[Senate Hearing 117-206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-206
A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 2372,
THE RECOVERING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
DECEMBER 8, 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
47-028 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DECEMBER 8, 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
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Blunt, Hon. Roy, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri......... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Ashe, Dan, President and CEO, Association of Zoos and Aquariums.. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
O'Mara, Collin, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation.. 34
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Pauley, Sara Parker, President, Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies....................................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 57
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 66
Wood, Jonathan, Vice President of Law and Policy, Property and
Environment Research Center.................................... 69
Prepared statement........................................... 71
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Senator Charles Schumer et al. from the American Bird
Conservancy et al., June 30, 2021.............................. 7
Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate from the Alliance for
America's Fish and Wildlife, October 26, 2021.................. 9
Written Testimony of Gloria Tom, Director of the Navajo Nation's
Department of Fish and Wildlife................................ 166
Statement of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
et al., December 7, 2021....................................... 172
Letter to Senator Carper et al. from:
The Animal Welfare Institute, December 8, 2021............... 187
The Connecticut Audubon Society et al., January 5, 2021...... 188
The Archery Trade Association et al., December 6, 2021....... 191
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from:
The Center for Biological Diversity, December 7, 2021........ 193
The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, December 6, 2021... 195
The Humane Society Legislative Fund and The Humane Society of
the United States, January 5, 2022......................... 197
The Pew Charitable Trusts, December 10, 2021................. 202
ConservAmerica, December 22, 2021............................ 203
The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 7, 2021.......... 205
The Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society,
December 7, 2021........................................... 208
Testimony of the American Sportfishing Association, December 8,
2021........................................................... 286
Statement of the Allegheny Highlands Alliance et al.............. 288
Resolution 19-52 from the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
adopted October 2019........................................... 318
Resolution ABQ-19-036 from the National Congress of American
Indians, adopted October 2019.................................. 320
A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE
S. 2372, THE RECOVERING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Merkley, Kelly, Padilla, Lummis, Boozman, and Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. The hearing will come to order, please. I
invite our guests to take a seat.
Senator Capito and I are delighted to be with all of you.
Martin, good morning.
Roy, good morning.
Today, we are privileged to examine an important piece of
bipartisan legislation, conservation legislation, the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
We are fortunate today to have an esteemed panel of
witnesses before us: Dan Ashe, Collin O'Mara, Sara Parker
Pauley, and Jonathan Wood.
We thank all of you for joining us here today.
We will also hear from two of our colleagues, Senator
Martin Heinrich and Roy Blunt.
Martin, welcome.
Roy, welcome.
They are prime sponsors of this bill, and we are pleased to
welcome each of you.
This morning, we thank you for joining us and for your
passionate leadership on this important issue.
Our Committee has enjoyed an enviable bipartisan track
record of enacting wildlife conservation legislation over the
past several years, such as the WILD Act and the ACE Act. We
hope that this hearing will jump start a discussion to build on
that bipartisan record of success.
A recent report by the United Nations shows that nearly 1
million species may be pushed to the brink of extinction in the
years ahead, 1 million. That alarming number should serve as a
dire warning for all of us to do our part to protect our planet
and all of God's creations that inhabit it with us.
Biodiversity loss threatens our economy; it threatens our
ecosystems; it threatens our health. That is why the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act is needed, and why I am grateful, why we
are grateful, for our colleagues and our friends who have put
so much effort into developing this piece of legislation. We
are looking forward, in fact, I think we are eager to work with
you on improving this legislation.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act aims to provide much
needed resources for wildlife conservation and recovery. With
that need in mind, this legislation would also provide billions
of dollars to States and to Tribes for those purposes.
As a recovering Governor, I understand that States play a
leading role in wildlife conservation across our country. In
recent decades, my home State, the First State, Delaware--what
was yesterday, the 7th? Yes, it was the 7th. I think it was 234
years ago yesterday that Delaware became the first State to
ratify the Constitution, so it is a big week for us in
Delaware.
In recent decades, our home State, the First State, has
made great strides in recovering species like the horseshoe
crab, the DelMarVa fox squirrel, the red knot, and the piping
plover. Few people understand this better than one of our
witnesses today, Collin O'Mara, who is our former Secretary of
the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
A warm welcome, Collin.
That success in Delaware was made possible by working side
by side with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other partners.
The concern that some have raised with the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act, as drafted, is that it may not sufficiently
support this important teamwork, but we will get into that
later.
In a recent visit to Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in
the southern part of our State, I learned that the northeast
region of the Fish and Wildlife Service is spearheading an
effort amongst, I think 10 States, including Delaware, to
prevent the saltmarsh sparrow from reaching the brink of
extinction.
In addition to playing this important coordinating role for
proactive wildlife conservation, the Fish and Wildlife Service
leads efforts for recovering our Nation's threatened and
endangered species. That is the kind of critical work done by
Federal agencies that needs our support, and I hope to find a
way forward for this legislation to do just that.
Let's keep in mind that private landowners also play a
central role in species conservation and species recovery. We
need to ensure that the Recovering America's Wildlife Act
properly recognizes and supports their contributions, as well.
Our Committee has spent a considerable amount of time over
the last several years hearing from numerous experts from all
across the country about wildlife management and the challenges
that it faces. One common theme emerged from all those hearings
and conversations, and here it is: All of the entities involved
in wildlife conservation need increased financial resources to
be successful.
So while we should absolutely address the funding needs of
our States and Tribes, we cannot afford to ignore the
legitimate needs of our Federal agencies and other partners.
Last, as our Committee contemplates all of these funding
needs, we should also contemplate funding sources. The
Recovering America's Wildlife Act proposes nearly $14 billion
in investment, and as drafted, the legislation identifies a
funding source that may not be reliable or fully pay for the
bill's spending.
As our colleagues have oftentimes heard me say, things that
are worth having are worth paying for. This wildlife funding
legislation is definitely worth having and worth paying for.
Again, we look forward to hearing from our colleagues and
our witnesses today, and we look forward to working together
toward our common goal of recovering America's wildlife.
With that, I am privileged to turn to our Ranking Member,
Senator Capito, for any comments that she would like to make.
Senator Capito.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Carper, for calling
today's hearing.
I want to thank Senators Heinrich and Blunt for attending,
along with our witnesses, and I look forward to hearing from
each of you.
I appreciate that the Association of Zoos and Aquariums is
represented today. Just recently, I toured the Oglebay Good Zoo
in Wheeling, West Virginia, which is accredited by the AZA. The
Good Zoo houses 20 species; I didn't realize this until I
actually saw it with my own eyes, the Good Zoo houses 20
species that are deemed rare or endangered, and its staff is
doing valuable work on research to inform conservation of these
animals.
Speaking of zoos, here in Washington, the Administration
and--did you get that? OK.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. The Administration and Congress should
pursue bipartisan policies to preserve our Nation's public
lands, wildlife, and ecosystems. Our environment, our natural
resources, and access for sportsmen are legacies we have been
entrusted with safeguarding for future generations of
Americans. So today's hearing is focused on the legislation
that has been introduced by Senators Heinrich and Blunt, the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act, and I thank them for their
advocacy.
The bill has broad support from both sides of the aisle, as
well as support from the stakeholder community, including
hunters and anglers, conservation organizations, and industry.
I am eager to learn more about the legislation through today's
hearing. As I understand it, the goal of Recovering America's
Wildlife Act is to provide funding to States to cover
conservation efforts that will recover species as well as
prevent listing additional species under the Endangered Species
Act.
As part of this discussion today, I want to emphasize for
me the importance of State driven conservation. Conservation is
most effective when led by State and local entities in
cooperation with voluntary efforts by private landowners. These
are the people that know their habitats, their communities, and
their local economies the best. Recovering America's Wildlife
Act provides each State with the flexibility to tailor their
conservation strategies to meet its specific needs.
West Virginia is home to 1,233 species of greatest
conservation need. I don't know if I am included in one of
those, but I might be.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. With State driven efforts, the unique needs
of each of these species can be addressed through conservation
efforts that will help recover declining populations. As I do
when I evaluate legislation under consideration by this
Committee, my focus will continue to be providing States with
the flexibility to address their unique needs and
circumstances.
As introduced, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act relies
on revenue collected from environmental related violations and
enforcement actions to help address its cost. As I understand
it, the bill will result in $14 billion in direct, mandatory
spending over a 10 year period. I think this is an issue, and
Senator Carper mentioned this, that we need to consider against
the background of the growth of our debt and deficit during
this pandemic, and in light of the $4 trillion package that has
been recently introduced and is under consideration.
We also need to consider how effective any new conservation
efforts will be if the Administration continues to pursue its
rollback of sensible ESA regulations, which may serve to
actually undermine investments in conservation.
In particular, I am deeply concerned with Fish and
Wildlife's revisiting of changes made to the implementation of
ESA under the previous Administration. These rollbacks will set
us back in achieving our conservation goals by increasing costs
and burdens of doing the right thing: Specifically, the
decision to rescind the 2020 regulation defining the term
habitat for purposes of designating critical habitat under ESA.
Leaving habitat undefined creates uncertainty for private
landowners on whom species recovery absolutely depends. In any
discussion of conservation, I think it is important to address
common sense reforms for ESA.
Cooperation with States and landowners is key for species
recovery. Under the ESA, we should ensure that we balance the
interests of Americans and their livelihoods with protecting
species facing population declines.
I look forward to the discussion today on proactive
wildlife and habitat conservation solutions. I thank you again
for holding this hearing, and I thank my fellow Senators for
being with us today.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
As we turn to our witnesses, we are fortunate to have the
prime sponsors of the legislation before us: Senator Martin
Heinrich from New Mexico, and Senator Roy Blunt, Senator from
the State of Missouri.
We are delighted that you could be with us today. Thank
you.
I think, Martin, we would like to hear from you first, so
feel free to lead us off. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito,
and distinguished members of this Committee, thank you for
allowing me to share a few words about the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act, or RAWA.
I have been very proud to team up with my Republican
colleague from Missouri, Senator Roy Blunt, on this bipartisan
legislation, and I am grateful for the support of the 16
Republican and 16 Democratic co-sponsors, including many
members of this Committee, as well as the support from the
Administration on this issue, including their testimony in
support of the House version of this legislation.
RAWA would establish a robust and reliable Federal funding
stream for collaborative, proactive, voluntary, on the ground
conservation work. Consistent funding support has long been the
missing piece in scaling up the type of recovery projects that
have proven effective in recovering wildlife and plant species
to healthy levels.
We are just coming off of elk season in New Mexico, and I
am happy to say that my freezer is full. But elk were extinct
in New Mexico just a century ago. It is thanks to previous
generations of conservationists, sportsmen, and sportswomen,
that I have the privilege of interacting with this amazing and
beautiful animal.
I am indebted to people like Aldo Leopold, Elliot Barker,
and Federal, State, and tribal leaders whose actions led to the
restoration of elk, mule deer, and pronghorn populations in my
home State and species like wild turkey and waterfowl and white
tailed deer all across our Nation.
The abundance of many species that we hunt and fish today
is the direct result of collaborative work inspired by those
previous generations of Americans and financed by bedrock
conservation laws like Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson.
Yet despite the incredible successes of these programs,
particularly with game species and sportfish, and the successes
of the Endangered Species Act in preventing hundreds of species
from going extinct, it has been clear for decades that too many
species are still declining or even headed toward extinction.
Without enough resources, our State and tribal wildlife
agencies have been forced to pick and choose which species are
worthy of their attention. As a result, more than 12,000
species are currently identified as species of greatest
conservation need.
We have a once in a generation opportunity to change this
paradigm and save thousands of species with a solution that
matches the magnitude of the challenge. The Recovering
America's Wildlife Act offers us a path forward. RAWA will fuel
locally driven, science based projects that will restore
healthy fish and wildlife habitat and robust wildlife
populations.
These projects will create substantial economic benefits,
including good paying jobs in rural communities. They will
preserve outdoor recreation activities like hunting and fishing
and wildlife viewing that support literally millions of
additional jobs across our country, and they will save the
Federal Government and the private sector tens of billions of
dollars by saving species before they need emergency room
measures just to survive.
Before I finish, I want to emphasize just how bipartisan
this issue is. This Committee has proven that we can still pass
bipartisan conservation provisions within the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, the American Conservation Enhancement
Act, and the Water Resources Development Act.
Last year, many of us here helped to pass the historic
Great American Outdoors Act into law, which is already helping
us tackle the longstanding infrastructure backlog in our
national parks and on our public lands. As one of the most
important wildlife bills in decades, the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act will allow us to make similar historic progress on
species recovery and wildlife habitat.
I am proud of the coalition of sportsmen and sportswomen,
conservationists, scientists, States, Tribes, and wildlife
advocates who are calling on Congress to pass RAWA. I have
letters of support that I would like to submit for the record
representing all 50 States, numerous Tribes, and nearly 2,000
organizations across the country, such as the National Wildlife
Federation, Ducks Unlimited, the Boone and Crockett Club, the
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, NRDC, the Audubon
Society, and The Nature Conservancy.
Senator Carper. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Heinrich. I will close by saying that I want my
grandchildren to experience the same wonder I had as a child
catching leopard frogs, watching fireflies light up the dark.
And I hope that we can pass onto them the full complement of
our natural heritage, from bison to bumblebees, as well as
traditions like hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. That is
what this is all about.
Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Heinrich follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much for your
testimony. Thanks for your passion for this and your
leadership, not just on this issue, but on so many others we
have worked on in recent years. Thank you.
Senator, you mentioned what you want for your
grandchildren. My wife and I just want one grandchildren.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. We will worry about the rest later.
Senator Blunt, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and thank you
and Ranking Member Capito for not only holding the hearing, but
for inviting the two of us to attend as you look at this piece
of legislation.
I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Heinrich, who
really has worked so hard to advance this and to be sure that
we had a significant group of bipartisan co-sponsors, 32
bipartisan co-sponsors. Senator Heinrich has really worked hard
to put this together. We have worked hard to find a pay for we
believe works. We have also worked to be sure that we had broad
based support from all 50 States, including the conservation
agencies in those States.
This legislation, as Martin has said, would be the most
significant investment in wildlife conservation in a
generation. It would fund proactive, voluntary conservation
efforts to address really what is the Nation's wildlife crisis.
I also think it is a perfect partner to what we did in the last
Congress, as we look toward the future of restoring America's
great parks system.
Enactment of this legislation into law would boost our
economy, create more outdoor recreation opportunities, provide
regulatory certainty to landowners across the country who
otherwise are facing costly and burdensome impacts of potential
threatened and endangered species listings, and conserve our
national heritage for future generations.
A significant part of the goal here is to work with these
State agencies so the Federal Government never has to be
involved in an endangered species situation, as they work hard
to do what they can to be sure that they never get into that
situation.
I am also pleased to introduce one of the panel's witnesses
today, Ms. Sara Parker Pauley, who is testifying on behalf of
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. This is a group
she served as the organization's President up until just
September of this year. She currently serves as the ninth
director of the Missouri Department of Conservation, a position
she has held since November 2016.
Before that, she served as the Director of the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources from 2010 to 2016. She began
her professional career as a Policy Analyst in the Missouri
Department of Conservation in 1993. A native of Columbia,
Missouri, Sara received both her law degree and her bachelor's
degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and did
post-graduate studies in Australia as a Rotary Fellow.
Just last month, she and I did four joint events in
Missouri highlighting the recovery potential of this Recovering
America's Wildlife Act. This act establishes a new program, the
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program within the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to promote voluntary conservation
efforts to restore and protect at risk, threatened, or
endangered species.
This program would provide approximately $1.3 billion
annually to States, territories, and Tribes for activities
related to proactive and collaborative habitat restoration
efforts to increase wildlife populations or to prevent species
from becoming listed on the Endangered Species Act.
This bill would help fund critical conservation efforts in
our State and our grasslands. It would help promote species
like the bobwhite quail, which were pretty numerous when I was
growing up in Missouri, but have almost disappeared from our
landscape; meadow larks; and greater prairie chickens. The
restoration efforts that Sara and others have been parts of,
including everything from restoring animals who, at one time,
were very present in our State, to the support of species like
wood ducks and other migratory animals that come through our
State, animals and birds.
This legislation would boost Missouri's outdoor recreation
economy. Currently, that economy supports 93,000 jobs in our
State and contributes about $7.5 billion to the local economy
and depends on healthy fish and wildlife populations. The bill
would ensure more wildlife viewing opportunities, which
directly contribute to millions of jobs and billions of
consumer revenue.
In Missouri, based on the legislative proposal, we estimate
that we would receive about $22 million annually, including the
State matching funds. That compares to about $1 million that
the State receives right now.
I haven't seen the entire list on this bill, but normally,
on any distribution of money in the country, Missouri is right
around 25. We are right in the middle, so every State should
look at that $22 million annual number, and you are going to be
somewhere on either side of that. Obviously, $22 million would
make a lot more impact than the $1 million currently received
from the Federal Government for these funds.
I certainly look forward to working with the Chairman, the
Ranking Member, and my significant co-sponsor here who has done
so much work on this. This bill, as drafted, as Martin has
already suggested, has broad bipartisan support in the Senate.
It has a diverse group of stakeholders around the country,
including the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the National Wildlife
Federation, and 1,500 or more organizations representing State
fish and wildlife agencies, industry associations, and
businesses.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, for looking at
this bill. We appreciate the opportunity, all of the co-
sponsors do, to continue to work with this Committee as you
think about what would really be an exciting addition to what
we do for our wildlife in the country.
Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Blunt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you both very, very much. Thanks for
joining us. We look forward to seeing you at about 11:30 on the
floor when we start voting, and thanks again for your
leadership.
With that, I am going to call our second panel of
witnesses, if they would take their seats. We will introduce
you, and we will get started.
Senator Capito and I have welcomed each of you
individually, but we welcome you now collectively, and we are
delighted that you are able to join us on this important day
for this important hearing.
I will just briefly introduce folks, one is Sara Parker
Pauley has already gotten an introduction from Senator Blunt,
but we are joined today by Dan Ashe, President and CEO of the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
Dan, very nice to see you. You bring a world of experience
to this hearing today.
Collin O'Mara, President and CEO of the National Wildlife
Federation, former Secretary of the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control and longtime friend of many
of us in Delaware.
Sara Parker Pauley, who has already been introduced by
Senator Blunt, President of the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, and last but not least, Jonathan Wood, Vice
President of Law and Policy for the Property and Environment
Research Center.
Dan, I am going to ask you if you will start us off with
your testimony. Please proceed with your testimony when you are
ready.
STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF ZOOS
AND AQUARIUMS
Mr. Ashe. Good morning, Chairman Carper and Committee
members. It is good to be here again. On behalf of the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Defenders of Wildlife
and the National Wildlife Refuge Association, I just want to
start by saying thank you for everything you do to protect
wildlife and wild places, I think especially the respect and
dignity that you bring to these discussions, so thank you very
much.
Yesterday, I enjoyed reading Bob Dole's posthumous opinion
piece in the Washington Post, and if anybody hasn't seen it, I
recommend it. In it, he recalls in 1951, newly elected to the
Kansas House of Representatives, being asked by a reporter,
what is on his agenda. And he said, ``Well, I am going to sit
back and watch for a few days, and then I am going to stand up
for what I think is right.''
When I became U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director, a
former Director and a good friend, Lynn Greenwalt, gave me some
similar advice. He said, ``Dan, find time to ponder. Lots of
people are going to ask you to make decisions, and they are
going to tell you that those decisions are urgent, and
sometimes they will be. But most of the time,'' he said, ``it
is going to be important for you to find a time and some quiet
and ponder.''
We are struggling against the planet's sixth mass
extinction. It is driven by human existence, our economy, our
ecology. It didn't begin yesterday; it won't be solved
tomorrow, even if you pass the Recovering America's Wildlife
Act today. How you act and the decisions you make are going to
set the stage and the tone. It is worth some time to sit back
and ponder.
Wildlife conservation is a shared endeavor. It is not
individual; it is not State or tribal or Federal. It requires
commitment and funding at all of those levels.
My testimony, my written testimony includes two
illustrative and real life examples: Bald eagle and California
condor. Here is another, more recent one. In November 2018, I
got a letter from Eric Sutton, the Executive Director of the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. They were
encountering an unfolding disease, 95 percent fatal, destroying
Florida's coral reef tract and were asking for AZA members to
use their facilities to help get ahead of it and rescue and
hold healthy coral in refugia until the cause and a solution
could be identified. And today, 20 of our members are holding
thousands of Florida coral colonies, conservation giants like
Sea World and Disney, but tiny titans like Colorado's Butterfly
Pavilion.
In the process, we discovered that what is now called stony
coral tissue loss disease isn't limited to Florida. It is
pandemic across the Caribbean. It can't be solved by the State
of Florida or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or Sea Worlds or
Butterfly Pavilions. That is all necessary, but it is going to
require much larger cooperation, including Federal agencies
like NOAA and international and intergovernmental efforts.
The same has been true with waterfowl; the same is true
with monarch butterflies and little brown bats. If our goal is
to recover America's wildlife, we need to deploy all of our
tools and fund all of our tools, and certainly don't leave some
of your best tools with the least and most constrained access
to funding. You can do both: You can provide needed funding for
tribal and State agencies, and for the Federal agencies that we
know are going to be key ingredients in success.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am happy
to answer any questions that you might have and help in any way
as you hopefully look to find some time and some quiet and sit
back and ponder and do what you think is right.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Dan, thank you for that timely and wise
testimony.
I spend a fair amount of my time every day on the train,
going back down the Northeast Corridor, and I use that time to
ponder. Some people sleep on trains. I never do, but I do
ponder a lot, and there is plenty for us to ponder with respect
to this.
On a lighter note, Bob Dole--many of us had the opportunity
to serve. He served in World War II with my dad and my uncles
and all, and was a real hero, as you well know. He later
married Elizabeth. I remember the day that he sat in a Senate
hearing not unlike this one, in order to introduce his wife,
who had been nominated to be Secretary in the Administration of
George Herbert Walker Bush. He had such a wonderful sense of
humor. He said, as we were just sitting here, he said,
alongside of his wife that he was introducing to his
colleagues, he began with these words: ``I regret that I have
but one wife--one wife--to give for my country.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. He gave a lot, and we miss him and love
him, and are thinking of Elizabeth today, a former colleague in
the Senate, as we gather here.
I am going to now turn to Collin, if I could.
Collin, welcome. We are delighted that you have joined us.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF COLLIN O'MARA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL
WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. O'Mara. Senator Carper, Ranking Member Capito, members
of the Committee, on behalf of the National Wildlife
Federation, our 52 State and territorial affiliates and our
nearly 7 million members, thank you for the honor of testifying
before you today.
First, let me congratulate the Committee on the remarkable
bipartisan infrastructure package and just thank each of you
for the historic investments in clean water, habitat
restoration, resilience, connectivity, environmental justice,
clean energy.
Senator Carper, thank you for making sure that investments
in endangered species are part of the Build Back Better Act.
Today, we have the opportunity to build upon this
Committee's incredible bipartisan legacy by passing the most
significant wildlife legislation in half a century, the
bipartisan Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
America's wildlife are in crisis. More than one-third of
all wildlife, fish, and plant species face heightened risk of
extinction due to immense and interwoven threats: Increasingly
fragmented and degraded habitat, invasive species, wildlife
disease, landscapes ravaged by climate fueled extreme weather,
wildfires, droughts, flooding, and hurricanes.
The bipartisan Recovering America's Wildlife Act is a
solution that matches the magnitude of the wildlife crisis.
Simply put, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act will help
recover the full diversity of wildlife by saving species before
they decline to the point where they need emergency room
measures, and by accelerating the recovery of species already
endangered. This will prevent extinctions.
It empowers States, territories, and Tribes to recover the
more than 12,000 species of greatest conservation need and to
partner with the Fish and Wildlife Service to recover the 1,600
species already listed as threatened and endangered. They will
accomplish this by implementing the proactive and
congressionally mandated strategies and the congressionally
mandated wildlife action plans. This will transform the way we
recover species by shifting a model that today is largely
constrained to regulation and litigation to one that unleashes
unprecedented collaboration and innovation.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act does all of this
without raising taxes or imposing new regulations. It leverages
existing, undesignated environmental and natural resource fines
and penalties and matches them with contributions from States,
conservation partners, and other stakeholders. It supports well
paying local jobs in the outdoor economy while reducing
regulatory uncertainty for businesses and reducing costs for
taxpayers.
The legislation builds upon robust existing accountability
safeguards to ensure these funds are well spent. This bill also
provides a historic, and frankly, long overdue investment in
the essential conservation work led by tribal nations. As
Elveda Martinez, the President of the Native American Fish and
Wildlife Society, said, ``For Tribes, the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act is not just about an increase for fish and
wildlife funding. It is base funding. It will be a game changer
in the way Tribes operate, manage, participate, and assert
self-governance in fish and wildlife stewardship.''
This legislation has broad support across the full spectrum
of conservation community, fish and wildlife agencies, industry
associations, tribal nations. Nearly 2,000 organizations and
entities have joined forces to support this critical
legislation. Why? Because we all understand what happens if we
don't act. Iconic and unsung species alike will continue to
vanish from the landscape, and costs to business and taxpayers
will continue to escalate.
Let me be clear: We are in the midst of a sixth mass
extinction that is affecting all sizes and types of species.
The growing number of scientific reports and field observations
are a clarion call for action. Fortunately, history shows us
that by investing in collaboration and science based
restoration efforts, we can reverse this. We have accomplished
amazing things for game species like deer and waterfowl and
sportfish, and we have recovered through Pittman-Robertson and
Dingell-Johnson. We have also recovered iconic endangered
species like the bald eagle and the American alligator through
the Endangered Species Act.
Our Nation does a remarkable job saving species when we put
our mind to it and when we invest. I see it in my home State of
Delaware, where we worked with Senator Carper to recover
DelMarVa fox squirrels, red knots, and piping plovers. But the
reality is that we have failed to invest at scale in the vast
majority of species.
Senator Heinrich's and Senator Blunt's bill is the game
changer that we need to ensure the full diversity of wildlife
survives and thrives. The Recovering America's Wildlife Act is
bold and bipartisan; it is collaborative and proactive. It will
have an immediate impact from hundreds of backyards all across
America.
Let me just close with this: Inaction is the ally of
extinction. Twenty years ago this very Committee came so close
to dedicating resources to proactive, collaborative, and
voluntary efforts to recover wildlife as part of the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA. Twenty years later,
406 additional species have been listed under the Endangered
Species Act; 430 more are either proposed for listing,
candidates for listing, petitioned for listing; and thousands
more have become species of greatest conservation need. The
crisis is accelerating.
The good news is that it is not too late to save America's
wildlife, but there is no time to waste. By passing the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act and investing in this ounce
of prevention, we can ensure that our children and
grandchildren enjoy the full diversity of wildlife because the
simple truth is that when we save wildlife, we save ourselves.
Please support this legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Mara follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Collin, thanks so much, and thank you for
your service in Delaware as our Secretary of the Department of
Natural Resources and for your great leadership today and for
your testimony today. We are proud of you in the First State.
Sara Parker Pauley, please proceed. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF SARA PARKER PAULEY, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FISH
AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Ms. Pauley. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
members of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity
to address you in support of Senate Bill 2372, the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act.
For the record, my name is Sara Parker Pauley, Director of
the Missouri Department of Conservation and past President of
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
I first want to thank my Senator, Roy Blunt, for co-
sponsoring this legislation with Senator Martin Heinrich. Their
dedication to this country's fish and wildlife is inspirational
and sincerely appreciated.
Mr. Chair, I sit before you today as an advocate for what
we in Missouri hold dear. In fact, Missourians are so dedicated
to conservation that in 1976, they were willing to tax
themselves to guarantee they had healthy and abundant fish and
wildlife and wild places to hike and fish and hunt and cherish.
This dedicated funding has been a key to our conservation
success in Missouri as it has allowed for long term
conservation planning and implementation.
Take, for example, our prairie restoration work in
northwest Missouri. Over 99 percent of the original tallgrass
prairie is gone in our State, and many of the species that
depend on diverse native grasslands are also imperiled.
However, the Missouri Department of Conservation, landowners,
and partners like Iowa DNR are voluntarily and collaboratively
working to restore remnant prairies and reconstruct prairies,
an ecosystem that is critical to a plethora of species,
including pollinators, which in turn, are so critical to
sustaining agriculture in the region.
However, these projects do not happen in 1 or 2 years. To
restore a prairie ecosystem takes decades of active habitat
management and the staff and financial resources to make it
happen. Simply put, conservation success does not happen
overnight. It requires long term planning and dedicated funding
which this act will provide to State agencies, agencies with a
proven track record of restoring species, like wild turkey,
deer, elk, and waterfowl.
Though other States and Tribes may not have the funding
model of Missouri, they each have their own success stories to
tell, like West Virginia and their work on the cerulean
warbler, a small and beautiful neo-tropical migrant songbird
that attracts birdwatchers from across the country. By working
to implement appropriate timber harvest strategies, they are
creating and restoring habitat for this iconic bird species and
providing economic benefits associated with the State's timber
industry.
But in Missouri, West Virginia, and elsewhere, the overall
to do list of restoring our wildlife far exceeds the available
funding. Through the development of State fish and wildlife
action plans, we know that there are over 12,000 species of
greatest conservation need, which means they are species with
low, declining, or rare populations, or they are facing threats
and in need of conservation attention. These State plans serve
as a blueprint for conserving our Nation's fish and wildlife
and preventing endangered species from being listed.
Unfortunately, current funding levels only support an
estimated 5 percent of the actions outlined in the plans, and
the challenges are greater today than ever before. That means
95 percent of the work is simply not getting done because the
funding does not exist. The Recovering America's Wildlife Act
is the 21st century funding model we need now that will direct
critical funding to State fish and wildlife agencies to
proactively implement their science driven wildlife action
plans.
It is important to note these State plans must be approved
by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a condition of receiving
funding through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program,
and this act would use the same accountability standards
currently used for that program, which is arguably the most
accountable Federal conservation grant program in existence,
with five levels of accountability. This act actually adds a
sixth level of accountability, requiring each State agency to
provide a work plan and budget for implementing its wildlife
action plan to the Service, to this Committee, and the House
Committee on Natural Resources every 3 years.
In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the
Pittman-Robertson Act, which has been the monumental funding
model for restoration and management of fish and wildlife
spending the last eight decades. Prior to the creation of the
Pittman-Robertson Act, many game species were near the point of
extinction, but because of State led efforts and dedicated
funding through the Pittman-Robertson Act, State fish and
wildlife agencies were able to restore many of those game
species.
Henry David Thoreau noted that the meeting of two
eternities, the past and the future, is precisely the present
moment. I wonder, in the future, will our grandchildren be
heralding our vision and leadership in this present moment,
like we talk about those who championed the cause in 1937? I
certainly hope and believe that will be the case with the
passage of Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
Thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pauley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you for your time today, and thank
you for that testimony. That was great.
Batting cleanup, last but not least, Jonathan Wood, you are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN WOOD, VICE PRESIDENT OF LAW AND POLICY,
PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Wood. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
Capito, for inviting me to join the Committee this morning as
you consider the Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
As just introduced, my name is Jonathan Wood. I am the Vice
President of Law and Policy for the Property and Environment
Research Center, a conservation research institute based in
Bozeman, Montana. For four decades, PERC's research has
demonstrated the importance of property rights, incentives, and
federalism to recovering wildlife. These values are critical to
understanding RAWA and its context in broader conservation
policy.
As the Biden administration's America the Beautiful Report
recently observed, effective conservation depends on respecting
private property rights and rewarding landowners for their
voluntary conservation efforts. Frankly, private lands play an
outsized role in the conservation of wildlife, including
endangered and threatened species. Therefore, the key to
recovering species is often to make them an asset for private
landowners, rather than a liability.
Unfortunately, as Ranking Member Capito observed, we
frequently get these incentives wrong. The Endangered Species
Act can penalize landowners who accommodate listed species or
conserve their habitats. These policies create perverse
incentives that can undermine the goals of the statute and have
resulted in only 3 percent of listed species recovering over
the last half-century.
Partnering with landowners to solve real world challenges
holds much greater promise. This year, PERC and the Greater
Yellowstone Coalition partnered with rangers outside of
Yellowstone National Park on Montana's first elk occupancy
agreement. Under this agreement, PERC and GYC paid for a fence
to separate elk and cattle, thereby reducing disease risk and
competition for forage. In exchange, the ranchers will manage
nearly 500 acres as winter elk habitat. Such win-win
arrangements are how we will achieve our conservation goals for
the long term.
Pursuing conservation through State programs, rather than a
top down Federal approach, can also increase innovation and
accountability while reducing conflict. Given the varying needs
of wildlife, landowners, and communities, federalism's emphasis
on local knowledge and flexibility is particularly valuable
here. Moreover, State agencies often enjoy better reputations
and more trust among landowners than does the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Unfortunately, although landowners highly value
conservation, the intense regulatory conflicts that my friend
Collin O'Mara mentioned that have arisen between the Service
and landowners under the ESA make the agency a less desirable
conservation partner for many. This highlights the need to
align ESA policies to support the goals of State conservation
initiatives and to encourage voluntary conservation.
PERC's 2018 report, The Road to Recovery, explains that one
of the ESA's primary intended incentives for voluntary
conservation and for State leadership was a distinction between
how endangered species and threatened species are supposed to
be regulated. Under the statute, Federal regulation should
relax as species recover and tighten as species decline, which
aligns the incentives of landowners with the interests of
listed species. Likewise, States are encouraged to develop
conservation programs in exchange for the power to effectively
veto Federal regulations governing the take of threatened
species.
Unfortunately, these incentives have been thwarted for most
of the ESA's history due to a Fish and Wildlife Service
regulation known as the Blanket 4(d) rule. This regulation
eliminates this distinction between endangered and threatened
species regulation, and it also increases conflict over the
delisting process. Under this statute, management
responsibility should shift to States in stages as species move
from endangered to threatened to delisted.
However, under the blanket rule, the stakes for delisting
are much higher. You go from full Federal control to full State
control overnight, and this can encourage a sort of endless
litigation like that we have seen for the recovered Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly.
In 2019, the agency repealed this Blanket 4(d) rule,
explaining that following the statute's approach could better
incentivize recovery efforts, but it has recently indicated its
intent to reverse that decision.
If Congress were to invest significant funds in State
leadership on conservation initiatives, it should consider how
to align ESA policies to ensure the success of those
initiatives. For instance, it should consider whether RAWA's
wildlife conservation strategies entitle States to cooperative
agreements under the Endangered Species Act. It should also
consider the role of Federal regulations for threatened
species, encouraging conservation, rewarding State efforts, and
providing a road to recovery and delisting.
Finally, thinking creatively about how to fund conservation
to reflect the full range of interests that value wildlife can
make programs more sustainable. Too often, conservation is
dependent on a single source, such as sportsmen. But hunters
and anglers are not the only people who value wildlife or who
impact wildlife. A 2019 PERC report, How We Pay to Play, shows
that recreation based fee programs can increase funding while
promoting accountability.
RAWA identifies several funding sources States can use for
the matching requirements. A nudge to consider other creative
ways to broaden the funding base may also be helpful.
Thanks again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you for your testimony. Again, to
each of you who have spoken, you have given us a lot to ponder,
Mr. Ashe, a lot to ponder.
Senator Merkley has another pressing engagement, and he is
not going to be able to stay with us for long, but I am happy
to yield my time to him at this point.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
greatly.
I wanted to turn to you, Mr. Ashe. You pointed out that a
lot of the challenges we have with endangered species across
State lines, and for that matter, across national lines, and
the amount of money, I believe, that we send to Fish and
Wildlife for species protection is about $120 million a year.
Obviously, this would create a lot more funding.
But this says, and I have been listening to the testimony
of everyone talking about kind of the 12,000 endangered
species, the huge number of threatened species that haven't
been listed as endangered because we don't have the money to
cover them.
Why does this bill have only $1 out of every $7 dedicated
to endangered species or threatened species, when everyone is
talking about this is the big challenge, the biodiversity, the
enormous number of affected species? Why are we dedicating only
$1 out of every $7 in this bill, and should we dedicate more?
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Obviously, based on
my testimony, I think the answer to that is yes. I think that
we have heard a lot of reference to kind of reduce reliance on
regulation. Well, the most direct path to reducing regulation
of endangered species is to get them recovered and get them off
of the endangered species list.
When I was Director, we recovered and delisted more species
than all previous Administrations combined. That was four
decades of work. What we did was we targeted our recovery
money, our available recovery money, and said, OK, we have
species that we can get them that last mile. We can get them
off the endangered species list. I think the record is clear.
If we invest in recovery, we will get species off of the
endangered species list.
I do think this bill requires a better balance between
those responsibilities. That is in all of our interests,
including wildlife.
Senator Merkley. Mr. O'Mara, in your written testimony, you
go through a number of States and say, hey, a lot of States
take their Federal grants and do a significant share above $1
out of every $7, above 15 percent, to threatened species, and
that you anticipate that that will be the case here.
Again, I am going to ask a question. If we are really aimed
at biodiversity, if we are really aimed at threatened species,
there are really two additional things we could do. I just want
your response. One is spend more than $1 out of every $7, on
what is the mission of this bill according to everyone's
testimony.
The second is to recognize, as Mr. Ashe has pointed out,
that so many of these issues transcend the States, and we give
so little funding, $120 million a year, to Fish and Wildlife to
take on threatened issues, endangered species.
Why don't we simultaneously say we are going to step up
support for the Federal efforts when we are doing this bill?
Those two thoughts.
Mr. O'Mara. Every single dollar in this bill goes toward
the 12,000 species of greatest conservation need, so that is
the universe you have to plan, not other species that are
common, so you have to be in there. The 15 percent is for the
1,600 species that are already listed, so about 13 percent of
the total number.
Actually, I anticipate it is going to be a lot higher. I
mean, the 15 percent, I think, is a floor, not a ceiling. There
is also another 10 percent of the money for innovation grants
that is really intended to be focused on interstate
collaboration.
So, for example, your Saline Lakes Great Basin Bill, or the
monarch work you have been doing that transcends boundaries.
That money is intended for that collaboration, and I think a
lot of that is going to be spent on either candidate species
that are close to being listed, or species that are already
listed that folks want to recover. We would be in favor of
additional funding for recovery.
I am also worried that 20 years ago, this same point was
one of the things that toppled the CARA efforts. So, if there
is a political will to add money to the bill to do more on the
Federal side, we would be absolutely supportive. I mean, there
is no one that fights harder for funding and appropriations for
the Fish and Wildlife Service than the National Wildlife
Federation. It has just been a sticking point for political
reasons. I want to make sure we don't lose the ability to save
the 12,000 species because we are fighting over one point in
the bigger context.
Senator Merkley. So, the way the bill is constructed, you
are comfortable, like, in my home State, every time I go to the
coast, I see a herd of 70 elk hanging out. Our elk are very
much recovered. Every time I go to rural Oregon, I see large
flocks of turkeys where I used to see, where if I saw one or
two on a remote road, I was astounded. Twenty years later, it
is like, oh, there is a field with 70, 80 turkeys in it.
You are confident that this will not be a case that some
States will say, hey, we can finally stock more lakes with more
rainbow trout, and we can double our already large elk herds?
Mr. O'Mara. I am, because the species of greatest
conservation need are really species that either are rare,
declining, or have habitat threats. At this point, the turkeys
and elk in Oregon are doing fine. They wouldn't qualify.
The Fish and Wildlife Service actually gets to review the
plans and raise concerns. There has been this concern that the
States will just spend it on game species. The States are
hungry to be able to work on the full diversity of wildlife,
but the funding tools have been so focused on hunting and
fishing species that we have been unable to do that.
So I have confidence in the States to manage the money
well. I also have confidence in the Fish and Wildlife Service
to oversee that the dollars are spent well.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Let me just mention, after Senator Capito, Senator Boozman,
we will turn to you, and Senator Cardin; Senator Ernst was
here; she has left; and then Senator Whitehouse.
Please go ahead.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Pauley, let me ask a question. This is a very general
question. In your opinion, what is the underlying problems that
Recovering America's Wildlife Act is intending to fix, besides
more money?
Ms. Pauley. Well, I think it has already been beautifully
stated by both of the sponsors, and certainly by some of our
other witnesses here today. We have, I think, pretty clearly
identified the problem. We have 12,000 species of greatest
conservation need that States have identified through their
State Wildlife Action Plans that was mandated by Congress.
So for 20 years, as you have heard, we have had this
mandate to inventory and develop these plans of these species
that we know are in trouble or on their way. The whole focus of
the Recovering America's Wildlife Act, the whole intention was
to keep them out of the emergency room, to keep them off of the
list. That has been the focus; that has been the intention.
The States have done their part, really, without the
funding. We have, over the last 20 years, revised these plans
where they are very science driven, very specific plans with
clear objectives on how to keep these species of greatest
conservation need off the endangered species list.
But the issue is funding. The issue is funding. We have
been given this mandate; we have done our part to develop these
plans. The funding hasn't come with it.
And we have other great examples. Let us talk about
waterfowl in this country. Since 1970, we have seen an increase
in waterfowl populations by 56 percent because they had the
authority; we have had the funding through NACA, through the
Federal duck stamp, through farm bill programs, et cetera. So
the authority was there, the funding was there, the partnership
is there, and we have seen the success. At the same time,
grassland species, bird species, declining by 53 percent
because the funding wasn't there.
So I would say we are looking at this window in time. I am
all for pondering, but I think we have pondered this issue,
personally, long enough. We have the plans. The States are
ready to go, and with every day, we have seen what has happened
over 20 years; 406 species now added to that list.
Senator Capito. Well, thank you. Obviously, resource
constraints are difficult around the horn, and Fish and
Wildlife has constraints, too, as well.
I think I know the answer to this question, but there has
been an effort to make changes to this bill that would redirect
a portion of the funding to the Fish and Wildlife Service. What
kind of impacts do you think that would have on what you have
just explained is the main objective of the bill?
Ms. Pauley. The calculations of that $1.3 billion, $1.4
billion with the tribal moneys is really based upon what will
it take for States to implement their State Wildlife Action
Plans. That is where the $1.3 billion was devised, is what will
it take for States to implement their plans.
I have great respect for the Fish and Wildlife Service. I
have great respect for the role that the Endangered Species Act
plays. But the purpose of this legislation has always been to
find the funding for States to implement their State Wildlife
Action Plans.
Senator Capito. All right, and as I said in my opening
statement, I support that goal absolutely.
Mr. Wood, you talked about the Blanket 4(d) rule and what
kind of impacts that would have. Can you elaborate on how
rescinding that rule and returning to a more tailored approach,
how can that benefit our private landowners in that quest of
keeping species off of the list?
Mr. Wood. Thank you for the question.
At least in two ways. The first is that it provides a
direct incentive to landowners to care about whether species
are recovering or declining. Under the blanket rule, from the
perspective of landowners, the exact burdens fall on you,
regardless of whether a species is barely threatened or on the
verge of extinction. The way the statute is intended to work is
regulations are reduced as species recover and tightened should
species decline. That aligns the incentives better.
The other, as I mentioned in my testimony, is that it
empowers States to take a greater lead on threatened species to
deal with the situation that some of the other panelists
mentioned, where recovering species might take a long time. The
risk is that if a species gets listed while a State is working
on it, what does that do to upend a State strategy that
otherwise could have worked.
Senator Capito. Mr. O'Mara, if you were to diagnose where
this legislation falls short, you already identified one of the
issues, which would be redirecting money more to Fish and
Wildlife, could cause political problems with this concept. Do
you have any other comments on that, on where you think this
legislation could run into political winds?
Mr. O'Mara. Obviously, there is concern about the fiscal
impacts of anything right now. I think we don't do a good job
scoring the costs of inaction. Every time we list a species, it
is about $20 million to the government, every single time, and
then it is about $80 million to $100 million of private sector
impacts. None of that scores under CBL. Yet, that is a cost
that is real. It doesn't build into the baseline; it doesn't
work over time.
So I think, I just worry about having kind of the space to
kind of make the argument that saying this ounce of prevention
is worth that pound of cure, because the alternative--imagine
if the monarch butterfly ends up listed. The impact on farms
all across the country is massive. Whereas if we had more
collaborative tools, and Dan was doing a lot of this leadership
work when he was Director, but it has always been under-
resourced.
I am convinced we can save most species through proactive,
collaborative work and save hundreds of billions of dollars of
private sector costs.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You are welcome.
Next is Senator Boozman.
It is your turn. He will be recognized immediately after
you.
Senator Boozman. I don't want to do anything to cross
Senator Cardin.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. None of us do.
Senator Boozman. Well, first of all, I want to thank
Senators Blunt and Heinrich for working so, so very hard on
this bill to try and solve a difficult problem that has plagued
us for years and for all of you all being here.
Ms. Pauley, in my home State of Arkansas, I found that
farmers and ranchers are some of the best stewards of our land.
That is why partnerships between the Federal Government and the
agricultural community are imperative to address species
management and recovery.
Personally, I believe the Federal Government should be
incentivizing private landowners and making voluntary
conservation efforts, those who are working in that regard. It
appears that under the current structure of ESA, private
landowners are not getting due credit for the time, the money,
and labor they spend on voluntary conservation efforts.
One of the reasons that I am really pleased to be a co-
sponsor of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act is because it
would provide on the ground actors such as conservation
organizations, State authorities, and tribal governments with
the resources they need to pursue collaborative conservation
efforts in their regions.
Can you talk a little bit, share your opinion on how will
these additional resources help ease the tension felt by
landowners when dealing with the Endangered Species Act that we
currently have?
Ms. Pauley. Senator, I so appreciate that question, because
much like Arkansas, Missouri is a State of 93 percent private
landownership. That private lands piece, we cannot accomplish
conservation on the ground in Missouri without the help, the
assistance, the support of our private landowners. Private
land, really, capacity and assistance is so important to us
that we created an entire branch in our agency to add more
boots on the ground, additional cost share, cooperative
positions with other organizations to make sure that we have
the ability to reach those landowners that either want to do
proactively conservation or are in need, perhaps, of reasons of
ESA.
We have an example in Missouri. We have this little aquatic
species called the Niangua darter, and it needs really good
water quality. So we came alongside of these landowners that
farmed in these watersheds that had the Niangua darter and
helped them through cost share and technical assistance with
string bank protection programs and other soil health programs
to ensure that we were meeting shared goals together.
I think that is where RAWA is so critical, because States
have those local--those relationships with the landowners. They
are our neighbors, and those State driven, local driven
relationships are absolutely critical. The collaborative nature
of RAWA, the voluntary nature of RAWA, is so critical. Moving
forward, conservation for the future has to be collaborative,
and that is what we would do with these RAWA dollars.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
As a Nation, we have experienced the decline of 6 million
hunting licenses purchasers in the last decade, Ms. Pauley.
According to a recent study by the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, an estimated 58.8 percent or $3.3 billion of
conservation funds to State wildlife agencies come from hunting
and fishing related activities, either directly through the
sale of licenses, tags, and stamps, or indirectly, through the
Federal excise taxes on hunting, recreational shooting, and
angling equipment. It is clear that hunters are a significant
force behind our Nation's conservation efforts.
In your opinion, what is driving the decline in license
purchases, and what are the potential ramifications of the lost
revenue to the wildlife conservation efforts?
Ms. Pauley. Senator, we could probably spend the rest of
the time talking about potential reasons behind the decline in
hunting. I am going to say it is everything from a society that
has moved away more from rural areas and is more urbanized;
they have more time commitments, so it is an issue of priority
setting; just the loss of that passing down of one generation
from another. Many of us grew up hunting because we had
grandparents or parents who do the same. So, much of that, I
think, is just related to societal changes, et cetera.
But you bring up an important point. Much of the
conservation efforts over the last eight decades are because of
hunters and anglers. You mentioned the percentage, very high
percentage, coming either from license fees or from the excise
taxes. So, hunters and anglers have done their part. They have
paved the way. It is because of them that we have the
conservation success stories, but the formula going forward has
to be different. It has to be something picked up by all of us.
Senator Boozman. Right, I agree, and that is the point. We
are going to have to backfill that. Again, I think we have got
a great opportunity to do that. That is what this bill is all
about, is providing an opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank
all of our witnesses for your commitment to our environment.
There was an article in this morning's paper about the
manatee in Florida, 15 percent loss by starvation this year.
That is a climate change issue. We recognized that with sea
grasses and their diet. But it is a reality of a species that
is certainly at risk. We could mention so many different areas
where additional resources are needed.
So, I want to get this bill to the finish line. But let me
ask you a couple questions on this. This is a significant
increase in funds, and the capacity to use those funds
appropriately is something that we all have to be concerned
about. I appreciate the accountability issues that you have
already mentioned that are spelled out in this legislation, and
I know your intent. I trust what you are saying, that this bill
could be very well implemented in that way with the supervision
of the Fish and Wildlife.
But I have also seen what has happened in the previous
Administration, where we thought we gave pretty direct guidance
through our legislation, only to see the way it was implemented
on the environmental side, totally inconsistent with the
bipartisan efforts here in the U.S. Congress. That is not an
attack on one party; it was on one Administration I am
referring to at this point.
So, when I take a look at this bill, and I see a great deal
of discretion here, I am a little bit concerned as to whether I
need to be more direct in the legislation itself to make sure
we don't run into an Administration that looks at this as a way
of providing resources for reasons not related to the purpose
of this bill. How do you alleviate that concern?
Mr. Ashe, you have been involved in this.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. Barbara sends
her best.
Senator Cardin. You are already warming up to me.
Mr. Ashe. She would kill me if I didn't say that.
Yes, accountability is an important issue. I would say
again, for me, and realize my bias and perspective as a former
Federal agency career employee and political appointee, I think
when you are talking about moving money off budget, which this
bill does, it severely restricts accountability. The annual
appropriations process is the way that the U.S. Congress
constrains and manages accountability in a very direct and real
way.
I think here, the big decision for you is, when you move
something off budget, you are saying it is more important than
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funding; it is more important
than National Park Service funding; it is more important than
border control funding; it is more important than anything else
that has to compete in the annual appropriations process and
demonstrate effectiveness.
So, I think for you, as you think about accountability,
that is really the threshold question that you have to reach.
You are considering putting that much money off budget.
Senator Cardin. I accept that. But what I am really asking,
and maybe Mr. Wood, you can help me on this, is there more
specifics that we should be directing in the legislation itself
to protect against efforts made to politicize these funds not
for its intended purpose?
Mr. Wood. I think there are efforts you could do. The Blue
Ribbon Panel on which RAWA is based focuses on proactive,
voluntary State programs designed to protect the 12,000 species
that the other panelists have mentioned. I think that is
clearly the idea behind the bill, but some of that language
could be incorporated to make that even more clear.
Senator Cardin. I was going to say, this would be an
ongoing process. If you have some specific suggestions, any one
of the four of you, I would appreciate it.
I want to get one other point in during my 5 minutes, and
that is, it is a significant increase, but it is also then
going to be a higher burden on the match on the non-Federal
funds. Are we confident there is enough interest out there to
meet the match at the higher levels?
Mr. O'Mara. Yes, and I will defer to Sara, but I ran the
Delaware agency, so we talked to the Maryland agency. I mean,
like, the match resources, we do not believe are going to be a
problem. There was a survey that Sara can speak to, of all 50
State agencies.
Ms. Pauley. I would love to speak to that. The Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies did do a survey of States. The
States are very confident that they can meet these match
requirements. We have a match report that we can provide to
this Committee that has a host of very innovative ideas. We are
RAWA ready, and I would hope that you would look through the
six levels of accountability we are providing to these
Committee members, too.
Senator Cardin. OK. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get that
on the record, because once this bill is enacted, a year or 2
later, when we get a request from our States to reduce the
match, let us be clear that there is at least a commitment here
that they are able to make the match that is in the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Next, Senator Whitehouse will be recognized, followed by
Senator Padilla.
Welcome. Good to see you.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to
all the witnesses for being here.
I was an early co-sponsor of this bill, and I am happy to
support it. But I do want to take this opportunity in front of
Senator Padilla, from a coastal State, myself from a coastal
State, Senator Cardin from a coastal State, our Chairman from a
coastal State, to point out what I see as a persistent bias in
conservation and wildlife measures toward inland and upland
projects versus coastal projects, toward freshwater projects
versus saltwater projects.
Those of you who are involved in the conservation community
know that the conservation community was busy calling me when
we were trying to reauthorize Land and Water Conservation Fund,
strengthen Land and Water Conservation Fund, make permanent
Land and Water Conservation Fund. I always said, I am for this,
but the money disproportionately goes to upland and inland
uses. There is a huge discrepancy between what inland States
get and what coastal States get if you adjust for population.
Then when you go to the coastal States and you adjust for
whether it is an inland and upland use as opposed to a coastal
use, the bias gets even worse.
The conservation community always says to me, yes, but you
will be with us on this one, and we will remember; we will
stand by you; we understand that oceans and coasts are being
short changed. We will be there for you.
Well, it is getting to be time for that day to come,
because the dangers to our coasts are very, very real. The
environmental upheaval that is happening along our coasts is
very, very real. Ask a fisherman. We have refuges in Rhode
Island, and they are all coastal, and they are all subject to
sea level rise. Six to 10 feet anticipated right now for Rhode
Island, 6 to 10 feet. Think about that.
And you put a storm behind that, and you have added that
much sea level rise, and it is piling up on the shore. It is
not just 6 to 10 feet any longer; it is not just bathtub
levels. Now it is blasting these refuges right off our coast.
And I just want to send the alarm signal that this has to
change. I don't know how I can make that any clearer, and as we
work toward getting this bill done, which I support, I think it
is going to be really important for those of us from coastal
States to get reassurance that this isn't just going to go to
more inland, upland, and freshwater resources. I am preparing a
bill to change the name of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
to the Upland and Freshwater Conservation Fund. Let us at least
call it what it really is, and then we can address the problem
of how we protect oceans and coasts in parallel.
I don't know if that is going to get very far. I doubt it
will, but it will for sure make the point that we have got to
fix this. On behalf of coastal States everywhere, the days of
the conservation community saying, don't worry, your day will
come, someday, in the dim and distant future, someday, we will
show up and help you.
This has to be that day. I have been here quite a while
now, and I have been fobbed off and fobbed off and fobbed off
over and over again, and I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but enough.
There is a point where even a patient man's patience is
exhausted.
Mr. O'Mara. Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Go ahead, and feel free to respond, and
also, you know, there has been a lot of talk about the
Endangered Species Act. You might want to talk a little bit
about how applying this effectively will actually head off
species being listed and would actually be quite a good thing
with respect to the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. O'Mara. On the point around funding, this bill
actually, with your team's help, addresses two of the long
standing inequities with some of the other funding programs, in
that it is land and water based in terms of the landmass, but
then also having the variability of listed species, which,
obviously, are more coastal in their nature, right; it is
places that have riparian corridors or issues. So like Rhode
Island, Rhode Island actually does better under this bill than
Land and Water projects, LWCF, for example.
Senator Whitehouse. That is one of the reasons I am co-
sponsoring it.
Mr. O'Mara. I appreciate that. My commitment to you is
like, I have taken a beating for supporting the RISE Act. That
has to get done this Congress, because if we don't figure out
the allocation issues for the revenues coming from the new,
from offshore wind and everything else, we will never get ahead
of it.
So I am shoulder to shoulder with you on that. I would like
to see that get done very quickly.
On the last point, we know that if we can save species
before it needs--it is just like emergency medicine, if we can
do that preventative medicine before you are in the emergency
room, it is cents on the dollars compared to trying to do it
after you are already in triage mode. A lot of the best
examples are actually stuff your group has done, folks over the
years trying to save species before they are at that point, and
I think that is the whole premise of this whole model, that an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, thank you, Chairman. I hope I
have made my point.
Senator Carper. You have. You haven't disappointed. Thank
you.
We have been joined by Senator Lummis, and Senator Lummis,
after you, Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly has a special guest today. It is bring your
brother to work day. I hope he will introduce his brother, who
is almost as distinguished as you, Mark. Then we will turn to
Senator Padilla.
Senator Lummis, you are recognized.
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad we are
having this hearing on RAWA because it gives us an opportunity
to discuss one of the most important pieces of legislation in
our Committee's jurisdiction, the Endangered Species Act. From
grizzlies, wolves, sage grouse, and more, this act impacts
virtually every person who lives, works, or recreates in
Wyoming.
With only a 2 to 3 percent recovery rate for species listed
under the act, the ESA's implementation is in need of a major
overhaul. There are several pieces of legislation pending
before our Committee, including one I introduced this week that
would bring much needed transparency and accountability to the
act. I hope it is something that we would consider going
forward.
My first question is for Mr. Wood. In your testimony, you
observed, and did a great job of expressing it, the importance
of the constitutional principle of federalism. It is something
that I talk about almost every single time we have a hearing in
this Committee, in some form or fashion.
Federalism is the unique separation between the Federal
Government and the States with regard to powers and
responsibilities. You have talked about it, I think, in very
appropriate terms.
Mr. Wood, can you speak to how Congress intended the
Endangered Species Act to reinforce federalism when it comes to
wildlife management?
Mr. Wood. Absolutely. If you go back to the original
debates, it is really quite clear. Many of the most
controversial parts of the Endangered Species Act were really
looked at as a last line of defense to prevent extinctions.
They weren't supposed to apply to every single listed species,
and it was precisely to create the right incentives for States
and private landowners to take the leadership.
The things we have talked about doing under RAWA to
conserve species before they are listed also work for species
that are listed. If you get the incentives right, if landowners
are encouraged to conserve and restore habitat and recover
species, that is what you will get. The problem is,
unfortunately, too often, under ESA regulations, we penalize
those landowners. Their land is worth less because they
accommodate a rare species or they conserve habitat.
Senator Lummis. Well, I am so proud of Wyoming's Game and
Fish and its efforts in sage grouse.
You all know, Dan Ashe, when you were Director of U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, what a great job Wyoming did on sage
grouse. So we have a longstanding commitment to recover
species, and in fact, even have a wildlife trust fund that we
use to leverage opportunities to conserve species.
Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago, I and several Senate
colleagues wrote a letter to you and Subcommittee Chair
Duckworth asking for a hearing on a bill that would delist the
Yellowstone grizzly. Since writing that letter, the Interagency
Grizzly Bear Study Team, made up of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and others have revised
the population numbers from about 750 grizzly bears to 1,070.
So this is more evidence that the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem
grizzly has recovered and has been recovered for a long time.
Mr. Wood, and Ms. Parker, how important is prompt delisting
under the ESA to maintain good relationships with States and
landowners?
Mr. Wood. I will be quick to reserve some of the time. It
is absolutely critical. If you are a landowner, if you are a
State, you have probably worked years or decades to get to that
point. Delisting is the reward for you, and if we deny that to
landowners, we discourage efforts to recover other species down
the road.
Ms. Pauley. Thank you, you said it beautifully, that that
transparency and just the dependability of what the act is
intended to do, so people can have that assurance going
forward.
But Senator, you mentioned the example, and I just have to
use this little bit of time to mention that, again, the value
of the States and their boots on the ground is oftentimes, when
a species is potentially listed, States can go back in and do
additional inventory and monitoring, and in Missouri and many
other States, determine that there actually are healthier
populations, more abundant populations than originally thought,
and actually keep species off of the list.
So again, the value of those additional boots on the ground
and the great role that the States play.
Senator Lummis. I remember going out and helping inventory
Wyoming toad at some of our high plains fishing areas. So you
are right, boots on the ground make a difference.
I want to thank you all for your testimony, and Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thanks for those questions, and
thanks for joining us today.
I am not sure if I have the right Kelly over here, but
sitting next to Senator Padilla is, I think it is Senator Mark
Kelly, but I would be delighted if you would introduce your
special guest.
Senator Kelly. Mr. Chairman, you never know.
Senator Carper. We have all had experiences, I suspect, in
school, the years gone by where we were in a classroom in
school and somebody had an identical twin.
Senator Kelly. We did that on a space flight once. I went
into space instead of him. It all worked out fine.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by
discussing the potential benefits that the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act provides the tribal communities.
Mr. O'Mara, good seeing you again, and this question is for
you. I want to start by asking for unanimous consent on a
couple of letters. Mr. Chairman, asking for unanimous consent
to enter into the record a statement from Ms. Gloria Tom, she
is the Director of the Navajo Nation's Department of Fish and
Wildlife, highlighting the benefits that this bill would
provide to the Navajo Nation.
Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Kelly. And I would also like to ask for unanimous
consent on another letter signed by more than 100 tribal
nations urging Congress to support the passage of this bill.
Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. O'Mara, Arizona is home to 22 Tribes who all play a
role in wildlife management on their tribal lands. Yet many of
the Federal programs, which fund wildlife conservation efforts,
are only allocated to States, not to Tribes, even when species
needing conservation assistance are exclusively located on
tribal land.
Mr. O'Mara, could you provide a brief overview of what
current Federal resources are available to Tribes to help fund
conservation efforts, and if enacted, how could RAWA help
support tribal conservation efforts in ways that the existing
Federal programs cannot?
Mr. O'Mara. Right now, thank you, Senator Kelly, Tribes are
responsible for the management of almost 140 million acres
across the country, and many are lands that have faced
disproportionate climate impacts: Drought and extreme fire
conditions. Yet the entire allocation through the
appropriations process is about a $6 million competitive grant
program that they all have to compete for every single year.
So, there is no base funding. They have been systematically
excluded from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson and the
other major wildlife funding for years. It is one of the great
injustices, frankly. This bill would have $97.5 million
available every year through a non-competitive grant program
that the Tribes want to work out directly with BIA, and it is a
game changer.
Frankly, the cultural knowledge, the knowledge that they
will bring to conservation, what we can learn from that, I
think, is going to be transformative. But I can't say it better
than Gloria Tom's testimony or the testimony from the Native
American Fish and Wildlife Society. So I would just encourage
your colleagues to read the testimony from Gloria, because she
is amazing.
Senator Kelly. OK, I will take a look at that. I want to,
kind of on a similar note here, talk a little bit about the
metrics that are used in RAWA to determine how this funding is
going to be allocated even outside of the Tribes.
Every State has different geography, different climate,
different conservation needs. It is important that the Federal
formula that is used takes these differences into account.
In Arizona, we have the third highest species diversity of
any State in the country. Yet because of the many different
ecosystems within Arizona, and because we have a large share of
Federal, State, and tribal land, it is often difficult for our
State to benefit from Federal wildlife conservation programs,
which focus on specific types of ecosystems, species, and land
management practices.
Mr. O'Mara, how does RAWA try to address the geographic
diversity within and among States when providing funding for
conservation assistance, and what factors does the bill use to
determine the share of wildlife funding that each State and
Tribe will receive?
Mr. O'Mara. The traditional formula has been kind of
population and land, which is just insufficient. It doesn't get
at need. So negotiations in the House actually had this idea of
having an additional variable of the number of listed species
that are either threatened, endangered, or candidate species as
a proxy for States that have particularly distressed ecosystems
that need help.
Under that formula, Arizona does better, because it has
more species that are in trouble than other States than before.
I think this is where the iterative process in the House has
been constructive because it is the first time a need variable,
as opposed to just a size or people variable, which isn't
necessarily the greatest proxy, has been used.
And I do think it is going to make a big difference, to
make sure that money winds up in the right places. When you add
that to the accountability and some of the other innovation
grants from multi-State collaboration, all of a sudden a State
like Arizona that has been disproportionately unsuccessful in
some of those funding allocations all of a sudden would do
well.
Senator Kelly. Then, does that or a similar formula apply
to the non-competitive grant money that Tribes can receive as
well?
Mr. O'Mara. Yes. So, the Tribes have requested that they be
able to have those consultations with BIA and to figure out
that system, but yes, need with be a portion of that
conversation.
Senator Kelly. Well, thank you, and thank you, everybody,
for testifying today.
Senator Carper. For the record, I just note, Senator Kelly,
that your brother is sitting back over my right shoulder, and
his lips were moving when you were speaking, and I don't--you
guys have perfected this to quite an extent.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. We welcome the both of you today to the
hearing. Thanks for those questions.
Senator Padilla, Senator Padilla is next.
Senator Padilla, I am going to ask you to hold the gavel. I
am going to send it right over to you. I am going to step out
for a minute. I will be right back, OK? So, you can just,
anything you want to pass, get done, unanimous consent, be
careful.
Senator Padilla [presiding]. Shifting resources to
California this morning, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here today. Before
I jump into my questions, just a quick commentary about how
thrilled I am we are talking about wildlife conservation. The
biodiversity crisis, not just in California, but across the
country and around the world, is absolutely here. Wildlife
managers and their partners are faced with the intertwined
emergency of the climate crisis. I am grateful we are able to
have this conversation about how we can best conserve wildlife.
Let me start with a California success story. California
has demonstrated how we can conserve species, with one example
being the southern sea otter recovery work, which is led in
part by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, a world renowned
institution.
But perhaps the proudest example is the California condor,
which, as many of you know, was once at significant,
significant risk. A whole bunch of groups working together,
starting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a number of
State agencies, the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, the
Peregrine Fund, Oregon Zoo, Los Angeles Zoo, a ton of wildlife
societies and several other prominent, non-profit partners
provided critical genetic management, breeding, rearing, and
releases into the wild to aid the recovery of this iconic
California condor.
I lay all that out just to show how simple it is not,
right? It is a process. It is complex. There are many elements
to it, and a role for so many to play. But from a population
low of 22 birds, a handful of years ago, the species is now
being downlisted with a population of more than 500 California
condors, more than 300 of which are living in the wild. The
assistance provided by our Federal agencies helped make this
recovery success story possible.
I am supporting this bill today because I believe we need
to increase funding for wildlife conservation, and because I
understand that there is a shared responsibility among the many
partners.
Question. Mr. Ashe, how are AZA accredited aquariums and
zoos situated to help advance species recovery programs in
collaboration with State, Federal, and tribal agencies, as well
as other partners?
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator, and the California condor is
kind of a perfect example. In my oral testimony, I spoke about
a partnership that we have started with Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission to help save Florida's reef
track from an emerging disease. In Sara's home State of
Missouri, the St. Louis Zoo is working with the Missouri
Department of Conservation on hellbender and American burying
beetle and other species.
Unfortunately, I think the extinction crisis means that our
members are going to be called on more often to jump in. And I
know in California, I have recently had conversations with
Chuck Bonham and with Paul Souza, the Regional Director for the
Fish and Wildlife Service, about how we can bring our members
together to have specific conversations about how we can
prepare for these, what are almost certain to be emergency
situations where species have to be taken into human care.
So, our members are ready. Certainly, the funding provided
through this bill will help, because space and infrastructure
and human capacity are what is going to be important to
duplicate the successes we have seen like the California
condor.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, what
are some of the ways in which Federal partners, the Federal
Government, a number of departments and agencies, can support
the work of aquariums and zoos? Certainly, there is always a
desire for additional resources and funding, but other
strategies that you would like for this Committee to consider,
in both the measure before us, but also just broadly and
ongoing relationship and partnership.
Mr. Ashe. Of course, my main point today is a better
balance and a better reflection of the kind of interdependence
in conservation, and that the Federal role is absolutely
essential. The condor success wouldn't have happened if the
Fish and Wildlife Service didn't have the funding to support
organizations like the Los Angeles Zoo and the Peregrine Fund.
So that Federal funding is absolutely essential.
Looking forward, I think there needs to be some specific
recognition and infrastructure support for our members, like
the Monterey Bay Aquarium. They are kind of holding southern
sea otters. I also quite honestly think there needs to be some
kind of relaxation of certain regulation, like the southern sea
otter. Monterey Bay Aquarium is put in the position of having
to euthanize young sea otters, because they don't have the
space for them. So they are rescued, but they don't have the
ability to care for them, because they don't have the space.
They can't be exported because of restrictions in the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
But we have participating zoos in Europe and Australia and
other places that could, that would be anxious to hold those
animals if we could export them. So I think to some extent,
looking at existing regulations and how we might be able to
change them, I think, is important.
Senator Padilla. I look forward to following up with you on
that.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is about up, but I do want to
ask just one question that our colleague Senator Kelly brought
up, unique dynamics and concerns as it pertains to tribal
governments. A big part of mine is more than 100 federally
recognized Tribes in California alone, and I want to make sure
that the Federal Government upholds its trust responsibility
and respects tribal sovereignty and governance.
In many contexts, it means ensuring that tribal governments
don't have to go to the States to compete for funding, as
Senator Kelly laid out, but instead are able to receive or
access funds directly from the Federal Government. We know that
in California, a number of examples, tribal nations carry out
important conservation work, leveraging their historical and
cultural knowledge.
I commend the authors of the bill that is before us today
for understanding that unique and important role that Tribes
play in natural resource preservation and providing dedicated
funding for tribal wildlife conservation.
I did, for the record, want to ask Mr. O'Mara, your written
testimony includes a quote calling the bill a game changer for
Tribes. Can you spend a minute just talking about the
importance of this bill for tribal sovereignty and respect?
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Senator Padilla, and thank you for
your leadership on this and being one of the earliest co-
sponsors.
Tribes, as you said perfectly, their historical knowledge,
cultural knowledge, the scientific knowledge, is incredible,
and the fact that that has not been resourced other than a
small $6 million competitive grant program is one of the
greatest failings of wildlife recovery in this country. I think
the $97 million annually is a great start to begin to address
the historical inequities.
But when you look at the landscapes and you look at, also,
where most of the tribal nation lands are, they are lands that
are facing disproportionate impacts from drought and fire and
other concerns. So the species, many of which are uniquely on
tribal lands, to have the ability to actually have resources
for the first time, for them to engage in conservation on their
own lands, but also in partnership is transformative. So I
appreciate your compliment that respecting the sovereignty is
so important.
I will say that one of the reasons I think that it makes
sense, and one of the reasons you had a letter from 100
different Tribes is that the Tribes actually wrote a big part
of that section. It wasn't folks assuming, but again, having
those authentic consultations. I cannot say enough about the
Native American Fish and Wildlife Society. Their leadership,
and having conversations across all different jurisdictions,
with all different sovereign nations, has been spectacular, so
their leadership is just amazing.
Senator Padilla. Wonderful. Definitely a solid foundation
to build on. I look forward to supporting this measure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper [presiding]. Thanks so much for joining us.
Thanks for those questions, and thank you for taking the gavel
for a few minutes and giving me a break. Thanks.
I have about three or four more questions I want to ask. I
am going to finish up around 1 o'clock, and no, it won't take
quite that long.
I want to start off with Dan Ashe and talk a little bit
about the importance of the Federal Recovery Plan. Considering
the collaboration that is necessary across not just State or
local levels, but across all levels of government, would you
elaborate on the on the ground implications of providing
sufficient resources only to States and Tribes, and not to
Federal agencies? Particularly, let me just say, in particular,
how might lack of funding for recovery planning impact States'
efforts to recover threatened and endangered wildlife under the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act?
Mr. Ashe. Sure. I think reference was made earlier several
times to waterfowl conservation, and I think that is a prime
example of where we have achieved tremendous success in
conservation of waterfowl. It has been led by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and it has been driven by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. So I think that is the type of example.
When we are talking about monarch butterfly conservation,
you can't conserve monarch butterflies from Iowa or North
Dakota or Minnesota; it requires cooperation with Canada and
Mexico, in particular. Because if we don't protect the
wintering grounds and reserves in Mexico, all of the
conservation effort in the United States is meaningless.
So, it is absolutely essential to have a strong, effective
capacity within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Senator
Whitehouse mentioned the coasts and NOAA fisheries, if we are
going to drive ocean and coastal conservation. So that
leadership is essential. I would say we are talking a lot about
proactive, voluntary, incentive based conservation.
Senator Cardin opened up talking about manatee. The issues
around conservation of manatee are full of conflict because it
is going to involve issues of runoff, and what is driving the
loss of seagrass beds in Florida. So the States have their own
politics.
The presence of Federal agencies often, in my experience,
is a benefit to our State agencies, because the Fish and
Wildlife Service becomes the heat shield on some of these
really significant political issues that are difficult for them
to deal with in wildlife conservation. So that role is
absolutely essential. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much for that response.
I am told that the Senate is going to be, if they are not
already voting they are going to start voting very soon, so I
thank you for that response. I am going to ask our witnesses
not to linger too long in your responses but cut right to the
chase. Thank you.
All right, Collin, please. With your exception, Collin.
Mr. O'Mara. I always talk quick, so I will try to be brief.
Senator Carper. He is the fastest talker, ladies and
gentlemen, I have ever met. When he first came to Delaware to
become our Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, I think he might have been 30 years old,
and he was a fast talker then. He has slowed down a little bit
since.
Let me ask a question. Maybe you are reading my mind; who
knows. Consultation is a process that Federal agencies
undertake in order to ensure that Federal actions like
infrastructure development, for example, will not harm
threatened and endangered species. We actually have some great
provisions in the infrastructure bill, as you know, to protect
them and their habitat.
If Federal actions may harm an imperiled species, agencies
use, as you know, the consultation process to minimize and try
to mitigate that harm.
The question would be, do you believe that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service currently receives sufficient funding to
undertake these consultative activities, which are critical to
the survival of imperiled wildlife? And would you elaborate on
the importance of ensuring that the Fish and Wildlife Service
receives sufficient resources for these activities, please?
Mr. O'Mara. In Delaware, when we were dealing with the
Recovery Act money, or the Sandy Supplemental Resource that you
provided, the partnership with Wendi Weber and the Fish and
Wildlife Service was essential. To get those projects done, the
restoration in Mispillion Harbor, the improvements in so many
places. So no, there are vastly insufficient resources for
consultation. I was disappointed.
I was excited, both in your work and the House's work in
trying to have more resources in the Build Back Better Act. I
am grateful for the resources you were able to put in the
bipartisan infrastructure package. But it does concern me that
we are not going to have sufficient resources, and that could
be an impediment to the infrastructure work we want to do.
I think when it relates to recovery that having resources,
as long as it doesn't upend the balance of the bill, I also
worry that the delay is deadly, and so trying to figure out a
way to do that in a bipartisan way is going to be important.
But from my experience as Secretary, the benefits of having
that partnership were incredibly important.
Senator Carper. OK, thank you for that. Thank you for that
response.
Dan, I am going to come back to you for another question,
and that is, Partners for Fish and Wildlife. The Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program, which this Committee successfully
reauthorized, I think, about 2 years ago in 2019, is one of the
most popular Federal programs for working with landowners to
conserve wildlife.
Over the last 5 years in our State, in Delaware, this
program has delivered something like 26, 27 habitat restoration
projects over 600 acres. In some States, that might not sound
like a lot of land, but in Delaware, that is a lot of land.
For every dollar the Fish and Wildlife Service invests,
non-Federal partners contribute approximately $7.50, an
impressive ratio. These projects have supported species like
the American eel, the woodland box turtle, wood frog, and many
migratory songbirds. Despite the success of this program and
its ability to leverage non-Federal funding, there is
substantial unmet financial need for it.
Having worked to administer this program as the Director of
Fish and Wildlife Service, would you elaborate based on your
experience on the importance of this program and others like it
to work with private landowners to conserve wildlife?
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator. A lot has been said here
today about incentive based conservation and cooperative
conservation. I would say the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program in the Fish and Wildlife Service is a model for that. I
certainly applaud State colleagues for the work that they do,
but it is not just a province of State and tribal agencies.
The Fish and Wildlife Service was a pioneer with their
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in working with private
landowners on incentive and voluntary based conservation and
working with and through the Natural Resource Conservation
Service on the Working Lands for Wildlife Program.
Our Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has been a
principal agent there in building a relationship with NRCS that
then builds a relationship with private landowners.
So that is not a province of State or Federal or tribal or
local government. It is a bedrock principle in conservation.
And I think the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in the
Fish and Wildlife Service embodies that and deserves equal
access to funding to support it.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
I don't mean to pick on Collin O'Mara, but I am going to
ask you maybe one more, Collin. As you may recall, when I was
privileged to serve as Governor for our State, we had eight
balanced budgets in a row. The Governors before me had
significant success in terms of fiscal management. The ones
that succeeded me, as well. That is something that we take
great pride in.
Recovering America's Wildlife Act identifies unobligated
environmental penalties as its funding source. This appears to
include some Superfund cleanup recovery dollars and criminal
fees. Because these dollars currently go to the Treasury, a
funding source may not effectively pay for this legislation. At
least, that is a concern that we have heard.
Your testimony also states that this funding source will
not draw from funding committed to other important funding
programs. However, this funding source does seem to allocate
penalties derived from Superfund disasters for wildlife
protection. That is a concern, especially because those
Superfund fees reimburse the government for cleanups that may
have already occurred where a third party was found liable. In
addition, there are sufficient unmet funding needs related to
Superfund cleanups.
Question. Have proponents of the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act thought about any funding source that would fully
pay for the legislation and that might address this policy
concern that I just touched upon? Would you commit to working
with us on this aspect?
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you for the question. The intent is not
to touch any funds that are directed for any current purpose,
so if there are improvements to the language, we would like to
work with you on that. I have been searching, and actually, we
have been searching for an elusive kind stable pay for that
both sides of the dais can agree on for 4 years. It has been
incredibly difficult. If there is an idea that you and your
team have, I think this is an idea that Senator Blunt, with his
leadership, saw as something that had a nexus, had a point.
If you look over the historical amount going into the
Treasury over the last 10 years, if you kind of define it
broadly, it well more than covers the 10 year score. But it is
uneven year to year, and it is unpredictable in some ways. But
the 10 year average is good.
What I want to make sure is that this doesn't become the
reason that the bill doesn't pass, because as I said in my
testimony, I just think the inaction is the greatest ally of
extinction right now. So if there is a better mousetrap, we
would love to discuss it.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Dan, would you just follow up to the question that I just
asked Secretary O'Mara; do you have any concerns about the
funding source that is identified in RAWA? Do you have any
concerns?
Mr. Ashe. My concern is a little bit--I think I have the
same concern that you do. As I looked at it, I immediately
thought about the Deepwater Horizon settlement, and $5.5
billion in Clean Water Act penalties went to restoration.
They are not directed to go there by law. They are normally
deposited into the Treasury, and they were directed through the
settlement agreement to go to restoration.
So when I read this, my immediate concern was, is that
going to short circuit that process and require these funds to
be deposited to support this bill? And so my recommendation
would be, talk to somebody at the Department of Justice, maybe
somebody like John Cruden, the former Associate Attorney
General for Environment and Natural Resources, who worked on
that settlement, and get some advice from those people.
Senator Carper. All right; thank you.
I don't have a specific question for either Ms. Pauley or
Mr. Wood, but each of you take maybe a minute apiece, with just
a quick closing thought that you would like to share with us
before I go vote.
Ms. Pauley, 1 minute.
Ms. Pauley. Thank you so much, Senator. I think I want to
hit just some of the points in the questions that have come up
more recently. It seems a little bit that we are pitting the
States against the Fish and Wildlife Service, and I hope that
that isn't the case. We do so much amazing work with our
Federal partners.
In the Midwest, we have such a healthy relationship where
we work very collaboratively with the Fish and Wildlife Service
on shared conservation priorities. So I want to make sure that
the members of this Committee understand just how important
that relationship is with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Again, I will hit the point that, from the Blue Ribbon
Panel and their focus, to the development of this legislation,
the intent of this legislation has been to, at long last,
provide critically important funding to State fish and wildlife
agencies to actually, and at long last, implement those State
wildlife action plans. That, to date, has been the focus of
this legislation, so I just want to make sure that we are all
clear that conservation takes all of us. Those Federal partners
are critically important.
The last point I would make is just, as a director of a
fish and wildlife agency, such a key piece of this legislation
is the long term dedicated funding nature of this so that we
can actually make decisions of a long term nature. We talked
about in the beginning, conservation doesn't happen overnight.
There are no easy decisions. By the time they get to me, just
like you, there are no easy decisions. It takes the long view
and that dedicated, sustainable funding source is so critical
to make these key management decisions to be able to provide
additional staffing capacity.
So I would call upon the Committee to keep that under
consideration. Thank you so much for your time.
Senator Carper. Thank you for yours, and for your
leadership over the years.
Mr. Wood, try to hold it to about a minute, if you could.
Mr. Wood. Absolutely. I want to echo my thanks for inviting
me and pick up on that similar point. I think there are really
important reasons to focus conservation work through States,
rather than the Federal Government. Because States have that
flexibility; they have buy in.
But one point we haven't emphasized so much that I go into
in my written testimony is landowners are more comfortable
working with States, because most of their interactions with
the Fish and Wildlife Service begin with regulation or a
listing before you get to the how can we collaborate. That can
alienate landowners.
So you are more likely to get buy in from landowners and
actual, on the ground conservation if it starts in that
dialogue with the States, of how can we solve problems, rather
than how can we impose regulations to try to control that you
might do.
Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much for taking this
time, for preparing and for joining us and responding to our
questions.
I would just mention something that had been shared with
us. We are folks from all over the country, folks with
different kinds of opinions on these issues and all. But
someone has raised the issue, and I will just share what they
have brought to us. They said while some States have had to
dramatically tighten their belts and cut spending to address
this pandemic, we have also found that overall, the impacts of
COVID-19 on State budgets were not as severe as we had feared
earlier in the crisis.
They went on to say, in fact, according to the National
Association of State Budget Officers' fiscal survey of States
published in spring of this year, State total balance levels,
in other words, that is your State rainy day funds, add that to
their general funds year ending balances, reached $126 billion
in fiscal year 2021, the year that, I think, for most States,
ended on June 30th. This is up from about $122 billion before
the pandemic. They are actually in better shape fiscally after
than they were going into the pandemic, which was a surprise to
me.
By contrast, Federal deficits have increased, as you know,
as the Federal Government has jumped in and injected badly
needed COVID relief and stimulus funds into the economy.
In fact, in 2019, the total Federal deficit for that year
was $992 billion, $992 billion, in 2019. In fiscal year 2021,
the Federal deficit, its immediate past year ended on September
30th, the Federal Government ran a deficit of $2.77 trillion,
due in large part to try to address the pandemic and really to
help State and local governments to meet their
responsibilities. The person who is raising these concerns said
that the States, in terms of their fiscal positions, are not
that bad right now.
The Federal Government is running a deficit in the current
year of almost $3 trillion, which is just, maybe except for
wartime, it is just unheard of. And the question is, this is
shared responsibility. This is a team sport. We need States; we
need the Federal Government; we need other shareholders,
stakeholders.
I just would have us and whatever person shared these
comments with me, just that we need to keep that in mind. The
Federal Government has the ability not to print money, but to
really spend until the cows come home. That is what we are
doing to try to get COVID behind us in the rearview mirror.
But someday, there is going to be a time when we are going
to have to be fiscally responsible, and look at the federalism,
the sharing of responsibilities with the States and make sure
that our contributions are appropriate, both at the Federal
level, State, and local level, and with respect to other
sources, too.
I am just going to close with that. It has been a great
hearing. It has been a great hearing, and I applaud the
leadership provided for us by Senators Heinrich and Blunt and
those who joined them in this cause.
Just a quick closing statement. I said earlier that the
Committee has a great track record of enacting bipartisan
conservation legislation. You all have been a part of that. And
at a time when the future of any species in our planet is
uncertain, we need to act. We know that.
Right now, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act is, I
think, a good piece of legislation. Obviously, you do, too, and
I think we can make it great. I look forward to working with
members of this Committee, with our other colleagues, certainly
with the sponsors of the legislation and with our conservation
partners to do that, and make it great.
Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. I would
like to ask unanimous consent--I love to ask unanimous consent
when I am the only one here. It is one of my favorite things. I
want to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a
variety of materials that include letters from stakeholders and
other materials that relate to today's hearing.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Senators will be allowed to submit
questions for the record through the close of business on
Wednesday, December 22nd. We will compile those questions, send
them to our witnesses, ask for our witnesses to reply by
Christmas Day. Not really. We are going to ask you to respond
by Wednesday, January the 5th.
With that, we wish you all, you and your families, happy
holidays, and thank you for all that you are doing to protect
God's creations on this planet.
With that, our hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]