[Senate Hearing 117-48]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-48
EXAMINING BIODIVERSITY LOSS: DRIVERS,
IMPACTS, AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 19, 2021
__________
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
45-270 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont Virginia,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JONI ERNST, Iowa
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 19, 2021
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Gerber, Leah, Ph.D., Founding Director, Center for Biodiversity
Outcomes, Life Sciences Center; Arizona State University....... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 9
Sullivan, Edmund, Executive Officer, Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Agency......................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 30
Treharne, Andy, Senior Director, External Affairs, Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation......................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Schmidt, John, Board of Directors, PARTNERSCAPES................. 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Testimony from Thomas E. Lovejoy and Lee Hannah.................. 76
Testimony of Dr. Gabriela Chavarria.............................. 79
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the World Wildlife
Fund, May 28, 2021............................................. 88
Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife, May 6, 2021.............. 92
EXAMINING BIODIVERSITY LOSS: DRIVERS, IMPACTS, AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Kelly, Padilla, Boozman, and Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning, everybody. I am pleased to
call the Committee to order.
I am pleased that we are joined today by a distinguished
panel of witnesses to examine the important issue of
biodiversity loss: Dr. Leah Gerber, Ed Sullivan, Andy
Treharne--hope I got that right, Andy--and John Schmidt. We
welcome you all to the Environment and Public Works Committee.
I just want to begin by saying that I appreciate that you
come to us from across the length and breadth of our great
country. That is important because biodiversity loss is a
challenge that transcends geographical boundaries and State
lines.
Across our country's forests, our grasslands, our deserts,
our rivers, and oceans, and all around the world, the ecosystem
that supports all life is threatened by heat waves, by intense
storms, by wildfires, and more. At the same time, wildlife must
contend with invasive species, including pests and diseases
that we hear about regularly.
The more species each ecosystem can sustain, in other
words, the greater the biodiversity in each, the greater
resilience those ecosystems have to the threats I have just
described, and yet, around the world, biodiversity is declining
faster now than any other time in human history. Let me say
that again: Around the world, biodiversity is declining faster
now than at any other time in human history.
Our changing climate, habitat loss, the spread of invasive
species in our increasingly connected world, and pollution have
all contributed to this decline.
For example, the ocean absorbs almost a third of the carbon
dioxide emitted into our atmosphere every year, a third. The
carbon dioxide turns into acid in the ocean, threatening
species at the base of the ocean food web. That impact on the
food web is profound, affecting everything from fish to one of
our most beloved species in Delaware, a little bird called the
red knot.
That same carbon dioxide contributes to global warming,
which is causing sea level rise. As the seas rise, they
threaten the red knot's coastal habitat, making this iconic and
threatened species even more vulnerable.
With limited food resources and diminishing habitat, the
incredible 19,000 mile roundtrip migration that red knots make
each year--think of that, 19,000 miles--they are about the size
of this, Senator Capito, they are about the size of the end of
my hammer, but each year they make this migration, and it has
become more difficult, not easier, and it is a migration that
threatens their long term survival.
The impact of biodiversity loss extends far beyond this
remarkable species going extinct. It also impacts each and
every one of us. How, you might ask.
Well, first of all, biodiversity is directly linked to
human health. The loss of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience
is making animals more susceptible to disease, a particularly
troubling development since the vast majority of emerging
diseases in people, including potential pandemics, originate in
wildlife. We are all too familiar with the consequences of the
zoonotic diseases. COVID-19 is one of them.
Noting this threat and many others, the World Economic
Forum has named biodiversity loss among the top three risks to
humanity in terms of impact, along with weapons of mass
destruction and climate action failure.
One sector at particular risk is agriculture, which is, of
course, critical for global food security and need for our very
lives. Agriculture is the No. 1 industry in my home State of
Delaware, as it is for many of our colleagues on this
Committee. Our agriculture and food systems cannot exist
without healthy soils, plant pollination, and pest control, all
of which are linked to biodiversity. We simply cannot produce
food without the birds, without the bees, and even the lowly
earthworms and healthy soil bacteria. If we fail them, we
ultimately fail ourselves.
Though the current state of biodiversity decline paints a
bleak picture for the future, there is reason for hope. If we
take action, we can stem biodiversity loss and prevent the harm
that comes with it.
This is an issue on which our Committee has a bipartisan
record of success, a record of which all of us can be proud.
Last Congress, we enacted into law both the WILD Act and the
ACE Act, both of which reauthorized important programs to
conserve wildlife and habitat at home and abroad. We also
included the first ever wildlife crossings safety section in a
highway bill, which would address the problems of habitat
fragmentation.
As Chairman, I hope that we can build on that record this
Congress, and I am eager to work with all of our members on
both sides of the aisle to do so.
We must also ensure that the Federal budget provides robust
funding for wildlife protection. We know that our conservation
laws work best for both wildlife and people when the agencies
responsible for implementing them have the resources that they
need to do their jobs effectively.
What I have described is a moral and practical imperative,
and like so many of the issues before our Committee, this is a
challenge we all face, and one that we can resolve together. It
is no overstatement to say that our livelihoods and those of
our children hang in the balance.
With that, I am pleased to recognize, for her comments, our
Ranking Member, Senator Shelley Capito, great State of West
Virginia, the Mountain State, for her opening statement before
we hear from our witnesses.
Senator Capito.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling today's hearing. I also want to thank our witnesses for
joining us and look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today.
Our Nation, as the Chairman has said, is abundant with
natural beauty, and the Chairman and I agree wholeheartedly
about the importance of conservation. It is essential that we
preserve our public lands and our ecosystems while ensuring
access to outdoor recreation.
The Committee has a history of passing bipartisan
legislation aimed at conserving wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Just last year, and the Chairman spoke about this, this
Committee passed the America's Conservation Enhancement Act,
which President Trump signed into law in October.
Included in the ACE Act was the Chesapeake Watershed
Investment for Landscape Defense, Chesapeake WILD, Act, which
created a new $15 million grant program within the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to support habitat restoration in the Bay
area. As a West Virginian, and as someone from Delaware, this
is important to both of us.
The Chesapeake WILD Act, the first Federal wildlife
conservation grant tailored to benefiting species in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed, has bolstered our State's growing
outdoor recreation industry. This important Fish and Wildlife
program protects vital ecosystems while also enhancing our
outdoor industry by supporting populations of birds, fish, and
mammals prized by our outdoorsmen, sportsmen, and fishermen,
and we all know West Virginia's $9 billion outdoor recreation
industry, which supports 91,000 jobs in our State is good for
the soul and good for the economy.
Our anglers and sportsmen, in turn, fund conservation
through Pittman-Robertson Act programs backed by the Federal
excise taxes on ammunition and fishing tackle. This creates a
virtuous cycle: Improvements to our natural heritage encourage
more people, including sportsmen, to get out and enjoy the
great outdoors, leading to more investment in conservation.
Enhanced biodiversity from this cycle also benefits other
sectors, such as agriculture, by supporting species that
benefit mankind in more direct ways, such as pollinators or
predators that eat pests.
Beyond our Committee, the Great American Outdoors Act,
which I cosponsored, was enacted last Congress and will provide
investments in our public lands and to address their
maintenance backlogs. These investments will yield benefits for
ecosystems and free up other tax dollars otherwise spent by the
National Park Service, the Forest Service, and other Federal
public agencies on addressing the Federal maintenance to
address priorities, such as wildlife conservation.
West Virginia is known for being wild and wonderful, and
our State is blessed with abundant natural resources, from
forests to mountains to rivers and to lakes. To showcase our
State's natural beauty, I worked to redesignate the New River
Gorge National River to become a new National Park and
Preserve.
Working with local leaders, our hunters and fishermen,
economic development folks, and small business owners, we were
able to craft a bill that gives the New River Gorge the
recognition it deserves while preserving historic hunting and
fishing rights.
I am proud to say that President Trump signed that bill
into law last year, and I am also thrilled to be sharing this
part of Almost Heaven with the rest of the world for
generations to come. Biodiversity is intrinsic to the natural
beauty of our Nation, and habitat conservation is key to
healthy, biodiverse ecosystems.
Two weeks ago, the Biden administration issued the
Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful Report, which
intended to outline steps toward President Biden's goal of
conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030,
commonly referred to as 30 by 30. However, the 24 page document
included very few details as to how we can achieve President
Biden's ambitious goal.
While a number of the core principles, including voluntary
and locally led approaches to conservationism, outlined in the
plan are bipartisan in nature, I do have a number of concerns.
For instance, the report does not even define conservation, nor
does it specify what lands should be included under that
program. These questions need to be answered.
I look forward to continuing to work with the
Administration in a bipartisan way on these and other issues,
but my lasting and meaningful solutions to addressing
biodiversity must come from legislation.
Today, I look forward to our discussion on consensus driven
solutions to these challenges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much, Senator Capito.
We have four witnesses joining us today. The first is going
to be introduced to us by Senator Kelly from Arizona.
Senator Kelly, the show is yours.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding today's hearing on the biodiversity challenges we are
facing in the United States and across the world.
As you noted, animal, insect, and plant species are
declining at rates we have never seen before, tens to hundreds
of times higher than the average background levels spanning the
last 10 million years. Scientists estimate that nearly one-
third of the species in the United States are close to
extinction. These are commonly known species, like polar bears
and bumblebees. In Arizona, we could lose wildlife like the
Sonoran pronghorn antelope and the desert tortoise, to name
just a couple.
Today's hearing will focus on this alarming trend, and I am
grateful that the Committee tapped one of the world's leading
experts to testify on this issue, Dr. Leah Gerber. Dr. Gerber
is a professor of conservation science at Arizona State
University School of Life Sciences. She is also the founding
director of ASU's Center for Biodiversity Outcomes. Dr. Gerber
is the lead author on the United Nation's report issued in 2019
that was a wake up call to the world that extinction rates are
accelerating.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing Dr. Gerber's
testimony, and thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Senator Kelly, and
welcome Dr. Gerber.
You are now recognized for your statement. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF LEAH GERBER, PH.D., FOUNDING DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
BIODIVERSITY OUTCOMES, LIFE SCIENCES CENTER; ARIZONA STATE
UNIVERSITY
Ms. Gerber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Capito,
and members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak with
you today about the biodiversity crisis.
I am Dr. Leah Gerber, professor in the School of Life
Sciences and Founding Director of the Center for Biodiversity
Outcomes at Arizona State University. I was a lead author for
the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services Global Assessment, which provided the most
comprehensive evaluation of the status of biodiversity and
nature's contribution to people in the U.S. and globally.
More species of plants and animals are threatened with
extinction now than any other time in human history. Twenty-
five percent of all species, including 40 percent of amphibians
and 30 percent of marine mammals, are threatened with
extinction.
We are not talking about just extinction; we are talking
about the general decline of nature. Compared to the 1970s,
there are 3 billion fewer birds in North America for people to
enjoy, and coral reefs have shrunk by about half their original
extent.
The consequences of the decline of nature aren't restricted
to wildlife; they extend to people. Nearly 80 percent of the 18
categories of nature's contributions to people have declined.
These ecosystem services provided by biodiversity include
things like nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration,
pollination, and agricultural productivity.
Protecting biodiversity ensures the resilience of
agriculture as it intensifies to meet growing demands for food
production, and food security depends on healthy pollinator
populations. Diverse and abundant populations of bees are
associated with higher rates of production in America's crop
species.
Biodiversity is the foundation of our economy and well
being, yet it is declining at unprecedented rates.
The causes of the biodiversity crisis are well known:
Habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and
invasive species. Rapid climate change, for example, influences
species' ability to adapt, contributing to biodiversity loss.
At present, our main challenge is not trying to figure out what
is wrong, it is about deciding to take action to address the
problem.
The science is clear about the biodiversity crisis, and we
have options for solutions. We can start by looking to
experience to figure out what works to conserve biodiversity.
Congress could consider expanding Federal investment in
habitat restoration, climate adaptation, and habitat
connectivity programs. Congress should also provide robust
funding for our Nation's wildlife protection laws. These laws
work best when the agencies responsible for implementing them
have adequate resources.
My own work has shown that a return on investment approach
to prioritize threatened species recovery actions can help save
more species from extinction.
Innovative financing and financial markets for biodiversity
are promising approaches to measure and value biodiversity. An
institutional structure is needed to facilitate corporate
disclosure on biodiversity impacts and dependencies and to
report progress toward a sustainable development goals.
By acknowledging that biodiversity is the foundation of
social and economic systems, we can begin to mainstream the
value of biodiversity. Congress can help lead the way by
providing direction on this solution.
Building bridges between government and non-governmental
sectors will promote the growing sense of corporate
responsibility that is rapidly emerging. For example, I have
worked with Bayer to develop a pesticide risk assessment
framework that allows sustainable agriculture while ensuring
the protection of endangered species.
A national biodiversity strategy for the U.S. would focus
and coordinate government response to the biodiversity crisis.
While some U.S. agencies are responsible to ensure the
persistence of biodiversity as part of their mission, many
agencies impact biodiversity and can play a significant role in
its protection.
We could also re-establish a leadership role in
international conservation, from issues like wildlife
trafficking to mitigating plastic pollution in our oceans.
We need an inclusive process that brings people together to
solve our Nation's biodiversity challenge. A long history of
discrimination has led to clear patterns of injustice and
inequity in our access to nature. Committing to building a
diverse work force makes the science and the scientists better
prepared to address the growing challenges to biodiversity.
We are at a crossroads, and the signs are clear which
direction we should take. This is the time for Senate and
Congress to listen to the science, build on our Nation's
conservation history, and take action for biodiversity, and
ultimately, for humanity.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gerber follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Dr. Gerber, thank you very much. ASU,
right?
Ms. Gerber. Yes.
Senator Carper. My wife is a graduate of ASU.
Ms. Gerber. Wonderful.
Senator Carper. The other ASU, Appalachian State
University.
Ms. Gerber. Oh, OK.
Senator Carper. We were out in the Redwood City,
California, on recess a week ago, visiting a bunch of
technology companies out there, and we stayed at Marriott
Hotel. I went down in the breakfast area to try to find a quiet
place so I could do a Zoom call, a teleconference call. And all
these athletes, women athletes, about 25 of them, came in from
ASU and filled up the dining room, and just were full of energy
and talking and everything.
My wife went over and said to them that she was a graduate
of ASU. She said, ``My husband is over there trying to do a
Zoom call,'' and believe it or not, they stopped talking. They
could not have been nicer, and we are just very impressed with
their team discipline. So, ASU, welcome aboard.
Ms. Gerber. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Our next witness is Ed Sullivan. Ed
Sullivan, just a little bit of background, Ed Sullivan, as some
of you may recall, worked as a journalist before hosting
variety shows in the 1930s and 1940s. He eventually became host
of the Ed Sullivan Show, the longest running TV variety program
in history, which featured acts like The Supremes, like the
Beatles, Jerry Lewis, Elvis Presley, among legions of others.
All right, I am kidding, but we do have a really big show
today.
Kidding again, but in all seriousness, we are glad to have
the real Ed Sullivan.
This is Edmund Sullivan, here with us today.
The original Ed Sullivan has passed on, but his memory
lingers on Wikipedia. If you want to have a good time, check
out Ed Sullivan on Wikipedia, and you can see the Beatles as
kids, almost, and Elvis Presley at the age of about 20. It is
just a hoot. Just great.
The real Ed Sullivan, Edmund Sullivan, and Mr. Sullivan is
the Executive Officer of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency.
He has over 25 years of experience in habitat conservation
planning, natural resource management, and land use planning.
Mr. Sullivan, we thank you for taking the time to join us
this morning, and you may begin when you are ready. Take it
away.
STATEMENT OF EDMUND SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SANTA CLARA
VALLEY HABITAT AGENCY
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
Capito, and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I thank you for your leadership.
I hope my testimony will prove to be a catalyst into further
exploration of benefits and lessons learned from large scale,
multi-agency habitat conservation plans, which are effective
solutions to stemming biodiversity loss while facilitating
economic development.
In thinking about the future of habitat conservation
planning, it is important to appreciate their legacy. Through
the Endangered Species Act HCP program, endangered species
conservation has evolved considerably, and several lessons can
be gleaned from this development, most notably that with
foresight planning and investment, economic development and
biodiversity are not mutually exclusive.
In assessing these pioneer arrangements, it is important to
consider not only the efficiency of their formation and
implementation processes, but also their effectiveness in
advancing valuable conservation goals. Landscape scale HCPs are
attempting to implement sustainable development principles of
permitting economic development, while at the same time,
protecting wildlife habitat and diversity, as well as
sequestering carbon.
The integration of environment and development will lead to
improved living standards for all, better protected and managed
ecosystems, and a safer, more prosperous future.
Protected areas are the backbone of global biodiversity
conservation. Land conservation at the ecosystem scale is a key
driver for achieving that objective, and regional HCPs are one
of the best mechanisms available capable of implementing that
objective.
With the effects of climate change, regional HCPs and other
similar conservation efforts are leading a paradigm shift in
reserve design and function by identifying and protecting
biodiversity hotspots in those areas least likely to undergo
rapid climate induced changes.
Large scale HCPs are wired for tackling climate change
since we are ecosystem focused, intent on building resiliency,
replication into the landscape, establishing wildlife linkages,
and protecting climate refugia.
Landscape scale HCPs recognize threats to biodiversity and
fragmented landscapes and are positioned to help mitigate these
threats by conserving large habitat patch areas linked to one
another through protected wildlife corridors. HCPs have the
capacity to stem biodiversity loss because it is our core
mission.
We also have financial sustainability necessary to succeed,
endowment funding focused on in perpetuity land management and
monitoring, and we are focused on building collaborative
partnerships between all levels of government, NGOs, and
private landowners.
Another important point is the adaptive, management driven
implementation approach that HCPs take, as well as science
centered land conservation decisionmaking focused on protecting
biodiversity hotspots.
I hope my testimony presents a wide range of illustrative
actions for sustainability and pathways for achieving them
across and between sectors. I believe it highlights the
importance of adopting integrative management and cross-
sectoral approaches, like regional, landscape scale HCPs that
consider the trade offs necessary infrastructure development
and biodiversity conservation.
Will striking these balances require substantial financial
investment? Yes, but not nearly as much as losing the $125
trillion worth of ecosystem services that experts estimate
nature provides to the planet every year.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Mr. Sullivan, thank you very, very much.
Senator Capito, I recognize you to introduce Andy Treharne.
My staff and I were wracking our brains, going back in time
to early year, going back to the original Ed Sullivan Show when
the Beatles were on. We were trying to think of a Beatles song
that would actually be pertinent to the subject of today's
hearing. The best we could come up with was I Am the Walrus,
which is not too bad, not too bad.
Senator Capito, I re-recognize you again to introduce our
next witness, Andy Treharne.
I hope I have that right, Andy.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Carper.
I would like to take the opportunity to introduce our
witness, Mr. Andy Treharne, and I am glad you could join us
today. He drove up from Richmond, he said.
He joined the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation in 2011
as the organization's lead on sportsmen's policy issues
throughout the western United States, and currently serves as
CSF's Senior Director of External Affairs. Prior to his role,
he served as policy director for the House Republicans in the
Colorado General Assembly, where he helped steer a 33 member
caucus through agenda development, policy and budget analysis,
and regulatory monitoring.
He's also an alumnus of Capitol Hill, having served as a
legislative aide for former Senator Wayne Allard.
So a warm welcome back to the Hill, Mr. Treharne.
As someone who has dedicated his life to hunting, wildlife,
and conservation issues, Mr. Treharne understands the essential
role the sportsmen have in preserving our natural environment.
His wealth of experience on these issues will be of good
benefit to the hearing today.
We are happy to have you here, and look forward to your
testimony.
Mr. Treharne.
STATEMENT OF ANDY TREHARNE, SENIOR DIRECTOR, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION
Mr. Treharne. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on one of the most pressing conservation challenges
facing our Nation: Biodiversity loss.
My name is Andy Treharne, and as Senator Capito said, I
serve as the Senior Director of External Affairs for CSF, the
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. Established in 1989, CSF
works with the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the largest,
most active bipartisan caucus on Capitol Hill.
Before discussing modern day challenges and solutions for
addressing biodiversity, it is important to take a moment to
put things into historical perspective.
Over 80 years ago, the hunting community led the charge to
establish excise taxes on firearms and ammunition directed
specifically to conservation purposes.
With the subsequent enactment of similar excise taxes
generated by anglers, boaters, and archery enthusiasts, revenue
from sportsmen's licenses is permanently linked to
conservation, laying the foundation for what is now the unique
American system of conservation funding. A user pays public
benefits program that is the financial backbone of conservation
in our country.
Totaling nearly $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2021, plus
millions of dollars annually in license and permit fees, these
ongoing investments benefit the American public in a variety of
ways, ranging from recreational access to increased wildlife
populations to wetland conservation that filters our water and
improves our soil quality.
Despite the unparalleled success of the user pays public
benefit system, America continues to experience challenges for
biodiversity conservation. It is critical that we take steps to
invest in 21st century funding mechanisms to meet the
challenges before us today. In doing so, we must also maintain
the integrity of existing funding mechanisms, often generated
by sportsmen and women that contribute to biodiversity
conservation.
While much of the focus recently has been on declining
biodiversity, our community continues to contribute positive
results for fish and wildlife. For example, North American
waterfowl populations have increased by 56 percent since 1970,
a nod to highly successful conservation programs such as the
North Americans Wetlands Conservation Act, NAWCA, and Federal
and State duck stamps. We thank the Committee for their work to
reauthorize NAWCA through the America's Conservation
Enhancement, or ACE Act, last year.
Yet we still face significant challenges. Forest birds and
grassland birds lack a funding source, such as NAWCA or duck
stamps. Consequently, these bird populations have declined
roughly 30 percent during the same time waterfowl populations
increased significantly. However, declines in biodiversity are
not limited to bird populations.
In 2000, Congress recognized this challenge and created a
new sub-account within the Pittman-Robertson Act known as the
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program, which requires
States to develop federally approved State wildlife action
plan, or SWAPs. However, Congress currently provides
approximately only 5 percent of the funding needed to implement
these plans that are essentially road maps for biodiversity.
Congress has the ability to address this disparity by pursuing
solutions, such as the Recovering America's Wildlife Act that
provides States with the resources necessary to implement these
plans that States have been crafting at Congress's request.
We also have opportunities to support biodiversity by
investing in solutions that support wildlife movement. As land
use changes disrupt historic landscapes and limit the movement
of enough individuals within a species population, many of
these species' ability to migrate to habitat conditions that
are capable of meeting their resource needs becomes impaired.
We applaud the Committee for its bipartisan work last
Congress and the development of the ATIA, specifically Section
1125, that would address the approximately 2 million wildlife
vehicle collisions annually while enhancing habitat
connectivity through existing programs.
There are similar opportunities to support aquatic resource
conservation through programs like the Forest Service's Aquatic
Organism Passage Program and NOAA's Habitat Restoration Grants.
Supporting programs that are built on collaborative
conservation is also needed. Given that many of our most
significant biodiversity and species conservation opportunities
are found on privately owned lands, we believe there are
opportunities to better incentivize landowners to participate
in voluntary programs, such as those authorized and funded
through the Farm Bill's conservation title, Joint Ventures, the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, among others. Newer
programs such as Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative and
the Southeast Deer Partnership are also generating positive
results.
In summary, CSF thanks the Committee for holding a hearing
on this important issue and for the opportunity to testify.
Increasing efforts to address biodiversity loss is not only
beneficial for fish, wildlife, and plants, but is also good for
the American economy, sportsmen and women, and rural
communities.
CSF encourages the continued support for existing programs
that play a role in addressing these challenges, as well as
support for new programs, such as the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Treharne follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Just for the record, how do you pronounce your last name,
Andy?
Mr. Treharne. That's a complicated question, Mr. Chairman.
My parents always told me that it was ``tree-harn,'' but every
time I meet somebody from southern England or Wales, they told
me it's pronounced ``truh-harn,'' so I think my parents are
probably incorrect.
Senator Carper. All right. They usually know best, but we
are delighted that you are here. Thanks so much.
I understand Senator Capito said you worked for a Senator
from Colorado, Wayne Allard?
Mr. Treharne. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. From my recollection, he was a veterinarian
and still is, right?
Mr. Treharne. Correct.
Senator Carper. He would say to me, Senator Capito, that he
takes care of the Lord's critters on this planet. That is what
he said.
Welcome. You worked for a good guy.
Next, I think we are going to recognize Senator Capito
again, and I think she is going to introduce maybe our final
witness, John Schmidt. Is it John Schmidt from?
Senator Capito. John Schmidt.
Senator Carper. John Schmidt from, is he from West
Virginia, or which county?
Senator Capito. Elkins.
Senator Carper. Elkins, my God, where my mom was born.
Guess it doesn't get any better than that. We are probably
related.
Senator Capito. Might be, might be.
I am pleased to introduce my friend, John Schmidt. We
worked together for the last several decades, actually.
He currently serves on the Board of Directors of
PARTNERSCAPES, an organization with agencies, non-profit
organizations, and policymakers to collaborate on conservation
projects through voluntary, incentive based public and private
programs. He recently joined the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to control invasive
species and promote pollinator habitat on his own land.
John, whose background is in biology, recently finished a
lengthy tenure at U.S. Fish and Wildlife, having worked for the
agency for 32 years in the Elkins, West Virginia, field office.
In that capacity, he worked closely with my team on
conservation and permitting issues.
It is always a pleasure having West Virginians testify
before the Committee.
We are both very glad that we have our visitor center up in
the Canaan Valley Refuge that U.S. Fish and Wildlife helped us
initiate and also cut the ribbon on. It is a beautiful spot.
John's important work with PARTNERSCAPES and the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program shows he understands the
importance of landowner input on effective conservation
policies.
So, I look forward to hearing your testimony, John. Thanks
for joining us.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHMIDT,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PARTNERSCAPES
Mr. Schmidt. It is a pleasure to speak to you, and I would
like to thank Chairman Carper and you, Senator Capito, Ranking
Member, and the other Senators and their staff for making this
possible today.
Specifically, today, I would like to speak on the benefits
of restoring the Fish and Wildlife Service's Partnership Fish
and Wildlife Program and the great work it has done nationwide
to keep private landowners working on their land and benefiting
a multitude of native species. I have included three handouts
today to provide further information.
I am privileged to represent West Virginia on the
PARTNERSCAPES Board of Directors. PARTNERSCAPES is a national
organization that connects private landowners with partner
organizations to improve conservation efforts. The organization
is led by landowners who want to conserve and sustain the land
for their families and their communities, as well as the
natural resources and wildlife that inhabit their respective
landscapes.
What we hear time and time again is that more government
programs need to be like the Partners Program. Partnerships are
effective in bringing landowners and agencies together for a
common purpose. When each party has skin in the game, joint
projects are more successful. This is no different with our
Partners projects.
Initially, in West Virginia, our Partners Program got off
to a slow start, as it mainly offered technical support and
funding to restore wetlands, whereas you can imagine, in the
Mountain State, most of our landowners prefer their already
drained wetlands to stay that way so they could grow crops.
We picked up speed, however, and projects, and acres and
miles of habitat when we began offering technical assistance to
build fences to help keep cattle out of streams and forests. We
provided alternative water sources so the cows didn't need to
get into the streams, which improved their health and weight
gain. The landowners also ended up with better grazing
management, and taxpayers ended up with cleaner water, higher
species diversity, and so on.
The Partners Program has two primary goals, one of which is
to improve endangered species habitat and populations. The
other is to assist the National Wildlife Refuge with their
mission. These two priorities often overlap.
Fast forward to my own experience: In this year, in 2021,
my wife and I are fortunate to own some working forestland in
Randolph County, not too far from Elkins. We purchased the land
in 2018 and manage it for a multitude of plant and animal
species. The majority of the forest supports a healthy stand of
mature red oak, white oak, maple, and poplar.
Unfortunately, we have about 10 acres of young forest that
the understory is dominated by a number of invasive shrub
species, like Japanese barberry, autumn olive, Tartarian
honeysuckle, and of course, multi-flora rose. These invasives
have crowded out and prevented the recruitment of native trees
and shrubs and has diminished the biodiversity on that 10
acres.
What do you do? Of course, I called my former colleagues at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the USDA to see if their
programs could assist me as they have assisted countless West
Virginians with eliminating the threat to forest health from
these invasives.
While we were meeting onsite, the agency folks also pointed
out the benefit of adding some pollinator habitat, and we are
in the process of creating a one acre plot of wildflowers and
other forbs to benefit pollinators such as bees and moths and
things like that. This addition will also benefit a multitude
of game and non-game species and improve species diversity on
my land.
The Partners Program in West Virginia has restored the
following: Upland acres that have been restored and enhanced,
nearly 30,000 acres; wetland acres restored and enhanced, 733
acres; stream miles restored and enhanced, 138 miles, a lot of
that in the Upper Potomac; stream miles reopened to fish
passage, 491. That is from three dams removed on the West Fork
River.
What next? To date, the West Virginia Partners construction
crews have completed over 2 million feet of livestock exclusion
fence. The demand remains strong and should continue for the
future.
Demand for instream restoration to restore fish and aquatic
passage remains high. Not only will this increase population
resilience in the face of a changing climate; it will prevent
stream bank erosion, which adversely affects water quality and
exacerbates downstream flooding.
Several low head dams in West Virginia are utilized in
conjunction with water intakes for municipal water sources.
Many of these systems now need costly repair, and key
components are difficult to replace.
The aging infrastructure creates an imminent risk to
communities across the State. New technology exists for water
intake structures that are more reliable and boost capacity
without the need for expensive and dangerous dams. Removing the
Hartland Dam in Clarksburg, for example, would create savings
for the Water Board and its rate payers. More importantly, it
would promote a healthy and diverse natural flowing ecosystem
and expand local business opportunities by restoring safe
access to river recreation.
Seventy-five percent of fish and wildlife species depend on
private land for their survival. With 2.2 million square miles
of land in private ownership, conserving and enhancing habitat
for migratory birds, endangered species, and other Federal
trust species, as well as the natural infrastructure, is only
possible through partnerships with private landowners. The
Partners Program is a model for bringing private landowners and
government agencies and funding together to solve shared
concerns.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Mr. Schmidt, thank you very much. Give our
best to Elkins.
I think I will start off by asking my first question of Dr.
Gerber.
Dr. Gerber, are you still with us?
Ms. Gerber. Yes, I am.
Senator Carper. Oh, good. Thank you.
Dr. Gerber, your testimony mentions the impacts of climate
change on biodiversity decline and references an in depth
article entitled Climate Change and Ecosystems: Threats,
Opportunities, and Solutions. We are interested in learning
more about the linkages between climate change and biodiversity
loss, particularly with respect to solutions.
Can you take a shot at that question, please? Thank you.
Ms. Gerber. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
question. Climate change, as many of you know, has impacts on
both the abundance and distribution of biodiversity. We have
good evidence that climate change leads to range shifts in
species. Species must adapt to the warming temperatures, and in
some cases, are unable to adapt, so we are seeing a broad scale
shifting of species ranges. In some cases, species are unable
to adapt, and we are seeing increased risk of extinction for
those species.
Some of the consequences that we have seen have to do with,
for example, ocean warming and ocean acidification are great
examples of some of those consequences. We also, for example,
recently with the California wildfires, have seen recent
frequency and intensity of these extreme events cause by
climate change.
The things that climate change, in terms of posing a risk,
can provide us with, taking effective action includes reducing
warming, and this would include reducing emissions, food waste,
promoting plant based diets, alternative energy, and
reforestation, particularly in tropical areas.
We can also begin to mitigate and adapt by establishing
wildlife corridors to protect networks of habitat, and in urban
landscapes, to establish green spaces.
The last thing I want to mention regarding climate change
is that like many of the comments that have been made
throughout today's hearing, climate change not only poses a
risk for natural systems, but it also impacts biodiversity
fundamentally, which indirectly influences human well being,
specifically our ability to provide food, pollination,
medicine, flood protection, recreational opportunities,
drinking water, clean air. So, there is an inextricable link
between climate change and biodiversity.
Senator Carper. All right, Dr. Gerber. Thanks very much for
your response to that.
My next question is for Mr. Sullivan, and then I am going
to yield to Senator Capito.
Mr. Sullivan, you shared some compelling examples today of
how habitat conservation plans have improved outcomes for
species and efficiency for infrastructure projects.
I am always looking for win-win situations. This appears to
be a real win-win situation. Habitat conservation funding is
more prevalent, as you know, than it once was, but arguably,
habitat conservation plans are still an under-utilized tool.
Briefly, what do you think are the primary challenges
preventing more widespread use of habitat conservation plans,
and second, how might Congress be able to help address those
challenges?
Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. Sure. Thank you, Chairman. I think the
challenges are that they are not necessarily well known as a
tool, even sometimes within the Service itself. It is embedded
within the Endangered Species Act, Section 10, and many times,
there is just not the promotion of them like there should be as
a win-win tool, as you described.
I think there is a lack, sometimes, of funding and staffing
for this program at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I
do think if there was more funding, in particular for staff
within the regions, and sort of an effort by the Service to
kind of market these out to stakeholders, because I do believe
they are a very positive win-win solution.
There are plenty of examples that were highlighted in my
testimony about highway projects and so forth and so on. We are
stuck between negotiations between project proponents and the
Fish and Wildlife Service and others, but got unstuck because
of the Section 10 program, which is about finding a balance and
a compromise.
Senator Carper. Thanks for your response to that question.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Treharne, I wanted to ask you about, I mentioned in my
opening statement, President Biden's America the Beautiful
Initiative, or 30 by 30, which sets a goal of conserving 30
percent of U.S. lands and water by the year 2030. I was
wondering if the outdoor recreation, particularly the hunting
and fishing community, was involved in the development of this
report, and if not, what kind of suggestions, or what kind of
caution flags would you be presenting?
Mr. Treharne. Thank you, Ranking Member Capito. The answer
to your question really requires a little bit of history. We
started to hear about 30 by 30 early in 2019 through State
legislative actions. Those were particularly concerning, for
some of the reasons you outlined in your opening remarks: Lack
of definition, creating a lot of uncertainty for those in our
community.
At that time, we started looking into the 30 by 30
Initiative, and realized that at its most basic level, there is
a lot in common with the conservation work that sportsmen and
women do. However, the devil is in the details.
So the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation worked with a
number of partners which now total nearly 50 NGOs that are a
part of a group called the Hunt Fish 30x30 Coalition. Through
that entity, we have been proactively engaging the
Administration to make sure that they are aware and understand
our perspective on conservation, things like the importance of
private land, non-regulatory approaches, voluntary
conservation, maintaining the integrity of sportsmen driven
conservation dollars, revenue.
Really, we came to a decision point because with that
uncertainty surrounding 30 by 30 and the lack of definition, we
either could stand on the sidelines and let that happen, and
let others define conservation on behalf of our community. But
we decided to come to the table and create some space for
hunters and anglers to talk about how we support conservation
and some of the things that we have learned over the last 80
years since we have been doing it.
Senator Capito. Thank you, very complete answer. I
appreciate that.
Mr. Schmidt, you have mentioned a couple things in you
testimony, particularly on your own private land ownership, but
I know in your capacity at U.S. Fish and Wildlife, you dealt a
lot with private land ownership. As you know, as West
Virginians, this is very much in our DNA in terms of protecting
our own land and making sure that these solutions that we find
are driven by what we as private landowners can contribute and
preserve.
So I guess my point in bringing that up is, in order to
improve the fish and wildlife habitat, you need to have the
flexibility, I think, for the landowners. So why would you
think, that with your Partners for Fish and Wildlife, you said
it needs to grow, would be important in addressing this
flexibility issue when you are looking at biodiversity loss?
Mr. Schmidt. Thanks for that question, Senator Capito. The
flexibility is important because every landowner has different
goals, and one size doesn't fit all, as we found out when we
were just doing wetland restoration.
We have modified the program nationwide to include invasive
species treatment, dam removals, instream work, as well as
livestock exclusion and grazing management.
Some of the best work we do is actually to put better
grazing systems on the land so that the farmer makes more
money, but the species diversity remains intact. As a matter of
fact, it often improves when it comes to grassland species.
Landowners themselves, they want to help, and that is why
they've contacted us or the USDA, but it also has to work for
them and their bottom line. In some cases, they want to pass
this land on to the next generation, and they want to leave it
in good shape.
Senator Capito. I think that is a good point. I think, in
some ways, where we have kind of gotten hung up a little bit on
this is, a lot of times, I think our local landowners and our
folks who have been in the communities for years really are the
best stewards of their own properties and know the best way to
move forward.
When you start pushing down mandates from Washington and
other places that don't fit with the local conservation plan or
envisionment for your own property, that is where it really
starts to rub people the wrong way. I know we went through this
with the wilderness designation several years ago in West
Virginia, and really ran up against a lot of people at the same
time.
We have heard a lot about ESAs. If there were a tidal wave
of potential ESA listings around the country, what do you think
that could mean in terms of economic development, environment,
and also for the Fish and Wildlife Service itself?
Mr. Schmidt. Well, for economic development, it could slow
things down, because currently, the staffing in a lot of our
field offices is not high enough to meet the current demand, so
if we had more listings, then we would need more horses to pull
the wagon, OK? It is not--we are not seeing that in the budget,
and the Partners Program is kind of like the, it is the
restoration wing of the Endangered Species Program, and our
endangered species biologists tell us where we need to work,
and then we do that.
We also work on precluding the lists that need species, so
for instance, monarch butterflies. That was one that was due to
be listed, had a strong potential, and we ended up doing enough
work with private landowners and highway departments and such
that we were able to preclude the need to list that animal.
Right now, the Service does not have the horses it needs to
pull that wagon, if we have a regulatory approach. I think we
need to continue to work with private landowners. I know
PARTNERSCAPES is very concerned about 30 for 30 and what does
it mean, for the reasons you pointed out. We are trying to let
folks know that there are a lot of private landowners who have
already done a lot of good work to conserve habitat, and we
want to make sure that it is counted.
Senator Capito. Right. I appreciate it, and thank you.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Capito.
I think Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland may have joined us
from Webex, my Delmarva buddy.
Senator Cardin, are you there?
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank all of our witnesses. This has been an
incredibly important hearing.
Biodiversity is critically important to the Chesapeake Bay,
which I know the members of this Committee will not be
surprised to hear that I will mention during this hearing.
Biodiversity, we have 3,600 different species that live in the
Chesapeake Bay. We have over 11,000 miles of coastline on the
Chesapeake Bay, and as a result of more severe weather
conditions, we have seen a challenge on runoff that has
affected the quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its ability to
support biodiversity. We have real challenges.
I just really want to, if I could, Dr. Gerber, focus on one
of those issues, which is wetlands. We have had some
conversation about this. We have lost a lot of wetlands in the
Chesapeake Bay through development and through sea level
increases.
We have restoration programs. I want to mention just two,
and then get your reaction as to what else we should be doing.
We have reclaimed Poplar Island in the Chesapeake Bay,
which was at one time, a habitable island which almost totally
disappeared. We have done that through an environmental
restoration, which includes the use of dredged materials to
rebuild that island, and now supports biodiversity. It is a
wonderful place to visit, but it also serves as an economic
engine for us being able to keep our channels open in the
Chesapeake Bay.
The second project I want to mention is what is happening
at Blackwater. Blackwater Wildlife Refuge is one of the great
refuges in this region, located on the Eastern Shore of
Maryland. It has lost a lot of its wetlands over the years as a
result of sea level rises and other causes, but restoration
efforts have been successful where we used dredged material to
rebuild wetlands, and it has worked. It just costs some money
to do this; to transport the dredged material to Blackwater is
a little bit more expensive than putting it someplace else.
Poplar Island environmental restorations cost more up
front, but they save us money over a longer period of time.
I want to get your view of how important it is for us to
restore islands such as Poplar Island or Blackwater Wildlife
Refuge in an effort to have habitat that is critically
important for biodiversity.
Ms. Gerber. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Wonderful work that
you are leading in the Chesapeake Bay. I will add that I am by
no means an expert on this region, but I will add a few
comments.
I think my overarching comment is that the experience in
the Chesapeake Bay demonstrates that conservation works, and
when resourced, we can actually see impacts. I think it also
underscores the importance and the consequences of taking a
collaborative, inter-agency approach to working together to
achieve these outcomes.
Third, I think it underscores the importance of funding the
programs that we strategically define as important. Regarding
the Chesapeake Bay in particular, as you have discussed, the
Bay faces a number of challenges, including excess nutrients,
sediment from non-source pollution, invasive species, climate
change.
Restoration is definitely--I agree that it is a viable
approach to be taken here, because it increases the diversity,
the population and distribution, and diversity of endangered
species. It also enhances landscape connectivity and benefits
human well being because, as we have discussed previously,
healthy ecosystems, clean water, air, and soil, are good for
both people and wildlife.
A number of Federal restoration projects led by many
Federal agencies, including NOAA, EPA, and Fish and Wildlife
Service, have restored coastal areas in the Bay that have been
impacted by human development, and they have seen the return of
wildlife that has previously been believed to have been lost.
Some of the most recognizable restorations in and around
the Bay have been those of oyster reefs. I have always been
impressed with oysters, which are natural filter feeders and
can clean water. The factoid that I like to talk about with
oysters is that each adult filters 50 gallons of water per day,
providing food and habitat for one of the region's most
valuable fisheries.
So I thank you, and I support the work you are doing in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I would invite members of the
Committee to join me to visit Poplar Island and see, it is not
far from here, and see first hand how we have restored
biodiversity in reclaiming the Bay. The Army Corps is
supporting the mid-bay, which is the next chapter of
environmental restoration with dredged material. It is a real
success story.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses.
Senator Carper. That is great news, Ben. Thank you, and Dr.
Gerber, thank you for your closing comments there.
We have been joined by Senator Whitehouse and Senator
Padilla. I think they are both with us on Webex.
Sheldon, I think you are next, and then Senator Padilla
will be after him, after Senator Whitehouse.
Sheldon, go ahead.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Carper and I both also sit on the Finance
Committee, and I just want to flag for any colleagues who may
be interested that as we go through trying to reform our tax
code to get rid of some of the crummy ways that it has been
used to help special interests at the expense of regular
taxpayers, if we can help reinforce the advantages for durable
conservation easements, I am all in on that and would love to
work on that in bipartisan fashion.
Mr. Treharne, your testimony talks about protecting river
habitat by restoring dams and improving culverts in some of the
manmade interruption of river flow. We are obviously working on
this a lot in Rhode Island. We have a lot of small dams, and I
have been working for years to try to figure out a solution to
efficiently allow States to address the problem of particularly
small dams, which in a lot of places, aren't really owned by
anybody any longer.
You have to go through a process that is not that different
from damming the Columbia River to remove a dam on a little
local stream or river, and you have to deal with a whole lot of
title and liability issues. We have got to work on a way to
solve that.
I think we have a way to solve that, but we just haven't
been able to get it done yet. So I would like to invite you to
help us solve the problem of how to remove small and sometimes
dangerous, usually obsolete dams that obstruct so many of our
important rivers. Are you in for that?
Mr. Treharne. Absolutely, Senator. One thing that I think
this Committee can take a lot of credit for is the passage of
the National Fish Habitat Partnerships, which will support the
National Fish Habitat Action Plan moving forward. I think those
types of groups would be very interested in talking with you. I
would be happy to connect you with them and see how their
mission overlaps with what you are trying to do.
Senator Whitehouse. Good. This is my longest lasting
frustration in the Senate. Sometimes little things can take a
long time to get done, so I look forward to working with you.
Dr. Gerber, you were good enough to mention oceans, and
specifically, coral reefs. Could you just give us, for the
record of the Committee, an overview of the biodiversity
calamities that are happening, in many respects, out of our
human sight in the oceans, where we are visitors and not
customary inhabitants? Particularly if what is predicted for
coral reefs happens, which is that ocean acidification and
ocean warming, driven by fossil fuel emissions, more or less
wipes them out, what that does to the pace of biodiversity
collapse in the oceans.
Ms. Gerber. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for the
opportunity to talk about reef systems, which is actually my
area of expertise.
Regarding the issue of climate change and coral reefs, we
see a number of impacts. One is, as you mentioned, the coral
structures are unable to adapt to the increase in temperature,
so what we are seeing is widespread bleaching of coral reefs.
In addition to the loss of the coral reefs themselves, we
are seeing a loss of the structure that provides habitat for
entire ecosystems' biodiversity.
The other thing that I think is relevant to bring up here
is that in terms of impacts of climate change on marine
systems, we are also seeing impacts of climate change on the
extent to which organisms move in the ocean. With warmer
temperatures, we see more rapid metabolic processes, and so
less movement, for example, between larval stages occurs. This
has broad implications for the way we manage the ocean, because
these marine organisms have adapted to having this life cycle
where the larvae live in different areas than the adults, and
that provides some resilience to extreme events.
So, by this reduction in movement patterns, we actually are
seeing less resilience in marine systems.
Senator Whitehouse. So, in a nutshell, biodiversity in the
oceans is a serious problem, and it is going to get rapidly
worse if coral reefs vanish as a piece of the environmental
infrastructure.
Ms. Gerber. Absolutely.
Senator Whitehouse. Great. Thanks for helping us remember
oceans, and thank you, Chairman, very much.
Senator Carper. Senator Whitehouse, thank you for helping
us remember the oceans as well.
Senator Padilla, I believe might be next, and Senator
Padilla, I think, is joining us on Webex.
Alex, are you there?
Senator Padilla. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to raise
a couple of issues and questions with Mr. Sullivan from
California.
You highlighted, Mr. Sullivan, in your testimony the
proposal to create the Western Riverside County National
Wildlife Refuge in Southern California, east of Los Angeles.
California, as you know, is one of the most biodiverse places
in the world, with thousands and thousands of species. As you
noted, the proposed refuge would directly protect 147 species,
33 of which are threatened or endangered.
This area of Southern California is also in need of
sustainable development. It is a densely populated area with
inequitable access to nature and open spaces, particularly for
working class communities and communities of color.
So I am hoping you can expand on your testimony and share
with us your thoughts on how the proposed wildlife refuge can
help us meet multiple policy priorities here. No. 1, helping
protect biodiversity of the area, which you know has multiple
environmental benefits, while also enabling responsible and
sustainable development, and third, helping improve not just
access to nature and wildlife, but more equitable access to the
outdoors.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, thank you, Senator, for the questions
and the opportunity to respond. Those are great questions.
It is complicated when you are trying to balance all these
different, biodiversity versus public access versus affordable
housing, and a lot of the challenges that we face in California
and other parts of the country. I agree with you that
sustainable development is the goal, and how we plan
responsibly is key.
Some of the old development models haven't worked very
well. They were autocentric and focused on people sprawling out
on the landscape. So how do we balance all this?
I think it starts at the local level. The locals know best
on where to define where development can go. Development that
is avoiding those biological hotspots, and then identifying
those biological hotspots and protecting them, which is what
this proposed refuge designation is proposing.
The locals and the local scientists and the implementers of
the West Riverside HCP have identified this area as important
to achieving the objectives of their habitat conservation
plans, so the locals have sort of worked with the Federal
Government to identify this area.
I think the way the Feds can help is by approving this
designation, and also for increasing funding through the ESA
Section 6 program to assist HCPs across the country protect the
Nation's biodiversity hotspots.
With access, parts of the refuge could be open to the
public, interpretive exhibits and tours can educate visitors in
the importance of biodiversity. Refuge staff and local
biologists could implement and adopt a school program to get
kids involved in nature. Residents and schoolchildren can help
at the refuge volunteering for habitat restoration and projects
and general maintenance.
So it is basically trying to empower the community to adopt
the refuge and work collaboratively. The refuge doesn't
necessarily have to be a place that is off limits to people and
how you can kind of integrate the community with the refuge and
the refuge with the community. That is sort of the intent of
sustainable development anyway.
To echo some of the things that John Schmidt was saying
about working with private landowners, we do that all the time
here. We work with ranchers, and they are an important
component of implementing a local approach to conservation.
Then on the other side, working with local municipalities to
encourage them to develop more sustainably. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Much to follow up on.
Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, great to be with you again
for the second time today, and thank you. I look forward to
seeing you on the floor later when we vote.
We have been joined earlier today by Senator Ernst, and she
serves on a number of committees as we all do. I appreciate
very much her stopping by, although she was unable to stay
until we had an opening for questions, but we thank her for
coming.
Senator Boozman was also here, and he is co-chair of the
Senate Caucus on Recycling and an active member of this
Committee. We appreciate him stopping by.
I thank Senator Kelly for joining us and introducing one of
our witnesses.
I have a couple questions to go; when I get to the end of
these questions, if someone else has joined us, either remotely
or in person, I will yield to that Senator. That will be about
5 or 10 minutes from now.
A question, if I could, for the entire panel. The subject
deals with the importance of Federal funding. Each of you, in
your testimony, talks about the importance of Federal funding
for conservation programs, including for the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act for the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program, and for implementation of our Nation's
wildlife protection laws.
Again, a question for each of you, and the question is,
would you each elaborate on the importance of Federal funding
for wildlife conservation?
The second part of the question is, what do we stand to
lose when we underfund these programs? Let me repeat that.
Would you each elaborate on the importance of Federal funding
for wildlife conservation? Second half of the question, what do
we stand to lose when we underfund these programs?
Ms. Gerber, would you like to go ahead?
Go for it, Dr. Gerber.
Ms. Gerber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
comment on this important issue of funding for conservation.
Globally, we need, best estimates indicate that we need
approximately $76 billion to protect biodiversity. At present,
this is less than .01 percent of the annual GDP. In the U.S.,
the annual costs for recovering endangered species that we have
estimated from reviewing of recovery plans is approximately
$1.2 billion per year.
At present, approximately 20 percent, only 20 percent, is
allocated to the agencies for engaging in recovery planning
efforts. Just for context, this 20 percent is approximately 1
percent of the annual cost for food waste in the U.S.
I think a theme that we have discussed throughout the
hearing is that biodiversity conservation programs will work if
the agencies responsible for implementation are actually
funded. So it is of utmost important that we begin to provide
adequate funding to these agencies.
Furthermore, recognizing that there are multiple priorities
with Federal funding, there are scientific approaches that
allow us to make transparent and objective decisions about
which species are at highest priority to protect, whether this
be species that have a high chance of recovery or species that
are really on the verge of extinction.
Also, I think that adopting a prioritization approach to
facilitate transparent decisions, employing this return on
investment approach can really enhance the outcomes that we are
seeing in the U.S. regarding biodiversity conservation.
To your question about what we stand to lose, again,
recognizing that there are many competing priorities that the
Federal Government is faced with. I think we underscored the
importance of biodiversity conservation to our economy and our
well being.
Balancing these priorities, I think it is really important
to think about or to recognize that when you lose a species, it
is forever, so we can't go back. We can't go back. If we lose a
species, that is it.
So I think we need to sort of raise the bar on and how we
are currently managing endangered species so that they are
adequately funding these programs, given the current crisis
that we are faced with. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am.
Just a really quick, you can just give me a yes or no
answer, but your testimony and others offered today also
mentioned the importance of collaboration between all levels of
government and stakeholders. Would you agree, Doctor, that
robust Federal funding helps our natural resource agencies be
better partners?
Ms. Gerber. Absolutely, and I will give you an example of
that.
I worked for about 5 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to develop a prioritization approach to facilitate
decisionmaking around which species we should implement
recovery actions for, given the limited budgets. As we have
discussed, these agencies are faced with backlogs of candidate
species. They simply don't have the resources to take the
actions or engage in any kind of strategic or prioritization
exercises.
Taking this collaborative approach, of course, between the
scientific and academic sectors, private sectors, and
government sectors to try to identify these collaborative,
inclusive processes for how we move forward with addressing
this crisis are absolutely essential.
I would like to underscore my experience in this project
that I just mentioned with working with Fish and Wildlife
Service. We spent years working on an approach called the
Recovery Explorer Tool that is now published on our Website. It
is fully available. It allows for transparent decisionmaking,
and the agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, is so
understaffed that they don't even have the ability to take the
tool on to use it.
So despite the desire of many conservation biologists and
agency scientists to work together to solve these problems,
there are such scarce resources that we are not able to move
the needle forward. So with additional funding, agencies would
have the capacity to actually be ahead of the game in
addressing this problem, as opposed to drinking out of a fire
hose, which is the current situation.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan, same series of questions. Would you elaborate
on the importance of Federal funding for wildlife conservation,
and second, what do we stand to lose when we underfund these
programs?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, thank you, Senator--Chairman.
I would echo what Dr. Gerber said, so I will address the
second question first. We stand to lose a lot, and once it is
gone, it is gone.
We don't even understand what the consequences of those
losses are. The ecosystem is intertwined; species are very
dependent upon each other. To make it even anthropocentric,
position is with plants, a lot of the plants could be the
future cure for cancer, so when we lose these, they are gone
forever.
To your first point, yes, funding is key. I understand
there is a lot of pressures on the Congress and the
Administration and how to allocate resources. I feel for too
long there has been a lack of investments in nature's
infrastructure. I know this Committee deals both with the
physical built environment as well as the natural environment,
and I think there has been an underinvestment in both areas.
So from our standpoint, funding for staffing, as I said in
an earlier response to a question, for Fish and Wildlife is
critical. It is also funding for land acquisitions, management;
a lot of times, management is underfunded. There isn't money to
do invasive species management. There isn't money for the
restoration programs that some of the speakers have spoken to
about today.
So funding those things will help with, hopefully, stemming
some of the biodiversity loss from a Section 6 perspective,
which helps fund HCPs. We certainly would like more funding in
that program, which has been underfunded for decades now, for
helping HCPs with land acquisitions.
There is also a lot that can be done to improve our highway
systems for wildlife, and funding for wildlife crossings, both
land bridges and undercrossings.
There are examples across the United States and the world.
The most famous that a lot of people know about, is Highway 93
in Montana and Highway 90 going through the Cascades. There are
projects here, and looking at doing improvement of wildlife
connectivity over Highway 101 in California. There are
certainly the examples of Banff up in Canada.
So those are areas where I think when we are funding
infrastructure, it is also how do we fund infrastructure for
wildlife, how do we provide a value for ecosystem services, and
I appreciate the question. I am in the business of
conservation, so obviously I am asking you for funding for
these things, but I appreciate this opportunity to make this
pitch.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Sullivan.
Andy Treharne, would you please respond to the same two
questions I have asked of our other witnesses? And here is the
question: Would you please elaborate on the importance of
Federal funding for wildlife conservation; and second, what do
we stand to lose when we underfund these programs?
Mr. Treharne. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I think the
importance of Federal funding is wide ranging, but I also think
it deserves some context.
There are a lot of State dollars that go into conservation,
as well as private sector dollars. But the reality is that the
Federal Government investments in conservation and in the
environment have not kept track with the growth of the Federal
Government in other areas.
Function 300, which is the baseline for the environment and
conservation and outdoor recreation programs and Federal
budget, is, I think between 1980 and 2010, overall Federal
spending grew a 130 percent.
But Function 300 grew something like 2.1 percent during
that same time period. So I think that illustrates some of the
challenges we are dealing with and competing priorities that
other witnesses have mentioned.
In terms of consequences, I think there are a lot of
consequences. One is, in addition to the ecosystem services and
the potential loss of those that benefit people, I think we
risk losing a human connection to nature and understanding it.
I get that through hunting and fishing; others get it different
ways. But it has been part of the nature of human beings for a
very long time, and I am not sure we will be pleased with the
results without it.
One other potential consequence, and I can provide an
anecdotal example, one time I was at an event with a State Fish
and Wildlife Agency Director, and I saw him looking at his
phone, reading e-mails and shaking his head. I asked him what
was going on, and he said we just got our Section 6 award for
the State's portion of endangered species work that we are
doing. He said, they just said we got awarded $1,200, and they
had invested significantly more than that in the program.
In addition to the lack of resources that were provided,
pursuant to his work on a Federal policy issue, Federal Trust
Species, I think that type of thing also damages the
partnerships that many have highlighted so well today, the fact
that all of these folks can come together through these really
solid programs that deliver positive results for fish and
wildlife. The risk of losing that, when partners aren't
contributing at the level they should, has some pretty severe
consequences as well.
Senator Carper. Mr. Treharne, thank you very much.
I am going to ask John Schmidt to respond briefly to the
same two questions.
Again, I will just repeat them, Mr. Schmidt. Would you
elaborate on the importance of Federal funding for wildlife
conservation; and second, what do we stand to lose when we
underfund these programs?
I am running out of time, but I want to hear from you, just
briefly, on those two questions. The importance of Federal
funding for wildlife conservation, and what do we stand to lose
when we underfund these programs.
Go right ahead, Mr. Schmidt.
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I will make it
short.
The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
environment, and part of that environment is Fish and Wildlife
resources, and all the non-game species that depend on them for
their food and the rest of us for our enjoyment. So that is a
short answer to your No. 1.
The second part is, what we lose is opportunity. We lose
opportunity to work with folks that own the vast majority of
the habitat we wish to make better. So if we don't have
adequate funding, we lose the opportunity to save species, to
protect habitat, and to help private landowners do good things
with their land, which helps our communities.
Senator Carper. Thank you, sir.
One last question I have. I think Mr. Sullivan may have
commented on that, the issue of wildlife crossings. I am going
to ask Andy Treharne, if you would, to comment on this as well.
I think, in your testimony, Mr. Treharne, you mentioned the
importance of habitat connectivity. You expressed support for
wildlife crossing provisions that this Committee reported
unanimously as part of the transportation bill we reported out
in the last Congress.
I think that was the first time ever in a highway bill we
included such comprehensive language to address quite a number
of things as an important issue.
Mr. Treharne, briefly, would you elaborate on the
importance of addressing wildlife vehicle safety and habitat
connectivity, and specifically, the importance of integrating
these solutions throughout a highway bill, please?
Mr. Treharne. Yes, thank you, Chairman Carper. The reality
is that, as I said in my testimony in my opening remarks, there
are about 2 million vehicle collisions with large animals
across the country each year.
This is not only a human safety issue, but there is also a
cost to taking those animals off the landscape, whether it is
because you like to look at them or for biodiversity, or
because somebody would have otherwise purchased a hunting
license and harvested one to feed their family. It is a public
safety issue. With so many emerging challenges we are facing,
wildlife needs to be able to move, especially migrating
wildlife.
One of the pleasures I have had in my life was serving on
the Habitat Stamp Committee for the State of Colorado, which
directed funding to some projects. During that time, there was
some wildlife crossing work going on on Highway 9. Large
animals collisions were something like 35 percent of all
reported crash types on that highway.
It is up in the mountains at a higher elevation. Very
dangerous, and sportsmen and women chipped in a lot through
their support of the State Fish and Wildlife Agency, working
with CDOT to develop that project. It has had a 90 percent
reduction in wildlife-vehicle collisions. Other species are
using it: Mule deer, elk, turkeys, mountain lions, coyotes,
river otters.
So there is a lot of opportunity to build this
infrastructure and incorporate it into larger programming and
existing programming, too. Things like the Federal Lands
Transportation Program, Federal Lands Access Program, as I
mentioned in my testimony, Section 1125 from ATIA, those are
all great things that can be helpful for biodiversity as well
as public safety in a highway bill.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks for your response to that
question, Andy. Again, give our best regards if you come across
Dr. Wayne Allard, also former Senator Wayne Allard, give him
our best. His friends here in the Congress, Democrats and
Republicans alike, send their best to him.
I really want to thank Dr. Gerber, I want to thank the real
Ed Sullivan, and Andy Treharne and John Schmidt for joining us
today. We may have some follow up questions for the record, but
if you do receive those, I really ask that you respond to them.
It has been a good hearing. Over half of our Committee, I
think, has joined us either in person or virtually, and will, I
am sure, have some follow up questions. We would ask you to
respond to them as soon as you can.
In my opening statement, I talked about just how high the
stakes are when it comes to biodiversity loss. It bears
repeating again. We have a moral, as well as an existential
imperative to come together and take action on this vital
issue. It is no overstatement to say that our lives and our
livelihoods and those of our children and their children hang
in the balance, so I am proud that we have been able to meet
today to examine how we might tackle this critical problem.
I am hopeful that today's conversation is not the end, but
the beginning of our work together this Congress as we build
further on the Committee's reputation as an effective,
bipartisan committee of workhorses. You have all heard the term
show horses. We like to think of ourselves in this Committee as
workhorses, and I believe we are.
Couple of closing housekeeping items. I would ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record the following written
testimonies, letters, and statements, as well as other
supplemental materials relevant to today's hearing topic. They
include a statement from Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, Dr. Lee Hannah,
also a written testimony from Dr. Gabriela Chavarria about
pollinator loss, and a letter from World Wildlife Fund about
how the Big Cat Public Safety Act addresses biodiversity
challenges.
Is there objection?
Hearing none, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Senators will be allowed to submit
questions to our witnesses for the record through close of
business on June the 2nd. We will compile those questions and
will send them on to our witnesses. We ask our witnesses to
reply by June the 16th.
My script here says that, I am supposed to, at this point,
to say the hearing is adjourned, but I am not quite ready to do
that.
A very clever staff, probably with some input from our
Republican friends, has, at my request, looked to see if there
is anything in song that relates to today's hearing. I
mentioned, to the real Ed Sullivan, who is one of our witnesses
today, Edmund Sullivan, I asked my staff to take a look at one
of the folks who, one of the groups that was on the Ed Sullivan
Show when I was in college, I think.
The Beatles, there's a species to themselves, with some
interest to all of us. Ladybug is the State bug from Delaware,
by the way, but I asked my staff to take a look and see
anything in the Beatles' repertoire that reflects biodiversity.
As it turns out, remarkably, there are more than a few
songs. I mentioned one of them, I Am the Walrus, another is
Blackbird, Blackbird, Singing in the Dead of Night, Norwegian
Wood, Isn't It Good, And Your Bird Can Sing, Bluejay Way, Rocky
Raccoon, Mother Nature, Son, Everybody's Got Something to Hide
Except for Me and My Monkey, Octopus's Garden, and the playlist
goes on. For some of us, in my generation, that is a playlist
of my life.
With respect to life, if we don't look after it, if we
don't focus on biodiversity and root causes of the threat to
biodiversity, our lives are--I don't mean to be overly
dramatic--but our lives and the lives of the people we care
about are threatened.
We can do something about it. I am encouraged in this
Committee, we are committed to doing that.
With that, I think this hearing is adjourned.
My thanks to everyone who has participated. I want to thank
our Republican colleagues who are here on my right, and the
Democratic staff, the majority staff, directly behind me, and
everybody that has worked on this hearing today.
For those of you as witnesses who joined us in person and
from afar, thank you very much.
Good luck, God bless, see you soon.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]