefully assuage your concerns that we care deeply about the
health of wildlife, too, and migratory birds.
The Solicitor's opinion that was issued by the last
Administration was issued on January 10th, 2017, exactly 7
years, 11 months, and 20 days into that Administration.
Here is what it said. It said that the incidental take
prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act interpreted the
MBA's prohibition and penalties as applying regardless of a
violator's intention or state of mind.
That creates a couple of concerns for those of us that have
to allocate resources. First of all, under the Migratory Bird
Treaty, there is no civil penalty. Like you have done with all
the other environmental statutes you have passed here, Clean
Water, Clean Air, Bald Eagle Protection----
Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary, I am sorry. Because of
our limit, if the Chairman wants to give me additional time----
Senator Barrasso. I would be happy to do that, if there is
no objection, it would be fine. Then you would still have 3
minutes remaining for your questioning as well.
Senator Van Hollen. OK. That is fine. I appreciate that.
Senator Carper. I object.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wallace. It was a concern about that strict liability,
that criminal statute is the only option of enforcement that
that Act provides. You don't get a chance to have a written
warning; you don't get a chance for a civilian fine. Your first
indication you are in trouble under the Migratory Bird Act is a
grand jury.
So it was a tool that had--I understand what you are saying
about the oil spilled in the Gulf, but it is a tool that is
applied across the board. I saw you having other discussions
about this. There are about a million birds unfortunately
killed by wind turbines and oil ponds a year, about a million.
That is too many. Two hundred-fifty to 350 by automobiles. Half
a billion by plate glass windows.
So all of those are potentially under the purview of that
interpretation of that Act, so that is where we are.
Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary, look, I understand that
nobody intends for that provision to apply to someone who
unintentionally kills a couple birds, right? But the way you
revised it means that in the case of massive killing of birds,
unless it is intentional, and obviously BP didn't set out to
kill millions of birds, but under your interpretation, you
can't collect the $100 million against BP.
Here is the problem that is having in the Chesapeake Bay
region. I just want to read you an article, a New York Times
article. It says, is the State of Virginia prepared for a major
bridge and tunnel expansion in the tidewaters of the Chesapeake
Bay last year. Engineers understood that the nesting grounds of
25,000 gulls, black skimmers, royal terns, and other sea birds
were about to be plowed under.
So we are not talking about a few birds, we are talking
about the nesting grounds for 25,000 birds. The State began to
develop an artificial island as an alternative habitat because
their understanding was, they had an obligation to do so under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but that is when the Trump
administration stepped in.
The Federal Government said it ``appreciates the State
efforts, but that new rules in Washington have eliminated
penalties for `incidental migratory bird deaths that came in
the course of normal business.' '' So even though they were
plowing under the nesting grounds for 25,000 migratory birds,
because obviously that wasn't their purpose, they didn't have
to come up with an alternative habitat.
So my question to you, as somebody who is responsible for
protecting migratory birds and habitat, how does that opinion
further your mission?
Mr. Wallace. Keep in mind, Senator, that there are a number
of environmental laws that are still going to apply to
migratory birds, and we are committed to that.
Senator Van Hollen. If you could just, Mr. Secretary, does
the State of Virginia have any obligation under those other
laws to build an alternative habitat?
Mr. Wallace. The permitting process, whether it is under
NEPA or any other State organization, should, if the people are
doing their job, incorporate best practices. Best practices do
not go out the window because of the Migratory Bird Treaty.
There is still going to be very much applicable to any ELM
permit.
Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary, I know you inherited
this. I know the opinion predated your service. I understand
that, but you are now in the process of turning that M opinion
into regulations, and I think you are going to get a lot of
pushback on those. I certainly hope so.
I think that there is a way to address the issue you raised
about not wanting to have people face criminal penalties for
killing a few birds in the course of their business compared to
plowing under the nesting grounds of 25,000 birds or what
happened in BP.
I would just like to ask you a question on another issue,
and if you need more time to answer, you can get back to me in
writing.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has programs to protect
international iconic species, like elephants and gorillas,
including programs in Central America. Last year, there were
some very serious problems with some of the contracting
partners with the Fish and Wildlife Service. I understand why
the Fish and Wildlife Service put that on hold back in
September of last year in order to try to get rid of the bad
actors.
My question to you is, have you made progress getting rid
of the bad actors? It is been many months now. Do you intend
now to allow that funding to go forward for those important
programs to protect these species?
Mr. Wallace. I had the privilege, Senator, right after I
was confirmed, to lead the U.S. delegation to CITES in Geneva,
where I got to see first hand the incredible respect that the
men and women of the Fish and Wildlife Service are held in that
international community that is trying to stop that wildlife
trafficking. So these programs are a very important part of
that.
The issues you refer to about human rights abuses, about
potential sub-grantees of that money is something the
Department Secretary takes very seriously. We are implementing
auditing programs with the hope of getting those programs back
and fully functioning. But if I could come back and see you and
brief you in some more detail?
Senator Van Hollen. I would appreciate that, because I
think it is important to get those programs up and running. Get
rid of the bad actors, of course, but to get them up and
running again. So thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Wallace. Just a parish note, I had the privilege of
being with the Blackwater Refuge just a couple of months ago.
What a terrific resource that is. Combined with the Harriet
Tubman site, the sum is more than the parts.
Senator Van Hollen. And thank you for your focus on that
and visiting it, and for the great work in the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Mr. Wallace. They are great people. Thank you, sir.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Before turning to Senator Cramer, I point
out that the Department of Interior's proposed rule with regard
to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is going to provide regulatory
certainty about the scope of that Act. This proposed rule is
based on a legal opinion issued by the Solicitor's Office, the
Department Solicitor's Office.
In December 2017, the Solicitor reviewed the Migratory
Birds Treaty Act's texts, history, purpose, and concluded that
the Act take prohibitions apply only to the conduct of
intentionally injured birds.
I know, Assistant Secretary Wallace, you are bound by that
conclusion.
The Department, I think, was correct in codifying it. I am
asking unanimous consent that at least the Solicitor's opinion
be admitted to the record, without objection, it will be.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Cramer.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I was going to resist the temptation for this North Dakotan
to get into the Migratory Bird Treaty Act proposed rule, but I
am going to, to this degree, to simply tell you I applaud the
decision. I really don't think you had a lot of choice on this,
because it is not just a matter of one Solicitor's opinion
versus the next Solicitor's opinion, and the back and forth.
That is part of the problem in our regulation.
But there are also mixed rulings in court, district courts.
In North Dakota, we didn't have a BP spill, but we did have
three oil companies that were zealously prosecuted by the U.S.
Attorney's Office over 28 birds that flew into a pit some
place, in various pits over the course of months, and died.
Clearly that wasn't intentional; clearly it was a lawful
commercial activity, and it was more of a representation of the
hatred for the industry than it was the love of birds, the way
that the U.S. Attorney's Office at the time went after these
companies, and consequently, the workers.
Fortunately, there was one willing to stand up to them, and
it was thrown out, for all the reasons that this new rule, this
proposed rule, States--and I have great sympathy for what
Senator Van Hollen is talking about, but there has got to be a
better way than simply punitive zealous prosecution of lawful
commercial activity, regardless of the magnitude of it.
Hopefully we can find a balance in all of this, find a balance
that is not so punitive, but rather cooperative and
collaborative.
And so with that, with my remaining minutes, I want to
spend this time to flesh out a little bit your views on the
waterfall production area easements that you have been active
in, and start off by saying, first of all, thank you again to
Secretary Bernhardt for first of all coming to Hope, North
Dakota, last year touring on a very chilly day, some wetlands,
and then coming up with the recent director's order just
earlier this, or I guess, last month that really demonstrates,
again, once again, that the Trump administration cares about
rural America.
As you know, the enforcement of these pre-1976 WPAs has
been confusing, and in many cases it has been a longstanding
issue for landowners, oftentimes resulting in both unnecessary
and far too often, again, zealous enforcement measures,
excessive confrontation with law enforcement.
More to the point, the Federal footprint in the WPAs only
grows with time, even though there are very specific purchased
acres in these pre-1976 easements that oftentimes this results
in the de facto rule, what I call regulatory taking, or a land
grab.
According to the January 3rd director's order, throughout
2020, the Fish and Wildlife Service will be sending updated
modern maps--thank you very much--to landowners who have these
pre-1976 easements. And they will be accompanied by the first
ever appeals process--again, thank you very much--so that
landowners can make sure that the maps are done properly.
The most fundamental protection for a landowner is an
accurate map, and clearly the technology in 1976 and previously
doesn't match what we have today, and consequently, a lot of
this confusion.
To that end, I want to just ask a few fundamental process
related questions so that the public knows what to expect.
Because once the letters go out, and I expect they are going to
go out soon, landowners will only have a short time to respond
to them to sort of put the stake in the ground.
So first of all, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is
ask unanimous consent to submit the director's order and a
recent op-ed that I wrote and was published this week in North
Dakota newspapers.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cramer. So could you maybe just help me in the last
minute, or help the people watching this, by describing the
quality of the pre-1976 maps, and why this is even important at
all, to provide some clarity to our landowners?
Mr. Wallace. Could you ask that second--that last question,
sir?
Senator Cramer. Yes. Could you explain why it is important
that we do this at all, and talk about the quality of the pre-
1976 maps versus today in light of this?
Mr. Wallace. We have made, I hope that you will agree, good
progress with your constituents on trying to provide some
transparency. A lot of those wetlands protection areas that
were signed up pre-1976 did not have complete maps.
There was disagreement handed down from generation to
generation about just what we had committed to do. I think we
have 5,000 pre-1976 maps we have committed to get out to your
constituents in the coming years, with 1,000 this year.
We also have an appeals process that is going to help them
have some peace of mind that they are going to get a fair
hearing if they disagree with what the Service has said. I also
think that we are looking at the way we approach your
landowners in terms of trying to represent to them that there
may be a disagreement about the wetlands protection area.
So those three are, I think, already underway, and we are
not looking at a tile setback regulations and appeals process
for drainage tiles.
Senator Cramer. To that, I would say amen, amen, amen, and
amen to all, and thank you for doing that. That is a lot of
amens, but it is a lot of good news.
I think it gets to the point though, that all of us have
been talking about, that the best way to do conservation is
collaboratively, cooperatively, whether it is with sportsmen,
landowners, oil companies, whatever the case might be, so let's
amen.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Wallace, now that the EPA has
issued General Electric a certificate of completion for the
Hudson River PCB cleanup, the focus on addressing the damage
caused to the Hudson River is with the natural resource damage
assessment that has been led by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
My first set of questions relates to that process. What are
the next steps and timeframe for moving forward with natural
resource damage assessment? When do you expect that there will
be additional opportunities for public input?
Mr. Wallace. Senator, the trustees are working diligently
to complete the injury determination phase of the assessment,
having documented injuries in several natural resources thus
far. So we share with our trustees the goal of successful
recovery on the Hudson, and look forward to coming back to
visit with you and update you on that progress.
Senator Gillibrand. OK. When quantifying the injuries to
the Hudson River, how does your agency consider the fact that
far more contamination still remains in the Hudson River?
Mr. Wallace. Again, I don't know, I will have to come back
again and brief you and your staff in detail on that. Sorry.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, sir.
I would like to briefly mention another issue related to
you, your role in overseeing the National Parks Service. The
Jamaica Bay Marsh Islands, which are located in the Gateway
National Recreation Area in New York, are in dire need of
restoration.
I have worked with the Army Corps to support including the
restoration of the Marsh Island as part of the Hudson-Raritan
Estuary ecosystem restoration project. The islands are
critically important for migratory bird habitat, and their
erosion harms the Jamaica Bay ecosystem as a whole.
I hope that we can count on your commitment to work
cooperatively with the Corps and with all the relevant
stakeholders in New York to help move this project forward once
it is been authorized.
Mr. Wallace. We do, and again, I would like to come back
and talk to you in detail about that.
Marshland, wetland restoration resiliency strategies, I
think, are imperative. It is not only in the Jamaica Bay, but
it is in all of them, the refuge properties that we have to pay
close attention to that. So we will be back and talk to you.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
My next topic is the gray wolf delisting. The Fish and
Wildlife Service commissioned an independent expert peer review
of the Agency's proposed rule to delist gray wolves from the
Endangered Species Act.
Released last May, the peer review detailed shortcomings
with both the proposal and its accompanying biological report.
The independent reviewers found numerous factual errors and
questioned the Service's interpretation of scientific
information.
The reviewers were not alone in their critique of the
proposed rule; many other scientists and scholars have weighed
in against removing protections for the gray wolves.
How will the Service incorporate this study into its final
rule? It is clear that in its current form the proposal to
remove Endangered Species Act protections for the wolves is not
in line with the best available science.
Mr. Wallace. Senator, in regard to the amendments to ESA
that were released, there are three major pieces to that. The
first is trying to separate the distinction between an
endangered species and a threatened species. Under previous
interpretation, there was very little daylight between the two.
In other words, if you had a threatened species, you still
had very tight limitations on take, both the species and the
habitat.
So the most probably consequential piece of this is to have
the ability to issue a tailored 4(D) rule for specific species.
It may have specific habitat needs, and it may require taking
some habitat to increase the species down the road.
The other that has received a number of discussions has
been the doctrine of the foreseeable future, what do you do
with the foreseeable future standard. I can simply say that we
are still committed to looking at climate change as a decision
on listing. We have two stone fly listings, I believe one in
Montana, one in Wyoming that had a climate change consideration
to it. So climate change is still going to remain an important
part of listing decisions.
The third one is the economics associated with the listings
decision. We are prohibited by law from using economics to make
a listing decision.
Senator Gillibrand. Great.
Mr. Wallace. But we are not prohibited from being
transparent in telling the public what the cost could be, but
they are separated in the decisions.
Senator Gillibrand. That makes sense. My last question is
about migratory bird projection. One of Fish and Wildlife
Service's key mandates is to conserve America's migratory bird
species. Although the National Audubon Society recently
published a report that found that two-thirds of North American
birds are at increased risk of extinction due to climate
change, the Service appears to be focusing its efforts on
developing policies that undermine protections for birds.
Would you please explain what the Service is doing to
improve protections for migratory birds, and address the
existential threat they face due to the impacts of climate
change? What action is the Service taking to address the
current and anticipated climate change impacts on the migratory
bird habitat?
Mr. Wallace. Well, a very general answer to that is we have
best practices working groups that are committed to working all
sorts of industries, whether it is oil and gas industry, the
wind energy industry, on developing best practices to give to
them to operate and minimize the amount of take on migratory
birds.
We are very committed to bird health populations, and
regardless of the controversy around this last decision, we are
not going away anywhere when it comes to a strong commitment to
wildlife and migratory birds.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso.
General observation, because I remember back 35, 40 years
ago where in southern Indiana, there were no beavers. The deer
population was very low, I think turkeys had to be re-
introduced. We are also a State that at one time had 20 million
acres, 19 million acres were wooded. That got cut down to just
a million acres.
So what Fish and Wildlife does, I think, is so important. I
think you always err on the side of anything that is endangered
or threatened, giving it the benefit of the doubt.
I am a conservationist from way back. I think it is
important and including bringing climate into the discussion. I
was proud to be the first Republican to join the Climate
Caucus, and six others have since joined, so it is a big, I
think, general area of discussion.
Pivoting now to, beavers are everywhere. Otters have been
re-introduced very successfully. Bobcats; I am a hunter and an
outdoorsman.
I have a question in terms of the cross-jurisdiction
between U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the reflective State
agencies. Specifically, if you know anything about the bobcat
population, because that is currently an issue throughout all
of southern Indiana, where we have got some cases more of them
showing up on trail cams than we do the prey that most folks
pay a hunting license fee for.
So when it does ebb and flow, and you get into a situation
like we are dealing with, with bobcats, where is the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Act on that particular kind of issue? How do you
work with your corresponding State agencies, that, you know,
probably have the same point of view in mind?
Mr. Wallace. I think it may be a broader answer to your
question, but we are committed to working with--it goes to
Secretary Bernhardt's commitment to work with State game
agencies to manage wildlife and be of support in whatever way
we can to do that.
We have lots of success stories around the country now
about recovering the wildlife species. Senator Barrasso's
frustration, I know about, the grizzly bear. There are bears
everywhere in Wyoming right now. They are back.
Senator Braun. Bobcats as well, in southern Indiana.
Mr. Wallace. Maybe to be more specific, if I could come
back to your office with a more detailed explanation about
that.
Senator Braun. That would be great; please do that.
Generally, would you give most of that latitude to the
State agency in terms of what they would do, and you are just
kind of a source of information? I would like to know, because
currently, that is a big issue there.
We have come back to where we have reforested, we have a
much broader array of fish and wildlife, compared to what it
was just 40 years ago, and that is so good; that is great.
But occasionally, you do run into issues where you at least
need to discuss when it has maybe come back too far the other
way, so that is something, if you could--I would love to know
more about how U.S. Fish and Wildlife weighs in vis-a-vis,
especially, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
Mr. Wallace. We will come back in detail about that. But
the default position is we want the States to be managing as
much wildlife as they can handle with our support.
Senator Braun. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Braun.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Wallace for your service.
I want to follow up on Senator Gillibrand's point in regard
to our wildlife refuges. I am going to refer specifically to
Blackwater, which of course is located in the great State of
Maryland.
First, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent to
submit the Blackwater 2100 Strategy for Salt Marsh Persistence
in an Era of Climate Change.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. And I do that because I have been to
Blackwater many times, and I have seen first hand the erosion
of the wetlands that is taking place as a result of sea level
rises and climate change.
This report spells out ``no-regret strategies firmly based
on today's best science and predictable tools to ensure that
future generations will enjoy the same benefits of the region's
tidal marshes as we do today.''
So I would like to get your response to what we could do at
Blackwater. We have some novel ideas for looking at using
dredged material to restore wetlands, and it works. It costs
some money to do that, but that is one idea.
But if we are going to preserve these tidal marshlands for
the future, we are going to have to be very aggressive. This is
a real treasure for wildlife and for our community.
So are you committed to using best science and innovative
approaches to deal with the challenges that have been brought
out in this report?
Mr. Wallace. Senator, I absolutely am, and I hope you are
pleased to know that Blackwater has helped inform me on my
opinion on this.
I had the pleasure of going out there in October and
spending a day with Marcia Pradines, who is the refuge manager
out there. Also went over to the new Harriet Tubman Visitor's
Center.
Talk about a marvelous one-two combination where the
visitor center that interprets her life, you can walk out the
door, and thanks to the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, get an
understanding of what it must have looked like back there in
the 1800s. It is a great resource for your State, and you
should be very proud of it.
They also, we talked about invasive species down there.
They have a pretty good handle on nutria, I understand, they
don't have a handle on snakeheads.
But they also have a machine that Marcia showed me where
they are digging up from the Blackwater River, trying to build
up some of the refuge area to preclude that creeping saltwater
from getting into some of those hard pines, thinking if they
can build up the base, it is almost like a mini-dike.
So you are doing some creative things down there that the
entire Service can learn from, so you have my commitment,
absolutely.
Senator Cardin. Well, I really appreciate that answer, and
thanks for giving the plug for the Harriet Tubman National Park
and Visitor Center. It is relatively new. It is one of the new
additions to the National Park Service, and it has been very,
very popular as an educational tool in regard to Harriet
Tubman.
Thank you for mentioning that, because that is all part of
the area where she was a slave and later helped conduct the
Underground Railroad, all part of this pristine area of the
Eastern Shore of Maryland that we are trying to preserve.
Let me ask one more question. I want to follow up on a
point that Senator Van Hollen raised in regard to migratory
birds.
I appreciate what you just said a little bit earlier in
response to Senator Gillibrand, as to working with the
utilities in order to mitigate the loss of migratory birds.
But I am concerned--I want this to go on record--that
changing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by the opinion on
intentional taking, it does open the door for irresponsible
corporate action. I just hope that you will be vigilant in this
regard and recognize that you don't want to give a legal
footing to irresponsible corporate action as it relates to
migratory birds.
Mr. Wallace. I totally agree with you. I think we need to
be in the forefront of it as leaders on best practices to
inform industries about how we believe they can be responsible
on public and private lands, and we are all in on that
commitment, sir.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary
Wallace, welcome.
I am going to begin by just mentioning, I am going to
submit a number of questions for the record on polar bears and
sea otters in my State. A lot of questions for you and your
team.
I am going to start, it is kind of a broken record for me
in this Committee that my State, my officials, my people, my
constituents, the native people of Alaska, have so much
knowledge about protecting our species, protecting our
environment, building our economy. These are challenging
issues, but my State is really, really good at it.
You have been to Alaska, right?
Mr. Wallace. Many times.
Senator Sullivan. Pristine, beautiful, one of the most
beautiful environmentally protected, gorgeous places on the
planet.
Mr. Wallace. Right up there with Wyoming, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. No comment.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. But then you travel up the East Coast
corridor on a train, and you see a chemical environmental
wasteland. And yet, many of my colleagues, and I am going to be
a little partisan here, because it is always coming from the
Democrats, seem to always want to tell me and my State how to
manage Alaska's environment. And then you take the train, and
you are like, holy crap. You are telling me how to manage my
environment? Look at this environmental wasteland.
So we have it again, just recently 16 of my colleagues sent
a letter, several letters to the top 15 heads of the biggest
banks in America, essentially saying, don't invest in Alaska's
North Slope. They lose a vote on opening ANWR, and now they are
pressuring the banks not to invest in my State.
Unprecedented. I have been here 5 years. Over one-third of
the Democrats in this Senate sent a letter to some of the top
bankers in America to further impoverish my constituents.
Unprecedented.
A lot of times in this Committee, I get steamed, because
when I see Senators from Oregon or whatever, Massachusetts,
telling me how to run my State, it just makes me a little mad.
I don't go to Delaware or Oregon and say, hey, do this or do
that. But it always seems to happen here.
I am beyond steamed on this one, I am just disappointed. It
is sad. It is sad. One-third of the Senate Democrats are
telling the biggest banks in America, don't invest in this part
of Alaska.
So I am going to send a letter to all these Senators, just
expressing my sadness, in attaching, and I would like to submit
it for the record, Mr. Chairman, a recent op-ed in the Wall
Street Journal from the Mayor of the North Slope Borough.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. He is an Inupiat leader, Native leader
who has been in this part of Alaska for generations. It is
entitled ``Goldman Sachs to Alaska Natives: Drop Dead.''
It is all about how these ideas from my Senators are
impoverishing some of the poorest people in America, and they
don't care, because I guarantee the letter that was written by
the 16 Senators was from extreme environmental group that they
are probably going to do a lot of fundraising off of, but it is
sad.
I mention that, Mr. Secretary, because right now, you are
developing an incidental take authorization for 2021 through
2026. I have had concerns about some of the issues that have
been raised here, and what is happening is it looks like the
model you are using, particularly as it relates to the polar
bear, has not been validated by peer review. It is reportedly
based on a few recent papers that have not been peer reviewed.
What I want to get a commitment from you on is that--your
commitment is very important to me that--this is going to be a
huge impact on my State and the economy and my constituents. It
is essential that my constituents have a voice in this process
because by the way, they are some of the most knowledgeable
people on the planet, more than your people, no offense.
Especially more than this recent paper that has not been peer
reviewed.
Can you commit to me that you will include State and local
stakeholders, including some of the people I just talked about,
not only making the final decision on the incidental take, but
on participating in the incidental take application for seismic
work in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge right now? None of
them have even been invited to be at the table. It is
remarkable, and it is really upsetting.
So can I get that firm commitment from you right now? I am
going to have a whole bunch of other issues, similarly on the
sea otter in southeast Alaska. You need additional data, we
understand that, but we need to move on that, too.
This is really frustrating to me, but it really hurts the
people I represent. With all due respect to my Senate
colleagues here, I know a hell of a lot more about representing
Alaska than they do, and in some ways, the people under your
command.
So can I get that commitment from you, Mr. Secretary, and
perhaps you would like to talk about this?
Mr. Wallace. I do have a comment, Senator.
Senator Sullivan. First, I need the commitment that you are
going to include my experts, my knowledge. Right now my State
is telling me they are not involved.
Mr. Wallace. We have a commitment for total and transparent
system on how we evaluate the ITR.
Senator Sullivan. You did not answer my question.
Mr. Wallace. Ask it again, please.
Senator Sullivan. I need a commitment from you that the
State of Alaska, with all its expertise and indigenous
knowledge on issues like polar bears will be at the table, not
only on the ITR for '21 through '26, but the seismic program
that is being looked at now, which, I am being told by State of
Alaska officials, they are not being included. And I need a
commitment also on peer review of this paper.
Point Thomson was just developed in Alaska. I oversaw that.
That is right next to ANWR. The impacts on polar bear denning
was almost minimal or zero. These are experiences that you need
to take into account, and right now your people are not doing
that.
I need a commitment that you are going to work closely with
Alaskan experts on all of this. I just need a yes.
Mr. Wallace. You have that commitment, yes. And with
another footnote, I met with your commissioner yesterday in my
office, and told her the same thing.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. And I will have many, many
more questions for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Good to have you
here.
My colleague has identified a major debate here in the
United States, and the Senate is a place we should debate these
issues. He has raised a question, why is it that folks outside
Alaska have concern about oil production, which can certainly
be an economic activity that creates jobs, creates prosperity
for a local community?
I would invite you to come and tour Oregon with me, to my
colleague, because we are seeing the impacts in rural Oregon.
These are very Republican counties very concerned about
dramatic transformations that they are witnessing from the
increasing carbon levels in the air. Our Cascade snowpack is
melting earlier, which means that our irrigation water for our
farmers is deeply compromised. It has a huge impact on our
ranchers, as well.
The richer carbon dioxide is promoting, it is a beneficial
fertilizer, if you will, for an invasive grass that is damaging
the grasses important for ranching. We are seeing our lakes
impacted by algae, toxic algae. Not only is it toxic, but when
it dies, it strips the oxygen out of the lake. So it is having
a big impact.
We have smaller, warmer salmon and trout streams, which our
rural fisherman care a great deal about.
We have a forest fire season that is 2 months longer than
it was, and it doesn't have to do with raking the forest, it
has to do with how dry the forests are for how long.
Our groundwater supplies for our farmers are dropping
because we are getting less rainfall to re-enrich the
groundwater, restore the groundwater. And off our coast, we
have the most acidic water that human civilization has ever
experienced in the Pacific Ocean, having a dramatic impact on
the ecosystem off the coast from which our fisheries depend.
So we do have a stake. Everyone one this planet has a stake
in whether we produce and burn fossil fuels. So that is why we
are all in this conversation, and this is the place to debate
it and wrestle with it.
Alaska is seeing even a bigger impact, proportionally, than
is Oregon, the changing climate. That is something for us all,
as Senators fighting for the best future for our Nation and for
the planet, have to be engaged by.
I am certainly struck, Mr. Wallace, that we have seen a
change in the language. In your testimony, you talked about
fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats face many stressors and
threats across the Nation and around the globe, including
habitat loss, invasive species, wildlife disease, wildlife
trafficking, and a changing planet.
What are you trying to encompass with ``a changing
planet?''
Mr. Wallace. Trying to accomplish what, Senator?
Senator Merkley. What are you trying to address when you
say a changing planet?
Mr. Wallace. As you think of the authority of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Parks Service in terms of the
broader issue that you just discussed, the changes you are
seeing in Oregon in lots of different areas, there are sort of
three things that I think we can move the needle on, to be
helpful on in that regard.
One is healthy forest management. Years ago, when I started
in this business, that was a pejorative, you talked about
healthy forest management, it meant so many things to so many
people.
Now, it is communities from all over the country and to
say, what do we do to minimize the possibility of a
catastrophic wildfires in our lands?
The second thing we see, and especially after the Hurricane
Dorian came through on the East Coast, is beach re-nourishment
strategies about whole areas on Cape Paterson, Point Lookout.
The third is invasive species. If I had a preference, I
would like to see invasive species mentioned in the national
dialogue as much as any other comment.
In those three areas, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Park Service can take a leadership role.
Senator Merkley. I am struck how you talk about forest
fires without mentioning the underlying causes, the greater
storms and the impact those storms are having on our States
without addressing the underlying issue, invasive species
dramatically affected by the changing carbon in the atmosphere
and the warming temperatures.
Can we just have an honest discussion? Why is it that you
have to dodge around the issue, and you are afraid to use the
words carbon pollution, climate change? This is the most
serious threat facing humanity.
Don't you feel some responsibility as a public servant to
actually get to the real issue and recommend and wrestle with
real strategies to address this challenge?
Mr. Wallace. I think those are real strategies. I think
adoptive management and teaching a generation of people how to
prepare for changes, as Senator Cardin just mentioned, in the
Blackwater Refuge in Maryland. We see it on the coast of the
Carolinas and Alaska. You want people that are caring for
public resources to understand what is changing around them and
have tools in place. That is where we, at my position at
Interior, can help.
Senator Merkley. Well, I will wrap up and just say I
disagree that addressing the impact from these changes, which
are devastating and saying, let's restore some beach sand, and
we will all be happy, and not address the underlying cause is,
it is pretty much addressing the issue after the horses are out
of the barn, and we need to get the horses back in the barn.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Senator Merkley, before you arrived, in
response to an earlier question, the words climate change came
out of his mouth a number of times. Our colleague, Senator
Braun over here, raised his hand and acknowledged he was the
first Republican to join the Climate Change Caucus. Senator
Barrasso tells me he has been joined by six other Republicans.
I am urging him maybe to summon up his I don't know what, and
join as well.
So I think the interest in going at root causes is growing,
and we need to grow it some more.
Senator Merkley. Well, I will note those words did not
appear in your testimony, and they don't appear in the most
recent report. But I am heartened by your observation. Thank
you.
Senator Carper. Secretary Wallace, two questions if I
could. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that oil fuel waste
pits kill between 500,000 and 1 million birds every year. That
is bird mortality that is equivalent to practically one
Deepwater Horizon spill every year.
These pits, as you may know, are especially harmful for
waterfowl. One Fish and Wildlife Service study found that 57
percent, almost 60 percent of the birds killed at these sites
are waterfowl.
These bird deaths are problematic for many constituencies,
including the hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and women who
hunt waterfowl. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act has been the most
important tool for cleaning up these pits, including throughout
the George W. Bush administration.
The Trump administration has essentially eliminated this
tool through its unprecedented interpretation of this Act. Here
is my question. How does this Administration reconcile its
position on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and cleaning up these
sites with its position to expand opportunities for sportsmen?
I will say that again. How does the Administration
reconcile its position on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with
cleaning up these sites with its position to expand
opportunities for sportsmen? Please.
Mr. Wallace. Senator, regardless of this particular
Migratory Bird Treaty issue that you asked me about, we have a
large quiver of environmental statutes, thanks to your
Committee and others, to enable us to protect and preserve
species. The Clean Water Act, for example, the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Oil Spill Act.
In addition to that, we have working groups with all of
these industry groups about best practices, about netting your
pond, about flagging it, about putting louvers over heater
treaters so a bird doesn't crawl into a warm vent and it is
turned on. So we are not going away from this debate.
We just could not criminalize such a broad activity of
actions under the Migratory Bird Treaty and understand how to
implement it. Who do you pick, and who do you choose from? We
would invite, if you have ways of putting sidebars on that, we
would look to the legislative branch to tell us how to enforce
that treaty.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
One last question. Last year, news investigations raised
several important questions about whether or not U.S. funding
for international wildlife conservation supported activities
that violated human rights; both the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the implicated conservation organizations, should continue
to take these issues very seriously and ensure that such abuses
do not occur.
However, I understand that the Department of Interior has
frozen about $12 million for international wildlife
conservation activities that are unrelated to human rights
abuse allegations, unrelated to human rights abuse allegations.
Congress appropriated this funding, I think for fiscal year
2018, 2018.
The question: when do you expect the Department of Interior
to release these obligated funds? When do you expect your
department to release these obligated funds, the $12.3 million
that has been frozen?
Mr. Wallace. Senator, we had an issue where they were held
at the Department of Interior because of allegations that were
coming forward about potential abuse to second and third
generation grantees in range countries where we were trying to
curtail wildlife. We don't want to be a part of any of that, if
it were true.
We have set up audits. We are working with the USAID on
best practices from them. We know it is an important part of
our diplomacy and wildlife trafficking, and it is an issue that
I talk about with our team weekly.
So I am going to put that on my list to come back and talk
to you and the Committee about. But please be assured that it
is not in some shoebox at the Department of Interior; it is a
high priority.
Senator Carper. All right, we will continue to focus on it
with you, and thank you for joining us today.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Welcome back, Mr. Wallace. It is good to see you again.
I have two topics with you today. One is that from the
Department of Interior's very name, right down through its
focus, what we coastal States see as an organization that is
heavily focused on western, inland, and upland issues, and that
pays very little attention to coastal concerns.
I raised this with you during the confirmation hearing, and
I would like to ask you to, perhaps in a response, a written
response, take this as a question for the record if you would
like, because I don't want to put you on the spot or just get a
1 minute answer to a longer question.
What are the ways that you have undertaken to make sure
that your organization pays attention to coastal areas, and
that we get fair treatment up against upland, inland, and
western areas?
I know that this will distress our Chairman from his
upland, inland, and western State, but I do think it is fair
that coastal States like mine and Senator Carper's are not left
out of the Department of Interior's attention.
The second question is much more local to us. We have had
the chance to discuss this, you and I, offline, and that is the
park that is being developed along the Blackstone River in
Rhode Island and in Massachusetts.
Unlike the West, where you can draw big squares on big
chunks of territory and call them parks, we have been developed
since the 17th century, in some places, and certainly since the
18th century. So trying to carve out park areas is complicated.
What we are able to do is in the Blackstone Park, treat the
Blackstone River as sort of the bracelet, and attach to it a
variety of charms of historic significance. Then we have the
question of, how do you link it all up. By road, by the river
itself, by bike paths, and all of that, and that requires a
whole different and more complicated regime of looking for
easements and put ins, and take outs, and all of that.
I would like to invite you to come to Rhode Island at a
convenient time, once we have a meeting set up for you, and sit
down with Senator Reed and myself, and go through where we are
on concluding that park and get your attention to getting this
done for once and for all.
Mr. Wallace. I would answer the second question first. Yes,
absolutely, I look forward to coming up to Rhode Island to see
you and learn more about Blackstone. I think we have talked
about it. There may be some lessons learned with the Cuyahoga
Project.
Senator Whitehouse. Cuyahoga. Fortunately, the Blackstone
never caught fire.
Mr. Wallace. Yes. I look forward to coming to see you.
As to your question, is the Interior going to get into the
exterior of the country, I think we already are there. If you
look at the coastal areas that we have under management either
as refuges or parks in Florida, Cape Hatteras, Point Lookout,
the Texas gulf coast, we are in the business of understanding
these big changes that are happening.
Dorian re-carved some of the North Carolina coast right
now. What does that mean for us as an agency on how we look at
beach restoration?
So we are being challenged by today's times to understand
those questions that you have asked me. We are in the business,
and we are going to be in it even a bigger way in the future.
Senator Whitehouse. When we drill down into your accounts,
and into the Army Corps of Engineers' accounts, we very often
see huge discrepancies in where funding ends up, with the vast
majority, in some cases, 80 percent, 90 percent of funding and
accounts going to inland and upland uses and not to coastal
uses. So I will take you through those accounts, and we will
see if we can get them to be balanced a little bit more fairly
in favor of the coastal States that have so long been not the
Department of Interior's focus.
Thank you.
Mr. Wallace. I look forward to that, Senator. Thank you,
and it is nice to see you again.
Senator Whitehouse. Nice to see you again.
Senator Barrasso. I would point out to the Senator from the
coastal State on the East Coast that we previously during this
hearing today, had quite a bit of a discussion debate, and some
division and disagreement among coastal States on the western
part of our country, with the Senator from Oregon and the
Senator from Alaska having somewhat diverging views on issues
of resources and coastal activities.
Senator Whitehouse. That is what happens when you have so
little to fight over along the coast, whereas you all are just
choking with Federal money to the extent that you have sage
brush rebellions to drive it away.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. I did have a final question before we
close down this hearing.
There was a discussion earlier about migratory birds, and
deaths related to those. Somewhere I was reading a list of the
things that cause bird deaths. You mentioned a few, vehicles,
plate glass windows, wind turbines, animals that can cause
death.
Is there a listing somewhere of a proportionality of those
sorts of things? I mean, you mentioned some different numbers
for different things, but I wasn't able to get them all down.
Mr. Wallace. We do have a list at the Fish and Wildlife
Service. The No. 1 issue, not surprisingly, is cats, about 2.4
billion estimated. And it goes down into oil, it comes down.
Cell towers, transmission towers, plate glass windows, even
cars. There is a big list of things that happen in America that
kill birds. We will get that to the Committee.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much.
If there are no further questions, and we had quite a
turnout; I think we have had questions from 11 different
Senators. Others were here and had to leave before having a
chance to offer questions. But they may be able to write to you
questions. So I would ask that we keep the hearing record open
for another 2 weeks.
I want to thank you for your time and your testimony. We
look forward to seeing you back in the Committee and all your
thoughtful comments. Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
{all]