[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 424, ``GRAY WOLF STATE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2017''; H.R. 717,
``LISTING REFORM ACT''; H.R. 1274, ``STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL SPECIES
TRANSPARENCY AND RECOVERY ACT''; H.R. 2603, ``SAVING AMERICA'S
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT'' OR ``SAVES ACT''; AND H.R. 3131, ``ENDANGERED
SPECIES LITIGATION REASONABLENESS ACT''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-389 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR A. Donald McEachin, VA
Garret Graves, LA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Jimmy Gomez, CA
Darin LaHood, IL
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
Todd Ungerecht, Acting Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, July 19, 2017......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Statement of Witnesses:
Corwin, Jeff, Biologist, Host of ABC's Ocean Treks with Jeff
Corwin, Marshfield, Massachusetts.......................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Questions submitted for the record....................... 52
Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Hegar, Hon. Glenn, Comptroller of Public Accounts, State of
Texas, Austin, Texas....................................... 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Questions submitted for the record....................... 38
Holsinger, Kent, Manager, Holsinger Law, LLC, Denver,
Colorado................................................... 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
Questions submitted for the record....................... 69
Huizenga, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Newhouse, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Olson, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas................................................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Minnesota..................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Sheehan, Greg, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.................................... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Questions submitted for the record....................... 45
Willms, David, Policy Advisor to Wyoming Governor Matt Mead,
Cheyenne, Wyoming.......................................... 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Questions submitted for the record....................... 60
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 123
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gohmert
Letters of support for H.R. 2603......................... 77
Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva
Humane Society Legislative Fund, July 24, 2017 letter in
opposition of H.R. 2603................................ 121
Union of Concerned Scientists, July 18, 2017 letter in
opposition of H.R. 424, H.R. 717, H.R. 1274, H.R. 2603,
and H.R. 3131.......................................... 122
Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman
Brown, Edmund G. Jr., Governor of California, June 23,
2017 letter to Matt Mead, Governor of Wyoming.......... 96
Submissions for the Record by Representative Peterson
Letters of support for H.R. 424.......................... 14
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 424, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO REISSUE FINAL RULES RELATING TO LISTING OF THE GRAY
WOLF IN THE WESTERN GREAT LAKES AND WYOMING UNDER THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``GRAY
WOLF STATE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2017''; H.R. 717, TO AMEND THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO REQUIRE REVIEW OF THE
ECONOMIC COST OF ADDING A SPECIES TO THE LIST OF ENDANGERED
SPECIES OR THREATENED SPECIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``LISTING REFORM ACT''; H.R. 1274, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO REQUIRE MAKING AVAILABLE TO STATES
AFFECTED BY DETERMINATIONS THAT SPECIES ARE ENDANGERED SPECIES
OR THREATENED SPECIES ALL DATA THAT IS THE BASIS OF SUCH
DETERMINATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``STATE, TRIBAL, AND
LOCAL SPECIES TRANSPARENCY AND RECOVERY ACT''; H.R. 2603, TO
AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO PROVIDE THAT
NONNATIVE SPECIES IN THE UNITED STATES SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS
ENDANGERED SPECIES OR THREATENED SPECIES FOR PURPOSES OF THAT
ACT, ``SAVING AMERICA'S ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT,'' OR ``SAVES
ACT''; AND H.R. 3131, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF
1973 TO CONFORM CITIZEN SUITS UNDER THAT ACT WITH OTHER
EXISTING LAW, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``ENDANGERED SPECIES
LITIGATION REASONABLENESS ACT''
----------
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Gohmert, Lamborn, Wittman,
Gosar, Tipton, LaMalfa, Radewagen, Bergman, Cheney, Johnson,
Gianforte; Grijalva, Costa, Huffman, Lowenthal, Beyer,
Hanabusa, Barragan, Soto, Clay, and Gomez.
Also present: Representative Polis.
The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come
to order.
The Committee today is meeting to hear the testimony on
several bills: H.R. 1274, State, Tribal, and Local Species
Transparency and Recovery Act, offered by Mr. Newhouse--you
have to get smaller titles than this; H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf
State Management Act of 2017, by Collin Peterson; H.R. 717,
Listing Reform Act, by Representative Olson; H.R. 2603, Saving
America's Endangered Species Act, by Mr. Gohmert; and H.R.
3131, Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act, by
Representative Huizenga.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any opening oral statements are
going to be limited to the Chair, the Ranking Member, Vice
Chair, and a Vice Ranking Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous
consent that other Members' statements be made part of the
record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00
p.m.
Hearing no objections, we will do that. And I will
recognize myself first for a 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. Thanks to our witnesses for being here. The
Endangered Species Act was passed 40 years ago to try to
recover and restore imperiled species. And, despite the best of
intentions, all too often this Act has changed, the mission has
changed, and has been misused to try to control land, to block
a host of economic activities, like jobs, energy and
infrastructure, and forest management. It also has proliferated
costly litigation, which is actually taking taxpayers'
resources away from actual conservation.
In the past four Congresses, we have held over 50 hearings,
with dozens of witnesses that have talked about the litigation
costs, lack of transparent scientific data, consultation
processes, both public and private, that is endless, failure to
include states and stakeholders in the process, and also
goalposts which simply keep moving, which promotes more
petitions and more listings.
That is why simply 2 percent of all the species that have
ever been listed have ever been recovered. In short, ESA does
not work. We have to find a way to reform it so it actually
solves problems, not just continues on the process.
Hopefully, working with our colleagues in the Senate and
the Administration, we can lay a foundation for ESA reform that
will do us well. That is why we are here today to talk about
five bills, two of which were bipartisan, that will start the
reform process, or at least lay a foundation for it.
So, first, H.R. 1274, introduced by Mr. Newhouse, fosters
greater Federal and state cooperation and data transparency.
The second one we will talk about, H.R. 424 by Mr.
Peterson--we welcome you here--is a bipartisan measure to
ensure state management of gray wolves in the Western Great
Lakes. This should be a model for success of the Endangered
Species Act, but it has been hijacked by litigation to lose
that concept. We need to restore it.
H.R. 717, the Listing Reform Act by Representative Olson
would allow consideration of economic factors in listing
decisions.
The fourth one, H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act by our colleague,
Mr. Gohmert, will remove duplicative permitting requirements
for non-native endangered species.
And finally, H.R. 3131 by Representative Huizenga will cap
the ESA-related attorney's fees, allowing them to prevailing
parties only, and it will be similar to what we already do for
Social Security and veterans' cases.
We at this time want to say that we are looking forward to
finding reforms as we move forward. I want our colleagues on
that side of the dais to know we are reaching across the aisle
to ask for your help and support, as long as the term
``bedrock'' is not used as an adjective, but is only a noun for
Fred Flintstone's hometown. Anything else for that word is
total spin.
So, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and
thank the sponsors for joining us here today. I look forward to
your testimony and the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources
More than 40 years ago, the Endangered Species Act was enacted to
protect and encourage recovery of imperiled species. Though passed with
the best of intentions, the ESA has veered away from this mission. All
too often, the Act has been misused to control land, block a host of
economic activities important for jobs, our energy and resources
infrastructure and forest management. It has proliferated costly
litigation that drains taxpayer resources away from actual conservation
efforts.
Over just the past four Congresses, this Committee has held more
than 50 hearings examining the ESA. Dozens of witnesses have testified
about litigation costs, the failure to use transparent scientific data,
endless consultation processes, negative economic impacts, failure to
include states and stakeholders in the process, unachievable goalposts
to de-list healthy species and promoting more petitions and listings
over recovery. The results speak volumes: less than 2 percent of more
than 1,500 listed species have ever recovered.
It is my hope that, in coordination with our colleagues in the
Senate and this Administration, we can lay the foundation for ESA
reform that creates better outcomes for both species and communities.
The five bills before us today--two of which are bipartisan, and two
that previously passed the House in some form--would begin to lay this
foundation.
First, H.R. 1274, introduced by Representative Newhouse, fosters
greater Federal and state cooperation and data transparency in species
designations.
Second, H.R. 424, introduced by Agriculture Committee Ranking
Member Collin Peterson, is a bipartisan measure to de-list and ensure
state management of gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes, maintain
Wyoming management without further litigation, and provides a model for
how recovered species should be managed under the ESA--by states that
have proven capable of doing so.
Third, H.R. 717, the Listing Reform Act, sponsored by
Representative Pete Olson, would allow for the consideration of
economic factors in listing decisions. Countless witnesses have
testified in prior hearings about the impacts ESA can have on economic
activity and private property rights. The bill also provides agencies
more flexibility in processing listing petitions to mitigate excessive
litigation, allowing the agency to focus resources on actual species
conservation.
Fourth, H.R. 2603, the ``SAVES Act,'' sponsored by our colleague
Representative Gohmert, which removes duplicative permitting
requirements for non-native endangered species.
And finally, H.R. 3131, sponsored by Representative Huizenga, would
cap ESA-related attorney's fees, allowing them only to prevailing
parties, and bringing them into conformance with fee caps allowed for
other types of citizen lawsuits against the government, such as Social
Security and veterans. In recent years, ESA litigation has become a
lucrative industry, draining resources away from conservation and
placing taxpayer funds squarely in the pockets of environmental
attorneys and special interest groups, often at rates of $500 or more
per hour.
We can improve outcomes for both species and taxpayers if we build
consensus to address existing failures and pursue targeted, common-
sense reforms. I extend my hand to Ranking Member Grijalva and my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle as we move forward today, and
in the coming months, in this long overdue reform effort.
I want to thank our witnesses and bill sponsors for being here
today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony about these
important measures.
______
The Chairman. With that, I will turn to Mr. Grijalva for
any opening statement that he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Endangered
Species Act works, bedrock or not.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grijalva. Despite years of Republican efforts to pass
bills weakening the Act and cut funding from agencies that
protect and recover imperiled American wildlife, 99 percent of
listed species have continued to survive, and 90 percent are on
schedule to meet their recovery goals.
And, despite an ongoing misinformation campaign by
Republicans and their industry allies designed to turn the
public against ESA, 90 percent of American voters support
keeping the law intact. These facts are not up for debate, no
matter how strongly opponents of the law believe that polluters
and land developers should not have to watch out for wildlife.
Deep down, my Republican colleagues know this. Instead of a
full frontal assault, the advocates for extinction talk about
the need to reform or modernize the Act. These transparent
attacks on one of the most successful and popular conservation
statutes in the history of the world are old, tired, and
frankly, not fooling anybody.
The Majority has served up a weird menu of bills before us
today, some of which have been warmed over from the last time
we went through this pointless exercise in 2014. Three years
later, it looks even less appealing, and represents only a
small sample of the 200-plus legislative proposals to weaken
ESA that have been floated since Republicans took control of
the House in 2011.
I cannot say this strongly or frequently enough: ESA does
not need congressional meddling to work better; what it needs
is congressional support.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service have provided us with more than 40 years of
evidence that the law gives states, localities, landowners, and
private interests an incredible amount of flexibility to
proceed with development projects in ways that conserve fish,
wildlife, plants, and the landscapes they need to survive.
These agencies simply need us to provide adequate funding for
them to do their jobs, and then get out of the way.
Claims that complying with ESA kills jobs or impedes
economic growth are simply not grounded in reality. The U.S.
economy has more than tripled since the law was passed--from $5
trillion in 1973 to $16 trillion now.
Yes, we should put the brakes on projects that would wipe
unique forms of life off the face of the Earth. We have a moral
duty to preserve for future generations the ability to discover
how species can benefit them. Will the cure from cancer come
from nature? What about the road map to a new revolution in
agriculture or energy? We will never know if we choose to
squander biodiversity instead of protecting it.
For Members of this 115th Congress to declare that we
should get to decide which species live or die for all time is,
quite frankly, arrogant and shameful. The flaws with these
bills before us are self-evident: basing conservation decisions
on politics instead of science; limiting access to the courts;
making it easier for bad guys to poach and traffic elephants,
lions, and rhinos, just so the mega-rich can shoot them without
having to actually travel to Africa.
These bills are an embarrassment and a waste of time.
Regardless of what their sponsors say, the goal of each of
these bills is to weaken ESA, and not to make it work better.
Enacting these bills into law would drive the extinction of
fish, wildlife, and plants in America and around the globe, and
they must be defeated.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
The Endangered Species Act works.
Despite years of Republican efforts to pass bills weakening the Act
and cut funding for agencies that protect and recover imperiled
American wildlife, 99 percent of listed species have continued to
survive, and 90 percent are on schedule to meet their recovery goals.
And, despite an ongoing misinformation campaign by Republicans
designed to turn the public against the ESA, 90 percent of American
voters support keeping the law intact. These facts are not up for
debate, no matter how strongly opponents of the law believe that
polluters and land developers shouldn't have to watch out for wildlife.
Deep down, Republicans know this. So, instead of a full frontal
assault, the advocates for extinction talk about the need to ``reform''
or ``modernize'' the Act. These transparent attacks on one of the most
successful and popular conservation statutes in the history of the
world are old, tired, and not fooling anyone.
The Majority has served up a weird menu of bills before us today,
some of which have been warmed over from the last time we went through
this pointless exercise in 2014. Three years later, it looks even less
appealing, and represents only a small sample of the 200-plus
legislative proposals to weaken the ESA that have been floated since
Republicans took control of the House in 2011.
I cannot say this strongly, loudly, or frequently enough: the ESA
does not need congressional meddling to work better. What it needs is
congressional support.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service have provided us with more than 40 years of evidence that the
law gives states, localities, landowners, and private interests an
incredible amount of flexibility to proceed with development projects
in ways that conserve fish, wildlife, plants and the landscapes they
need to survive. These agencies simply need us to provide adequate
funding for them to do their jobs, and then get out of the way.
Claims that complying with the ESA kills jobs or impedes economic
growth are simply not grounded in reality. The U.S. economy has more
than tripled since the law was passed: from $5 trillion in 1973 to $16
trillion today.
Yes, we should put the brakes on projects that would wipe unique
forms of life off the face of the Earth. We have a moral duty to
preserve for future generations the ability to discover how species can
benefit them. Will the cure for cancer come from nature? What about the
road map to a new revolution in agriculture or energy? We will never
know if we choose to squander biodiversity instead of protecting it.
For Members of this 115th Congress to declare that we should get to
decide which species live or die--for all time--is arrogant and
shameful. The flaws with the bills before us today are self-evident:
basing conservation decisions on politics instead of science; limiting
access to the courts; making it easier for bad guys to poach and
traffic elephants, lions, and rhinos just so the mega-rich can shoot
them without having to actually travel to Africa.
These bills are an embarrassment and a waste of time. Regardless of
what their sponsors say, the goal of each of these bills is to weaken
the ESA, not to make it ``work better.''
Enacting these bills into law would drive the extinction of fish,
wildlife, and plants in America and around the globe, and they must be
defeated.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. And I wish to hell you would quit
trying to hide your true feelings behind rhetoric. Just say
what you actually believe.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I will now turn to Mr. Gohmert for 5 minutes
for an opening statement, if he wishes to do so.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and
welcome to this vitally important hearing.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, or ESA, was passed with
the best of intentions. As stewards of the Earth, it is our
responsibility to care for and shepherd the animals under our
dominion.
Although it was intended to protect those species in most
dire need, the Endangered Species Act is failing in its
mission. In fact, the ESA often has the exact opposite effect,
hindering instead of helping these species. States, counties,
farmers, loggers and citizens from east Texas to the Great
Lakes are all making it clear that the ESA is no longer
working.
The slate of bills we have before us today are but a small,
necessary step in the right direction. Whether it be onerous
permitting processes, lack of state and local stakeholder
input, blatant disregard for relevant scientific data, or
taxpayer dollars propping up environmental interest groups, the
system in place is broken. These bills offer solutions.
H.R. 424, introduced by our friend, Collin Peterson, would
direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue vital final
rules from 2011 to 2012 that removed the gray wolf from the
endangered species list in Wyoming and the Great Lakes area.
Although litigious environmental groups have repeatedly blocked
the return of management of gray wolves to their respective
states, population increases have long warranted their de-
listing.
It is difficult for anyone to say that they love and care
about nature and ignore the damage that gray wolves have made
when they are over-populated. It is mean, it is vicious, it is
vile.
While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service de-listed wolves
in Wyoming in accordance with a March 2017 court order, the
decision is still subject to judicial review without this
critical legislation. The litigiousness of environmental groups
complicating the gray wolf situation is but a symptom of a
larger problem: the ease with which plaintiffs can be rewarded
by suing the Federal Government under the Endangered Species
Act.
My colleague, Bill Huizenga, has introduced H.R. 3131. This
bill would standardize attorney's fees awarded in suits by
private parties against the Federal Government, making them
conform to the Equal Access to Justice Act. Currently, the ESA
does not require a party suing the Federal Government to
prevail in order to recover attorney's fees, and there is no
cap on hourly attorney's fees. This legislation will reform
this process by requiring plaintiffs suing the government under
the ESA to prevail in order to collect attorney's fees, and by
capping those fees at $125 per hour.
Building on the importance of saving the American
taxpayer's hard-earned money, my friend and colleague from
Texas, Representative Pete Olson, introduced H.R. 717. This
bill will amend the Endangered Species Act to require the
Secretary of the Interior or Commerce to review the economic
cost of adding a species to the endangered species list.
Under this proposed legislation, if the Secretary
determines that adding a species to the endangered species list
would result in significant, cumulative economic effects, the
species would be precluded from being placed on the list.
Further, this bill also takes steps to streamline the
petitioning process, thereby cutting down on excessive
litigation.
Finally, both my bill, H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act, which de-
lists non-native species, returning certain regulatory
authority back to the states, and Mr. Peterson's gray wolf
bill, are solutions for the symptoms of a larger problem, and
that is the lack of state and local input.
Thankfully, Representative Dan Newhouse's H.R. 1274, the
State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency Act, goes a long
way in addressing this exact problem. By increasing data
transparency and including data submitted by localities, the
listing process will more closely adhere to the realities on
the ground.
I thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing,
and the witnesses for their testimony. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman, Committee
on Natural Resources
Good morning and welcome to this vitally important hearing. The
Endangered Species Act of 1973--or ESA--was passed with the best of
intentions. As stewards of the Earth, it is our responsibility to care
for and shepherd the animals under our dominion.
Although it was intended to protect those species in most dire
need, the Endangered Species Act is failing at its mission. In fact,
the ESA often has the exact opposite effect, hindering instead of
helping these species. States, counties, farmers, loggers and citizens
from east Texas to the Great Lakes are all making it clear that the ESA
is no longer working.
The slate of bills we have before us are but a small, necessary
step in the right direction. Whether it be onerous permitting
processes; lack of state and local stakeholder input; blatant disregard
for relevant scientific data; or taxpayer dollars propping up
environmental interest groups, the system in place is broken.
These bills offer solutions. H.R. 424, introduced by my friend,
Rep. Collin Peterson, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
reissue vital final rules from 2011 and 2012 that removed the gray wolf
from the endangered species list in Wyoming and the Great Lakes area.
Although litigious environmental groups have repeatedly blocked the
return of management of gray wolves to their respective states,
population increases have long warranted their de-listing.
While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service de-listed wolves in
Wyoming in accordance with a March 2017 court order, the decision is
still subject to judicial review without this critical legislation. The
litigiousness of environmental groups complicating the gray wolf
situation is but a symptom of a larger problem: the ease with which
plaintiffs can be rewarded by suing the Federal Government under the
Endangered Species Act.
My colleague, Rep. Huizenga, has introduced H.R. 3131. This bill
would standardize attorney's fees awarded in suits by private parties
against the Federal Government, making them conform to the Equal Access
to Justice Act. Currently, the ESA does not require a party suing the
Federal Government to prevail in order to recover attorney's fees, and
there is no cap on hourly attorney's fees. This legislation will reform
this process by requiring plaintiffs suing the government under the ESA
to prevail in order to collect attorney's fees, and by capping those
fees at $125 per hour.
Building on the importance of saving the American taxpayer's hard-
earned money, my friend and colleague from Texas, Rep. Olson,
introduced H.R. 717. This bill will amend the Endangered Species Act to
require the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce to review the
economic cost of adding a species to the endangered species list.
Under this proposed legislation, if the Secretary determines that
adding a species to the endangered species list would result in
significant, cumulative economic effects, the species would be
precluded from being placed on the list. Further, this bill also takes
steps to streamline the petitioning process thereby cutting down on
excessive litigation.
Finally, both my bill, H.R. 2603, The SAVES Act, which de-lists
non-native species, reducing regulations and thereby empowering states,
and Mr. Peterson's Gray Wolf bill, are solutions for the symptoms of a
larger problem: lack of state and local input.
Thankfully, Rep. Dan Newhouse's H.R. 1274, the State, Tribal, and
Local Species Transparency Act, goes a long way in addressing this
exact problem. By increasing data transparency and including data
submitted by localities, the listing process will more closely adhere
to the realities on the ground.
I thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing, and the
witnesses for their testimony today.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Huffman as
giving the Democrat statement as the Vice Ranking Member. You
have 5 minutes. Go for it.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The slate of bills
before us today is a painful reminder of how far we have moved
away from the bipartisan agreement that Democrats and
Republicans used to share over a core set of values, the values
of conservation and respect for science, in particular.
Both sides of the aisle used to agree that protecting
America's natural heritage for the enjoyment of this generation
and for future generations was a worthy goal, and that relying
on sound science to guide conservation policy was the gold
standard for natural resources management.
Of course, our fish, wildlife, plants, and the landscapes
that they need are a huge part of that heritage. When it was
enacted in 1973, the ESA had incredibly strong bipartisan
support. It passed the Senate unanimously and was voted 390 to
12 out of the House of Representatives. I highlight that this
happened during the height of the Watergate investigation--not
exactly a high watermark of bipartisan cooperation with the
executive branch. But the ESA, nevertheless, had that
incredible bipartisan foundation.
It has long been one of our most successful and broadly
supported conservation laws, preventing the extinction of 99
percent of the species that have received its protection over
its 44-year run.
Now remember, the ESA only kicks in when species are in
real trouble, in danger of extinction, or when it is
foreseeable that they will be in such danger.
If an ER doctor was able to save 99 percent of the critical
patients that came through the door of that ER, and put 90
percent of them on a clear path to recovery, as the ESA has
done with imperiled species, that doctor would receive
universal praise.
So, I think it is worth asking why the ESA receives so much
criticism in this Committee. I suspect the answer is pretty
simple: the law requires Federal agencies to use the best-
available science to make decisions to prevent extinction,
regardless of who produced that science. That can be bad news
for mining companies, the oil and gas industry, big developers,
and others.
For example, one of the bills before us today, H.R. 1274,
statutorily deems anything submitted by states, tribes, or
localities as the best available science, regardless of the
quality of that information.
Another bill, H.R. 717, would let economics over-ride
science when Federal agencies are reviewing fish and wildlife
that are in serious decline.
Another bill, H.R. 2603, removes ESA protections from
species that are not native to the United States, and that
would essentially provide blank checks to private game ranchers
in Texas to hunt the endangered African antelope, and wildlife
traffickers to profit from the domestic sale of ivory, thereby
exacerbating the ongoing African elephant poaching crisis. It
is a bad idea.
What these bills ignore is that protecting fish and
wildlife is not just a good idea in principle; it is good for
the economy and it is good for people. The salmon fishermen in
my district and elsewhere on the West Coast, for example,
depend on strong and functioning ESA protections for salmon
runs, allowing them to continue catching healthy stocks. It is
about protecting jobs and a way of life.
The bottom line is that the ESA has worked, and it has
remained untouched for more than 40 years because decisions
under the law have to be made based on data and evidence. That
is a pretty reasonable standard that we all should be able to
uphold.
The ESA is not causing drought, flood, or pestilence, as
some have argued before this Committee. All it is doing is
requiring us to consider the impact on fish, wildlife, plants,
and habitat, and requiring us to avoid causing extinction.
So, yes, we no longer just cut down as many trees, or catch
as many fish, as possible without thinking about the future. It
is the lesson of the Lorax, it is the tragedy of the commons.
And, as I said before, it is not just for fish and wildlife, it
is for future generations of people, as well.
And, with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back without once
using the word ``bedrock.''
The Chairman. You just did it. You lost again.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Vice Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The slate of bills before us today is a painful reminder of how far
we have moved away from the bipartisan agreement Democrats and
Republicans used to share over a core set of values, and the values of
conservation and respect for science, in particular.
Both sides of the aisle used to agree that protecting America's
natural heritage for the enjoyment of this generation and future ones
was a worthy goal, and that relying on sound science to guide
conservation policy was the gold standard for natural resources
management.
Of course, our fish, wildlife, plants, and the landscapes they need
are a huge part of that heritage. When enacted in 1973, the ESA Act had
strong bipartisan support. It passed the Senate unanimously, and was
voted 390 for and 12 against in the House. I highlight that this was
during height of the Watergate investigation--not exactly a high
watermark of bipartisan cooperation with the executive branch.
The Endangered Species Act has long been one of our most successful
and broadly supported conservation laws, preventing the extinction of
99 percent of the species that have received its protection over the
past 44 years.
Remember, the ESA only kicks in when a species is in danger of
extinction, or when it's foreseeable that it will be in such danger. If
an emergency room doctor saved 99 percent of the critical patients that
came through the door, and put 90 percent of them on a clear and timely
road to recovery as the ESA has done with imperiled species, that
doctor would receive universal praise.
So, why does the ESA receive so much criticism in this Committee? I
suspect the answer is simple: the law requires Federal agencies to use
the best available science to make decisions to prevent extinction,
regardless of who produced that science, and that can be bad news for
mining companies, oil and gas industry, big developers, and others.
For example, one of the bills before us today (H.R. 1274) deems
anything submitted by states, tribes, or localities to be the ``best''
available science, regardless of the quality of the information.
Another bill, H.R. 717, would let economics over-ride science when
Federal agencies are reviewing fish and wildlife that are on the
decline. Yet another one, H.R. 2603 removes ESA protections from
species that are not native to the United States. This bill would
essentially provide blank checks to private game ranchers in Texas to
hunt the endangered African antelope, and wildlife traffickers to
profit from domestic sales of ivory, thereby exacerbating the ongoing
African elephant poaching crisis.
What these bills ignore is that protecting fish and wildlife is not
just a good idea in principle, but good for the economy and for people
as well. The salmon fishermen in my district and elsewhere on the West
Coast, for example, depend on a strong and functioning ESA to protect
salmon runs, allowing them to continue catching healthy stocks.
The bottom line is that the ESA has worked, and has remained
untouched for more than 40 years, because decisions under the law must
be made based on data and evidence. That's a pretty reasonable standard
to uphold.
The ESA is not causing drought, or flood, or pestilence as some
have argued before this Committee. All it's doing is requiring us to
consider our impact on fish, wildlife, plants, and habitat--and
requiring us to avoid causing extinction. So yes, we no longer just cut
down as many trees, or catch as many fish, as possible without thinking
about the future. But that's a good thing, as I said, not just for fish
and wildlife but for future generations of people as well.
It would be a welcome change if we were really talking about
modernizing the ESA so that it works better for both people and
wildlife. But these bills won't get us there.
______
The Chairman. All right. We thank you for the witnesses
who are actually here, the panel.
This is the drill. You all have been through this. You have
5 minutes Your written statements are already in the record.
Microphones have to be turned on. The clock is ahead of you. I
will cut you off at the 5-minute level without trying to be
rude.
I will tell you now that, once you are done, we would
invite you to stay with us and participate in the rest of the
hearing. If you want to insult us by leaving, that is your
right. You can claim you are busy, whatever you want to do, but
know that you are more than welcome to stay for the entire
hearing, as we go forward.
So, we will do in this order, first of all, Mr. Newhouse,
then we will go to Mr. Peterson, to Mr. Olson, to Mr. Gohmert
up here, to Mr. Huizenga. You will be the clean-up hitter for
us.
So, actually, technically, you are the clean-up hitter. You
are batting five.
Mr. Newhouse, are you ready to lead us off? You are
recognized for 5 minutes. Good to have you back on the
Committee, by the way.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN NEWHOUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ranking
Member Grijalva, members of the Committee, it is great to be
back with all of you, as well. And I want to thank you for the
opportunity to address this Committee in support of my
legislation, H.R. 1274. It is the State, Tribal, and Local
Species Transparency and Recovery Act. And yes, we need a
couple more words in there.
This legislation is simple and it is logical. By including
state and local entities in Federal determinations and decision
making, we can improve policy making and reduce the impacts on
states, municipalities, tribes, and local stakeholders, all
while ensuring endangered species listing decisions include the
best pertinent data involved in such matters.
Federal agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service are
currently not required to share underlying data used in listing
decisions made under the ESA with the states or the local
entities that would be impacted by such listing decisions.
These agencies too often overlook local conservation plans that
are developed to ensure the protection of native species and
habitats. These local efforts should not be disregarded, for
oftentimes, the counties or the local municipalities are among
the best sources of information. Local stakeholders deserve to
know whether their hard work is taken into consideration long
before the end result of a Federal listing decision is made
public.
My bill will amend the ESA to simply require that Federal
agencies disclose all data used to promulgate a potential or
final listing determination to the states and local
jurisdictions affected by Federal regulatory actions.
The legislation also gives local stakeholders the
opportunity to verify, dispute, or complement the information
the Federal agencies use in the ESA listings.
There have been too many examples of states' data and
species recovery plans having been effectively ignored by
Federal agencies, even after earnest and costly efforts were
made to develop comprehensive and effective plans at the local
level. By providing states, tribes, and localities the data
used to promulgate these proposed listings, an opportunity
arises for local stakeholders to get involved and have their
voices heard.
Two cases in my own district in Central Washington come to
mind regarding transparency of Federal decision making
involving specific species.
Earlier this year, the National Park Service, as well as
Fish and Wildlife, released a draft plan to reintroduce the
grizzly bear in the North Cascades ecosystem. Both agencies
claimed the bears will be joining an existing grizzly
population, however, the last confirmed sighting of a grizzly
bear in that area was in 1996. The people living in these
communities deserve to know what data the Federal agencies are
basing their decisions on. I have expressed my deep concerns
regarding the lack of sound science and data to support this
decision, and will continue to do so.
The case of the gray wolf also comes to mind. The
Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service
published a proposed rule that would remove the gray wolf's
listing over 4 years ago, and even found the best-available
scientific and commercial information indicates that the
currently listed entity is not a valid species under the Act.
Yet, the wolf remains listed. The gray wolf is found in
nearly 50 countries around the world and has grown
substantially across its range. I can attest to that. I will
continue to be a firm advocate of de-listing the gray wolf, and
returning its management to the states.
On a final note, Mr. Chairman, I often share with my
constituents that, as a farmer, I consider myself a
conservationist and a true steward of the gifts God has given
us. Farmers are on the forefront of protecting our Nation's
rich, natural heritage. I believe it is important that we
preserve our forests, our natural resources, and wildlife for
our children, as well as our grandchildren, to enjoy. This
legislation will only strengthen that effort.
By modernizing the Endangered Species Act, we can ensure
its effectiveness in protecting imperiled species successfully.
I look forward to working with you and with the Committee to
move this legislation forward. And, again, thank you for the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Newhouse follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Dan Newhouse, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Washington on H.R. 1274
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on
Natural Resources in support of my legislation, H.R. 1274, the ``State,
Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act.'' This
legislation is simple, and logical--by including state and local
entities in Federal determinations and decision making, we can improve
policy making and reduce the impacts on states, municipalities, tribes,
and local stakeholders, all while ensuring endangered species listing
decisions include the best, pertinent data involved in such matters.
Federal agencies like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) are
currently not required to share the underlying data used in listing
decisions made under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) with the
states or local entities that would be impacted by such listing
decisions. These agencies too often overlook local conservation plans
developed to ensure the protection of native species and habitats.
These local efforts should not be disregarded, for oftentimes, the
counties or local municipalities are among the best sources of such
information. Local stakeholders deserve to know whether their hard work
is taken into consideration long before the end result of a Federal
listing decision is made final and public.
The State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act
will amend the ESA to simply require that Federal agencies disclose all
data used to promulgate a potential or final listing determination to
the states and local jurisdictions affected by Federal regulatory
actions. The legislation also gives local stakeholders the opportunity
to verify, dispute, or complement the information Federal agencies use
in an ESA listing. There have been too many examples of states' data
and species recovery plans having been effectively ignored by Federal
agencies, even after earnest and costly efforts were made to develop
comprehensive and effective plans at local levels. By providing states,
tribes, and localities the data used to promulgate these proposed
listings, an opportunity arises for local stakeholders to get involved,
and have their voices heard.
Two cases in my own district in Central Washington come to mind
regarding transparency of Federal decision making involving specific
species. Earlier this year, the National Park Service and FWS released
a draft plan to reintroduce grizzlies in the North Cascades Ecosystem
(NCE). NPS and FWS claim the bears will be joining an existing grizzly
population, however the last confirmed sighting of a grizzly bear in
the NCE was in 1996. The people living in these communities deserve to
know what data these Federal agencies are basing their decisions on. I
have expressed my deep concerns regarding the lack of sound science and
data to support this plan and will continue to voice them.
The case of the gray wolf also comes to mind. The Department of the
Interior and FWS published a proposed rule that would remove the gray
wolf's listing over 4 years ago--and even found the ``best available
scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently
listed entity is not a valid species under the Act.'' Yet, the wolf
remains listed. The gray wolf is found in nearly 50 countries around
the world and has grown substantially across its range. I will continue
to be a firm advocate of de-listing the gray wolf and returning its
management to the states.
On a final note, Mr. Chairman, I often share with my constituents
that, as a farmer, I consider myself a conservationist and steward of
the gifts God has given us. Farmers are on the forefront of protecting
our Nation's rich, natural heritage. I believe it is important that we
preserve our forests, natural resources, and wildlife for our children
and grandchildren to enjoy. This legislation will only strengthen that
effort. By modernizing the Endangered Species Act, we can ensure its
effectiveness in protecting imperiled species successfully. I look
forward to working with the Committee to move this legislation forward,
and again thank you for the opportunity.
______
Mr. Newhouse. And, at the risk of the demise of my bill, I
must excuse myself and go to another Committee hearing. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Well, at least you gave us a nice
segue into the next speaker, talking about farmers. We
recognize the Ranking Member on the Ag. Committee.
Mr. Peterson, it is nice to have you on this side of the
building, on this side of the Floor for a change. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Grijalva, and other members of the Committee, for the
invitation to speak in support of my bill, the Gray Wolf State
Management Act of 2017.
In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the
gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan no longer
required Federal protection, based on two main factors. First,
the gray wolf population numbers in each state remained well
above established recovery goals set by the 1992 recovery plan
for the eastern timber wolf. And second, the wolf management
plans established by each state provided for long-term
conservation of a viable wolf population in the region. While
under state management from 2011 to 2014, gray wolf populations
remained well above recovery goals.
At the end of 2014, a single judge sitting in Washington,
DC, that I would say had no clue about what is going on in our
part of the world, created a mess by somehow deciding that the
wolf had not established themselves, or re-established in their
entire range.
Somebody convinced this judge that the range of the wolf
was all the way down into Iowa, which I don't think is true.
So, that means that Minneapolis and Lake Minnetonka should have
wolves. Maybe we should release some in downtown Minneapolis or
out in Lake Minnetonka, and if they ate some of those fancy
little dogs, maybe we would finally get this thing fixed.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peterson. So, yes, this was all done despite
scientific evidence that has been conducted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service that the wolf population recovered and
thrived, and they actually support the de-listing.
This judge's decision suddenly put our farmers and ranchers
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in a very difficult
situation. Currently, it is illegal for a farmer to shoot a
gray wolf that is actively attacking its cattle or pets. And
when the attacks occur, my constituents are forced to choose
between following the law or protecting their livestock and
their livelihoods.
Wyoming went through a similar situation when a judge
single-handedly relisted wolves in 2014. In March of 2017, the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that court decision, and
the wolves are once again under Wyoming state management. But
this bill returns the management of the gray wolves in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan from the Federal Government
back to the states, and does not allow for further judicial
review.
The bill also includes Wyoming, to protect the state from
further judicial over-reach, if that might happen.
The courts have created a big enough mess already. And I
think it is important for you to note that my bill does not
prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from relisting
wolves in the future.
I would like to submit for the record letters of support
from several organizations, and technical documents from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, which in this case, they did a wonderful job
of managing the wolf population. And that is something for me
to say, because I have not necessarily gotten along with the
Minnesota DNR. This is one case where they did a great job.
[The information follows:]
Rep. Peterson Submission--Letters of Support for H.R. 424
American Farm Bureau Federation
July 18, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Gray Wolf State Management Act (H.R. 424)
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation, we would like to
thank you for scheduling a hearing to consider the Gray Wolf State
Management Act (H.R. 424). This commonsense, bipartisan legislation
would reinstate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) order to
remove the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming from the
federal Endangered Species List. It would also provide legal clarity
for the gray wolf's status on the Endangered Species list.
Farm Bureau has been an active participant in the wolf issue for
decades. That participation encompasses legal efforts in the federal
district court in Minnesota seeking damages on behalf of Minnesota
ranchers resulting from wolf predation; a lawsuit challenging the
introduction of wolves into Montana, Wyoming and Idaho; comments on
proposed federal regulations; comments delivered in public and
congressional hearings; and regular interaction with the FWS on the
impact of gray wolf populations on the membership.
The purpose of the ESA is to recover species that are threatened
with extinction: the Act clearly lays out the appropriate path to take
after a species has recovered. In the case of the gray wolf, affected
states have taken a positive, constructive approach in assuring
continued recovery of the wolf, a step which supports the species' de-
listing.
Farm Bureau supports Federal efforts to de-list the gray wolf. Such
an effort is clearly justified in light of the goals of the Endangered
Species Act; the best available scientific and commercial data that is
available; the goals outlined in various recovery plans; and the
aggressive leadership in affected states. Viewed in this context, the
current status of the wolf clearly justifies its removal from the list
of threatened and endangered species.
We commend you for your leadership on this important issue, and
look forward to continuing to work with you and the House Natural
Resources Committee in securing enactment of this critically important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Dale Moore,
Executive Director, Public Policy.
______
Michigan Cattlemen's Association
July 19, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
This Michigan Cattlemen's Association wishes to thank you for
holding a hearing to discuss H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf State Management
Act of 2017. We fully support H.R. 424.
The wolf population in Michigan has exceeded 600 wolves since 2011.
Cattle farmers and ranchers in Michigan continue to be severely
impacted by wolf attacks on their herds. There have been over 230
verified wolf attacks on livestock and dogs in Michigan since 2010. Due
to a Federal court decision in December 2014, wolves in the western
Great Lakes area (including Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) were
relisted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
With ESA protection in place, lethal action against wolves is
illegal, even if they are in the process of attacking livestock. Cattle
producers are left completely helpless as wolves prey on their herds.
H.R. 424 would return management of wolves to the states where the
species can be managed properly.
We appreciate the committee's consideration and we strongly urge
passage of H.R. 424.
Sincerely,
Carl VanderKolk,
President.
______
Michigan Farm Bureau
July 17, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
Thank you for holding a hearing on H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf State
Management Act in the House Natural Resources Committee. We support
this legislation and appreciate your leadership in continuing the
discussion on this critical issue.
Michigan Farm Bureau represents nearly 45,000 farming families
throughout the state, many of which are livestock producers. In
particular, farmers in the Upper Peninsula have been very concerned
about the growing threat of predation by the Western gray wolf.
Farm Bureau supports legislation that would direct the Secretary of
the Interior to reissue the final rule that was published on December
28, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 81666 et seq) delisting the Western Great Lakes
District Population Segment (DPS) of gray wolf, without regard to any
other provision or statute or regulation that applies to the issuance
of such rule and not subject to judicial review. This legislation would
achieve this objective.
Farm Bureau supports Rep. Collin Peterson's (MN-07) legislation and
believes it strikes the right balance on how to address the growing
gray wolf population in Northern Michigan and surrounding states.
Sincerely,
John Kran,
National Legislative Counsel.
______
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
July 19, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the
House Committee on Natural Resources:
I am writing to you on behalf of the 80,000 members and supporters
of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs to convey our thanks and
support for your consideration of H.R. 424 which concerns the
restoration of state management for gray wolves in the western Great
Lakes region. Our members are hunters, anglers, trappers, and
conservationists of every background in Michigan.
For over 15 years, wolves have met, and consistently and
substantially exceeded population recovery goals established by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, a diverse group
of stakeholders and state fish and wildlife agency professionals have
collaborated on the development of a management plan to ensure the
long-term conservation of wolves in Michigan. Yet despite their
recovery and the preparedness of the state to assume management control
for wolves, their legal status has not aligned with the biological
reality of their recovery.
We respectfully request that you join us in supporting the
conservation success of a fully recovered, healthy, and independently
viable wolf population in Michigan by restoring state management of
this species.
Sincerely,
Daniel Eichinger,
Executive Director.
______
Minnesota State Cattlemen's Association
July 17, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: H.R. 424--Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
The Minnesota State Cattlemen's Association thanks the House
Committee on Natural Resources for showing support and granting a
hearing for H.R. 424--Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017.
While under state control, the State of Minnesota, through the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Department of
Agriculture, developed and implemented a comprehensive and time proven
wolf management plan. That plan, accepted by the U.S. Department of
Interior, was the basis for delisting and the means of ensuring
Minnesota's wolves would never again become threatened or endangered.
Minnesota's gray wolf, by all measures established, was effectively
maintained in Minnesota and should once again have population control
returned to the state. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State
of Minnesota do not dispute that wolves have recovered and maintained
their population here. However, efforts to de-list wolves in this area
continue to be challenged on procedural and technical, rather than wolf
conservation, grounds. The success of the ESA in recovering this
population and the management efforts of the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources have been overshadowed by litigation and the
unnecessarily onerous process to delist the gray wolf. If the State of
Minnesota satisfactorily follows their approved population management
plan, then future delisting of the gray wolf should not be subject to
judicial review. With this type of action, we firmly believe it would
remedy what is necessary to overcome the long history of legal and
technical challenges to managing a clearly recovered species in the
state of Minnesota.
Once delisted, the State of Minnesota will continue to protect
wolves and monitor their population, while giving livestock and
domestic pet owners and wildlife more protection from wolf depredation
as well as diseases carried by wolves. According to the original
recovery plan, wolves have recovered in Minnesota and no longer warrant
listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The original USFWS
recovery plan called for 1,251 to 1,400 gray wolves in Minnesota to
meet delisting criteria. The state plan establishes a minimum
population of 1,600 wolves to ensure the long-term survival of the wolf
in Minnesota. The state's wolf population, which was estimated at fewer
than 750 animals in the 1950s, has grown an estimated 2,300 animals
according to the 2015-16 mid-winter wolf population survey. This
obviously far exceeds state and federal recovery goals and has led to
increased conflicts between wolves and humans, pets, and livestock.
This would also show that, while under state control, state agencies
have been able to successfully manage wolf populations.
Minnesota's cattle and beef industry is a diverse and robust sector
of the state's agricultural economy. Cattle and beef production is the
second largest livestock sector in Minnesota, accounting for 27% of
Minnesota's livestock cash receipts and 13% of the state's total
agricultural cash receipts. Nationally, Minnesota ranks tenth in cattle
production and is home to roughly 2.4 million head of cattle and
calves. This sector of animal agriculture has a ``multiplier effect''
of $2.05 for every dollar of output. Specifically, Minnesota's beef and
cattle production creates economic activities in many other economic
sectors including agronomy, manufacturing, transportation, trade,
services, finance, insurance, real estate, and construction. Minnesota
beef production's total economic impacts at the farm level (not
including meat processing) equals 4.2 billion dollars and employs
nearly 27,000 Minnesotans. Ensuring Minnesota's beef farmers and
ranchers are able to protect their cattle and herds when needed is
vital to supporting this important sector of Minnesota's economy.
Thank you for your time and consideration of H.R. 424--Gray Wolf
State Management Act of 2017.
Sincerely,
Krist Wollum,
President.
______
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association
July 15, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
We are writing to thank you for scheduling a hearing on H.R. 424
that would restore management of the gray wolf to several states
including Minnesota. We urge your support of this important
legislation.
On December 19, 2014, a U.S. District Court Judge overturned the
Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) November 2011 decision to delist the
gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region, including Minnesota,
Wisconsin and Michigan. The result of this decision was to relist the
gray wolf on the Endangered Species List in Minnesota and revoke State
of Minnesota management. For several years, Minnesota had effectively
managed wolves in Minnesota through a conservative plan that provides
for hunting and livestock depredation control while maintaining a
healthy wolf population. Now, as a result of the court ruling, a person
may only take a wolf in the defense of human life and not to protect
property such as livestock and personal pets.
The gray wolf has recovered in Minnesota by all reasonable
measures, particularly those provided in the Endangered Species Act.
The federal recovery plan for the gray wolf identified a recovered
population number of 1,251-1,400 wolves. The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MNDNR) winter wolf population survey in 2015-16
estimated the population to be approximately 2,300. MNDNR concluded
there has been no biologically or statistically significant change in
the size of the statewide mid-winter wolf population over the past 4
years of surveys.
An appeal of the District Court ruling has been heard, but the
appeal process is lengthy and leaves no effective wolf management in
Minnesota. A legislative fix is a more suitable solution to the
problem. We ask you to support H.R. 424 that would require the FWS to
reissue the rule that delisted the gray wolf in Minnesota and other
states. H.R. 424 would not modify the Endangered Species Act, nor would
it prevent the FWS from deciding to relist the gray wolf in the future
if it determines that the wolf population is in need of federal
protection.
Again, we seek your support in restoring management of the gray
wolf to the State of Minnesota. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Craig L. Engwall,
Executive Director.
______
Minnesota Farm Bureau
July 17, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
Thank you for holding a hearing on H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf State
Management Act in the House Natural Resources Committee. Minnesota Farm
Bureau supports this legislation and appreciate your leadership in
continuing the discussion on this critical issue.
On December 19, 2014, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell immediately
reinstated Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This decision now leaves farmers,
ranchers, and pet owners helpless in protecting their animals against
wolf attacks. Farm Bureau members continuously share devastating
stories about the inability to protect their livestock from these
vicious attacks with no option other than to watch their animals die.
In order to meet delisting criteria set by USFWS, the gray wolf
population needed to be between 1,251 and 1,400. Once turned over to
state management, Minnesota set a minimum population of 1,600 wolves.
The state's current wolf population is now more than 2,400, which
clearly far exceeds state and federal recovery goals. The State of
Minnesota has done and will continue to do a superior job of monitoring
the population to allow for a healthy population while also giving pet
and livestock owners options to protect their animals, but management
needs to be back under control of the state rather than the ESA. H.R.
424 would help to strike this balance.
Once again, thank you for holding a hearing on H.R. 424. If you
have any questions on the impacts of wolves to agriculture in
Minnesota, I would be happy to answer them.
Sincerely,
Kevin Paap,
President.
______
Minnesota Farmers Union
July 17, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the membership of the Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU) we
wish to thank you from taking time to hear H.R. 424 authored by Rep.
Collin Peterson. MFU is a strong supporter of this legislation that
requires the Department of the Interior to reissue the final rule
published on December 28, 2011, that removed the gray wolf in the
Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and that removed the designation of
critical habitat for that wolf in Minnesota and Michigan.
De-listing the gray wolf has been a top issue for our livestock
farmers in the northern part of the state, as we have seen continued
conflict between wolves and livestock farmers. MFU strongly believes
that gray wolf numbers have adequately recovered in Minnesota. MFU also
strongly believes that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(MNDNR) is ready and able to administer the gray wolf population
through its current management plans. Minnesota has consistently topped
the federal delisting goal of 1,250-1,400 with numbers exceeding 2,000
wolves in recent years surveys.
Again, MFU appreciates Rep. Peterson carrying this important
legislation forward, and appreciates the committees time in hearing
this legislation, and MFU urges its passage.
Regards,
Gary Wertish,
President.
______
National Farmers Union
July 18, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of National Farmers Union's roughly 200,000 family
farmers, ranchers, and rural residents, I would like to thank you for
scheduling a hearing to consider the Gray Wolf State Management Act of
2017 introduced by Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN).
Listing Gray Wolves under ESA forces farmers and ranchers into an
untenable position. Farmers and ranchers should be able to defend
against predatory animals, such as the Gray Wolf, on their land. The
Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017 prevents farmers and ranchers
from having to choose between their livelihood and federal punishment.
Our support for this bill comes directly from our member approved
policy. Our members believe they should have the right to defend
themselves and their livestock from predatory animals, even if the
animal is listed under ESA. Our members hold that these animals should
be dealt with in the most effective, safe, economical and humane means.
Should you or your staff require any additional assistance on this
matter, NFU stands ready to assist.
Sincerely,
Roger Johnson,
President.
______
Public Lands Council & National Cattlemen's Beef
Association
July 18, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Livestock Industry Support for H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf State
Management Act of 2017
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
The Public Lands Council (PLC) and the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association (NCBA) support H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf State Management Act
of 2017.
PLC is the only national organization dedicated solely to
representing the roughly 22,000 ranchers operating on federal lands.
NCBA is the nation's oldest and largest national trade association for
cattlemen and women, representing more than 170,000 cattle producers
through direct membership and their state affiliates. PLC and NCBA are
producer directed and in partnership with our state affiliates work to
preserve the heritage and strength of the industry by providing a
stable business environment for our members.
The livestock industry has numerous concerns with the gray wolf
being listed as an endangered species. Unlike most species listed under
the ESA, wolves pose a serious threat to wildlife, humans, private
property--namely, livestock--even in cases where wolf populations are
sparse. The result is economic hardship and the possibility of a need
to list other species. Secondly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
already determined the wolf is no longer warranted for listing under
the ESA.
H.R. 424, introduced by Representative Collin Peterson calls for
the Secretary of the Interior to reinstate two U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service decisions that delisted the gray wolf from the endangered
species list in the Great Lakes Region and Wyoming, allowing the states
to continue to manage the wolf populations, as they have successfully
done for several years. Relisting the species undermined the good work
that has taken place on the ground, and unnecessarily takes away the
states right to manage wildlife populations within their borders. It
also takes away the ability for livestock producers to protect their
herds, putting their livelihood and economic stability in jeopardy.
H.R. 424, is a bipartisan, common sense approach to management of
species, which promotes cooperation between the USFWS, state wildlife
agencies, and local stakeholders.
PLC and NCBA have been continually involved in ESA related
activities. Our associations have submitted comments in partnership
with our state affiliate organizations on the Gray and Mexican Wolves,
Sage Grouse, Lesser Prairie Chicken, and the Black Footed Ferret to
name a few. For the last two years, we have been fully engaged with the
Western Governors Association and the ESA Initiative led by Governor
Matt Mead of Wyoming. It is crucial for the livestock industry to be
engaged to the fullest extent possible, in order to ensure that the
nation's livestock producers, who provide food and fiber for the nation
and world, are protected from harmful and unwarranted listings under
the ESA.
PLC and NCBA applaud the efforts of Representative Peterson and
appreciate the opportunity to provide our input on behalf of our
members--the nation's food and fiber producers. We encourage members of
the Committee to support this positive and proactive piece of
legislation.
Sincerely,
Dave Eliason, President, Craig Uden, President,
Public Lands Council Nat'l. Cattlemen's Beef Assoc.
______
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
July 13, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: July 19, 2017 Hearing on H.R. 424
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) would like to thank you
for scheduling the July 19 hearing on H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf State
Management Act of 2017.
This bill would require the U.S. Department of Interior to reissue
its 2011 final rule removing the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes
states from federal protection and the 2012 final rule removing the
gray wolf in Wyoming from federal protection. Gray wolves have exceeded
recovery goals in these states and no longer require federal
protection.
RMEF expects a decision in the next few months from the Washington,
D.C. Circuit Court regarding the appeal to the Interior Department's
2011 final rule. We are an intervenor in this case and are concerned
the court may issue an unfavorable ruling, preventing the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service from removing gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes
states from the list of threatened and endangered species until they
are deemed recovered throughout their entire historic range. This
legislation would prevent further judicial review of the 2011 final
rule. Passage of H.R. 424 in advance of the court's decision would make
it a moot point. State management of wolves would be restored
immediately and further litigation would be avoided. It is imperative
Congress act without delay to pass this important legislation.
Gray wolves have had a significant impact on elk, deer, other
wildlife and livestock. We remain confident wildlife agencies in these
states, through public hunting and trapping, will be able to strike a
balance for gray wolf and ungulate population management.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
David Allen,
President & CEO.
______
United States Cattlemen's Association
July 19, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the United States Cattlemen's Association (USCA),
thank you for holding the upcoming legislative hearing on Congressman
Peterson's ``Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017,'' H.R. 424, taking
place Wednesday, July 19th at 10:00 a.m.
USCA supports this practical and bipartisan legislation that
removes the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and returns management of the gray wolf population in the
Western Great Lakes District and Wyoming to state control. The current
listing of the gray wolf leaves farmers and ranchers in those states
without a legal avenue to protect their livestock from problem wolves.
The states are best positioned to balance the long-term conservation of
a viable gray wolf population with the interests of farmers and
ranchers in protecting their livelihood. This bill prevents judicial
activism from undermining the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS)
science-based determination that the impacted states demonstrated
suitable management plans of the gray wolf population.
Thank you again for holding the upcoming hearing and we look
forward to helping this bill become law.
Sincerely,
Kenny Graner,
President.
______
Upper Peninsula Trappers Association
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
Thank you so much for holding a hearing on H.R. 424 and for
expressing support for this bill. Here in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan we are over-run with wolves and our Department ofNatural
Resources can't do anything about it.
We had a couple of real rough winters that severely cut back our
deer population and now the wolves are getting the survivors. Enough
deer are gone in some areas that the wolves have turned to eating moose
calves--and get them as soon as they are dropped. Our moose were
getting close to allowing a limited hunt until our wolves exploded. Now
they are struggling to survive!
Our Wolf Advisory Committee was told that when our wolves reached
200 animals that they could and would be delisted. Now they are just
shy of 700 and we still can't get them delisted, so they can be managed
by the State of Michigan! We can't even imagine how people who have
never even seen a wolf can have more say in wolf management than our
very capable DNR here in Michigan.
Thanks again,
Bob Steinmetz,
NTA Director.
______
Wisconsin Cattlemen's Association
July 17, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: H.R. 424--Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
The Wisconsin Cattlemen's Association thanks the House Committee on
Natural Resources for showing support and granting a hearing for H.R.
424--Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017.
In the United States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service holds
complete control over the wolf management system. Once the gray wolf is
delisted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin's Department
of Natural Resources' plan will be reinstated. As a part of the wolf
management plan, the Department of Natural Resources supervised a
hunting and trapping season for the gray wolf. Under this system, all
of the concerned parties for agriculture, environmental communities and
government agencies have come together to formulate this plan.
According to this plan, the state of Wisconsin has the capacity to home
350 wolves. The most recent count in the winter of 2016 shows our state
hosts over 1,000 gray wolves and counting.
It is imperative we establish a management program to control the
escalating wolf population in our state. Depredations of livestock in
Wisconsin have escalated at a very rapid rate as our wolf population
has grown. If this continues at its alarming fashion, we will witness
Wisconsin's vibrant livestock industry, of which totals 88.3 billion
dollars annually, perish before our eyes.
Agriculture has always been the leading industry in the state of
Wisconsin. Being home to more than 10,000 beef operations and over
9,000 dairy farms with a total of animals exceeding 1.5 million head,
it remains our goal to continue to provide a sustainable industry for
future generations. It is imperative that the gray wolf population is
under control to both protect our family farms and an industry that is
so influential to the success of Wisconsin.
Thank you for your time and consideration of H.R. 424--Gray Wolf
State Management Act of 2017.
Sincerely,
Terry Quam,
Legislative Representative.
______
Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation
July 18, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, I am writing to
offer our thanks and support of H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf Delisting Bill.
We appreciate the committee's support of this legislation by scheduling
a hearing.
This legislation would reinstate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (FWS) order to remove the gray wolf in Wisconsin from the
federal Endangered Species List. It also provides legal clarity for the
gray wolf's status on the Endangered Species list.
Although wolf numbers in our state have long recovered past the
point of needing federal protection, lawsuits from animal rights groups
have kept this issue in a back-and-forth legal limbo. The latest legal
ruling means that Wisconsin farmers do not have the authority to
protect their livestock from wolves, even as they are being attacked.
Wisconsin's most recent population estimation of almost 900 gray
wolves far exceeds the state Department of Natural Resources' targeted
management goal of 350. The number of wolves in our state also exceeds
the USFWS criteria to federally delist wolves here. Wisconsin's
management plan has successfully followed a science-based approach
designed to maintain the prescribed wolf population of 350 since 2012.
The experts at the USFWS have determined Wisconsin's wolf
population recovered to a level that no longer requires it to be listed
as endangered. Management of the wolf population should therefore be
restored to the Wisconsin DNR. Farmers should have the ability to
protect their livestock from wolves during hunting or trapping seasons,
or during the act of attacking livestock.
Thank you, again for your support of H.R. 424 and providing time
for it to receive a hearing in the House Committee on Natural
Resources.
Sincerely,
James A. Holte,
President.
______
This is a major problem. It has been a problem for quite a
while for my constituents, and it requires an immediate
solution. The states, not the Federal Government, are best
equipped to manage the gray wolf populations by balancing
safety, economic, and species management issues. So, I urge my
colleagues to vote this bill out of Committee, and I appreciate
your time.
And I also would submit that the goal for the gray wolf
that was originally established was 1,500 in Minnesota, and it
is 2,423 as of last year. It was 100 in Wisconsin, it is
currently 689. And it was 100 in Michigan, and it is currently
678. So, there is no justification for what they did, and these
wolves have eaten a lot of sheep and cattle, and caused a lot
of havoc. We need this fixed.
So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be
here, and hope that we can move this bill forward. I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Minnesota on H.R. 424
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and distinguished members
of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to speak in support of
my bill, the Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017.
In 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that gray
wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan no longer required Federal
protections based on two main factors. First, gray wolf population
numbers in each state remained well above established recovery goals
set by the 1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Second, the
wolf management plans established by each state provided for the long-
term conservation of a viable wolf population in the region. While
under state management from 2011 to 2014, gray wolf populations
remained well above recovery goals.
At the end of 2014, a single judge sitting in a Washington, DC
courtroom created a big mess by somehow coming to the conclusion that
gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan need Federal
protection. This was done despite the scientific evidence conducted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that gray wolf populations recovered
and thrived.
This judge's decision suddenly put farmers and ranchers throughout
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in a very difficult situation.
Currently, it is illegal for a farmer to shoot a gray wolf that is
actively attacking cattle or pets. When attacks occur, my constituents
are forced to choose between following the law or protecting their
livestock and livelihoods.
Wyoming went through a similar situation when a judge single-
handedly relisted wolves in 2014. In March 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed that court decision and wolves are once again under
Wyoming state management.
My bill returns management of gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Michigan from the Federal Government back to the states and doesn't
allow for further judicial review. The bill also includes Wyoming to
protect the state from further judicial over-reach. The courts have
created a big enough mess already. But it is important for you to note
that my bill does not prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from
relisting gray wolves in the future.
I would like to submit for the record supportive letters from
several organizations and technical documents from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
This is a major problem that requires an immediate solution. The
states--not the Federal Government--are best equipped to manage their
gray wolf populations by balancing safety, economic, and species
management issues. I urge my colleagues to vote this bill out of
Committee and I appreciate the Committee's time.
______
The Chairman. I thank you for that. Those things you want
added to the record, if you make sure the Clerk gets them,
without objection they will be added.
You have obviously stated why we still need to regulate
those wolves. You went past your goal, you have to stick at the
goal. You go the 1,500, the 100, and you got it there. Sarcasm,
sorry.
Mr. Olson, you are up.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Olson. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
members of the Committee, thank you for having me here today
and for exploring these important issues.
Texans value their open spaces. We value the land and the
animals, large and small, on it. Texas is defined by that
heritage, and it is a legacy I intend to leave to my children.
And I daresay that an expert on your second panel, the Texas
Comptroller of Public Accounts, my former Senator from Texas
District 18, and my dear friend, Glenn Hegar, agrees and may be
coaxed into giving a thumbs up.
We need to protect our endangered species, but we need to
do it in a smart way. Arbitrary deadlines do not help. Neither
do large, sweeping listings that threaten the communities and
landowners who have been on that land since before the time
that states like mine were created.
That is why I want to thank you for taking a look at my
bill, H.R. 717, the Listing Reform Act. My bill is designed to
be part of the solution through a suite of changes you all are
considering.
First, my bill seeks to end arbitrary deadlines and make
sure that the government acts as quickly as possible. As this
Committee said in its 2014 report on ESA, and I quote,
``Witnesses have testified that time frames provided currently
under ESA are not feasible, and that groups are litigating not
over whether species ought to be listed, but that the Federal
Government can't comply with rigid 90-day or 12-month time
frames set by ESA.''
My bill also makes sure that de-listing petitions do not
get punted to the end of the line. We have seen that with
species like the grizzly bear, that de-listing petitions can
drag on for years after a species is recovered and could be
protected locally.
My goal with this bill is to allow the Federal Government
to triage listing decisions. Let's work on the petitions in a
way that makes sense for the species, not just on arbitrary
deadlines that leave us open to lawsuits.
My bill also adds a new class of listing determinations.
Under current law, the government may say that listing a
species might be warranted, but has to be precluded for the
time being. My bill expands on that, and says the listing of a
species that might be threatened can be precluded if listing
would lead to certain serious damages. But if new information
comes in, or if the species is slipping toward endangered
status, all bets are off. In the interim, states and locals can
continue to manage their resources and protect species without
the Federal hammer coming down.
I do not want to see species go extinct, but I want to
achieve a balance that gives our wildlife the protection they
deserve in a way that protects local communities too. We can do
both. We can update the law without endangering our legacy for
the next generation. I think that H.R. 717 is a step in that
direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas on H.R. 717
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Committee, thank you for having me today and for exploring this
important issue.
Texans value their open spaces. We value the land and the animals
large and small we have on it. Texas is defined by that heritage, and
it is a legacy I intend to leave to my children.
We need to protect our endangered species, but we need to do it in
a smart way. Arbitrary deadlines do not help. Neither do sweeping
listings that threaten the communities and landowners who have been on
that land since before the time states like mine were created.
That is why I thank you for taking a look at H.R. 717, the Listing
Reform Act. My bill is designed to be part of a suite of changes you
all can consider.
First, it seeks to end arbitrary deadlines and make sure that the
government acts as quickly as is possible. As this Committee said in
its 2014 report on the ESA, ``Witnesses have testified that time frames
provided currently under ESA are not feasible, and that groups are
litigating not over whether a species ought to be listed, but that the
Federal Government can't comply with rigid 90-day or 12-month time
frames set by ESA.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act Congressional Working Group ``Report,
Findings and Recommendations'' (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also makes sure that de-listing petitions don't get punted to
the end of the line. As we have seen with species like the grizzly,\2\
these de-listing petitions can drag on for years after a species is
recovered and could be protected locally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Natural Resources Committee, ``Bishop: Grizzly Delisting
Process Emblematic of Need for ESA Reform'' (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My goal with this bill is a chance for the Federal Government to
triage listing decisions. Let's work through the petitions in a way
that makes sense for the species, not just on arbitrary deadlines that
leave us open to lawsuits.
The bill also adds a new class of listing determinations. Under
current law, the government can say that listing a species might be
warranted but has to be ``precluded'' for the time being. My bill
expands on that and says that the listing of a species that might be
threatened can be ``precluded'' if listing would lead to certain
serious damages. But if new information comes in or if the species is
slipping toward endangered status, all bets are off. In the interim,
states and locals can continue to manage their resources and protect
species without the Federal hammer coming down.
I do not want to see species go extinct. But, what I am trying to
achieve is a balance that gives our wildlife the protection they
deserve in a way that protects local communities too. We can do both.
We can update the law without endangering our legacy for the next
generation. I think H.R. 717 is a step in that direction.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. And we will invite you when we
are done with this panel to join us up here, where a spot is
available.
Mr. Gohmert, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
allowing me to speak on H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act.
First, I would like to thank the Committee for considering
this legislation, and for the staff for all their hard work,
and especially my dear friend, Representative Brian Babin, who
has worked hand in hand with me on this vital bill.
This important legislation will remove duplicative and
unnecessary regulation, reduce government waste, but, most
important, it will enhance conservation.
At the time it was originally enacted, the Endangered
Species Act's inclusion of non-native species was well-
intentioned, as incipient international regulatory bodies, such
as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species,
which sought to encourage international protections, lacked
political capital.
However, like many other aspects of the ESA, the inclusion
of non-native species is outdated, overly burdensome, and, in
fact, works against the very intent of the ESA. Instead of
promoting conservation of these international species, this
redundant regulation hampers significant non-governmental
resources in our country genuinely seeking to enhance
conservation of non-native endangered species through captive
breeding programs.
By restricting interstate movement, listing non-native
species under the ESA renders properly conducted captive
breeding a near impossibility. According to the American
Federation of Aviculture and their more than 5,000 members, if
a collection manager in Missouri would like to bring a new
bloodline into their macaw collection from a collection in
Pennsylvania, current regulations are so onerous as to bring
that plan to a full stop.
As the Zoological Association of America notes,
conservationists often rely on the ability to move individual
animals among collections to best maintain a robust captive
population and to provide the best opportunities for successful
breeding of endangered species. The onerous and prohibitive
regulation of captive bred, non-native species under the ESA is
counter-productive to conservation efforts.
Such issues are nothing new for the ESA. Time and time
again in the modern world, we see the well-intentioned
legislation pit the Federal Government against the very private
citizens who have a vested interest in preserving endangered
species.
Dr. Janice Boyd of The Parrot Fund states so clearly, ``the
ESA simply does not deliver conservation benefits to non-native
species.''
To give a personal example of what got my attention is when
a Texan notified me, a conservationist, that he had a number of
species, as a conservationist, allowed--they had to have
Federal permit, Federal authorization, but they were notified
that a breed of antelope they had from Africa was extinct in
Africa. And, therefore, they were going to take over their land
and move to have it listed as endangered in the United States.
So, the American conservationists all over the country that
had bred thousands and thousands of this now-extinct breed sent
hundreds of couples over to Africa to reinstate them. But
because of the threat of the Federal Government to take over
control of these conservationists' land, they had to get rid of
all of those they had. Thus, once again, jeopardizing the very
species that we were supposed to be protecting under this bill.
The unfortunate reality of the ESA is that it continuously
burdens commerce and various industries. As the National
Association of Aquaculture alerted me just a couple of weeks
ago, the National Marine Fisheries Service posted a notice
seeking public comment on a proposed listing of a non-native
giant clam. Several giant clam species are in the marine
aquarium trade, and U.S.-owned farms in the Pacific are
successfully producing these animals. These clams should not be
listed, and if they are, the farms producing them will decline
as interstate movement and commerce will be catastrophically
impacted. How is this promoting conservation of the species?
Removing unnecessary, outdated, and redundant regulatory
authority over interstate movement of non-native, endangered
species--and this is very important--that are alive--it is not
going to help the trade of dead carcasses--but by removing them
from the listing authority of ESA will enhance conservation,
and that is why we are doing it. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Louie Gohmert, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas on H.R. 2603
Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to speak on H.R. 2603,
the SAVES Act. First, I'd like to thank the Committee for considering
this legislation, staff, for all their hard work, and, especially, my
dear friend Rep. Brian Babin who has worked hand in hand with me on
this vital bill.
This important legislation will remove duplicative and unnecessary
regulation, reduce government waste, and enhance conservation.
At the time it was originally enacted, the Endangered Species Act's
(ESA) inclusion of non-native species was well-intentioned, as
incipient international regulatory bodies, such as the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) which sought to
encourage international protections, lacked political capital. However,
like many other aspects of the ESA, the inclusion of non-native species
is outdated, overly burdensome, and, in fact, works against the very
intent of the ESA. Instead of promoting conservation of these
international species, this redundant regulation hampers significant
non-governmental resources in our country genuinely seeking to enhance
conservation of non-native endangered species through captive breeding
programs.
By restricting interstate movement, listing non-native species
under the ESA renders properly conducted captive breeding a near
impossibility. According to the American Federation of Aviculture and
their more than 5,000 members, if a collection manager in Missouri
would like to bring a new bloodline into their macaw collection from a
collection in Pennsylvania, current regulations are so onerous as to
bring that plan to a full stop.
As the Zoological Association of America notes, conservationists
often ``rely on the ability to move individual animals among
collections to best maintain a robust captive population and to provide
the best opportunities for successful breeding of endangered species.
The onerous and prohibitive regulation of captive bred, non-native
species under the ESA is counter-productive to conservation efforts.''
Such issues are nothing new with the ESA. Time and time again in
the modern world, we see the well-intentioned legislation pit the
Federal Government against the very private citizens who have a vested
interest in preserving endangered species. As the U.S. Association of
Reptile Keepers asks: ``How is making it illegal to share education
about ESA-listed and non-native spotted pond turtles by banning sale of
domestically hatched turtles across state lines helpful to conservation
of the species?'' As Dr. Janice Boyd of The Parrot Fund states so
clearly: ``The ESA simply does not deliver conservation benefits to
non-native species.''
The unfortunate reality of the ESA is that it continuously burdens
commerce in various industries. As the National Association of
Aquaculture alerted me, just a couple weeks ago, the National Marine
Fisheries Service posted a notice seeking public comment on a proposed
listing for non-native giant clams. Several giant clam species are in
the marine aquarium trade and U.S.-owned farms in the Pacific are
successfully producing these animals. The clams should not be listed,
and if they are, the farms producing them will surely decline as
interstate movement and commerce will be catastrophically impacted. How
is that promoting conservation of the species?!
Removing unnecessary, outdated, and redundant regulatory authority
over interstate movement of non-native endangered species by removing
them from the listing authority of the ESA will enhance conservation
and reduce the burden these duplicative regulations have on the
industry. Please join me in supporting this common-sense solution to
conservation of endangered species.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Huizenga, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL HUIZENGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Huizenga. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, for holding this
hearing. I actually had the privilege of being part of a
working group a couple of years ago that looked at the ESA, and
I can attest it does need reform.
My statement today is in support of common-sense
legislation that makes the Endangered Species Act consistent
with current law in other areas of government litigation.
H.R. 3131, the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness
Act, reforms the ESA litigation process while enhancing
wildlife preservation, improving government efficiency, and
protecting taxpayer dollars.
For too long, litigating attorneys representing non-
governmental entities have taken advantage of the Endangered
Species Act, raking in millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded
money. In many cases, attorney billing rates have climbed as
high as $400, $500, or even $750 an hour, with hardworking
American taxpayers left footing the bill. In times of tight,
fiscal budgets and escalating national debt, taxpayer dollars
should be prioritized for the protection and recovery of
species, not warrantless litigation.
Let's show taxpayers we respect their hard work by
respecting their taxes. Records from the Dept. of Justice
confirm the exploitation and abuse of the Endangered Species
Act by special interest groups, including at least two
attorneys who have accrued upwards of $2 million in legal fees
through ESA litigation. These exorbitant payouts, funded by the
American taxpayer, only impede efforts to achieve the common
goal of protecting species and habitats.
Now, how is this addressed in other areas of government
litigation? Well, currently, the Equal Access to Justice Act,
as was brought up by Mr. Gohmert earlier, limits the hourly
rate for awards of fees to prevailing attorneys to $125 an hour
in most circumstances. Unfortunately, no such fee cap currently
exists in ESA citizen suits.
Quite simply, this bill seeks to correct the current
Endangered Species Act anomaly that incentivizes attorneys to
spend time in court needlessly arguing, while earning inflated
rates at taxpayers' expense. This bill would ensure that all
Americans who sue the Federal Government are entitled to the
same reasonable limits when it comes to being awarded taxpayer-
funded attorney's fees.
Veterans, small businesses, and Federal benefit recipients
go through this right now. And, frankly, Mr. Chairman, if it is
good enough for our citizens, it ought to be good enough for
our flora and our fauna. It is past time to apply this sensible
cap to ESA suits, as well.
And, in fact, there was a discussion about this limiting
access to the courts. There is no limit to access with this
particular issue. This is a matter of stewardship, of the
resources of hardworking taxpayers, in my mind. Rather than
these hardworking taxpayer dollars lining the pockets of trial
attorneys or special interest groups that have made a business
by suing the Federal Government, these scarce resources would
be directed toward making the law more efficient and effective
for both species and people.
This would save millions of dollars, while not restricting
access to the court system at all. If it truly is about
protecting our flora and our fauna, then this reasonable
reimbursement rate should be just fine. If it is about making
money, well, I think you see the opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that this straightforward
legislation is a much-needed common-sense update to the ESA,
and makes the law work better for all parties. I would like to
thank the Committee for scheduling this hearing on H.R. 3131.
It is my hope that this Committee will soon continue to take
further action on this important legislation.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huizenga follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Bill Huizenga, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan on H.R. 3131
Thank you Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of
the Committee for holding this hearing on much needed reforms to the
Endangered Species Act.
My statement today is in support of common-sense legislation that
makes the Endangered Species Act consistent with current law. H.R.
3131, the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act, reforms the
ESA litigation process while enhancing wildlife preservation, improving
government efficiency, and protecting taxpayer dollars.
For too long, litigating attorneys representing non-governmental
entities, have taken advantage of the Endangered Species Act, raking in
millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded money. In many cases, attorney
billing rates have climbed as high as $400, $500, or even $750 per
hour, with hardworking American taxpayers left footing the bill. In
times of tight fiscal budgets and escalating national debt, taxpayer
dollars should be prioritized for the protection and recovery of
species, not warrantless litigation.
Records from the Department of Justice confirm the exploitation and
abuse of the Endangered Species Act by special interest groups--
including at least two attorneys who have accrued upwards of $2 million
in legal fees through ESA litigation. These exorbitant payouts--funded
by the American Taxpayer--only impede efforts to achieve the common
goal of protecting species and habitats.
Currently, the Equal Access to Justice Act limits the hourly rate
for awards of fees to prevailing attorneys to $125 per hour in most
circumstances. Unfortunately, no such fee cap currently exists for ESA
citizen suits. Quite simply, this bill seeks to correct the current
Endangered Species Act anomaly that incentivizes attorneys to spend
time in court arguing for inflated rates at the taxpayers' expense.
The bill would ensure that all Americans who sue the Federal
Government, such as veterans, small businesses, and Federal benefit
recipients, are entitled to the same, reasonable limits when it comes
to being awarded taxpayer-funded attorney's fees.
Rather than taxpayer dollars lining the pockets of trial attorneys
or special interest groups that have made a business by suing the
Federal Government under ESA, these scarce resources should be directed
toward making the law more efficient and effective for both species and
for people.
I strongly believe that this straightforward legislation is a much
needed common-sense update to the ESA that makes the law work better
for all parties.
I would like to thank the Committee for scheduling this hearing on
H.R. 3131. It is my hope that the Committee will soon continue to take
further action on this important legislation.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that. Once again, I
will make the same offer to you, Mr. Huizenga. If you would
like to stay here, I will ask unanimous consent that both Mr.
Olson and Mr. Huizenga can join us on the dais.
Without objection, so ordered. Find a seat where there is
no one sitting, and you are part of us.
I will now bring the second witness panel up here. I will
ask the Clerk to change the cards around so you can see where
you are supposed to be. We will introduce you in a second.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. All right. As you are getting settled in
there, I would like to introduce this panel to you. I would ask
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, if he would be happy or
willing to introduce the Comptroller from the state of Texas to
the Committee.
Mr. Gohmert. Honored to do so. It is my pleasure to
welcome to the hearing my friend, fellow Texan, and, just as
importantly, a fellow Texas Aggie, the 36th Texas Comptroller
of Public Accounts, Glenn Hegar.
Mr. Hegar worked diligently in Texas to increase government
efficiency, while reducing government waste: knowledge that
will prove vital to today's hearing.
Prior to becoming Texas Comptroller, Mr. Hegar served in
the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate. So,
welcome, and thank you for joining us today.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. I appreciate you being here. Let me
introduce Mr. Greg Sheehan, who is the Deputy Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Sheehan, before you came back to this place, you were
the Director of the Utah Division of Wildlife, Natural
Resources. I am happy to have you back here, where you can
testify that, even though it is 100 degrees in Utah, which is
hotter than right here, we don't have the damn humidity, and
there is such a thing as dry heat. It does make a difference.
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I appreciate that. Mr. Jeff Corwin, I
recognize and welcome you here. You are a biologist and host of
ABC's Ocean Trek. Thank you for joining us.
I am going to turn to the gentlelady from Wyoming, if she
would like to introduce Mr. Willms, who is also on our panel.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to introduce our Wyoming witness today.
David Willms joined Wyoming Governor Matt Mead's staff in
2015 to advise on endangered species and other natural resource
matters. Before joining the Governor's office, David worked on
endangered species issues as a field biologist, and then as an
attorney in both the public and private sector.
As a Senior Assistant Attorney General for the state of
Wyoming, David represented the State Engineer's Office and the
Game and Fish Department on issues involving myriad species
from day-to-day wildlife management to complex matters
involving Endangered Species Act implementation.
In private practice, David engaged in a broad-based natural
resource practice, where he worked on issues related to the
lesser prairie chicken, greater sage-grouse, black-tailed
prairie dogs, and a host of other species.
As a field biologist, David has studied black-tailed
prairie dogs and associated species in the Thunder Basin Region
of northeast Wyoming, and his study area included both public
and private land holdings.
And David has really been at the forefront of Governor
Mead's efforts to provide a bipartisan approach to reforming
the Endangered Species Act, and we are very pleased to have you
here today and to have the Committee have the opportunity to
hear about the great things we are doing in Wyoming.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I will ask Mr. Tipton if you
would be kind enough to introduce our final witness, Mr.
Holsinger from Colorado.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a pleasure to be
able to introduce a fellow Coloradoan. I appreciate the
opportunity to introduce Mr. Kent Holsinger, Founder and
Managing Partner of Holsinger Law, LLC. It is a highly regarded
law firm that specializes in land, wildlife, and water law.
Since 2003, Kent has built an exceptional client base,
including leading water, corporate, non-profit, and trade
associations in Colorado and the West. Prior to that, he did
serve for 4 years in the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources.
Mr. Holsinger, thanks for taking the time to join us here
today.
The Chairman. Thank you, I appreciate that.
I am going to remind the witnesses that your written
testimony is already part of the record. You are going to be
given 5 minutes of oral testimony right now.
As I said to the other panel, you have to turn the mics on.
When the timer hits 5 minutes, I will cut you off. Not trying
to be rude, but we have a lot of you to go through.
With that, I will turn, first of all, to Comptroller Hegar
for your 5 minutes for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GLENN HEGAR, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC
ACCOUNTS, STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Hegar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. It is an
honor and a privilege to be here. I appreciate the opportunity
to share our experience in working on ESA issues, and comment
on the bills before you.
I greatly appreciate the leadership of your colleagues in
authoring these bills. As Comptroller, I serve as the chief
steward of the state's finances, and administer a number of
programs focused on the Texas economy. One of these programs
works with stakeholders on practical, effective, science-based
solutions to ESA challenges.
The ESA is a powerful law that can be inflexible and
costly, with far-reaching effects on local economies. It can
threaten agriculture production, oil and gas exploration, real
estate development, and many other important economic
activities.
States must be involved in an open, transparent process for
reviewing and conserving species that also includes all
stakeholders, both public and private. Engaging stakeholders is
essential. This is especially true in states such as Texas,
where more than 95 percent of all property is privately owned.
In 2007, as a State Senator, I played an instrumental role
in creating a stakeholder-driven process to conserve listed
species in the Edwards Aquifer, which is the primary water
source for more than 2 million people in south central Texas.
Use of this aquifer was a source of contention among economic
and environmental interests for more than 50 years.
The program resolved the water dispute, while protecting
the listed species in the aquifer. The Texas Legislature gave
my current office initial ESA authority in 2009, and when I
became Comptroller in 2015, I expanded our role, which now
includes facilitating stakeholder and science-based
collaborative programs, administering $15 million to fund
species research, and also holding the permit for the Texas
conservation plan for the dunes sagebrush lizard, which is
found in the Permian Basin. Fish and Wildlife cited this plan
as part of its 2012 decision not to list the species.
Our work is done through open, transparent updates with
stakeholders, work groups, compromising of landowners,
industry, and environmental representatives, Fish and Wildlife,
as well as the science community. We have identified three key
areas for enhancing species conservation.
First, state involvement in leadership provides more
effective outcomes. States have the relationships and the
infrastructure to work with landowners, communities, and
industries, and access to research data, monitoring
initiatives, and other resources that can lead to better
listing decisions. In Texas, many agencies have expertise on
conservation issues and support research related to endangered
species.
To ensure the Service can make the best informed decision,
the ESA should require them to request and use all state agency
information and participation, while implementing the law.
A second key area for enhancing species conservation is
science-based decision. Often relatively little is known about
the species, providing for a poor basis for decisions that can
have major economic consequences. The best way to ensure
economically sound decisions are made is to ensure that science
is good and current. Better decisions will have fewer impacts
on state and local economies.
Our office mainly focuses on the game-changing species,
those species that if listed endangered could involve
significant economic impacts. A few examples of the diversity
of regions and stakeholders involved, we funded $3.6 million in
research on 12 water mussel species. Listing of these species
could affect the availability of municipal, industrial, and
agricultural water use.
Because of the large number of economic sectors that could
potentially be affected across the state if the monarch
butterfly is listed, we funded over more than $1 million in
research to better understand the butterfly in Texas.
Also, we supported in the Permian Basin and the Eagle Ford
shale, two important areas of the state and also the Nation, we
have funded over $2 million in research to identify the
additional habitat areas for the species out there.
A third key area for enhancing species conservation is that
economic consideration must be part of the decision. There is a
link between environmental protection and economic success.
Communities and businesses often rely on the same resources for
economic growth, such as clean water, that the species needs to
remain viable. As written, the ESA has very little space for
economic consideration, and this omission is remarkable, in
light of the potential impacts on our natural resources.
As the Services review species for listing, they must be
able to take into account economic factors, especially when
analyzing the scope, scale, and potential threats of these
species. Engaging stakeholders is one of the best ways to
gather this important economic data to make better informed
decisions.
The bills before you will increase the ability of the ESA
to be more flexible, and make sure these three key areas are
obtained. I thank you for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hegar follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller of Public
Accounts on H.R. 717, H.R. 2603, H.R. 1274, H.R. 424, and H.R. 3131
introduction
Thank you for this opportunity to share our views on these bills
that offer improvements to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). I applaud
the sponsors for their work toward solutions that can lead to a more
science-driven process for species conservation and reduction in the
regulatory burdens and costs for both landowners and businesses. I
particularly appreciate the leadership of Representatives Gohmert and
Olson in authoring two of these bills, which would be helpful not only
to Texans, but for communities across the country.
In my role as Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, I serve as the
chief steward of the state's finances, acting as tax collector, chief
accountant, chief revenue estimator, and treasurer for all of state
government, in addition to administering a number of other programs
focused on the Texas economy. One of these programs focuses on working
with community leaders, businesses, landowners, and other stakeholders
to encourage, develop and implement practical, effective, science-based
solutions to ESA challenges in Texas.
The ESA is a powerful law that can be inflexible and costly, with
far-reaching effects on local economies. It can threaten agricultural
production, oil and gas exploration, real estate development, and many
other important economic activities. It can involve burdensome and
expensive requirements that may not have a significant nor a lasting
beneficial impact on species conservation.
I believe states need, and must be involved in, an open,
transparent process for reviewing and conserving species that includes
all stakeholders, both public and private. Engaging stakeholders is
essential to getting acceptance and buy in with respect to the ESA.
This is especially true in states such as Texas, where more than 95
percent of all property is privately owned. Through collaborative work
with other state agencies, universities, local communities,
environmental organizations, and industry stakeholders, we have
developed unique expertise in how state involvement in ESA issues can
facilitate species conservation while maintaining local economic health
and diversity.
With my time today, I'd like to share examples of our experience
that highlight the value of state involvement in the ESA decision-
making process, through the gathering of additional scientific data as
well as information on economic impacts. The bills under review today
expand the states' ability to become involved in ESA decisions,
allowing for the use of more complete science in species reviews, and
providing an opportunity to balance the requirements of species
management with the unique economic needs of affected communities.v
background
As a sixth-generation Texan from a farming family, I've spent much
of my time in public service focused on natural resource and private
property concerns. My direct experience with endangered species issues
began before my current role as Comptroller. In 2007, as a State
Senator, I created a stakeholder-driven process to develop a plan to
conserve listed species in the Edwards Aquifer and maintained an active
role to assist the stakeholders as they worked through an array of
extremely difficult issues. This aquifer is the primary water source
for more than 2 million people in south-central Texas, serving
domestic, agricultural, industrial, and recreational needs. Use of this
aquifer was a source of contention among these various interests for
more than 50 years.
This stakeholder-driven process led to the successful creation of a
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that resolved the water dispute while
providing protection for listed species in the aquifer. This program
received a 2013 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Partners in
Conservation Award for its success in using collaboration and
partnership to address endangered species and water-resource issues.
In 2009, the Texas Legislature gave the Comptroller's office its
initial responsibilities in this area and when I became Comptroller in
2015, I expanded our agency's existing endangered species work. Our
office currently works on ESA-related issues in three areas:
Assisting state and local agencies and stakeholders. The
Comptroller's office works with state agencies, local
communities, private landowners, and businesses to
facilitate science-based, collaborative solutions to ESA
challenges. As part of this role, I serve as the presiding
officer of our state's Interagency Task Force on Economic
Growth and Endangered Species. The task force, created by
the Texas Legislature in 2009, helps state agencies, local
governments, communities, and other stakeholders work
within ESA restrictions as efficiently and cost-effectively
as possible.
Gathering new scientific data. Our agency administers $15
million in appropriations to fund research on little-known
species under consideration for ESA listing. We contract
with public state universities for scientific research on
species being considered for protection under the ESA, thus
filling gaps in our understanding of the species, while
also ensuring that Federal regulators have the most
complete and reliable information possible before making
decisions that can have a profound effect on private
property rights and local economies. This research is
reviewed through open, transparent discussions and updates
with stakeholder workgroups comprising of landowners,
industry and environmental representatives, FWS, and the
scientific community.
Managing conservation plans. The Comptroller's office
holds the permit for the Texas Conservation Plan (TCP) for
the dunes sagebrush lizard, whose habitat includes portions
of the Permian Basin, one of the Nation's most important
oil and gas production areas. This 30-year program offers
energy producers and landowners regulatory certainty in
exchange for implementing specific conservation measures
for the lizard. Since the TCP's implementation, fewer than
300 of 200,000 acres of its Texas habitat have been
disturbed by program participants. FWS cited the TCP
favorably in its 2012 decision not to list the species.
Working with stakeholders, state and Federal agencies and
researchers, the Comptroller's office has achieved numerous successes
that demonstrate the value of state input and meaningful participation
in ESA programs. To date, our efforts include:
Contributing scientific data that led to an FWS decision
not to list the Sprague's pipit, a migratory bird that
winters in large portions of south and west Texas with
agricultural and oil and gas operations.
Establishing a nationally recognized monarch butterfly
research program to gather data on the species and its
habitat across its migratory pathway in Texas. If the
monarch butterfly is listed under the ESA, communities and
numerous economic sectors across the country could be
significantly affected.
Developing a comprehensive research initiative to study
the status of and threats to freshwater mussels in our
state, and to identify conservation approaches to minimize
the impact of a potential listing. If a listing of these
species requires specific flows in our watersheds, our
ability to develop and manage the state's water resources
could be affected dramatically, threatening the
availability of municipal, industrial, and agricultural
water supplies during droughts.
Our efforts are intended to ensure FWS has the most complete
information possible to make more informed decisions, while
strengthening the role of stakeholders and the state in those
decisions.
Through this work, we've identified three key areas for enhancing
species conservation. These include: (1) a meaningful role for state
involvement in aspects of ESA implementation to provide for more
effective outcomes, (2) state-sponsored data gathering to ensure better
science-based decision making, and (3) the need for a consideration of
economic impacts in listing and conservation decisions. Through all of
these areas, management, transparency, and fairness are absolutely
critical.
state involvement and leadership provides more effective esa outcomes
Meaningful incorporation of state input to ESA programs, including
close coordination and the use of state expertise, can greatly improve
species outcomes. States have unique relationships and infrastructure
in place to work with landowners, communities and industries
effectively. Through their universities, they also have access to a
wealth of research data, monitoring initiatives and other resources
that can lead to better listing decisions.
In Texas, we work with a number of agencies that have expertise on
conservation issues and support research and initiatives on species of
concern. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, for instance, is
charged with protecting our state's fish and wildlife resources. The
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality oversees the management of
state water quality. The Texas Department of Transportation funds
research on species of interest that may be affected by road projects.
The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board provides technical
assistance to landowners and administers water quality and pollution
prevention programs. The Texas General Land Office manages large swaths
of state land and our coastal resources. The Texas Department of
Agriculture works closely with agricultural producers and is the
state's lead agency in regulating pesticide use.
All of these areas of expertise are critical when addressing
species of concern.
To ensure FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services)
make the best-informed decisions, the ESA should require them to
request and use state agency information and participation while
implementing the law. When working with states, the Services should not
only work closely with state agencies responsible for fish, plant and
wildlife resources, but also with other state agencies that have
information relevant to species status and threats, or that may be
affected by ESA actions. This coordination could occur directly with
individual agencies or through the governor's office in each state.
State-led initiatives offer us a tremendous opportunity to enhance
species conservation, but they won't succeed without proper management
and oversight. Even if everything works properly, those who want the
process to fail will attempt to derail any success. This is why proper
management is an absolute must, especially in ensuring the best
available science is used.
science-based decisions
At present, the bulk of time and resources devoted to ESA
activities is directed toward the listing process itself. Improvements
to the listing process, driven by new data from the states, will
increase our ability to prioritize species for review and lead to more
informed decisions. It also could save time and resources needed for
the development of appropriate conservation plans.
Currently, petitioners have to meet a very low bar in terms of
species information needed to start the listing process. The Services
must make their initial listing decision, called a 90-day finding,
based on data submitted by the petitioner as well as readily available
information. This lack of access to all relevant data can force the
Services to spend scarce time and funds on species that ultimately may
not require listing. And in a state such as Texas, again largely
privately owned, a positive 90-day finding can limit landowners'
ability to develop and use their property even if the species isn't
ultimately listed.
Because of the large number of species under review for listing, an
in-depth study of every species simply is not possible. Currently,
decisions on species must be made on the ``best scientific and
commercial data available.'' But often, relatively little is known
about the population, range, habitat and needs of these species,
providing a poor basis for decisions that can have major economic
consequences. In many instances, the available data is decades old. For
instance, the last study on the Chihuahua catfish, a species slated for
a listing decision in 2020, was conducted in the late 1990s. Do we want
to make a decision on its status based on limited data from decades
ago?
The best way to ensure economically sound decisions are made is to
ensure the science is good and current. Better decisions will have
fewer impacts on state and local economies, plus ensure a more positive
result for the species in question.
As I noted earlier, the Texas Legislature appropriated $15 million
in the last 5 years to our office to support the study of species under
review for listing in our state, gather new data and fill gaps in our
understanding of these species. Our office has focused this funding
mainly on ``game-changing'' species, those species that, if listed as
endangered, could involve significant economic impacts to specific
areas or important economic sectors. I'd like to provide the following
examples of this work, as well as the diverse set of regions and
stakeholders included in our programs. This work is being conducted
openly and transparently, and research conducted with state funding is
subject to rigorous peer review.
Twelve different freshwater mussel species found in Texas
river basins are under review for listing. We have
allocated more than $3.6 million to support research on
their distribution and genetics, and on appropriate
conservation tools. River authorities, agriculture groups,
environmental organizations and energy producers are all
involved in our stakeholder process to fine-tune the
science and identify conservation opportunities.
Because of the importance of Texas landscapes to the
monarch butterfly along its migratory pathway, and the
large number of economic sectors that may be affected if
this species is listed, we funded more than $1 million in
research to increase understanding of the butterfly in
Texas. Stakeholders involved in this working group include
communities, scientists, agricultural interests,
environmental groups, landowners and industry
representatives.
The spot-tailed earless lizard is found in the Permian
Basin and the Eagle Ford shale, two important oil and gas
producing areas in Texas. Our office has funded nearly $2
million in research to identify additional habitat areas,
learn more about threats to the species, and discuss
potential conservation efforts that may be needed, in
partnership with farmers, landowners, environmentalists,
and the oil and gas industry.
The Louisiana pine snake historically was found in
longleaf pine forests in important timber-producing areas
of east Texas. This snake, currently proposed for listing
as threatened, has not been seen in Texas since 2012. We
supported research to determine if any additional snakes
could be found in the state. We are working closely with
the state wildlife agency as well as the forestry industry
to develop ways to manage habitat in the snake's historical
range while still continuing timber activities.
Our job here is not to be scientists. Rather our job is to
understand the ESA and the science required for it, as well as the
species themselves, and to communicate effectively with researchers so
we can make sure their work is useful to FWS in its decisions. Even so,
the staff members managing our endangered species work do have
scientific and legal backgrounds related to species conservation. Dr.
Robert Gulley, director of our Economic Growth and Endangered Species
Management Division, has a doctorate in anatomy with over a decade of
work in biomedical research as well as more than a quarter-century of
experience as an environmental attorney, including serving 7 years
working on ESA cases as senior trial attorney at the U.S. Department of
Justice. In addition, his staff members have scientific and
conservation backgrounds.
economic considerations must be a part of the discussion
I believe that you cannot make fully informed decisions regarding
species without considering the economies of the regions where they
live. There is a link between environmental protection and economic
success. For example, communities and businesses often rely on the same
resources for economic growth, such as clean water, that the species
needs to remain viable. As the ESA is written, however, there is very
little space for economic considerations. This omission is remarkable
in light of the potential impacts on our Nation's resources.
In many voluntary conservation programs, stakeholders include
economic considerations to create successful programs. In the case of
the Edwards Aquifer program, for instance, a key portion of the program
involved compensating farmers in the western range of the aquifer for
restricting water use in times of drought, thus making more water
available for the species. For the dunes sagebrush lizard, industry
participation resulted in a plan that minimized oil and gas drilling
and infrastructure in the lizard's habitat, while allowing for some
continued activity for an industry that is vital to our state economy
and state tax revenues.
To create similar successful outcomes under the ESA, as the
Services review species for listing, they must be able to take into
account economic factors, especially when analyzing the scope and scale
of potential threats to a species. To adequately consider these
threats, the Services should incorporate economic data on the future
development of industries that may be affecting the species, and take
into account any potential changes to industrial technology that may
decrease the impact on the species. Services staff often do not have
significant expertise in these economic areas. Engaging stakeholders is
one of the best ways to gather this important economic data to make
more informed decisions.
The consideration of economic impact in critical habitat
designations is an example of how the ESA can effectively take into
account economic impacts. An area can be excluded from critical habitat
designation if it is deemed the benefits of exclusion outweighs the
benefits of designating the area. Economic impacts is a part of the
basis for this decision. This consideration of economic impacts should
be included in listing decisions, especially in cases of threatened
designations where the ESA already provides the ability to craft
flexible approaches to provide a benefit to the species.
bills will encourage conservation
The bills before you today incorporate many of these concepts I've
discussed--state coordination, transparency, usage of more complete
data, an open process, reduced regulatory burdens, and consideration of
economic impacts. I believe they are very important bills and an
important step toward more effective species conservation.
The Listing Reform Act by Representative Olson (H.R. 717) provides
time for science-based decisions and acknowledges the importance of
economic considerations. Giving the Services flexibility in reviewing
petitioned species rather than requiring adherence to a strict and
arbitrary deadline allows them to make better use of limited resources
and work first on species truly in need. This flexibility also gives
the Services additional time to receive more complete data from the
states and other parties to give them a more complete view of the
status of the species. And allowing for consideration of significant,
cumulative economic effects that could result from a threatened listing
decision or designation of critical habitat provides opportunities to
further engage with industry and other stakeholders in developing
effective conservation programs for species in important economic
areas.
Representative Gohmert's SAVES Act (H.R. 2603), de-listing non-
native species, takes into account stakeholder input and economic
considerations to provide additional opportunities for species
conservation, reduces the Federal regulatory burden on those working to
conserve species, and allow for continued economic activities in our
local communities.
Representative Newhouse's bill, the State, Tribal and Local Species
Transparency and Recovery Act (H.R. 1274), directing the Services to
incorporate state, local and tribal data in its decisions is key to
opening up the process and ensuring more complete data. The Gray Wolf
State Management Act of 2017 by Representative Peterson (H.R. 424) is
another bill emphasizing the importance of state involvement in
managing species within their borders.
Finally, while Texas handles a large amount of litigation, our
office isn't heavily involved in this process. Even so, we support
efforts such as the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act
(H.R. 3131) by Representative Huizenga to bring more equity into the
litigation process. The proposed changes should minimize litigation by
ensuring attorney's fees are only awarded to those parties who prevail
in the litigation.
in closing
These bills and my comments today address several significant
changes that can be made to improve the ESA's effectiveness, but it
should only be part of a larger effort to modernize a statute that has
received too little congressional reform over the years. Many groups
across the country, including the Western Governors' Association, have
developed proposals to encourage proactive, voluntary science-based
species conservation and ESA implementation. In general, these
recommendations align with our thoughts on how to improve the ESA. I
encourage you to review their recommendations and incorporate them in
future legislation as you continue your work on this very important
issue.
My office will remain engaged in working with stakeholders and
continue funding research on species to develop collaborative,
transparent solutions. We are available as a resource to you and your
staff as you continue your work. I look forward to working with you as
you move forward in making the ESA a more workable and effective tool
for species conservation, while still allowing economic opportunity for
our communities and citizens.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of
Public Accounts, State of Texas
Questions Submitted by Rep. Bishop
Question 1. As Texas has demonstrated, states are well positioned
to effectively keep species stable and off the endangered and
threatened list. However, the Federal Government has often kept states
away from the table in species designation process.
1a. How does the Texas program identify which species to preserve?
Answer. The Economic Growth and Endangered Species Management
Division (EGESM) of my office is responsible for our species research
program. The focus of this program to date has been on those species
currently under review for potential listing by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (the Service). Division subject matter experts review
scientific literature, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service information
including that on the Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS),
existing listing petitions and other listing documents, and similar
documentation to understand the data available on each species, the
extent of data gaps, threats to the species, and potential
effectiveness of conservation measures to ameliorate those threats.
EGESM also considers the economic impact of a possible listing. In
establishing our priorities for funding species research, EGESM
consults with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, other state
agencies, the Service, independent university experts, both in and
outside of Texas, and stakeholders.
In identifying species, EGESM staff assess the potential impacts of
a listing. The factors considered in this review include, but are not
limited to, the overlap of species habitat with areas of economic
activity, identification of industry sectors affected by a potential
listing, consultation with industry and related stakeholder working
groups, the scope of natural resources potentially affected by a
listing, and the ability of conservation measures to reasonably
ameliorate the threats.
Through this analysis, the program is able to identify those
species that if listed, could have a significant economic effect on
Texas citizens, business and communities. These ``game-changer''
species with a large potential economic effect are priorities to
develop additional research and science based conservation programs to
preserve the species.
1b. Do you believe that programs like that of Texas in other states
would help keep species healthy and off the list?
Answer. I do believe that programs like in Texas can be successful
in keeping species healthy and off the Federal list of endangered
species. The Texas Conservation Plan (TCP) is an exemplary model of
such a successful program. There, the listing of the species was
avoided through an agreement by the oil and gas industry operating in
the energy-rich Permian Basin, in coordination with the Comptroller's
office (CPA), to implement voluntary conservation measures under a
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA). CPA holds the
permit for the CCAA and oversees the implementation of the TCP. A
similar CCAA was established in New Mexico with the oil and gas
industry in that state. The TCP played a large role in the Service's
decision not to list the dunes sagebrush lizard.
CPA is currently developing similar programs to either avoid
listing or minimize the economic impacts of any species listings with
respect to four Central Texas mussel species and the spot-tailed
earless lizard, found in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford shale and
agricultural areas in the state. These programs center on funding
strong science to fill extensive gaps in the scientific knowledge
regarding these species. CPA is engaging diverse stakeholder
communities in open, transparent, collaborative processes to evaluate
the scientific data and to see if buy-in is possible for any voluntary
conservation programs that may be needed to avoid listing or minimize
the impact of any listing that is appropriate.
As described in my testimony, as a State Senator, I was very
involved in the creation and oversight of a program that utilized this
open, transparent approach to resolve a 50-year old contentious dispute
over the use of the Edwards Aquifer while protecting the listed species
that depend on the water from that aquifer.
I am confident that similar programs, in conjunction with research
funding and the reforms considered by your Committee, can be successful
in balancing the needs of the species with the need for a vibrant
economy in Texas and elsewhere. Also, in appropriate instances,
avoiding the need to list species as Texas and New Mexico were able to
do with respect to the dunes sagebrush lizard.
Question 2. Mr. Olson's Listing Reform Act allows for threatened
species designations to be precluded due to economic factors, and
allows for reconsideration of precluded threatened species listings
only if the Secretary determines there is a danger of species
extinction, or if the Service receives a new petition that includes
alternative actions that can be taken to avoid the economic impacts of
listing.
2a. Should economic factors be considered in threatened species
designations, and if so, why?
Answer. First, I believe that as a general rule, listing decisions
should be based solely on the science. However, economic factors should
be considered and, in limited circumstances, where the economic
consequences of listing outweigh the benefits of listing, reflected in
the listing decision. Mr. Olson's bill sets out a reasonable approach
to economic considerations in the listing process. It recognizes that,
unlike an ``endangered'' determination which requires a finding that
the species is in actual danger of extinction, a determination that a
species is threatened requires a finding only that the species may
become endangered in the future. Under such circumstances, a reasonable
inquiry into the economic impacts of listing is appropriate. If the
economic benefits of listing outweigh the benefits of listing, Mr.
Olson's bill does not over-ride the determination that listing is
warranted. Instead, it simply precludes listing until such time that
the species is endangered or a petition is filed mitigating the
economic impacts.
Beyond the reasonableness of the approach, I support Mr. Olson's
bill because, although the status of threatened species is less
imperiled than that of an endangered designation, the economic
consequences of both determinations may be the same. Under current
Service regulations, absent promulgation of a 4(d) rule, threatened
species are subject to the same requirements as endangered species with
respect to Sections 7 and 9 of the Act.
2b. From your perspective, would the ability to preclude threatened
species listings due to economic factors facilitate higher-quality
listing decisions that benefit both species and our Nation?
Answer. The ability to preclude threatened species listing due to
economic factors can allow for a more reasonable balance between
species protection and economic growth. Precluding species can also
provide additional flexibility in developing conservation programs for
species of concern through a non-regulatory and voluntary environment.
Candidly, I am somewhat concerned, however, that because the scientific
boundaries between threatened and endangered are obscure, the Service
may decide to avoid the requisite economic considerations by finding a
species to be endangered.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Pearce
Question 1. How does the science produced by your universities and
other state agencies compare to the science that the Fish and Wildlife
Service would otherwise be forced to rely on?
Answer. The Service often relies only on existing research--some
current, some not. In many instances, the research was not designed to
answer the specific questions of the listing process. The funding
administered by CPA provides science that is more current and complete
than what the Service might otherwise have available to use in make
listing decisions.
Our research is focused on filling the gaps in understanding of
species and provide data specifically designed to inform the Species
Status Assessment and listing process. CPA, in designing and funding
the science, consults with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
other state agencies, independent university experts, the Service, and
stakeholders. Independent technical advisory panels are used during the
course of the research to ensure that sound approaches and methods are
being employed. Independent peer review of the science is commonly used
to ensure the validity of the research.
Question 2. You mentioned in your testimony that you are
administering $3.6 million to support research ``12 different
freshwater mussel species.'' You also claim the research is on their
``distribution and genetics, and on appropriate conservation tools.''
Is one of those species the Texas Hornshell mussel
(Popenaias popeii)?
Can you forward any science you have on this species to my
office?
Answer. The Texas hornshell is one of the species funded by CPA.
Scientific information from my office has been forwarded to the office
of Representative Pearce. This information includes a final report on
research by Texas A&M University on the Texas hornshell and other
mussels in west and central Texas, and a final report on research by
Texas State University on the Texas hornshell and other aquatic species
in the Delaware River in Texas.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that. We will now
turn to Mr. Sheehan for your 5 minutes. Welcome to the
Committee, welcome back to Washington, welcome to the
bureaucracy.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREG SHEEHAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Bishop,
Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee. My name
is Greg Sheehan, and I am the Acting Director of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today on five bills to amend the Endangered Species
Act.
As I said, I am a new appointee of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, but I have been engaged in the ESA issues for many
years. I have spent the past 25 years with the state of Utah in
natural resource and wildlife management, with most of the last
5 years of my career as the Director for the Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources.
I partnered with the Fish and Wildlife Service through my
participation on the Joint Federal-State Task Force on
Endangered Species Act Policy. Additionally, I served as
Chairman of the Threatened and Endangered Species Policy
Committee for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
As the Director of our state wildlife agency, I was
involved in actions with many species, including desert
tortoise, California condor, sage-grouse, gray wolves, and Utah
prairie dogs, among others.
The ESA is one of our Nation's most important wildlife
conservation laws. Its purpose is to conserve threatened and
endangered species and their ecosystems. The law directs the
Service to use the best-available science, scientific and
commercial information, to determine whether a species needs to
be listed to identify and address the threats to the species,
and to facilitate the recovery of the species.
I find it helpful to think of the ESA as a hospital, where
critically ill patients are admitted in anticipation of
recovery. In this hospital, there has been success in keeping
the ESA patients from dying, but not so much on getting them
discharged in healthy condition. Therefore, we need to step up
our efforts to quickly diagnose the problems, define recovery
actions, and get those patients back out into society.
In the case of these ESA patients, that means getting them
back under state management authority. While there are those
who believe otherwise, the ESA, the hospital was never intended
to keep all patients indefinitely. Just as is the case with any
hospital, there are limited resources to manage the patients,
and we need to focus those resources on those that are in the
greatest need, not those who are recovered and simply waiting
to be released.
Success of the ESA will ultimately be defined by the number
of patients leaving the hospital, not the number going in.
While the ESA has had success since its passage 43 years
ago, there have been challenges, as well. My goal, as Acting
Director of the Service, is for the organization to be a better
neighbor and partner to the public and states.
It is essential that we forge collaborative partnerships
with landowners, states, tribes, territories, local
governments, and industry. The resources brought to the table
by these partners is fundamental for achieving the conservation
objectives of the ESA. It is time that we recognize those
efforts and rebuild the collaborative spirit of conservation
that has restored most all fish and wildlife species in America
during the past 120 years.
Additionally, we must ensure balanced conservation
stewardship, while engaging our committed industry partners,
including power, water, energy, timber, farmers, and others, to
ensure that ESA regulatory requirements do not overtake our
ability to be strong and grow as a nation.
There are three tools in our toolbox to achieve these
goals.
First is our ability to seek out and retain top-notch
people on the ground who have the inter-personal skills and
ability to work with landowners, industry representatives,
local governments, tribes, and state agencies. There are many
on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service team that have those
skill sets, and who can succeed at this heavy lift.
Second, we need effective agency policy. This policy is
fundamental in creating a defensible rule book that all can
use, as we aspire to achieve the goals of species and ecosystem
conservation, as well as societal growth and its associated
demands on natural resources.
The third tool available is the set of legislative
authorities created by Congress. The laws you craft identify
the sideboards that we must operate within to successfully
implement the ESA and, hence, work toward the conservation of
fish, wildlife, and plant species in America.
The bills before the Committee today seek to improve the
implementation of the ESA and, in general, the Administration
supports them. My written testimony contains comments on each
of the bills. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with
the Committee and bill sponsors to discuss technical
modifications as the bills work through the legislative
process.
We are committed to making ESA work for the American people
to accomplish its purpose of species conservation. I am happy
to answer any questions you have, and thank the Committee for
this opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheehan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory Sheehan, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on H.R. 424, H.R. 717, H.R. 1274, H.R. 2603 and H.R.
3131
introduction
Good morning Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members
of the Committee. I am Greg Sheehan, Acting Director for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service). I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today on five bills to amend the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (ESA). I have spent most of the last 5 years of my career as the
Director for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, where I was very
involved in the implementation of the ESA from the state perspective. I
dealt with individual species issues in Utah and was involved in
broader policy discussions through the Western Governors' Association
and my participation on the Joint Federal/State Task Force on
Endangered Species Act Policy. I was also Chair of the Threatened and
Endangered Species Policy Committee for the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). I am hopeful that those experiences will give
me a solid framework from which to serve in my new role as Acting
Director of the Service.
Each of the bills--H.R. 424, H.R. 717, H.R. 1274, H.R. 2603, and
H.R. 3131--is focused on improving implementation of the ESA to reduce
or eliminate certain burdens on the public and to help achieve the
ESA's statutory purpose to conserve threatened and endangered species
and their ecosystems. In general, the Administration supports these
bills and the Service welcomes the opportunity to work with the
Committee to address some recommended technical modifications.
The Administration is committed to making the ESA work for the
American people. While the ESA has had some success since its passage
over 40 years ago, challenges still remain. Implementation of the law
regularly generates controversy among private landowners, regulated
industries, and environmental advocates alike. In particular, in
Western states, the law and certain species have become lightning rods
for intense disagreement. My goal as the Acting Director of the Service
is for the organization to be a better neighbor and partner to the
public and the states. The Federal role under the ESA in preventing
extinctions and facilitating recovery is critical; but states and the
people on the ground who have long been stewards of the land are in the
best position to be the primary caretakers of species over the long
term.
I look forward to discussing these issues and working with the
Committee to address them in these and other legislative efforts.
background
The ESA is one of our Nation's most important wildlife conservation
laws. It is implemented jointly by the Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS, together, ``the Services''). The law's stated
purpose is to provide a program and means for the conservation of
threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. When a species is designated as threatened or endangered--or
``listed'' under the ESA--it is in urgent need of help. The law directs
the Services to use the best available scientific and commercial
information to determine whether a species needs to be listed, to
identify and address the threats to the species, and to facilitate the
recovery of the species.
Successes under the ESA almost always involve partnerships between
the Service and others--states, tribes, territories, local governments,
private landowners, and other Federal agencies. Partnership efforts
guided by the Service have led to several recent decisions to de-list
species due to recovery. These include the Yellowstone population of
grizzly bear, Louisiana black bear, Oregon chub, Delmarva fox squirrel,
Virginia northern flying squirrel, Modoc sucker, island night lizard,
and brown pelican. Conservation partnerships have also prevented the
need to list a number of species that were once in trouble, including
the New England cottontail, dunes sagebrush lizard, and arctic grayling
in Montana.
Despite these successes, there are also challenges and frustrations
with implementing the Endangered Species Act. I find it helpful to
think of the ESA as a hospital, where critically ill patients are
admitted in hopes of recovery. We have done a pretty good job of
keeping those patients from dying, but not so well on getting them
discharged in healthy condition. Therefore, we need to step up our
efforts to quickly diagnose the problems, define recovery actions, and
get those patients back out into society. The ESA hospital was never
intended to keep all patients indefinitely. I want the Service and our
partners to be more successful in recovering listed species so that the
ESA is not needed for their protection.
Making the Service more successful in achieving species recovery is
a multi-faceted endeavor:
1. A collaborative partnership with states, tribes, territories,
local governments, and landowners is essential for
achieving the conservation objectives of the ESA. The
Service has made some important investments in this area,
including through our development of policy and tools for
voluntary conservation agreements, the establishment and
support of a Joint Federal/State Task Force on Endangered
Species Act Policy and our support and active participation
in the Species Conservation and the Endangered Species Act
Initiative of the Western Governor's Association. We will
build on those efforts to ensure we have a strong
foundation of trust and partnership as we continue to seek
to improve implementation of the ESA.
2. Our ability to succeed in conservation efforts is also dependent
on our people on the ground, who need to have the skills
and ability to work with landowners and agencies on
solutions that serve the needs of both the species and the
landowners. Our Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and
Joint Ventures programs have been great models for that
approach, and I would like to see those kinds of
relationships with landowners and local communities
reflected more broadly throughout the Service, including in
our endangered species recovery work. The Service has made
progress in recent years, but there is still more work to
do.
3. Being more successful in species recovery also requires effective
and creative agency policy. I fully support the recent
direction from Congress through the appropriations process
to focus more intently upon the mandatory duties associated
with recovery of listed species--timely development of
recovery plans, reviews every 5 years of the status of
listed species, and timely rulemaking to down-list or de-
list species that are recovering. There are many competing
demands for our limited time and energy, and we must have
clear agency policy that establishes our priorities and
encourages conservation partnerships.
4. Our legislative authorities are clearly the backbone for
successful implementation of the ESA and recovery of listed
species. The bills under consideration by this Committee
are all focused on helping improve implementation of the
Act, and we look forward to working with the Committee on
these measures as they move through the legislative
process.
To that end, we offer the following comments on the individual
bills under consideration today:
H.R. 424--Gray Wolf State Management Act
H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf State Management Act, would require the
Service to reissue the 2011 Western Great Lakes population de-listing
rule and the 2012 Wyoming population de-listing rule. It would also
insulate both rules against judicial review. Each of these de-listing
rules was based on the best available science, was consistent with the
requirements of the ESA, and reflected extensive work with the relevant
states and a deliberative and lengthy public comment process. The
legislation would not legislatively de-list these wolf populations,
rather it would reinstate science-based rules that went through the
public rulemaking process.
Earlier this year, the Federal Government prevailed in litigation
challenging the 2012 Wyoming de-listing rule, and has accordingly de-
listed that population and transitioned management to the state. This
legislation would not, in the Service's view, affect our recent rule
that reaffirmed the de-listing of the Wyoming population.
The Service determined that the Western Great Lakes gray wolf
population has exceeded recovery goals and is biologically recovered.
Our de-listing rule was challenged and vacated, and that decision is
currently under appeal.
H.R. 717--Listing Reform Act
H.R. 717, the Listing Reform Act, would allow the Service to
prioritize petitions other than by the order received, except that
listing petitions would not be prioritized over de-listing petitions.
The legislation would also remove the 90-day and 12-month finding
deadlines for petitions. Finally, it would add an option for warranted
but precluded findings for petitions to list species as threatened if
the listing or critical habitat designation would result in significant
cumulative economic impacts.
The provision allowing the Service to prioritize petitions based on
need would give the Service more flexibility to implement the ESA. We
believe that removing the deadlines for reviewing petitions would give
the Service even more flexibility and reduce the potential for future
litigation.
The Service would, however, like to work with the Committee
regarding the bill's proposed warranted but precluded determination on
petitions for threatened listings to better understand how economic
impacts should be appropriately considered.
H.R. 1274--State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery
Act
H.R. 1274, the State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and
Recovery Act, would require all data used to make a listing
determination to be made available to affected states prior to making a
listing determination. It would also modify the term ``best scientific
and commercial data available'' to include all data submitted by
states, tribes, and local governments.
The Service has worked to address concerns regarding transparency
of the data used to make listing determinations, but recognizes that
complications remain. The Service would recommend modifying this
legislation to require the Service to consider all data submitted by
states, tribes, and local governments, rather than automatically
deeming that data to be the ``best scientific and commercial data
available'' as currently required in the bill. Defining that term to
automatically include data submitted by states, tribes, and counties,
without regard to its quality, would be a significant departure from
scientific integrity standards.
H.R. 2603--Saving America's Endangered Species (SAVES) Act
H.R. 2603, the Saving America's Endangered Species (SAVES) Act, is
bipartisan legislation that would prevent non-native species that are
found in the United States from being treated as federally threatened
or endangered. We understand the primary intent of this legislation is
to reduce duplication in the regulation of non-native species in the
United States. The Service notes that the ESA and the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) serve different purposes and species, and would welcome the
opportunity to discuss this further. We also understand that a
secondary goal of the legislation is to reduce regulation of the
interstate movement of non-native species in the United States. The
Service currently authorizes activities with non-native captive-bred
wildlife that benefit the conservation of listed species. Based on our
initial analysis, we note that bill as introduced could create
enforcement challenges related to wildlife trafficking. We welcome the
opportunity to work with the sponsor and Committee to examine these
efforts.
H.R. 3131--Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act
H.R. 3131, the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act,
would subject awards to prevailing parties in ESA citizen suits to
judicial code standards. This legislation would in effect limit
attorney's fees for successful citizen plaintiffs in ESA cases against
the Federal Government. The time and cost of litigation is one of the
significant challenges we face in implementing the ESA. As currently
drafted, it is unclear whether the legislation would require that all
prevailing fee awards be paid through annual appropriations, rather
than having the option to pay through the Judgment Fund as is current
law. The Service would welcome the opportunity to work with the
Committee to clarify this aspect of the legislation.
conclusion
The Service supports the goals of these bills and welcomes the
opportunity to work with the Committee to address some technical
modifications. The Service is committed to making the ESA work for the
American people to accomplish its purpose of conserving threatened and
endangered species and protecting the ecosystems upon which they
depend. While the ESA has had some success since its passage over 40
years ago, there are greater opportunities ahead. I look forward to
discussing these issues and working with you to address them in these
and other legislative efforts.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Greg Sheehan, Acting Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Questions Submitted by Rep. Bishop
Question 1. Well-funded environmental groups that engage in
litigation against the Department have the resources, including
taxpayer-funded grant money, to litigate unnecessary matters as a means
to increase their attorney's fees awards and to boost fundraising
efforts. Would there be more resources, particularly in terms of staff
time and focus, for species conservation efforts if there was a
decrease in the amount of unnecessary litigation against the
Department?
Answer. When the Service dedicates its time and budget to defending
prior court decisions, it redirects resources away from our
conservation mission, which detracts from the Service's ability to
prioritize and align our work with the most important conservation
priorities as we see them.
Question 2. The Listing Reform Act allows for threatened species
designations to be precluded due to economic factors, and allows for
reconsideration of precluded threatened species listings only if the
Secretary determines that there is a danger of species extinction, or
if the Service receives a new petition that includes alternative
actions that can be taken to avoid the economic impacts of listing.
From your perspective, would the ability to preclude threatened species
listings due to economic factors facilitate more comprehensive listing
decisions that benefit both species and our Nation?
Answer. The ESA currently directs the Service to make listing
decisions based solely upon the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the status of the species and the
threats that it faces, after considering protective efforts. An
economic analysis done during the listing determination process would
provide a comprehensive assessment of the economic impacts resulting
from a potential listing. Should Congress decide to amend the ESA to
include economic considerations as part of listing criteria, it would
create a more comprehensive review that the Service would then assess
and evaluate petitions accordingly. At this time, without further
clarification and definition, it would be difficult for the Service to
implement the bill as it is currently written.
Question 3. State-generated data and management expertise are
utilized by states in species management efforts before listing and
after de-listing. Such state-generated information is a valuable
resource for the Federal Government, and use of it could alleviate some
pressure upon agency resources and allow for more thorough and improved
species decision-making processes. Yet, these resources have not been
consistently utilized in the past. Furthermore, the data that the
Federal Government does use in species decisions is not shared with the
states, nor is it transparent. The State, Tribal, and Local Species
Transparency Act would require greater transparency and consideration
of state-generated data. How can the consideration of state, tribal,
and local data assist the Federal Government in its decision making?
Answer. The Service agrees that state-generated information is a
valuable resource. Often, the states are among the best sources of such
information, particularly with respect to game and other actively
managed species. In many cases, state partners are the only entities
with information on certain species. State partners are often
monitoring a wider spectrum of species than the Service and often are
our first source of information about a species.
The Service recently modified our petition regulations to ensure
that states are formally notified of petitions in a timely manner and
their data available to the Service to place petitions in proper
context as the Service develops our 90-day finding. If we proceed to a
status review (which could lead to a listing proposal), the Service
actively solicits all available information, including state, tribal,
and local data formally through Federal Register notices, as well as
informally through regular interactions with states, tribes, and other
contacts. If a listing proposal is made, public comment and additional
data are solicited at that time as well. Additionally, grants through
the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund are provided to
states, and the resulting information from those grants assists in our
decision making. Such information is often essential in determining if
a species warrants listing or has recovered to the point of de-listing
or down-listing.
Question 4. The program in Texas, and similar efforts in other
states, have generated high-quality data and successfully kept species
off of the list. Such information is valuable for Federal decision
making and could demonstrate how best to manage species in specific
areas.
4a. How will the Federal Government support state efforts to
contribute such data at the Federal level?
Answer. As noted above, we formally and informally solicit
information from state partners during our assessment process. As the
management authority for most non-federally listed species, the states
are often the primary source of information on these species. We
recognize that better scientific information leads to better decision
making under the ESA and appreciate the significant contributions made
by states to improve the quality of data on the species that are under
consideration for ESA decisions. Our work to make all petitions
publicly available upon receipt, to develop multi-year listing work
plans, and to strategically prioritize our petition work so that
species for which additional information could affect the petition
finding are put later in the queue, are all designed to support state
efforts to contribute data to inform our work at the Federal level.
4b. How will the Department support state efforts to preserve
species and keep them off of the list?
Answer. The Department and the Service believe in the strength,
effectiveness, and value of collaborative conservation efforts prior to
a species considered for listing under the ESA. This collaborative
conservation with partners may provide species with a better chance of
thriving than regulatory actions and protections. Bringing local
government, landowners, and others back to the conservation table can
be difficult after a listing action. With that in mind, keeping the
species from being listed through collaborative conservation efforts is
a model that works. The Service will continue to be proactive in these
types of efforts.
For example, collaboration between the Service and the Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on an at-risk species
initiative (SEARS) resulted in petitioners withdrawing 45 species when
presented with the data compiled by the partnership. This initiative
has helped spur similar efforts across the country, including one led
by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Regions 2
and 6 of the Service for 12 states across the West.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Bordallo
Question 1. On July 18, 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) released its final biological opinion (0lEPIF00-2015-F-0025 &
0lEPIF00-2016-F-0185) regarding potential adverse impacts on the 11
ESA-listed species from the proposed relocation of U.S. Marine Corps
(USMC) personnel from Okinawa, Japan to Guam. Will the Service recommit
to providing all additional technical assistance/guidance needed for
the U.S. Department of the Navy (DON) to fully implement the
conservation measures specified in the final biological opinion?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued the
July 18, 2017, final biological opinion regarding the proposed
relocation of U.S. Marine Corps personnel from Japan to Guam after
consultation with the Department of the Navy. The Service is committed
to working with the Navy to provide the technical assistance and input
necessary to ensure successful implementation of the biological opinion
and conservation of Guam's imperiled species.
Question 2. Given the importance of the USMC relocation (proposed
action) for national security, what steps is the Service taking or
planning to make additional agency personnel/resources available to DON
to support conservation measure implementation?
Answer. The Service participates in regular meetings with
Department of Defense (DOD) officials to discuss priorities and needs
and to ensure our agencies are aligned and deploying resources
accordingly. The Service recognizes the collaboration and technical
assistance needs of the DOD in the Pacific and strives to meet those
needs within allocated funding and staffing levels.
Question 3. Is the Service confident that current regional agency
resources/personnel are sufficient to meet the Service's obligations to
support the DON's implementation of the conservation measures
identified in the final biological opinion?
Answer. Yes. The Service is confident that given current allocated
funding and staffing levels, we will be able to support the Department
of the Navy's implementation of the conservation measures identified
within the final biological opinion.
Question 4. To the maximum extent practicable, will the Service
commit to meet all the deadlines and time frames specified by the final
biological opinion, including providing agency responses to DON in a
timely manner?
Answer. The Service is committed to working with DON to meet time
frames identified within the biological opinion, given current
allocated funding and staffing levels. Coordination throughout the
consultation process has resulted in improved communication and
technical assistance between our agencies, and we expect that will
continue.
Question 5. What is the Service doing to address concerns about
inadequate public access to the Guam National Wildlife Refuge,
particularly the Ritidian Unit?
Answer. The Ritidian Unit of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge is
currently open to the public from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 7 days a
week, and currently receives about 90,000 visitors a year, hosting 200-
300 visitors on the weekends. The Refuge is subject to closure on all
major Federal holidays or during bad weather, high-surf advisories or
other hazardous conditions in the interests of public safety. The
Service would welcome the opportunity to work with you and your office
to address any concerns regarding public visitation access to the
Ritidian Unit.
Question 6. Is the Service considering, planning, or willing to
examine formal mechanisms for local consultation/input regarding access
at the Refuge, including right-of-ways to privately owned land adjacent
to the Ritidian Unit?
Answer. The Ritidian Unit of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge lies
within the designated Surface Danger Zone for the Marine Corps Live
Fire Training Range. The Refuge road and unimproved right-of-way is
currently used by adjacent landowners. In the future, access to this
site will be controlled by the Navy, consistent with public safety
concerns and the direction provided by Congress in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. We continue to support an
alternate access route that would run outside of the Refuge and Surface
Danger Zone. The U.S. Government will continue to work with neighboring
landowners on access issues, while taking into account public safety
concerns.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Pearce
Question 1. You mention in your testimony the necessity for Fish
and Wildlife Service staff on the ground to work with local landowners.
We have a situation in my district regarding the New Mexico Meadow
Jumping Mouse and a rancher. To date, the Fish and Wildlife has been
unwilling to work toward a solution that works for everyone.
Would you commit to working with our office to attempt to find
common ground?
Answer. Yes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would be
happy to meet with your office and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to
work toward a solution that addresses your concerns and those of your
constituent while being consistent with the law. Service and USFS
representatives have met with livestock grazing permittees to discuss
best management practices for grazing activities that would conserve
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse and are committed to promoting
collaboration with the ranching community. If our past efforts have not
resulted in conservation actions that are suitable to the rancher and
the needs of the species, then we must re-evaluate those efforts. We
are committed to doing so.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
We will now turn to Mr. Corwin for your 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFF CORWIN, BIOLOGIST, HOST OF ABC'S OCEAN TREKS
WITH JEFF CORWIN
Mr. Corwin. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the House
Natural Resources Committee. My name is Jeff Corwin, and I come
to you today as a wildlife biologist, a television presenter,
an avid outdoorsman, and a father. And I am here to discuss
with you today the importance of the Endangered Species Act.
I have been fortunate over my career to have many profound
and thrilling encounters with some of our world's most
incredible creatures. I truly feel blessed to have my life
passion flourish into a rewarding career. And I believe this
opportunity could only have materialized in our great country.
A few years ago, I had the heart-pounding opportunity to
dive with giant, tractor-sized Steller sea lions off the coast
of Alaska to document the impact of the warming Prince William
Sound. If you ever want to feel truly insignificant, go
eyeball-to-eyeball with a pugnacious, 5,000-pound Steller sea
lion at 80 feet.
Alongside the heroes of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
I helped rescue a desperately ill California condor, a bird
that was on death's door from lead poisoning. Her blood test
revealed that she had enough toxins in her to kill 12 adult
men. Incredibly, she not only survived through herculean
rehabilitation efforts, but she was released back into the
wild.
Why all this effort for a single bird? Well, at one time
there were only less than 20 of these birds. Today, more than
400 survive out in the wild. And that is because every condor
matters, and that is because of the Endangered Species Act.
In 2008, while white-knuckled, gripping the seat of a low-
flying helicopter, I swooped across a vast, expanse of ice with
a team from the U.S. Geological Survey on a quest to capture a
mighty polar bear. Soon, we spotted a robust sow with two
galloping cubs in tow, as they moved across the expansive ice.
The wind was whipping at 40 miles an hour, and the temperature
was a face-numbing ^70 degrees Fahrenheit.
Despite the bitter cold, my heart was warmed from this
remarkable encounter, and I savored every second of this humble
moment, working with these scientists, as they collected
incredibly important data for genetics and health assessment
and, of course, attached an incredibly complex transmitter to
track this creature. Unfortunately, the results from that test
revealed that the cubs had ingested heavy metal toxins through
the milk from their mother: a powerful example of, no matter
how remote, wildlife remains vulnerable to the negligence of
human kind.
I have been fortunate to experience the magnificent wonders
of nature, and I can say unequivocally that there is no other
place on Earth that boasts the diversity of landscape and
creatures than what we have here in our country. We are truly
blessed with an extraordinary natural heritage, and we are
lucky to walk out each day and experience the natural splendor
that is uniquely ours.
I have seen firsthand the amazing efforts of the talented
men and women who are on the front lines of our agencies of
conservation, fighting to save endangered species. Recovering
endangered species from the brink of extinction and restoring
their habitat is one of our Nation's greatest success stories.
Think of the symbol of our country: the bald eagle. In the
1970s, only 400 pair remained. Today, more than 20,000 pair
survive. Every child in America today in the Lower 48 can
witness a wild bald eagle. Grizzly bears and gray wolves have
returned to the Western Plains. Black-footed ferrets, once
declared extinct, now thrive in the shortgrass prairie. All of
this because of the Endangered Species Act.
But today, I come to you as my most important reason to
testify, and that is my most important resource, and that is my
two daughters, Maya and Marina. The ultimate goal as a father
is to ensure that they have a healthy, robust ecosystem where
they can thrive and prosper. And I believe the Endangered
Species Act is critical in securing the natural legacy that we
all depend upon. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corwin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Corwin, Wildlife Biologist, Author, and
Television Host on H.R. 424, H.R. 717, H.R. 1274, H.R. 2603, and H.R.
3131
Good afternoon Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
members of the House Natural Resources Committee. My name is Jeff
Corwin and I am a wildlife biologist, explorer, television host, and
lifelong naturalist. I have hosted numerous wildlife TV series,
including the ABC TV series ``Ocean Treks with Jeff Corwin.'' I also
authored the books ``100 Heartbeats: The Race to Save Earth's Most
Endangered Species'' and ``Living on the Edge: Amazing Relationships in
the Natural World.'' Thank you for inviting me to appear before the
Committee today to deliver testimony on five bills related to Federal
wildlife conservation.
I've been fortunate over my career to have some amazing, intimate
encounters with some of our world's most threatened and endangered
species. I swam with Steller sea lions off the coast of Alaska. I
rescued a poisoned California condor and returned it to the wild. I
stood in Big Cypress National Preserve just 20 yards from a Florida
panther, tracking his movements on a radio transmitter, but still
unable to see this elusive big cat.
In 2008, from the passenger seat of a low-flying helicopter, I
swooped across a vast expanse of Arctic ice, searching for the mighty
polar bear. Soon we spotted a family of gleaming white bears galloping
at close to 20 miles an hour to escape what I'm sure momma bear thought
to be a giant flying threat to her and her cubs. I stepped out onto the
frozen tundra, into ^20 degree winds, the membranes of my eyes stinging
and my breath instantly forming icicles on my face mask. The adventurer
in me loved every second of this, even the pain and discomfort.
We tagged the bear and used the data to learn more about how this
magnificent creature was adapting to a swiftly shrinking ice sheet. The
scientists I was traveling with had committed decades of their careers
to their research, searching for ways to help these bears cope with an
uncertain future. I've been fortunate to experience the magnificent
wonders of nature, and I can say unequivocally that no other country in
the world boasts the diversity of landscape and wildlife that we have
here in America. We are truly blessed with an extraordinary natural
heritage. And, I've seen firsthand the amazing work of the women and
men who work for the Nation's wildlife conservation agencies. They
should enjoy our full confidence that the science they rely on to do
what's best for wildlife is respected and supported by us all.
Bringing back endangered species from the brink of extinction and
restoring their habitat is one of our Nation's greatest conservation
success stories. Bald eagles now fly across the skies of nearly every
state. Grizzly bears and gray wolves have returned to the Western
Plains. Black-footed ferrets, once declared extinct, now thrive in the
American prairie.
But I fear that if we are not strong and resolute in our commitment
to protecting endangered species and their habitat, we will quickly
lose all the momentum we've gained and leave a legacy of mass
extinction. I have spent time with hundreds of species, but I also have
experienced seeing what extinction is like firsthand. I've encountered
creatures that are no longer on this planet; they are gone forever. We
cannot just rely on past accomplishments--not when we've come so far
and still have so much further to go.
the sixth mass extinction
These stories are not anomalies, but rather firsthand evidence of a
disturbing phenomenon taking place on our planet. Scientists have
concluded that we are well into the sixth mass extinction that planet
Earth has experienced and that this one is largely caused by humans.\1\
The most recent update to the International Union for Conservation of
Nature's (IUCN's) Red List of threatened species found that the global
extinction crisis is much greater than we previously thought.\2\ Out of
over 700 new species of birds that were added to the list in 2016, 11
percent of them are threatened with extinction. Giraffes are now
threatened with extinction, with populations in southern and eastern
Africa declining by as much as 40 percent in the past three decades. An
article published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences described the problem of declining wildlife populations as
a ``biological annihilation.'' \3\ The crisis cannot be overstated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P., Barnosky, A., Garcia, A., Pringle,
R., Palmer, T., Accelerated modern human-induced species losses:
Entering the sixth mass extinction, June 19, 2015, http://
advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.
\2\ IUCN, New bird species and giraffe under threat--IUCN Red List,
Dec. 8, 2016, http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/new-bird-species-and-
giraffe-under-threat-iucn-red-list.
\3\ Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P., Dirzo, R., Biological annihilation
via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population
losses and declines, May 23, 2017, http://m.pnas.org/content/early/
2017/07/05/1704949114.full.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The loss of biological diversity is one of the most urgent global
environmental problems we face today. Species all over the globe
continue to face habitat loss, climate change, wildlife trafficking,
pollution, and other existential threats. If we fail to take the
necessary action to address human-caused threats to biodiversity, all
species--including us--will face severe consequences in the coming
decades and centuries. Sadly, we are on track to lose many beloved
species forever. As the father of two daughters who love nature as much
as I do, I am not ready to accept a future without vibrant, robust
natural resources.
the role of government in wildlife conservation
The Federal Government plays an important role in conserving
wildlife. In 2009, I testified before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies to advocate
for substantial, dedicated funding to help safeguard America's wildlife
and natural resources from the impacts of global warming. Here we are 8
years later. Despite some administrative progress in recent years, it
pains me to say that the government has not done enough to protect and
conserve our imperiled species during that time. Congress has failed to
adequately fund the Federal agencies charged with implementing
important wildlife conservation programs, while simultaneously aiming
to weaken our existing conservation laws. Wildlife conservation used to
be a priority in this country and the rest of the world looked to the
United States as a leader in this field. Now, wildlife conservation--
especially conservation work to benefit our most vulnerable species--is
discouraged at the highest levels of government. Instead of being a
pioneering leader in battling the global extinction crisis, we've not
only taken the back seat--we've hijacked the process and seem intent on
burning it to the ground. The five bills before the Committee today
reflect a dismal and complacent view that I believe our political
leaders have adopted toward wildlife conservation. It's as if they've
forgotten how rare it used to be to see wild turkeys across the
landscape or how special it was to spot a single bald eagle flying
along the coastline. It's only because of our focused conservation
efforts over the past several decades that dozens of species that were
once on the brink of extinction are now flourishing.
the endangered species act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a great example of a celebrated
American law that the rest of the world looks to as a model for
conserving wildlife. The ESA is our Nation's most effective law for
protecting wildlife in danger of extinction. It has prevented more than
99 percent of listed species from going extinct, including the American
bald eagle, the brown pelican, and the Florida manatee. We have a
responsibility to be good stewards of our environment and protect our
natural heritage for our children and grandchildren. The ESA transforms
this principle into practice by protecting endangered species and their
habitat so that future generations can experience animals in the wild,
including seeing an orca swim off the coast of Washington State,
spotting a bald eagle soaring in Maine, or hearing the cry of a wolf in
Yellowstone National Park.
When my daughter Maya was 3 years old, I had the pleasure of taking
her to participate in the historic release of 14 black-footed ferrets
into their grassland habitat. This is an animal that nearly went
extinct in the wild and was only brought back from the brink thanks to
extraordinary efforts under the ESA. Saving the black-footed ferret
from the fate of extinction was a herculean task that required science,
hard work and funding. The black-footed ferret is the ultimate
Lazarus--from 18 captive animals that I had the privilege of filming in
a zoo many years ago, it is now a recovering population that has helped
restore an important Great Plains ecosystem. We take success stories
and habitat restorations like this for granted rather than seeing them
for what they are--tangible examples of how our conservation efforts
under the ESA and other laws have paid off.
I have also seen how human-caused threats can harm individual
animals to the detriment of the species. In this case, the species in
question was the critically endangered California condor--a magnificent
bird with a wingspan of over 9\1/2\ feet. I joined biologists from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) near Big Sur to help rescue a
California condor in extreme distress. We brought the condor into the
Los Angeles zoo to conduct a lead test and found that it had high
levels of lead in its system. While this was just one individual animal
that was affected, that condor represented roughly \1/500\th of the
entire remaining population. The United States started the work to save
this species from the brink of extinction. We owe it to future
generations to continue that work for the condor and all species
threatened with extinction. Wildlife conservation is an ongoing
process. We cannot afford to be complacent and take for granted that
our country's magnificent natural heritage will be here for our
children without our continued, sustained commitment.
I'm concerned that instead of rising to meet the current challenges
we face, the bills that are the subject of today's hearing would
collectively turn the U.S. government's back on the hard work that is
required to save species for future generations. These five bills and
numerous other measures that have been introduced this Congress
demonstrate an unwillingness to do more to conserve imperiled species.
Instead, the bills seek to do less. Each of these bills would harm
threatened and endangered species and erode our most important tool to
save them from extinction--the ESA.
description of h.r. 424, h.r. 717, h.r. 1274, h.r. 2603 and h.r. 3131
H.R. 424 (``Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017'') would block
Federal Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the Great
Lakes states and Wyoming. Specifically, this bill--which would be more
aptly named the ``War on Wolves Act''--would overturn a Federal
District Court decision and remove existing Endangered Species Act
protections for gray wolves in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. It
would also codify a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that
stripped Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Wyoming.
Further, the bill would prohibit future judicial review of both
legislative wolf de-listings. In doing so, this legislation would not
only undermine the ESA's science-based decision-making process, but
also set a dangerous precedent for the rule of law and citizens' access
to the courts more broadly. This bill continues a damaging precedent of
allowing politicians to interfere with science-based listing decisions
and encourages other insidious legislative attacks on the ESA.
H.R. 717 (``Listing Reform Act'') puts a price on species
conservation by enabling the FWS to determine that a species that would
normally be listed as threatened would not receive protections if there
are negative economic impacts associated with the listing. It would
also completely gut the citizen petition process for listing species by
removing all the deadlines that have historically allowed citizens to
have their petitions ruled on in a timely fashion. The ESA was written
to ensure that listing decisions are based on the best available
science--not politics. Yet this bill would wrongly prioritize politics
over science in determining whether or not our Nation's most endangered
wildlife deserves protection.
H.R. 1274 (``State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and
Recovery Act'') would subvert the ESA's science-based listing process
by allowing any information provided by states, tribes, or counties to
constitute ``best available science.'' By automatically assuming such a
broad swath of information to be defined as such without any scientific
input or review, the bill would contradict the meaning of ``best
available science.'' Moreover, H.R. 1274 would direct the Federal
Government to utilize state and local data in its listing decisions,
regardless of whether the data is based in science. H.R. 1274 is not
only contradictory, but duplicative: under the ESA, the Federal
Government already works extensively with the states, considers state
and local data when making listing decisions, and notifies affected
states of proposed listing determinations.
H.R. 2603 (``Saving America's Endangered Species Act'') would strip
ESA protections for non-native species within the United States. It
would eliminate Federal protections for individual animals of listed
foreign species in the United States, including chimpanzees, tigers,
elephants, addax, several species of antelope, several species of
parrots, pangolins and giant pandas. The legislation would obstruct the
FWS's ability to regulate illegal wildlife trafficking or issue permits
for exhibitors of foreign endangered and threatened species. Despite
this bill's misleading name, eliminating permitting requirements for
foreign species under the ESA will not benefit American species--it
would only harm some of the most severely endangered species in the
world and contribute to the decline of foreign species on the brink of
extinction.
H.R. 3131 (``Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act'')
would undercut citizen engagement and enforcement of the ESA by
impeding citizens' ability to obtain counsel and challenge illegal
government actions. Under H.R. 3131, citizens who successfully
challenge illegal government actions under the ESA would be subject to
fee recovery restrictions that could make it difficult for them to
obtain counsel. In doing so, H.R. 3131 would make it more difficult for
citizens from across the political spectrum to engage in the
implementation of this fundamentally democratic law and to hold Federal
agencies accountable for complying with it.
conclusion
We cannot afford to lose focus on the importance of protecting
wildlife and habitat for ours and future generations. We have not
inherited our natural world from our parents; we are simply borrowing
it from our children. We have a moral responsibility to be good
stewards of our environment and ensure our children have something
worthwhile when we are gone. The future of our planet rests squarely in
our hands and the United States is in a particularly good position to
take action before it's too late. Thanks to our visionary conservation
laws like the Endangered Species Act, our native wildlife and their
habitat have fared better than those in most countries. We must remain
committed to the conservation values we hold dear and focus on positive
initiatives to keep our natural heritage intact for future generations.
We can and should lead the world in addressing the global extinction
crisis. Now is the chance for us to step up and not lose the momentum
of the last 50 years to protect nature's most endangered species from
extinction.
Although I recognize that I appear before you today as an expert
with a career that is based in nature, I am here because, like many of
you, I am a father. My job as a parent to my two amazing daughters is
to ensure they have a healthy future. I must feed them well, teach them
kindness and hope, encourage them to take risks, and show them how to
be kind to their fellow human beings. The preservation of our landscape
and the wildlife that inhabit it is a huge part of that. How we protect
our planet sets an example for our children. I want them to have a
future where wild animals roam free, special places remain undisturbed
and our natural heritage continues to be our greatest asset.
We must ensure that the laws designed to protect endangered and
threatened species--along with the resources needed to enforce them--
remain intact.
As a father, my job is to ensure my kids have a healthy future.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Jeff Corwin, Biologist and Host
of ABC's ``Ocean Treks with Jeff Corwin''
Questions Submitted by Rep. Bishop
Question 1. Please disclose the years in which you served on the
Board of Directors for the Defenders of Wildlife.
Answer. I was elected to serve on the Board of Directors for
Defenders of Wildlife in 2004 and served until 2016.
Question 2. Please describe the duties, obligations, and
responsibilities you assumed as a member of the Board of Directors of
Defenders of Wildlife. Please also describe in detail all duties,
responsibilities, or obligations that your current association with the
group entails.
Answer. The Defenders of Wildlife board of directors controls and
administers the affairs and funds of the organization. As a member of
the board, I had the following general responsibilities:
All board members are expected at all times to vote and
act with Defenders' best interests in mind.
The board is responsible for ensuring that Defenders meets
legal requirements and that it is operating in accordance
with its mission and for the purpose for which it was
granted tax-exemption.
The board is responsible for ensuring the proper and
effective operation of Defenders of Wildlife.
In accordance with their individual capabilities, all
board members are expected to assist in making sure that
Defenders is provided with the financial and other
resources it needs.
I served on the board's Communications & Publications
Committee (later renamed Marketing & Communications), which
advises the board on proposed marketing and communications
strategies, from 2006-2013. I also served on the Executive
Committee, which exercises the authority of the board
during intervals between meetings of the board, from 2010-
2011.
As I am no longer a board member of Defenders of Wildlife and
therefore have no formal association with the group, I have no duties,
responsibilities or obligations to Defenders of Wildlife.
Question 3. Please disclose all Endangered Species Act related
cases that Defenders of Wildlife filed, and/or was party to while you
served on its Board.
Answer. I did not sit on the Defenders of Wildlife board's
litigation committee, which is charged with reviewing and approving all
litigation conducted by the organization. Although the board was
generally briefed on legal developments, it has been more than a year
since I've left the board, and I do not recall the specific Endangered
Species Act-related cases that Defenders of Wildlife filed and/or was
party to while I served on its Board. I understand, however, that Ya-
Wei Li, Defenders' Vice President for Endangered Species Conservation,
recently provided a comprehensive list of such litigation to the
Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of this Committee.
Question 4. Please disclose the amount of attorney's fees paid to
the Defenders of Wildlife under the Equal Access to Justice Act, or the
Justice Fund, for each case filed, and/or for each case for which
Defenders of Wildlife was a party while you served on its Board.
Answer. As I noted, I was not a member of the board's litigation
committee. Although the board was generally briefed on legal
developments, I do not recall the details of attorney's fees paid to
Defenders of Wildlife.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Willms.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WILLMS, POLICY ADVISOR, WYOMING GOVERNOR
MATT MEAD
Mr. Willms. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva,
members of the Committee on Natural Resources, thank you for
the invitation to share Governor Mead's and Wyoming's
perspective on the Endangered Species Act.
The civic duty and moral responsibility to conserve our
Nation's wildlife and the ecosystems upon which they rely
transcends politics. Congress said as much when it nearly
unanimously passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Yet for
the past several decades, divisive partisan rhetoric has
politicized wildlife management. In the meantime, both wildlife
and people suffer.
To move forward, we must acknowledge that the Endangered
Species Act both succeeds and fails. We must celebrate its
successes, but recognize and seek to remedy its failures in a
way that allows the ESA to better serve wildlife and people.
This mind-set led Governor Mead to launch the Species
Conservation and Endangered Species Act initiative when he
became Chair of the Western Governors Association in the summer
of 2015. Using a transparent, inclusive, and bipartisan
process, Governor Mead brought a diverse group of thought
leaders together from around the country to discuss ways to
improve the Endangered Species Act and species conservation,
more generally.
After 2 years, Western Governors adopted a series of
recommendations that described specific funding, regulatory,
and statutory recommendations to further strengthen the
Endangered Species Act and enhance species conservation. These
recommendations identify and seek to address many of the issues
identified in the bills you are considering today.
Western Governors recommended additional funding in certain
areas. Governor Mead supports these recommendations, as well as
recommendations that deliver more direct funding to states for
species conservation. However, before making large
appropriations for Endangered Species Act implementation, it
makes sense to identify and rectify procedural inefficiencies
within the ESA that unnecessarily strain existing U.S. Fish and
Wildlife resources.
After correcting these inefficiencies, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and Congress will better understand where they
can redistribute existing funding, and where additional funding
may be appropriate.
For example, the deadlines in Section 4 of the ESA invites
uncontrolled procedural and legal gambits intentionally
designed to cripple the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to
implement the ESA. This, in turn, erodes support from many of
the stakeholders necessary for species conservation.
However, the deadlines are not sacrosanct. When Congress
adopted the ESA in 1973, it did not include deadlines. In 1982,
after complaints that the Fish and Wildlife Service
intentionally delayed listing decisions, Congress amended the
ESA, adding the current 90-day and 12-month deadlines. Rather
than being rooted in science, these deadlines were politically
motivated to spur the Administration into taking timely action
on potential species listings.
However, Congress could not anticipate the strategic
onslaught of species petitions and related litigation that
would strain the agency decades later. After 35 years, let us
admit that existing deadlines in Section 4 have outlived their
usefulness. In addition to the petitions and litigation
problems, the compressed deadlines discourage innovative and
voluntary conservation, and may limit Fish and Wildlife Service
access to valuable scientific data that could otherwise inform
listing determinations.
Through their June 2017 recommendations, Western Governors
identified two possible ways to address these issues, which are
attached and described in detail in my written testimony.
Wyoming supports both.
Our current system also makes recovering species and
removing ESA protections for them difficult. Currently, roughly
30 percent of all listed species have no recovery plan. On the
other extreme, species like grizzly bears and gray wolves in
Wyoming exceeded recovery plan objectives for more than 15
years before returning to state management, with the constant
threat of litigation looming. This needs to change to maintain
the integrity and support for the ESA from the varied
stakeholders upon which it depends.
States already play a significant role in species recovery.
As described in detail in my written testimony, willing states
should be allowed to lead recovery teams and develop recovery
plans for listed species. States have already contributed to
the recovery of some of the Nation's most iconic species.
For example, Wyoming spent more than $42 million recovering
grizzly bears, including research, public education, and
landowner incentives. They can do more. Further, to facilitate
successful state management upon de-listing, judicial review of
a de-listing rule should be delayed until the completion of the
statutory post de-listing monitoring period. This would not
jeopardize recently de-listed species.
Fish and Wildlife Service has never, to my knowledge,
relisted a species that it successfully de-listed due to
recovery. This underscores the seriousness with which the
states accept their responsibility to develop and implement
management plans that ensure recovered species into the
foreseeable future.
In conclusion, Governor Mead supports the Endangered
Species Act. The ESA is responsible for igniting some of the
most remarkable species recoveries ever documented, and
continues to facilitate the recovery of other imperiled
species. However, it is far from perfect. It can and should
work better, both for wildlife and for people. The
recommendations put forward by Western Governors through
Governor Mead's initiative are both reasonable and achievable
solutions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willms follows:]
Prepared Statement of David J. Willms, Policy Advisor to the Hon.
Matthew H. Mead, Governor of Wyoming
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to testify today. I have worked on endangered species issues
for my entire career, first as a Senior Assistant Attorney General for
the state of Wyoming, and then in private practice. Today, I am a
natural resources policy advisor for Wyoming Governor Matthew H. Mead,
and teach a graduate course on the Endangered Species Act at the
University of Wyoming. I appreciate the opportunity to share Governor
Mead's, and Wyoming's perspective on the Endangered Species Act.
The civic duty and moral responsibility to conserve our Nation's
wildlife and the ecosystems upon which they rely transcends politics.
Congress said as much when it nearly unanimously passed the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) in 1973. Yet for the past several decades, divisive
partisan rhetoric has politicized wildlife management. In the meantime,
both wildlife and people suffer. To move forward, we must acknowledge
that the ESA both succeeds and fails. We must celebrate its successes,
but recognize, and seek to remedy its failures in a way that allows the
ESA to better serve wildlife and people.
This mind-set led Governor Mead to launch the Species Conservation
and Endangered Species Act Initiative (Initiative) when he became the
chair of the Western Governors' Association (WGA) in the summer of
2015. Using a transparent, inclusive, and bipartisan process, Governor
Mead brought a diverse group of thought leaders together from around
the country to discuss ways to improve the ESA, and species
conservation more generally. Over 2 years, the Initiative hosted nine
facilitated work sessions, six webinars, multiple surveys and
questionnaires that produced two reports outlining opportunities to
strengthen the ESA. This work led to a resolution that Governors
unanimously adopted in June of 2016. The National Governor's
Association adopted a similar resolution in early 2017. Then last
month, Western Governors adopted a new series of recommendations that
describe specific statutory, regulatory, and funding recommendations to
further strengthen the ESA, and enhance species conservation.
Governor Mead hopes this Committee finds these bipartisan
recommendations helpful as you consider updating the ESA. You will find
that several of the challenges Western Governors identified with the
ESA's current implementation are consistent with the challenges
underlying many of the bills you are considering today. For
illustration, I would like to explain from Wyoming's perspective, how
the WGA recommendations address common criticisms of the ESA including,
(1) funding shortfalls, (2) reducing procedural litigation, and (3) a
more robust recovery planning process.
funding
Groups routinely argue that inadequate funding serves as an
impediment to successful ESA implementation. Some of these arguments
have merit. Western Governors recommended additional funding in certain
areas including: (1) to address the current backlog of recovered
species awaiting down-listing or de-listing; and (2) to enhance
incentive based conservation efforts for listed and non-listed species.
Governor Mead supports these recommendations, as well as
recommendations that deliver more direct funding to states for species
conservation. Other funding may also be appropriate; however, those
funding discussions are, in some cases, premature.
Before making large appropriations for ESA implementation, it makes
sense to identify and rectify procedural inefficiencies within the ESA
that unnecessarily strain existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
resources.\1\ After correcting these inefficiencies, the FWS and
Congress will better understand where they can redistribute existing
funding, and where additional funding may be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce have authorities
under the ESA, which manifest through the Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service. For purposes of my testimony, I
refer to the FWS because Wyoming interacts with them exclusively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
procedural litigation
For example, the current structure of Section 4 of the ESA invites
uncontrolled procedural and legal gambits intentionally designed to
cripple the FWS's ability to implement the ESA. This in turn erodes
support from many of the stakeholders necessary for species
conservation. Section 4 establishes the protocols for listing and de-
listing species. Under this section, a person may submit a petition to
the FWS requesting ESA protection for a species as either threatened or
endangered. Within 90 days, the FWS must determine whether the petition
contains enough information to warrant a more detailed analysis. If it
does, then the FWS must make a final determination about the species
within 12 months. These deadlines are the source of the greatest
acrimony in ESA implementation. However, they are not sacrosanct.
When Congress adopted the ESA in 1973, it did not direct the FWS to
act on petitions it received in a specific time frame. In 1978,
Congress amended the ESA, and gave the FWS 2 years to make a final
determination on whether or not to list a species. Under the 1978
amendment, if the FWS failed to act within 2 years, it was required to
withdraw the rulemaking until it received new information about the
species.
In 1982, after complaints that the FWS intentionally delayed
listing decisions, Congress again amended the ESA adding the current
requirement that the FWS make an initial 90-day finding, and that it
act on a substantial 90-day finding within 12 months of the date it
receives a petition. Congress did not establish these deadlines using
any scientific rationale. Instead, Congress imposed a politically
concocted, arbitrary deadline to spur the Administration into taking
timely action on potential species listings.
However, Congress did not anticipate the strategic onslaught of
species petitions and related litigation that would strain the agency
decades later. Prior to 2003, the FWS never received more than 25
species listing petitions in a single year. Since then, species
petitions have skyrocketed. In 2007, the Services received petitions to
list 695 species, and another 432 in 2010--nearly all of which
originated from two non-governmental organizations. These two groups
attempt to overwhelm the FWS with so many species petitions that the
FWS is unable to respond within the statutory time frames. Then, these
two groups litigate, in hopes that the FWS will acquiesce to their
demands. We should not allow two groups to dictate the policy of an
entire agency because we are afraid to acknowledge and address the
problem.
After 35 years, let us admit that the politically motivated
deadlines in Section 4 have outlived their usefulness. In addition to
the problems discussed above, the compressed deadlines discourage
innovative and voluntary conservation, and may limit FWS access to
valuable scientific data that could otherwise inform a listing
determination.
Through their June 2017, recommendations, Western Governors
identified two possible ways to address these issues. Wyoming supports
both. Congress could amend Section 4 to give the FWS greater
flexibility to prioritize petitions it receives, but with an
understanding that it must still make a decision by a specific date.
Alternatively, Congress could amend Section 4 to give the FWS
discretion to defer listing determinations up to 5 years if the species
meets certain conditions. For example, the FWS could defer a listing
decision to allow state-led conservation efforts an opportunity to
succeed, or to allow the completion of ongoing scientific studies
related to the petitioned species.
In addition to alleviating the agency workload, these pragmatic
changes have other benefits. They would allow the FWS to ensure that
the most imperiled species receive immediate attention, thus reducing
the likelihood of extinction. They would encourage more creative and
collaborative conservation efforts like those undertaken for greater
sage grouse and lesser prairie chicken. They would ensure that listing
decisions are based on the best available science. Finally, they would
significantly reduce litigation, allowing agency personnel to spend
more time developing and implementing strategies for recovering listed
species.
recovery planning
The ESA envisions recovering a species to the point that its
protections are no longer necessary. Yet, our current system makes
removing protections for recovered species difficult. This must change.
Currently, 493 species, or roughly 30 percent of all listed species
have no recovery plan. This means species like Canada lynx, which the
FWS listed as threatened more than 17 years ago, sit in purgatory with
no discernible path to recovery. On the other extreme, species like
grizzly bears and gray wolves exceeded recovery plan objectives for a
generation before returning to state management.
Grizzly bears first met their ESA prescribed recovery objectives in
2003--an event that would presumably trigger de-listing. Yet, the FWS
took 4 more years before publishing a de-listing rule in 2007.
Ultimately, the rule failed to survive judicial review on a procedural
technicality. Grizzly bears continued to increase in population and
expand their range, yet it took until June of this year before the FWS
issued a new de-listing rule addressing the 9th Circuit's lone concern.
Instead of celebrating grizzly bear recovery as an ESA success story,
hosts of organizations have already issued notices of intent to sue the
FWS over its de-listing rule. They allege procedural deficiencies in
the rule as well as hypothetical, unsubstantiated, prospective harm.
Fundamentally, these groups do not want to see grizzly bears de-
listed because they do not trust states to manage wildlife within their
borders. However, they fail to recognize two important facts. First,
states played a significant role in recovering grizzly bears. Since the
early 1980s, Wyoming has spent more than $42 million on grizzly bear
recovery--including contributing to research that makes this population
of grizzly bears perhaps the most studied mammalian population on the
planet. Wyoming also funds public education and landowner incentive
programs that engender support for grizzly bears on a multiple-use
landscape. Second, the FWS has never relisted a species that it
successfully de-listed due to recovery. This fact underscores the
seriousness with which the states accept their responsibility to
develop and implement management plans that ensure a recovered species
into the foreseeable future.
For these reasons, Governor Mead encourages Congress to consider
the WGA recommendation that would encourage willing states to lead
recovery teams and develop recovery plans for listed species. Those
recovery plans should contain discrete, achievable goals that when met
satisfy all of the de-listing criteria under Section 4 of the ESA. When
the species meets the recovery goals established in the recovery plan,
the FWS should immediately initiate a status review of the species for
purposes of considering de-listing or down-listing of the species.
Finally, once the FWS de-lists a species, states should manage the
species. To allow states an opportunity to succeed, Congress should
consider delaying judicial review of a de-listing rule until the
completion of the post de-listing monitoring period established through
the de-listing rule pursuant to statute.
wolves
I briefly want to address this Committee's efforts to ensure wolves
in Wyoming remain under state management. Earlier this year, after a
protracted legal battle, the Federal Circuit Court in Washington, DC
issued a mandate that reinstated a 2012 FWS rule de-listing gray wolves
in Wyoming. Today, Wyoming is managing wolves pursuant to a federally
approved wolf management plan that ensures a recovered wolf population
in Wyoming for the foreseeable future. The provision of the bill
protecting the FWS wolf de-listing rule from further judicial review
provides the states with needed predictability while still ensuring a
recovered wolf population.
Regardless of the mechanism, any measure that ensures state
management predictability into the future provides the most pragmatic
and reasonable solution for both the gray wolf population and Wyoming
citizens. The ESA preserves the responsibility for the FWS to relist
Wyoming's gray wolf population if it becomes threatened or endangered
in the future. The current draft of this bill does not affect this ESA
requirement.
conclusion
Governor Mead supports the Endangered Species Act, as evidenced by
his leadership of the Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act
Initiative through the Western Governors' Association. The ESA is a
valuable tool for ensuring that our suite of wildlife remains for the
enjoyment of future generations. The ESA is responsible for igniting
some of the most remarkable species recoveries ever documented, and
continues to facilitate the recovery of other imperiled species.
However, it is far from perfect. It can, and should work better, both
for wildlife and for people. The recommendations put forward by Western
Governors through Governor Mead's Initiative are both reasonable and
achievable solutions that warrant serious consideration.
Thank you again for this opportunity to share Wyoming's perspective
on ways to strengthen the ESA and enhance species conservation.
*****
ATTACHMENT
WGA Species Conservation and the Endangered Species Act Initiative Year
Two Recommendations
Preamble
The Western Governors' Association (WGA), under the leadership of
then-Chairman Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, launched the Western
Governors' Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Initiative
(Initiative) in 2015. Since the Initiative's inception, WGA has hosted
numerous workshops, webinars, and work sessions to create a forum for a
diverse coalition of stakeholders to share best practices in species
management, promote the role of states in species conservation, and
explore options to improve the efficacy of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
While the Initiative has closely examined the ESA, the effort goes
well beyond consideration of the Act alone. Governors also are seeking
to encourage voluntary conservation--through early identification of
sensitive species and establishment of institutional frameworks that
incentivize collaborative voluntary conservation--thus avoiding the
need to list species in the first place.
The first year of the Initiative (2015-2016) resulted in approval
of WGA Resolution 2016-08: Species Conservation and the Endangered
Species Act--an expansive resolution encapsulating Governors'
principles informed by the Initiative. The Resolution instructs WGA
staff to develop a multi-year workplan to further Governors' policy
principals on Species Conservation and the ESA. What followed in the
first year of workplan implementation (2016-2017) was a continuation of
the transparent, inclusive, and stakeholder driven process to refine
and examine avenues for implementation of Governors' policy statements
expressed in the Resolution.
A suite of recommendations addressing proactive and incentive based
voluntary conservation species and ESA implementation emerged from year
two work sessions. Work session participants were not expected to reach
full consensus on recommendations forwarded by the Governors. However,
comity among work session participants gave rise to significant
progress toward conceptual agreement and helped inform the Governors'
deliberations on the recommendations contained in this document.
As interest within Congress and the Administration in examining the
ESA builds, Western Governors' submit these bipartisan statutory,
regulatory and funding-related recommendations consistent with
implementation of the principles forwarded in WGA Resolution 2016-08,
Species Conservation and the Endangered Species Act.
Importantly, with respect to statutory recommendations, Western
Governors' acknowledge any congressional effort to amend the ESA will
be complicated and spark diverse opinions. WGA's ESA initiative enjoyed
diverse stakeholder input and broad consensus; these resulting
recommendations represent bipartisanship at this stage. Each Governor
reserves judgment on whether to support congressional action, based
upon unknown future legislative language.
Statutory
1. (A) Amend Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act to create
flexibility for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively,
``Services'') to create a prioritization schedule for
petitions received. The Services must assign a petitioned
species a listing priority within 12 months of a positive
90-day finding. Species in immediate risk of extinction
will receive highest priority, while species with ongoing
conservation efforts or species for which listing would
provide limited conservation benefit within the foreseeable
future will be placed in a lower priority category.
(B) Amend Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act to create a
statutory exception for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
(collectively, ``Services'') to defer 12-month findings for
a species under the ESA when: (1) a conservation plan is
either being developed or implemented to meet the
conservation needs of the species. In the case of species
that range across multiple states, this refers to a plan in
each state or a range-wide plan. The Services may renew the
deferral every five years so long as they have worked with
states to complete a determination that the conservation
plan continues to meet the conservation needs of the
species; (2) a delay will allow time to complete data
collection or complete studies relating to the petitioned
species; (3) species for which listing would provide
limited conservation benefit within the foreseeable future.
2. Require the Secretary to make a determination on whether or not
to designate critical habitat for a species. The Secretary
shall designate critical habitat if he or she determines
such a designation is necessary to recover the species. If
the Secretary determines that such designation is not
critical to recovery of the species, the Secretary may
decline to designate critical habitat for a species. If the
Secretary designates critical habitat, it must link such
designation to recovery objectives and plans. For many
species, recovery planning cannot occur until years after a
listing, leaving a lot of time for critical habitat to be
compromised in the meantime. When necessary, critical
habitat should continue to be designated at the time of
listing, and re-evaluated as part of the recovery planning
process. The Secretary will retain current authority to
permit exclusions from critical habitat designations for
discrete purposes.
3. Upon listing, the Services will convene a recovery team within 12
months. States will have the option to lead and develop
that team. The Recovery Team shall create a recovery plan,
and lead its implementation. The recovery plan shall
include criteria, that when met, would require the Recovery
Team to recommend de-listing or down-listing to the
Services. Whenever necessary, the recovery plan should be
updated to include the best available science and
strategies to address all recognized threats to recovering
the species. Upon receipt of the recommendation to de-list
or down-list a species from the Recovery Team, the Service
shall initiate a status review of the species for purposes
of considering de-listing or down-listing. Once the
Services issue a de-listing rule, they shall develop a post
de-listing monitoring plan in a timely fashion, and
judicial review of the delisting rule will be delayed until
the completion of the post de-listing monitoring review
period so long as a federally endorsed conservation plan is
in place.
Regulatory/Administrative
1. Examine the possibility of providing assurances on public land to
minimize the disincentive to enrolling in Candidate
Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) for
permitted public land users with operations spanning both
federal and private land. Assurances provided may not come
in the form of incidental take permit associated with
CCAAs, but rather a suite of assurances such as increased
AUMs or extended grazing lease renewal periods for
operators providing conservation actions on public lands,
providing the assurances would not compromise the intent of
the CCAA to recover the species to the point that ESA
listing is not necessary.
2. When a landowner implements conservation measures as a part of a
federally endorsed conservation agreement, the Services may
exclude private land covered under the agreement from any
critical habitat designation. This authority currently
exists under the ESA, but needs further clarification and
guidance.
3. When making listing determinations, the Secretary must take into
account conservation efforts to protect species, including
efforts by states, federal agencies, and private
landowners.
4. The Services should work with states to develop templates for
voluntary conservation programs and conservation tools that
are intended to incentivize voluntary conservation for a
variety of species and habitats. These templates would
provide a more streamlined process of implementing
voluntary conservation programs for candidate and listed
species.
5. Encourage the Service to develop Species Status Assessments to
help inform a listing determination. If listing is deemed
warranted, use this same assessment to inform development
of a recovery plan blueprint so stakeholders are able to
implement effective recovery actions prior to the release
of a formal species recovery plan.
6. Given the Services' new policy of using Species Status
Assessments (SSAs) as a routine part of listing and
recovery decisions made under the ESA, recommend the
Services promulgate regulations to ensure the SSAs serve
their intended function of collecting and analyzing
foundational science on a species and updating that
information promptly when new data or analysis becomes
available. Give state wildlife agencies a leadership role
on SSA teams commensurate with their position as the
repository of the bulk of the data and expertise on many
species. Most critically, provide an adequate internal
appeals process for challenging the conclusions of an SSA,
either to Ecological Services leadership or to the Regional
Director, to ensure that a misguided determination does not
become embedded in multiple future decisions about a
species.
7. Develop a national policy for the implementation of 4(d) rules
that details best practices and incentivizes strong local
input.
8. Clarify or emphasize existing authority under the ESA for states
to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Services to
implement the ESA, including management of threatened
species and issuance of Section 10 take permits, if states
demonstrate a desire and capacity to do so.
9. If states decline to develop and lead a recovery team, as
described in Statutory Recommendation #3, the Services
shall still seek sufficient participation from states to
assemble recovery teams. States maintain strong wildlife
management expertise, relationships with their regulated
communities, and are able to better identify those
individuals and entities that can best contribute to the
recovery planning process.
10. Establish an informative ``playbook'' to inform citizens on how
to engage throughout various steps of the ESA process.
11. In the case of species which are listed as threatened or
endangered where listing provides limited conservation
benefit within the foreseeable future, concurrent with the
listing, Services should issue a 4(d) rule that emphasizes
regulatory flexibility. Services should also consider
delaying critical habitat designations, as well as modify
the way in which they conducts consultations.
Funding
1. Pair economic incentives with critical habitat and priority
conservation designations on private land and public land
permitted users to alleviate the burden of critical habitat
designations on private land while rewarding stewardship of
quality habitat. Incorporate a scoring system--similar to,
but not duplicative of, farm bill incentive scoring
system--developed by stakeholders and including states, for
private land conservation priority to assign varying
economic incentives.
2. The Services' budget should include specific line items directing
funding to assist stakeholders interested in seeking
assurance agreements and other voluntary conservation
efforts.
3. The Services currently allocate very little of their recovery
budget to de-listing or down-listing recovered species,
which causes species to remain listed as threatened or
endangered longer than the ESA intends. Congress should
allocate money to the Services through a specific line-item
in their budgets to enable the Services to timely de-list
or down-list species.
4. Congress should allocate additional funding to the Services' to
implement the ESA. Western Governors believe that adoption
of these recommendations will improve the efficacy of the
ESA, but recognize that the Services and states require
adequate funding to ensure successful implementation of the
Act. Governors will work with Congress to identify
priorities for funding that will facilitate voluntary
species conservation efforts and improve the efficacy of
the ESA.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Davis Willms, Policy Advisor to
Wyoming Governor Matt Mead
Questions Submitted by Rep. Bishop
Question 1. You mentioned in your written statement that 493, or
roughly 30 percent of listed species have no recovery plan--for
example, the Canadian Lynx has been listed for 17 years with no plan.
1a. Please explain how the lack of recovery planning has impacted
states and the species?
Answer. Delayed recovery planning negatively impacts wildlife and
people in several ways. First, it complicates land management planning
documents. When Federal agencies update their land use documents, they
must address threats to listed species. In the absence of recovery
plans, agencies lack the requisite detail to understand where to manage
for the benefit of listed species, and where to allow multiple uses on
the landscape. This can delay planning processes and create unnecessary
disruptions to other uses of Federal land.
Second, it discourages states from investing financially in species
recovery. Canada lynx were listed as threatened 17 years ago, but have
no recovery plan. Consequently, Wyoming spent only $8,209 on Canada
Lynx in 2016. Other species with active recovery plans receive far more
resources. In 2016, Wyoming spent $2,606,261 on grizzly bear recovery,
$265,107 on black-footed ferret recovery, and $25,376 on Preble's
meadow jumping mouse recovery. Even unlisted species with active
conservation plans received more financial investment than lynx. For
example, Wyoming spent $2,770,262 on sage grouse conservation and
$332,764 on black-tailed prairie dog management in 2016.
Third, species recovery takes longer without a recovery plan.
Consequently, the costs and delays of Endangered Species Act (ESA)
compliance continue longer. This includes completing Section 7
consultations for projects with a Federal nexus, and developing a
conservation plan to acquire an incidental take permit under Section
10. In each instance, these processes can delay project implementation,
increase costs, and in rare instances stop the project. The longer a
species remains listed, the longer people must endure these burdensome
steps.
Finally, one of the stated purposes of the ESA is to recover
species to the point that the ESA's protections are no longer
necessary. It requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) develop
a recovery plan to achieve this purpose. Species with recovery plans
recover faster and more effectively than those without a plan. So, the
FWS's failure to develop recovery plans for roughly 30 percent of
listed species potentially jeopardizes those species' long-term
survival.
1b. How would state-led recovery teams benefit recovery efforts?
Answer. States have the local relationships and species knowledge
to lead an effort that will expedite species recovery. States can
leverage their relationships with landowners to facilitate conservation
on private lands. States can also utilize their species data to best
articulate and implement a road-map to species recovery. Both of these
factors will lead to quicker and more effective species recovery.
Quicker species recovery has many benefits. It ensures species
survival, engenders support for the ESA from the regulated community,
and allows wildlife managers to turn their attention to other imperiled
species. Further, with states leading recovery efforts, the FWS may
have increased flexibility to spend limited resources on species with
greater need. This benefits all species, and gives the regulatory
certainty they desire.
Western Governors identified ways Congress and the FWS can improve
the recovery planning process. The specific recommendations are
described in my written testimony and the WGA Species Conservation and
the Endangered Species Act Initiative Year Two Recommendations, which
is attached to my written testimony.
1c. Please elaborate on the importance of state-led conservation
efforts and how allowing them time to work benefits the species, our
economy, and our communities.
Answer. Wildlife and people benefit when the protections of the ESA
are not needed. State-led conservation efforts frequently preclude the
need to list species. This benefits people, and the species that the
conservation efforts target. For example, Wyoming developed a
conservation strategy for greater sage grouse that ultimately helped
ensure that it would not require ESA protections, while protecting
Wyoming's economy. Wyoming's conservation strategy will cost its
economy roughly $1 billion annually and 5,495 jobs. However, if the FWS
listed sage grouse as threatened or endangered, Wyoming would suffer
economic harm of $1.5 to $5.3 billion annually and a loss of up to
24,000 jobs. (Temple Stoellinger, David Taylor, A Report on the
Economic Impact to Wyoming's Economy From a Potential Listing of the
Sage Grouse, University of Wyoming, 2016).
Wyoming's efforts to conserve sage grouse succeeded because it had
time to develop and implement its strategy. This time allowed Wyoming
to solicit participation from a diverse group of stakeholders to
develop a framework that worked for sage grouse, and people.
State led conservation efforts benefit listed species too. The FWS
does not have the resources to recover every listed species. If states
are implementing conservation plans that preclude the need to list
species, the FWS can invest more time and money in recovering truly
imperiled species.
The rigid timelines in Section 4 of the ESA can hinder creative
conservation efforts. Western Governors recognized this, and endorsed
creating flexibility in the ESA to encourage greater prelisting
conservation. Those recommendations are included as part of my written
testimony.
Question 2. The Gray Wolf State Management Act would protect the
wolf de-listing rule from further judicial review and lend more
stability and predictability to state management efforts.
2a. How did years of uncertainty impact the State of Wyoming and
why is certainty in the de-listing process important to states?
Answer. When wolves reached their recovery objectives of 10
breeding pairs and 100 wolves in 2002, Wyoming and its citizens
anticipated that the state would soon begin managing wolves. However,
years of litigation and disagreements about state management plans
followed. Wyoming entered its first of five lawsuits related to wolf
de-listing in 2004, and resolved its last lawsuit earlier this year.
In 2009 and 2012, the FWS returned management to the state only to
have a Federal judge reinstate protections. In the meantime, wolf
populations rose to nearly 400, and local support for wolves waned.
For years, Wyoming sportsmen have invested in wolf recovery.
Through the Game and Fish Department, sportsmen compensate livestock
producers who suffer losses from wolf depredation. Last year, the Game
and Fish Department compensated landowners for $390,000 in sheep and
cattle losses attributed to wolves, which is an increase of $80,000
over the prior year. Without state management, this number will only
increase, and sportsmen will grow increasingly frustrated along with
landowners.
Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit Court in Washington, DC
reinstated Wyoming's 2012 de-listing rule. Since then, Wyoming has
managed wolves pursuant to its management plan. State management should
result in decreased human/livestock conflict, fewer sportsmen dollars
going to damage compensation, and increased support for wolves on the
landscape. The state management plan also ensures a recovered wolf
population for the foreseeable future. Yet, the threat of litigation
continues, which perpetuates distrust from the public, and skepticism
from the state.
2b. Short of additional acts of Congress to de-list recovered
species and protect them from years of litigation, how would you
suggest we improve the de-listing process to lend more certainty and
predictability to state management efforts?
Answer. Western Governors identified two specific ways to improve
the de-listing process, which are detailed in WGA Species Conservation
and the Endangered Species Act Initiative Year Two Recommendations,
attached to my written testimony. First, give states the opportunity to
lead the development of a recovery team, and implementation of a
recovery plan. The recovery plan should contain criteria, that when
met, would trigger a status review for potential de-listing or down-
listing.
Second, once the FWS de-lists a species, consider delaying judicial
review until the end of the post de-listing monitoring period. This
would allow states to implement FWS endorsed management plans for a
minimum of 5 years without the threat of litigation. At that time,
litigants would have to base their challenge to the de-listing rule on
realized, rather than theoretical harm. Since no species that FWS
successfully de-listed due to recovery has ever been relisted, adding
this provision will not negatively impact wildlife. However, it will
provide greater certainty to states, and the regulated communities
impacted by perpetual litigation.
Question 3. The Listing Reform Act allows for threatened species
designations to be precluded due to economic factors, and allows for
reconsideration of precluded threatened species listings only if the
Secretary determines that there is a danger of species extinction, or
if the Service receives a new petition that includes alternative
actions that can be taken to avoid the economic impacts of listing.
3a. Should economic factors be considered in threatened species
designations, and if so, why?
Answer. The impacts of a listing can devastate local economies.
Governor Mead recognizes this, as do other Western Governors. That is
one of the reasons that so many states, local governments, landowners,
industries, and conservationists came together to conserve the greater
sage grouse. We should encourage more creative, collaborative
conservation efforts to obviate the need to list species. This creates
healthier wildlife populations, and ensures that state and local
economies do not suffer from species listings.
Western Governors identified two potential statutory solutions to
incentivize earlier species conservation. Both involve amending Section
4 of the Endangered Species Act in a way that recognizes and rewards
state-led, voluntary conservation efforts through deadline flexibility.
Western Governors also identified a number or regulatory suggestions
for enhancing voluntary conservation. The specific recommendations are
described in my written testimony, and attached as the WGA Species
Conservation and the Endangered Species Act Initiative Year Two
Recommendations. If implemented, these recommendations should greatly
reduce the number of threatened listings, thus making consideration of
economic factors in threatened species designations unnecessary.
3b. From your perspective, would the ability to preclude threatened
species listings due to economic factors facilitate higher-quality
listing decisions that benefit both species and our Nation?
Answer. The WGA Species Conservation and the Endangered Species Act
Initiative Year Two Recommendations, attached to my written testimony,
identify several ideas to alleviate the economic consequences of a
threatened species listing.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Holsinger for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KENT HOLSINGER, MANAGER, HOLSINGER LAW, LLC
Mr. Holsinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. It is an honor to be here today to testify on these
important issues.
It has been since 1988 that the Endangered Species Act was
substantively amended. If you look back at that time, the
Soviet Union was a superpower. I was probably listening to Def
Leppard on a Sony Walkman. Updates to the ESA are long, long
overdue. And, as Mr. Willms testified, that is probably why the
Western Governors Association (WGA) has put forth specific
recommendations for change.
I cannot underscore the significance here: 19 Western
Governors, 3 U.S. territories, never before in my career has
WGA expressly supported specific amendments to this Act. They
do today, and for very good reason.
If you step back from the five bills we are talking about
today, there is a common theme. And that theme, a small number
of radical litigants are gaming the system at taxpayer expense.
And, as a result, they are wasting the scarce resources that we
should be putting forth for species that are truly in need of
protection and for on-the-ground conservation efforts.
As the Daily Caller has reported from data from a GAO
report that the Ranking Member actually ordered, 90 percent of
ESA settlements have gone to environmental groups. More than 50
percent of those to two groups: WildEarth Guardians and the
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Those two groups have
litigated innumerable times. In fact, from 2000 to 2009, CBD
has filed suit 409 times; WildEarth Guardians, 180; from 2009
to 2012, CBD 117 lawsuits, WildEarth Guardians, 55.
Since 1990, we scrutinized Federal court records and found
that these two groups alone have filed over 1,500 lawsuits--
most against the Department of the Interior and Agriculture,
most raising ESA as an issue. These groups are gaming the
system. They are creating the very logjams they sue over.
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act allows any person
to petition to list a species. These groups are petitioning to
list hundreds at a time. And that simply cannot be done. So, as
a result, the agencies miss deadlines, and these groups then
litigate over those deadlines. They sue, they settle, they
collect their attorney's fees--as you heard, often at
exorbitant rates--and they rinse and repeat and do it over and
over again. It is disgraceful, it is wasting our resources, and
it has to stop.
What is worse, these habitual litigators are even
collecting government grants for the privilege. In 2016,
WildEarth Guardians collected $800,000 from the Federal
Government, up from $500,000 in 2015. As a result of this
litigation, we are strangling in red tape, with severe economic
consequences to hardworking families, local communities, and
wildlife conservation itself.
The ESA was passed in 1973 with visions of grizzly bears
and bald eagles. Who could have foreseen the listings, the
litigation, the controversy over 32 northwest mollusks, or the
Chiricahua scurf pea, the alkaligrass? It is time that we re-
prioritize to species that are truly in need.
We listen to the states and the local governments that
often have the best information on wildlife. The states have
been managing wildlife successfully and recognized by the
courts in doing so since 1896 in the U.S. Supreme Court case of
Gear v. Connecticut.
I urge the Committee to adopt these important measures, and
also consider delegating ESA authority to the states, much like
we do the Clean Air Act. Listings for full species only, so
that we can concentrate on our efforts on those truly in need
of protection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holsinger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kent Holsinger, Manager and Founder, Holsinger
Law, LLC on H.R. 717, H.R. 2603, H.R. 1274, H.R. 424, and H.R. 3131
introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important issues.
Holsinger Law, LLC is a small, Denver-based law firm that specializes
in lands, wildlife and water law. I am testifying as the manager and
founder of Holsinger Law, LLC. In that capacity, I can attest to the
impacts the Endangered Species Act (``ESA'' or ``the Act'') has had on
many of our clients, such as individual landowners, agricultural
interests, water providers and energy producers.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (``FWS'')
Environmental Conservation Online System, approximately 1,564 U.S.
species have been listed under the ESA since the Act's passage in 1973
(and not counting those species listed under its predecessors). Only 23
domestic species have been de-listed due to recovery. In other words,
we can celebrate the recovery of only 1 percent of all domestic listed
species in the United States. The regulatory burdens of the ESA have
been severe while its successes have been sparse.
In the 44 years since the ESA was passed, it has become
increasingly apparent that implementation is plagued with problems.
Various listing decisions have proven: a clear lack of coordination
with state and local governments; a failure to designate recovery goals
within set time frames; the failure to economically incentivize private
conservation; and a tendency to allow sue-and-settle litigation, among
other issues.
The Act is long overdue for amendment. The last time the ESA was
substantively updated (1988), the Soviet Union was a superpower and Def
Leppard topped the pop charts. Former Idaho Senator Dirk Kempthorne
tried, but ultimately failed, to amend and reauthorize the ESA in 1997.
I was intimately involved in those efforts as well as the amendments to
the ESA that passed the House in October of 2005.
A FWS document, ``[A] History of the Endangered Species Act of
1973'' nicely summarizes amendments to the Act over the years. The most
significant amendments were made in 1978. They allowed Federal agencies
to undertake actions jeopardizing listed species as long as such action
was exempted by a Cabinet-level committee; required concurrent
designation of critical habitat with a species listing; directed that
plans for conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants be developed;
expanded land acquisition authority; and defined distinct population
segments as limited to vertebrates.
The 1982 amendments required listing determinations to be made
based solely on biological and trade information; instituted 12-month
finding requirements; permitted designation of experimental
populations; prohibited removal and possession of endangered plants
from Federal land; introduced habitat conservation plans that allowed
for incidental take.
The 1988 amendments introduced monitoring of recovered and
candidate species; expanded protections for listed plants; required
public notice and comment on recovery plans and required expenditure
reports for Section 6 funding.
Minor amendments for the Department of Defense were made in 2004
and 2009, but did not substantially affect the provisions of the
original Act. Funding was authorized through Fiscal Year 1992. Since
then, Congress has appropriated funding to continue ESA implementation.
The ESA versus Species Conservation
ESA listings often restrict the ability to manage for species and
could even result in more harm than good. Inevitably, a listing or
potential listing becomes a threat to landowners because of the
inherent economic consequences. See Amara Brook, Michaela Zint, Raymond
De Young, Landowners' Responses to an Endangered Species Act Listing
and Implications for Encouraging Conservation, 17 Conservation Biology
1473, 1638 (Dec. 2003) (Where an extensive survey of landowners showed
many managed their land so as to avoid the presence of a listed
species). This has even been found to facilitate development of private
lands.
The listed red-cockaded woodpecker provides a good example. A
single colony can cost up to $200,000 in foregone timber costs
according to the Cato Institute. See Jonathan H. Adler (https://
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2007/12/
v30n4-6.pdf). Many landowners managed their forest lands to avoid
nesting of the species:
[Ben] Cone of North Carolina managed 7,200 acres of timberland
with 70-80 year harvest rotations, small cuts, and controlled
burns, which . . . created habitat for the red-cockaded
woodpecker. When the endangered woodpecker took up residence on
Cone's land, more than 1,500 acres were placed under the
control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see Stroup
1997). In response, Cone began a harvest rotation of 40 years
on the rest of his land in order to eliminate the mature pines
favored by the woodpecker and also remove any possibility that
the federal government would take control of his remaining
land.
Ben Cone's experience is not an isolated incident, as a study
by economists Dean Lueck and Jeffrey Michael (1999) confirms.
Using data from hundreds of forest plots in North Carolina,
they found that the more red-cockaded woodpeckers in the
vicinity, the more likely the landowners were to harvest
younger trees. . . . (Lueck and Michael 1999, 36). The
landowners' incentive for using this shorter rotation was to
ensure the birds did not move onto their property, possibly
leading to land-use restrictions. Clearly, the ESA is creating
perverse incentives.
Holly Fretwell, Forests: Do we get what we pay for? Property and
Environment Research Center. (January 1999), https://www.perc.org/
articles/do-we-get-what-we-pay.
A similar study found that ``land designated as critical habitat
[for the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl] was, on average, developed one
year earlier than equivalent parcels.'' Jonathan H. Adler, Anti-
Conservation Incentives, Cato Institute. (Winter 2008).
According to Bureau of Land Management (``BLM'') and U.S. Forest
Service officials, the ESA creates ``. . . a complex maze of processes
and procedures, which field biologists and managers must attempt to
negotiate on a daily basis in order to implement on-the-ground
projects.'' USFS and BLM, Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of
the Endangered Species Act, (Dec. 15, 2003). In regards to the
peregrine falcon, leading experts concluded, ``despite having the
authority for implementing the ESA, and a number of their biologists
contributing importantly to the recovery program, as an agency the FWS
had a limited role, and its law enforcement division, which was in
charge of issuing permits as well as enforcing regulation, was
regularly an obstacle to recovery actions.'' (Burnham and Cade 2003)
(emphasis added).
Because the regulatory straightjacket of the ESA creates a
disincentive to landowners, listing often stands in the way of good
conservation work. Even the FWS has expressed that it ``supports
voluntary conservation as the most effective method to protect species
and their habitats.'' See 70 Fed. Reg. 2245. Further, FWS acknowledges
``that listing may affect local planning efforts, due to its effect on
voluntary conservation efforts.'' Id. at 2246.
Based on these and many other similar examples of the ESA's
perverse incentives, it is clear the ESA penalizes the very stewards of
the majority of habitat for listed species (private landowners).
Providing compensation and incentives for landowners is essential for
productive conservation.
Listing through Litigation
Currently, Federal agencies are subject to statutory time frames
for reviewing listing petitions and making determinations. Rather than
guiding and expediting the listing process, however, these time frames
instead become the tool of litigious activist groups seeking to push
their own agendas while recovering litigation costs. In fact, these
groups often cause the issues they subsequently litigate.
Over the past several years, a small cadre of environmental groups
has buried the FWS with listing petitions under the ESA. WildEarth
Guardians (``WEG''), the Center for Biological Diversity (``CBD''), and
their like have a long history of filing both numerous and onerous
listing petitions. For example, in 2007 WEG submitted two petitions
seeking to list 475 Southwestern species and 206 species in the
Mountain-Prairie Region. A 2013 petition sought to list 81 marine
species. CBD petitioned to list 404 species in a single 2010 petition.
These massive and numerous petitions serve only to increase FWS's
workload--and by extension, the time needed to review and subsequently
make determinations. FWS has already struggled to carry out Section 4
directives. Environmental activist groups see this ensuing delay--
brought about in part because of the extensive petitions they
themselves have submitted--as an opportunity to litigate. In a February
8, 2016 article, Robert Jackson and John Eick for the American
Legislative Exchange Council reported that sue-and-settle agreements
had quintupled during the Obama administration compared to previous
administrations. CBD and WEG are repeat offenders to say the least.
They filed 117 and 55 lawsuits respectively between 2009 to 2012.
Collectively, these two groups (and their predecessors in interest)
have filed roughly 1,500 lawsuits since 1990.
The perverse incentives to litigate under the ESA must be removed.
Failure to Involve State and Local Governments and to Incorporate State
and Local Input
While Section 4(b)(1)(A) requires the Secretary to take into
account efforts by a state or its political subdivision to protect
species or its habitat, as well as predator control, ESA listing
decisions are frequently made without full cooperation of state and
local governmental entities. As a result, listing decisions often fail
to take into account the best sources of information on the species.
For example, the FWS cited ``[I]nadequate'' local, state, and
Federal regulatory mechanisms in its November 20, 2014 listing decision
on Gunnison sage grouse (``GUSG''). In doing so, the agency ignored:
rising population numbers; a rangewide conservation plan; local working
groups and conservation plans; Candidate Conservation Agreements and
scores of conservation easements. The state of Colorado estimates
nearly $50 million in conservation efforts have gone toward GUSG
conservation. Colorado, joined by Gunnison County and others,
challenged the GUSG listing in Federal court.
FWS has also refused to cooperate with states and local governments
on its Mexican wolf recovery efforts. The state of New Mexico
challenged the agency in Federal court based on its refusal to work
with the Fish and Game Commission on a state permit to reintroduce
wolves. The District Court ruled for New Mexico, but unfortunately the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision. In another
disappointing Tenth Circuit decision, the Court recently held the
Commerce Clause authorized regulation of a listed species (Utah prairie
dog) in a single state. Legislative updates to the ESA are sorely
needed.
Best Available Science
Pursuant to Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, ``The Secretary shall
make determinations . . . solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the
status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if
any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political
subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species . .
..'' A determination must be based on proven data--not conjecture. Yet
the very definition of best available science has come under scrutiny
in several recent cases due to the increasing use of speculative long-
term climate change modeling.
The listing decision on greater sage-grouse provides another
example. There, a single report (the USGS Monograph) was cited nearly
300 times. Unfortunately, the Monograph is highly flawed and fails
basic standards of quality, objectivity and integrity.
Amendments to the ESA must ensure the agencies truly utilize the
best available science.
the western states support updates to the esa
The Western Governors' Association (``WGA'') has been actively
seeking ESA reform for several years, and, to that end, launched the
Western Governors' Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act
Initiative. In its Policy Resolution 2017-11, WGA identified seven
changes needed to improve the ESA:
1. Setting clear recovery goals for listed species and working
actively to de-list recovered species;
2. Increasing the regulatory flexibility of the Service to review
and make decisions on listing petitions or to change a
species' listing status;
3. Utilizing the cooperative efforts of Federal agencies and state
governments and private landowners;
4. Using the best available science in listing decisions;
5. Ensuring funding and incentives for conservation;
6. Determining a set definition for the term ``foreseeable future''
(in particular relative to climate change); and
7. Permitting state and local governments to be full partners in
agency decisions, as these entities are the best
repositories of current available information and science
regarding the wildlife within their borders.
Legislation would Redress Significant Flaws with the Act
H.R. 2603 (``Saving America's Endangered Species Act'' or ``SAVES
Act'')--seeking to amend the ESA to provide that non-native species in
the United States shall not be treated as endangered species or
threatened species for purposes of the Act.
H.R. 424 (``Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017'')--directing
Secretary to reissue final rules published in 2011 and 2012 which
removed the Western Great Lakes region and Wyoming gray wolf
populations from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Note:
Bill provides that ``such reissuance shall not be subject to judicial
review.''
76 Fed. Reg. 81666 (2011)--``removing the [Western Great Lakes
Distinct Population Segment] from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. We are taking this action because the best
available scientific and commercial information indicates that
the [Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment] does not
meet the definitions of threatened or endangered under the
Act.''
77 Fed. Reg. 55530 (2012)--``The best scientific and commercial
data available indicate that gray wolves (Canis lupus) in
Wyoming are recovered . . . . [We are] remov[ing] the gray wolf
in Wyoming from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife . . . and remov[ing] the Yellowstone Experimental
Population Area established in 1994 to facilitate
reintroductions'') relating to gray wolves in Western Great
Lakes region and in Wyoming.
H.R. 717 (``Listing Reform Act'')--amending ESA to require review
of the economic cost of adding a species to the list of endangered
species or threatened species. Furthermore, the ESA shall be amended to
strike the Section 4(b)(3)(A) clause requiring the Secretary to make a
finding within 90 days. This Bill also amends the ESA to permit
prioritization review of listing petitions, amends the requirement to
make a determination within 12 months to ``as expeditiously as
possible.''
H.R. 2109 (``Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act'')--
conforming citizen suits brought under the ESA to conform with other
existing law. Namely, this amends Section 11(g)(4) to award costs of
litigation not to ``any party,'' but rather to ``any prevailing party
in accordance with section 2412 of title 28, United States Code [Equal
Access to Justice Act].''
H.R. 1274 (``State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and
Recovery Act'')--requiring that all data upon which endangered and
threatened listing decisions are based be made available to those
states which are affected by those determination. Namely, this amends
Section 6(a) in that such transparency of information is to be included
in a Federal agency's cooperation with the states. Furthermore, ``best
scientific and commercial data available'' shall include ``all such
data submitted by a state, tribal or county government.''
other needed updates
Stifling Conservation Work
A common thread in dealing with these issues is the need to
mitigate impacts for regulatory compliance. But, incredibly, agencies
like the BLM are requiring permitting and red-tape even for projects
that improve or enhance habitat. National Environmental Policy Act
(``NEPA'') compliance, along with the ESA, is stifling conservation
work.
For listed species, activities that require Federal permits,
licenses or authorizations require consultation with the FWS under
Section 7 of the ESA. This can result in significant delays and costly
project modifications. For example, surveys may be required for some
listed species that are not present for significant months out of the
year. And existing Federal permits, licenses or authorizations could be
subject to reinitiation of consultation upon new listings or
information. Finally, some actions on public or private lands could be
construed to ``take'' listed species or their habitat under Section 9
of the ESA. Violations of the ESA are subject to substantial civil and
criminal penalties.
Recovery Goals
Moving goalposts have become a hallmark of recovery goals. An
example of a problematic listing and recovery process is that of the
Mexican gray wolf. While the recovery process for this subspecies has
similarly been characterized by lack of cooperation with state
agencies, it is marked by a failure to rely on best available science
and failure to set population benchmarks by which recovery success
could be measured. In fact, while the Mexican gray wolf has been listed
under the ESA since 1976, only as of the issuance of the June 30, 2017
Draft Revised Recovery Plan has FWS set recovery benchmarks to aid in
determining when the subspecies will be eligible for de-listing.
holsinger law, llc litigation
I have been involved in approximately one dozen Federal cases over
the past 13 years on behalf of agriculture, counties, oil and gas,
trade associations and other clients. Many of these were actions to
intervene in litigation filed by environmental groups. Others were
Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'') cases where agencies refused to
divulge information that should have already been public. Recently,
Holsinger Law, LLC represented four Colorado counties in challenging
Obama administration land use plan amendments on greater sage-grouse.
Among other things, the counties allege state and local plans and
conservation efforts were ignored in favor of eleventh-hour mandates
from Washington, DC.
conclusion
The ESA must be amended to require definite recovery goals and
examine the true cost of regulation under this powerful statute.
Listing determinations should be prioritized with adequate time to
solicit information from states and local governments to truly utilize
the best available science. The perverse incentives for litigation must
be removed. At the same time, efforts to incentivize private
conservation should be maximized. Finally, decisions should be based
primarily at the state and local government levels.
Now is hardly the time for ``business as usual'' under the ESA.
Listings are frequently proving more harmful than beneficial to the
listed species. Scarce resources are being wasted on litigation driven
by a handful of activist groups with little or no real conservation
benefits. While some activist groups have posited that Congress aims to
weaken the ESA and strip protections, such statements could not be more
disingenuous. The ESA is not a perfect law, and this fact has been
borne out through the low rate of species recovery, the numerous highly
contested listing decisions, and the high costs of ESA litigation. Both
people and wildlife would benefit from improvements to the ESA, NEPA
and other Federal laws. Congress and the Administration should be
working to reduce frivolous litigation, streamline permitting to
promote on-the-ground conservation efforts, alleviate economic burdens
and promote jobs. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Kent Holsinger, Manager and
Founder, Holsinger Law, LLC
Questions Submitted by Rep. Bishop
Question 1. During the hearing, Rep. Polis characterized Secretary
Zinke's review order on land use plan amendments for sage grouse as a
Washington, DC affront to the wishes of states and local governments.
How would you respond to this?
Answer. It is astonishing and disappointing how out of touch
Congressman Polis is on this issue. The Obama administration
perpetrated one of the greatest land grabs in U.S. history through its
heavy-handed Washington, DC mandates in the name of greater sage-
grouse. Wildlife management is a state issue. Yet, the Obama
administration amended 98 land use plans across 11 Western states to
virtually block multiple uses of our public lands.
On August 13, 2012, five Colorado Counties and two conservation
districts complained bitterly that their input in the process had been
ignored in favor of top-down, one-size-fits-all direction from
Washington, DC. See attached letter to BLM State Director Helen
Hankins.
[The letter follows:]
August 13, 2012
Helen Hankins
Bureau of Land Management
Colorado State Director
2850 Youngfield Street
Lakewood, Colorado 80215-7093
Re: BLM's Greater Sage-Grouse Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Director Hankins:
The undersigned local governments have been participating in the
regular Greater Sage-Grouse Cooperating Agency meetings that the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) hosts. We are particularly appreciative of the
magnitude of the planning effort BLM is directed to undertake. We are
even more appreciative of the candid straight-forward information BLM
has shared during Cooperating Agency meetings. Although we plan to
continue participating in the process, we are deeply concerned the
process does not accommodate the mandates that BLM consider the views
of local governments as envisioned under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Since before the first Cooperating Agency meeting May 18, 2012,
many participants have publically raised concerns about the BLM giving
little deference to existing sage grouse planning documents which we
have spent years developing. We have also commented on the too-narrow
range of alternatives which BLM will be analyzing, and specifically
that the alternatives BLM is considering do not balance the basic need
of grouse conservation and social and economic growth within our
jurisdictions.
As various situations have arisen in Cooperating Agency meetings,
it is apparent that BLM is bound by parameters that reflect advance
decisions by BLM on the preferred alternative while not addressing the
scientific controversies regarding the status of sage grouse
populations. These parameters are also not consistent with the needs
within our respective communities. From the outset we believed the
National Technical Team (NTT) Report supported an extreme grouse-
conservation alternative, warranting analysis as an extreme
alternative. Then a few weeks ago, we learned that the Washington
Office of BLM had directed BLM to consider an even more conservation-
oriented alternative, one that makes the NTT report look ``middle of
the road.'' When local governments requested an equally balanced
alternative providing for the current development of oil and gas,
recreation uses, and grazing resources, we were constrained to
modifying the NTT Report. This direction flies in the face of NEPA's
mandate that BLM consider a range of reasonable alternatives. A
balanced use alternative should be among those analyzed in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, the NTT report focuses on
limiting ground disturbance to a 3% threshold in primary grouse areas
which will drastically affect the economies of NW Colorado. We do not
support BLM Washington defining what constitutes disturbance in solely
Washington driven committees, rather, BLM should use its Cooperating
Agencies to determine disturbance definitions.
BLM's parameters directed from the Washington BLM Office provide
little opportunity for meaningful input from local governments. These
limits ensure that BLM does not address consistency with local
government plans, the broader multiple use mandates of FLPMA and other
Federal laws, use only peer-reviewed quality data, or explore the
scientific controversies regarding conservation of the sage grouse. We
are even more concerned that Washington has already determined the
preferred alternative that BLM must select, hence the limited latitude
given to the Cooperating Agencies.
In addition to the limitations BLM has placed upon the land use
planning process, we are deeply concerned about the unrealistic
timeframe for completing the Sage Grouse Environmental Impact
Statement. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled to be
published by the spring of 2013, across Northwest Colorado, much less
11-western states with insufficient time to meaningfully involve the
stakeholders. The short time-frames will drastically limit the quality
of the document, and more importantly the level of protection the sage
grouse receives. We fully recognize these timeframes can be traced back
to a 2011 court decision dictating such timeframes, but nevertheless
find them ridiculously burdensome, and impossible for BLM to adequately
address such a complex issue.
We recommend first that BLM return this process to what the law
requires, which is close coordination with state and local governments.
Second, BLM must develop a balanced-use alternative that includes and
reflects state and local government conservation efforts, not just
federal agency viewpoints. Third, BLM needs to secure an extension of
time, because the EIS will be challenged and short-cutting the process
will only end in failure, and finally BLM must immediately involve the
Cooperating Agencies in defining what constitutes ground disturbance.
Sincerely,
Garfield County
Commissioners Moffat County Commissioners
Jackson County
Commissioners Rio Blanco County Commissioners
Routt County Commissioners Douglas Creek Conservation
District
White River Conservation
District
*****
No fewer than 283 state and local governments, entities and
individuals protested the plan amendments. Nine governors of the
affected Western states provided Consistency Review letters and five
states appealed the BLM's responses. There are no fewer than nine
lawsuits against the land use plan amendments--including one brought by
our clients, Garfield, Jackson, Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties.
Secretary Zinke ordered a review of the land use plan amendments to
ensure that they address the concerns of states, local governments and
stakeholders. I believe the majority of states, local governments and
stakeholders are extraordinarily grateful to Sec. Zinke and the Trump
administration for this desperately-needed review.
On April 3, 2017, the Moffat County Commissioners expressed its
appreciation to President Trump relative to his actions to reduce
regulatory burdens. See attached letter to President Trump. The
Commissioners pointed out that industry and environmental conservation
are compatible and that the Obama administration land use plan
amendments were ``driving a stake in the heart of the viability of our
local industries, and immediate action from your administration is
requested.''
[The letter follows:]
Moffat County Commissioners
April 3, 2017
Mr. Donald J. Trump
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Trump:
The Moffat County Commissioners would like to express our
appreciation for the recent Presidential Executive Orders and actions
to provide a more business friendly environment for energy development.
We were especially pleased when Roz Leighton your Regional Political
Director, White House Office of Political Affairs reached out to
Commissioner Moe to discuss your recent rollback of Obama's Clean Power
Plan. After hearing of our unique circumstances she immediately
connected us with Billy Kirkland, Special Assistant to the President,
Deputy Director, Intergovernmental Affairs. While we are extremely
pleased with your bold actions, time is not on our side and northwest
Colorado requests special attention from the Trump Administration.
In Moffat County, 81.3% of our voters supported President Trump,
largely because our community knows we are the epicenter of past
president Obama's desire to destroy fossil fuel energy industries.
Energy related companies make up all of Moffat County's top 10
Taxpayers. Of Moffat County's $410 million assessed value, 72% of that
is from energy related companies. Moffat County is the second largest
county in Colorado, just over 3,000,000 acres in size, and over 60%
federally owned surface and over 80% federally owned minerals. There
are four coal mines and two coal fired power plants, along with immense
oil and natural gas resources within an hour drive of our county seat.
We host the largest Greater Sage Grouse populations in Colorado, the
largest elk herds in North America, world class big game hunting, and
endangered fish in one of the last undammed rivers in Colorado. Our
livelihoods depend on utilizing the natural resources, but face
constant onslaught of rules and regulations driven from the
environmental movement and implemented by the Obama administration,
which have a crippling effect of our local economy. The ``war on
coal,'' oil and natural gas has been extremely detrimental to our
economy. These past eight years have taken their toll economically and
emotionally on us all. Because of you and your administration we are
now turning optimistic.
Moffat County has dozens of examples where we have demonstrated
that industry and environmental conservation and enhancement can
simultaneously thrive. However, regulations such as the newly adopted
Greater Sage Grouse Plan from the Bureau of Land Management are driving
a stake in the heart of the viability of our local industries, and
immediate action from your administration is requested.
Attached are three links to youtube videos and news articles that
describe the ``perfect storm'' of over regulation crippling our
economy, which we request support from your office:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om207kbe6Xl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npZntUn8JMU
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/
04/coal-mining-craig-colorado-election-day-hillary-clinton-
donald-trump/93235678/
We would like to discuss with you and your staff, our suggestions
on how to move forward protecting the environment while simultaneously
allowing our local and regional energy industry to thrive. Moving
forward will take support from the Trump administration, and we look
forward to discussing this with you at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
Franklin A. Moe, Chairman Don Cook, District 1
Moffat County Commissioner Moffat County Commissioner
Ray Beck, District 2
Moffat County Commissioner
*****
Question 2. Representative Polis noted that the Endangered Species
Act conferred economic benefits.
2a. Would you say that the Endangered Species Act provides economic
benefits to states, local governments, or private entities?
Answer. Prior to Congressman Polis' participation in this hearing,
the words ``economic benefits'' and ``listing under the Endangered
Species Act'' may never have been uttered together. There's an old
adage that, if one discovers a rare mineral on his or her property, the
land becomes much more valuable; yet, if one discovers a rare species,
the land becomes valueless.
The Endangered Species Act (``ESA'') has long been recognized as a
hindrance not only to economic activity, but to on-the-ground wildlife
conservation. In one of our coalition efforts, a single business had to
spend in excess of $1 million on a single consultation over a single
species on Colorado's front range. In addition, the business had to
spend nearly $300,000 per year in annual monitoring efforts after the
consultation. According to the Western Area Power Administration,
restrictions on reservoir operations for ESA and related issues at Glen
Canyon dam have cost an estimated $50 million annually \1\ with
additional impacts following 2016 permitting of an estimated additional
$104 million cost. This does not include the cost of similar
restrictions at Flaming Gorge and the Aspinall Unit reservoirs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.wapa.gov/regions/CRSP/environment/Documents/
PostRODFinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 2005 Report, the House Resources Committee estimated that
implementation of the ESA costs businesses, individuals and local
governments nearly $3 billion annually. Interestingly, that same year,
the National Marine Fisheries Service estimated non-native species were
the cause of endangerment of some 48 percent of listed species at a
cost of more than $120 billion in 2005 alone.\2\ The economic analyses
required in critical habitat designations paint a similar picture of
the staggering cost of ESA listings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.endangeredspecieslawandpolicy.com/2016/02/articles/
fish-wildlife-service/up-for-debate-whats-the-real-cost-of-endangered-
species-predation/.
2b. Would the ability of the Secretary to consider economic impacts
in designations of threatened species actually benefit species
conservation and motivate states, landowners and industry to conserve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the species and keep it off the list?
Answer. Economic analysis has been part of critical habitat
designations for many years. Unfortunately, the Obama administration
eviscerated this important tool through the rulemaking process.
Congress should reinstate robust economic analysis for critical
habitat. Such considerations would aid in listing decisions as well.
2c. From your perspective, would the ability to preclude threatened
species listings due to economic factors facilitate higher-quality,
innovative listing decisions and petitions for reconsideration that
benefit both species and our Nation?
Answer. Wildlife management is always a balancing act. Currently,
implementation of the ESA is a zero-sum game with few opportunities to
prioritize. Economic and other factors (such as protecting full species
rather than subspecies or population segments) should play a role going
forward.
Question 3. Statutory time frames for agency review of listing
petitions have been utilized by litigious environmental groups to make
money and paralyze Federal and state conservation efforts. You
mentioned that these groups often cause the issues that they
subsequently litigate.
3a. Can you elaborate how litigious environmental groups utilize
the petition process to drum up more opportunities to litigate?
Answer. The worst actors, including Center for Biological Diversity
(``CBD'') and WildEarth Guardians (``WEG''), have been petitioning to
list hundreds of species at a time. The agencies simply cannot handle
such a burden. As a result, they miss deadlines and CBD and WEG sue,
settle over revised deadlines, and collect attorney's fees at taxpayer
expense. These groups are causing the very problems they litigate over.
This abuse must stop.
3b. What are some problems with using settlements to determine how
petitions are processed?
Answer. Using sue and settle litigation, environmental groups can
avert the public process and exert special influence on agency decision
making. The infamous 2011 settlements over 757 species are a good
example.
3c. The onslaught of listing petitions has prompted several multi-
species mega settlements in recent years. Do these types of settlements
allow for state involvement in the decision-making process or for
appropriate consideration of science?
Answer. Settlement of litigation is often behind closed doors.
Neither the states nor the public have an opportunity to understand or
influence the outcome.
Question 4. Multi-species listings strain agency resources as the
different regions work to manage species that may not even need listing
in the first place. In your opinion, do these sorts of mega-settlements
help species or are they tools for litigious groups to make money?
Answer. Multi-species listings are a tremendous waste of resources.
The ESA provides that any person may submit ``a'' petition to list. It
does not authorize petitions for dozens or hundreds of species at a
time. The agencies cannot hope to process such petitions. As a result,
they miss deadlines and the radical groups litigate. None of this
results in on-the-ground conservation work for species that are truly
in need of protection. Instead, it perpetuates a vicious cycle that
funds attorneys and litigation at the expense of our communities and
our wildlife.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I thank our witnesses for your
testimony. It is interesting to know the last time we worked on
this Act, I had color in my hair, Louie actually had hair, and
Raul was still a hippie.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So, we are at the right stages right now,
yes.
I appreciate that. We are going to open the Committee
process. By Committee Rules, we have 5 minutes to ask questions
of that. Once again, I will ask Committee members to be kind to
our witnesses, that if you are going to ask a question, at
least give them 30 seconds before the end of the time. Because
once again, I will stop you when the 5 minutes are over. And I
will try and set the standard myself by asking the first
questions.
In the Huizenga bill--and you can start me now--the
attorney fees are capped for these well-funded groups you have
mentioned in there, and allows only prevailing parties to
collect them, which is what we do with other groups right now,
like the elderly and low-income individuals, as well as
veterans.
Mr. Holsinger, first of all, would a cap in attorney's
fees, allowing only prevailing parties to collect them, in your
opinion, lessen the incentive for environmental groups to file
these needless lawsuits?
Mr. Holsinger. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. This is an
excellent way to, I think, end some of these perverse
incentives.
The Chairman. You also mentioned in your testimony the
statutory time frames for agency reviews of listing petitions,
and that has become a tool to make money and paralyze Federal
and state conservation efforts. Would more agency flexibility
and petition deadlines--once again, provided in the Olson
bill--would that help curb this excessive litigation?
Mr. Holsinger. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the vast
majority of this litigation is over those deadlines. So, giving
the agency some additional flexibility could be a tremendous
help.
The Chairman. Mr. Sheehan, would fewer lawsuits benefit
your agency, alleviate pressure on the resources that you are
trying to find?
Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. When we have to
redirect our resources from doing conservation on our wildlife
and plant species in favor of researching and working on
litigation actions, that certainly detracts from our ability to
protect those species.
The Chairman. OK, thank you. Comptroller Hegar, you know,
Texas has its own program. Texas has been empowered to study
species, conserve them, and has succeeded in many of the
things, in keeping species off of the list. In Representative
Olson's bill, it adds consideration of economic factors.
Can you explain how considering economic impacts and
species conservation can work together and go hand in hand?
Mr. Hegar. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The two go hand
in hand because when you look at, for example, a river. If, as
we are studying today, we are spending $3.6 million on mussel
research in four different river basins in Texas. When you look
at the health of the mussels, there are also economic
considerations, whether it is in the Austin area with folks
that utilize the river for recreational purposes, or whether it
is municipal purposes, industrial purposes, downstream, which
was in my old Senate district, so you have a convergence of all
these interests coming together.
Then, as a background, as an individual who grew up on a
family farm and is still actively engaged in that farming
operation, as was said earlier, we are the best stewards. We
want to make sure there is wildlife. We want to make sure there
is that economic impact, because you also derive income from
having that economic impact.
So, it is all intertwined, and it is extremely important to
take in the economic considerations, because you don't want to
shut down, say, for example, the Permian Basin. And we have
done a significant job in the habitat conservation plan out
there with the dunes sagebrush lizard, and allowing that
economic activity to continue to grow in the Permian Basin.
The Chairman. Great. I appreciate what Texas has been
doing.
Mr. Willms, the Western Governors Association has
recommended greater state participation in these processes,
endangered species processes, all together. In your experience,
has the Federal Government--realizing once again the Federal
Government still is personality driven, one of the problems
that we do have--but has the Federal Government been
transparent in the data that it uses in making their decisions?
Mr. Willms. Mr. Chairman, I would say as transparent as
they can be, although we often don't see the data released.
I think there are other issues with respect to data
transparency that are worth looking at. For example, some
copyright issues about some of the challenges we face, the
Service telling us they cannot release information or
particular studies because of copyright concerns with the
authors.
The Chairman. Well, what about state and local-driven
data? Has that been effectively used in the past?
Mr. Willms. There are always better ways to use, or more
effective ways to use state data and locally given data. We
have been asking for years for the opportunity to be consulted
as early on in the process as possible, to be able to provide
all the data that we might have on a species to better inform
decision making for the agency. And many times that is not
considered.
The Chairman. That is the purpose of the Newhouse bill. It
is to try to make sure there is transparency and greater
ability of having other entities provide this data. In your
opinion, would that be a benefit to species recovering a
listing decisions process?
Mr. Willms. It is certainly beneficial for the Service to
have all available data and all state data that it might have
when it is trying to make a decision based on the best
available science. It would be helpful to have all available
science.
The Chairman. OK. And Greg, I have one last question for
you, but I only have 11 seconds left, so I am not going to ask
it. I will yield back and recognize Mr. Grijalva.
Oh, wait. Before you start, I would also ask unanimous
consent that Mr. Grijalva--is here.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. No, no, that is not what I want. I ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Polis is allowed to join us and
participate in the hearing.
And we also have a new member of the Committee, if you
would like to introduce him.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes. It
is indeed a great pleasure to welcome a new member on our side
of the aisle, Representative Jimmy Gomez.
Mr. Gomez will be joining this Committee coming from
California and bringing with him a considerable expertise on
the issues that this Committee deals with through all its
processes, and a background in air quality issues, water
quality issues in California, environmental issues, including
environmental justice issues in California. We welcome him. We
are delighted to have Representative Gomez part of this
Committee and on our side of the aisle.
Jimmy is a child of an immigrant family, just like me. But,
unlike me, he holds a master's degree from Harvard. We welcome
him to the Committee.
And for California, who is terribly under-represented on
this Committee, it brings additional parity to the membership.
Mr. Gomez, welcome. Looking forward to working with you,
sir.
The Chairman. It looks like four too many right now. Thank
you, Representative Gomez. I appreciate you being part of the
panel.
Those were your questions, right? You yield back?
Mr. Grijalva. Not yet. Give me 5 minutes. Was that long?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sheehan, we have not had an opportunity to visit with
you before. I look forward to that opportunity in your new
position.
Following the admonition of the Chairman, trying to ask
questions and ask for yes or no or any elaboration that is
short, trying to get through the questions that I have, I
appreciate that.
I was also struck by the analogy that you used regarding
health care in the hospital, in terms of endangered species and
recovery and moving the patient out. I see the Endangered
Species Act akin to a government program like Medicaid that
promotes health care to the most vulnerable amongst us. And, in
doing so, provides those vulnerable populations that we live
with in this country an opportunity to have health care.
Because, without it, one would suspect and surmise that those
very individuals, 25 million, would be endangered, as well. So,
there is a similarity and an analogy that we can use there.
Mr. Sheehan, do you believe that decisions regarding
species listing, de-listing, and recovery under ESA should be
based on science or politics? You can answer one way or
another. One word answer, if you can, yes or no. You can
elaborate a tad.
Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely, science is the way that should be
addressed.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Do you believe that Federal
management of threatened and endangered species is appropriate
and reflects the intent of Congress and the valid interest of
all Americans and their quest in preventing extinction?
Mr. Sheehan. Is that still directed to me? I wasn't sure.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sheehan. I am sorry, could you re-say that a little
bit?
Mr. Grijalva. Do you believe that the Federal management
of threatened and endangered species is appropriate and
reflects the intent of Congress and the valid interest of all
Americans in preventing extinction?
Mr. Sheehan. I believe that the Federal Government was
given authority to oversee these species when they are in a
critical status and placed on the endangered species list. But
as those recovery objectives are defined by scientists and
achieved by scientists, I absolutely believe that management of
that needs to go back to the states, who are not only doing
most of the management for the endangered species on the list,
but also for all of the other many thousands of species that
are not on the list.
Mr. Grijalva. And one more yes-or-no, if possible, Mr.
Sheehan. Do you believe that climate change is real and is
impacting threatened and endangered fish and wildlife?
Mr. Sheehan. I believe that climate change does exist and
has for a very long time. Does it impact some of our species?
Yes, it does impact some of the species. But how we factor that
into our decision-making process is one that is much more
complicated.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Corwin, you have seen wildlife all over the world,
including elephants in Africa and other species that are
subject to relentless poaching and trafficking. H.R. 2603 would
remove ESA protections from any non-native wildlife or wildlife
products that happen to be in the United States. What would the
impact of this bill be on illegal wildlife trade?
And does this bill overturn the recent ban on African
elephant ivory in the United States?
And who profits from this legislation, trans-national
networks that rely on illegal wildlife and timber trade for
income?
Those are three that you can elaborate in the half-a-minute
or more that we have.
Mr. Corwin. The black market trade of wildlife is
profound. It is a $20 billion-a-year industry. It is second
only to arms and drug trade. And the status of a creature, a
species, as endangered does not change as it moves from one
border to the next.
We have the CITES, which we use to protect species
internationally, and various appendixes, and a tiger is still
critically endangered, whether it is in the United States or
whether it is in another country. And we globally have a
responsibility as stewards to ensure that these species have
the best opportunity to survive.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. With that I will turn to Mr.
Gohmert for questions.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first point
out I have more than 20 letters here in support of relieving
the conservation-stifling regulation of non-native endangered
species that we provide in H.R. 2603.
I have a letter from the National Aquaculture Association,
whose 5,500 members' farms not only provide jobs, but have an
annual farm-to-gate income of $1.6 billion. And that is all
legal, no illegal trade at all. The NAA states that the listing
of non-native species is duplicative, hampers commerce, and
oppresses conservation.
A letter from Mickey Ollson, the Director of the Wildlife
World Zoo, the largest zoo and only aquarium in Arizona, with
half-a-million guests annually, and he states that captive
breeding programs are stifled by the redundant listing of non-
natives in the endangered species list.
The American Federation of Aviculture, a non-profit
organization writes on behalf of their 5,000 members to
describe the impact of these current regulations. If a
collection manager in Missouri would like to bring a new
bloodline into the macaw collection from Pennsylvania, current
regulations would prevent that.
I have a letter from the U.S. Association of Reptile
Keepers, writing in support of H.R. 2603, asking the question,
``How is making it illegal to share education about ESA-listed
non-native spotted pond turtles . . . by banning the sale of
domestically hatched turtles across state lines helpful to
conservation of the species?''
A letter from Mr. Doug Kemper, who is the Founding Director
of the Seattle Aquarium, the Aquarium at Moody Gardens in
Galveston, the Oklahoma Aquarium, and now is the Executive
Director of Medicine Park Aquarium in Medicine Park, Oklahoma.
He writes that the SAVES Act, H.R. 2603, will make conservation
great again, that the ESA imposed arbitrary geographic
boundaries that created genetic islands within the states. The
ESA rendered each state, essentially, a country for the
purposes of movement of captured endangered species.
A letter from the Endangered Species Propagation Survival
and Research Center, who houses the largest herds of Arabian
oryx, slender-horned gazelles, in the United States. They write
that the current ESA regulation of non-native species is anti-
conservation because the population of said species in
captivity is so small, genetic diversity via unabated
interstate exchange among the population is critical to their
continued existence.
Finally, I have a letter from the Zoological Association of
America, one of the largest trade associations of the industry.
They promote responsible ownership, management, and
conservation, and they write that their members ``rely on the
ability to move individual animals among collections to best
maintain a robust, captive population to provide the best
opportunities for successful breeding of endangered species.
The onerous and prohibitive regulation of captive-bred, non-
native species under the ESA is counter-productive to
conservation efforts.''
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that all of
these letters in full support of the SAVES Act be entered into
the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Rep. Gohmert Submission--Letters of Support for H.R. 2603
Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
The SAVES Act, H.R. 2603, is fully supported by the Alabama Gulf
Coast Zoo. H.R. 2603 removes duplicative and onerous regulation,
enhances conservation, and is just plain common sense.
Since 1989, the Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo has provided unique
opportunities for up close encounters with some of the world's rarest
animals. We are dedicated to conservation, education and animal care.
From humble beginnings, the zoo found to fame as Animal Planet's ``The
Little Zoo that Could,'' and we are currently building a new facility.
We pride ourselves on educating the public about conservation and the
importance of endangered species while offering hands-on experiences
with our collection. More than 220,000 visitors annually take advantage
of the experience we offer.
Our zoo works extensively with endangered species breeding
facilities and we depend on easily moving animals into and out of our
collection to continue to provide families with once-in-a-lifetime
experiences where they can not only learn about these endangered
species, but learn to love them, and consequently to conserve them
throughout their lifetimes. The current duplicative regulation of
nonnative species severely prohibits our ability to provide these
educational opportunities in conservation for our guests.
It is simply not in the interest of conservation of nonnative
endangered species to list them under the ESA.
I strongly support H.R. 2603 to remove this duplicative regulation
and to enhance conservation efforts in captive populations.
Sincerely,
Patti Hall,
Director.
______
The American Federation of Aviculture, Inc.
July 6, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I write to you on behalf of the more than 5,000 members and
associated members of the American Federation of Aviculture, Inc. (AFA)
in support of H.R. 2603--the SAVES Act.
The AFA is a nonprofit national organization established in 1974,
whose purpose is to represent all aspects of aviculture (Bird Breeding)
and to educate the public about keeping and breeding birds in
captivity. Our membership consists of bird breeders, pet bird owners,
avian veterinarians, pet/bird store owners, bird product and food
manufacturers, farmers, zoos, and other people interested in the future
of aviculture. The AFA is dedicated to the promotion of aviculture and
the conservation of Avian Wildlife through the encouragement of captive
breeding programs, scientific research and the education of the general
public. The goal of AFA is to ensure long-term, self-sustaining
populations of exotic birds both in captivity and in the wild. The AFA
promotes population management and cooperative breeding programs to
ensure the long-term survival, health, and genetic diversity of birds
in captivity. Aviculture indirectly contributes to conservation of wild
populations by providing a supply of healthy pet birds replacing the
need to harvest exotic birds from the wild habitats for this purpose.
Over the years AFA has participated as a non-governmental organization
supporting the goals and objectives of both the Endangered Species Act
and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES).
The duplicative regulation of nonnative species by the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) seriously hinders conservation by virtually
prohibiting the interstate sale and movement among collections even as
managers work to maintain robust genetic diversity. If a collection
manager in Missouri would like to bring a new bloodline into their
macaw collection from a collection in Pennsylvania, current regulations
are so onerous as to bring that plan to a full stop.
CITES, currently consisting of 183 nations, regulates the
international movement of endangered and threatened species,
effectively protecting endangered species from commercial international
trade. Virtually all exotic species currently held by private
individuals and public zoos in the United States have come to the U.S.
through the monitored trade of the CITES convention. Therefore internal
regulations such as those under the ESA are duplicative and unnecessary
and only place undue restrictions on citizens with legally held
species. The current regulations under the ESA basically treat each
State as if it were a separate country for the purposes of animal
movement!
For more than four decades, nonnative species conservation has been
stifled by redundant ESA listings and the genetics of very important
species are congested into State locales where they are prohibited in
interstate trade by the ESA. H.R. 2603 will enhance the conservation
and genetics of captive species by allowing for improved genetic
diversity among captive populations previously isolated by arbitrary
geographic lines; it is time to reverse this error by passing H.R.
2603.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jamie Whittaker,
President.
______
Avicultural Society of America
July 3, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I write you today representing the 450 members of the Avicultural
Society of America (ASA) to make sure you know that the ASA strongly
supports passage of H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act. For far too long, the
duplicate listing of nonnative species on the ESA has stifled
conservation efforts in captivity. It is time to finally end the
oppression and let conservationists loose to Save our Vulnerable and
Endangered Species!
Duplicate listing of nonnative species under the ESA has crippled
our members' efforts at conservation through development of robust
captive populations--either for intended reintroduction to the wild or
as a type of insurance against stochastic events in their native lands.
By stifling movement of birds between collections through prohibitive
regulation, the genetic diversity of our captive flocks has been
hampered.
Indeed, the listing of nonnative species under the ESA is NOT in
the interest of conservation.
The ASA was originally founded in 1927 with several laudable
missions:
the study of foreign and native birds
the dissemination among the members and public of
information for the care, breeding and feeding of birds in
captivity
the perpetuation of species that are threatened with
extinction
the publication of matters pertaining to aviculture
through ``The Bulletin''
Today, the ASA is the oldest, most prestigious and venerated
avicultural organization in the United States. ASA boasts members
across the United States as well as in other countries. Our members are
currently keeping and breeding virtually every type of bird found in
aviculture.
Perhaps most important of all, ASA does things that are good for
birds in the wild as well as those in aviculture. Consider species such
as the Scarlet-chested Parakeet, the California Condor, the Black-
hooded Red Siskin, the Nene Goose and many others where, due to
successful avicultural techniques, there are probably more individuals
in aviaries than exist in the wild. Aviculturists have saved these
species from almost certain extinction and many of our members' birds
have been used in reintroduction efforts in the wild.
The ASA supports the passage of H.R. 2603 to enhance conservation
and eliminate redundant government regulation that is prohibiting
conservation.
Sincerely,
Carol Stanley,
President.
______
Robert J. Berry,
Houston, Texas
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I strongly urge passage of H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act, to remove ALL
nonnative species from the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The listing of nonnative species under the ESA, when they are
already protected from international trade within CITES (Convention on
the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora),
is an unnecessary redundancy in that regard. The listing of nonnative
species under ESA also tends to dilute the focus and attention on
protections of our native U.S. species for which the Act was originally
intended, as well as funding and enforcement oversight for those
efforts.
Such restrictions also negatively impact the ability to establish
long-term, self-sustaining captive populations of non-native species
within the U.S. avicultural community that could potentially provide
critical genetic diversity that may be needed in the future to help
bolster or re-establish wild populations that are imperiled.
While serving as the Houston Zoo's first curator of birds (1972-
1987) as well as my lifetime of experience as a private sector
aviculturist, I have advocated the importance of establishing long-
term, self-sustaining captive populations as a valuable conservation
tool.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Berry
______
Dallas Safari Club
July 12, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Mr. Gohmert:
On behalf of the more than 6,000 members worldwide of the Dallas
Safari Club, I am writing to express the Club's enthusiastic support
for H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act. The SAVES Act removes duplicative and
oppressive regulation of endangered species while leaving in place the
protections for endangered species provided under the Convention on
International Trades in Endangered Species (CITES).
Since 1982, the Dallas Safari Club's (DSC) mission has been to
conserve wildlife and wilderness lands; to educate youth and the
general public and to promote and protect the rights and interests of
hunters worldwide. DSC funds mission-driven programs annually: quail
research, desert bighorn sheep reintroduction and habitat enhancement
in Texas; moose, elk, stone sheep and caribou projects in British
Columbia; elephant and lion projects in Africa.
As you are aware, hunters are some of the most ardent
conservationists, both here in the U.S. and abroad. In fact, private
hunting operations in Africa control more than 540,000 square miles of
land--that is 22% more than is protected by National Parks. In the
U.S., the captive populations of some antelope are thriving--
specifically three species that were removed from onerous Endangered
Species Act (ESA) regulations through legislation. Captive populations
of these species have exploded. We believe that it is time to take
action to provide that same opportunity for all nonnative endangered
species in the U.S. by removing them from the ESA.
America's hunters and ranchers should be allowed to participate
fully in endangered species conservation and the SAVES act will provide
them with that opportunity by promoting captive populations and
allowing sustainable use principles to increase numbers.
H.R. 2603 is a great step toward conservation that the DSC fully
supports. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Craig Nyhus,
President.
______
Endangered Species Propagation, Survival & Research
Center
July 11, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
My family has ranched in West Texas for 4 generations. I operate
one of the larger ranches in this area covering 37,000+ acres. We
produce or have produced meat goats, sheep, cattle, horses and exotic
hoofed-stock. I founded and served as President of the American Meat
Goat Association and am a long-time member of the Exotic Wildlife
Association, which believes strongly in conservation of animal species
through commerce. My ranch has been home to the largest herds in the
U.S. in the past decade or so of the exceedingly rare and endangered
Arabian oryx, Oryx leucoryx, slender-horned gazelle, Gazella
leptoceros, and Persian onager, Equus hemionus onager. ESPSRC, Inc. has
repatriated more than 150 Arabian oryx to the Court of the Crown Prince
(government) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to aid in repopulating
the oryx to their native habitat where they had become extinct decades
ago.
The listing of non-native species in the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) has never been and is NOT now conducive to any degree of
conservation of said species, let alone conservation through commerce.
Because the population of said species in captivity is so small,
genetic diversity via unabated interstate exchange among the population
is critical to their continued existence. ESA's listing of the above
species and the resulting regulatory requirements has made introduction
of novel genetics into my herds significantly difficult. Thus, the
maintenance of a genetically diverse captive population of these
species was and is not supported by current ESA regulations. However,
the passage of H.R. 2603 would lift this oppression and enhance
conservation opportunities for all non-native endangered species
currently hampered by the inclusion of said species in the ESA.
Therefore, H.R. 2603 is a bill whose time has come and I strongly
support its passage!
Commerce in non-native endangered species supports conservation.
The greater the number of individuals employing their private resources
to support these valuable creatures being cared for in the U.S., the
stronger the population will become. A robust genetically diverse
population allows for more repatriation efforts such as those with the
Arabian oryx back to their native UAE.
It is time to update the ESA to 21st century conservation
principles and to harness private resources for optimum conservation of
non-native endangered species. I strongly urge the passage of H.R.
2603! Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have need of further
information or have any questions.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Carter,
President.
______
Exotic Wildlife Association
July 12, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
The Exotic Wildlife Association (EWA) supports H.R. 2603--the SAVES
Act. This bill will enhance conservation, enhance commerce, and
eliminate duplicate government regulation.
Since 1967, when it was founded, the EWA has represented concerned
ranchers engaged in exotic wildlife ranching. Our mission is to
encourage and expand the conservation of both native and non-native
hoofstock, and to help our members develop and strengthen the markets
for their animals. We believe the concept of conservation through
commerce is the answer to preserving wildlife, and suitable habitat.
The EWA represents over 5,000 ranchers and ranching families throughout
the U.S. and in several foreign countries that propagate and protect
some of the largest populations of privately owned exotic wildlife. Our
member objectives include:
Protect the rights of private property owners, including,
but not limited to, the right to manage and control their
own land and the native and nonnative hoofstock living on
it.
Defend the owners of native and nonnative hoofstock
species against the misrepresentations and false
allegations of animal rights activists.
Articulate the need for ``sustainable utilization'' of
wildlife, as a viable tool to maintain ``proper carrying
capacity'' on private property.
Educate policy-makers, the media and the public through
research and advocacy.
Promote ``conservation through commerce.''
H.R. 2603 will take the handcuffs off private resources and allow
them to fully engage and invest their private resources in conservation
of endangered species. In the 21st century, the value of robust captive
populations as insurance against habitat destruction has become
apparent and no one is better able to provide for these captive herds
than our members. H.R. 2603 will allow for more conscientious herd
management with a focus on enhanced genetic diversity as each state
will no longer be a country for the purposes of interstate movement
species. The border will be put back where it was intended and that is
at the international border rather than at each state line.
H.R. 2603 is a good conservation policy that EWA fully supports.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Charly Seale,
Executive Director.
______
Florida Aquaculture Association
July 13, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I am writing this letter as President of the Florida Aquaculture
Association in support of your proposed Save America's Vulnerable
Endangered Species (SAVES) Act. Your proposed legislation will
appropriately refine the ESA's scope, reduce duplication of
regulations, save U.S. taxpayers precious dollars, encourage U.S.
commerce and actually enhance non-native species conservation.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) has given protection to
many native species. However, the ESA unnecessarily extends protections
beyond that of native species to foreign species. Non-native species
are already afforded protection under the Convention on International
Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Almost 200
countries are signatories to these regulations. Each country is in the
best position to assess the needs of its own native species
populations. The species that need levels of protection are then
regulated internationally by the exporting country.
In these times of limited financial resources, duplication of time
and effort are not appropriate and in fact are counterproductive. From
a Federal perspective, expending time and resources to administer and
enforce antiquated policies is wasteful and unnecessary. From a
commercial perspective, having to operate under duplicative regulations
is costly and inefficient, channeling effort and dollars away from
innovation.
The current ESA has other unintended consequences that hamper the
U.S.'s goal of reducing the seafood trade imbalance. Because the ESA
does not delineate between wild and captive-bred populations, any
protections given to non-native wild populations, also apply to the
culture and commerce of these non-native species within the United
States.
I will use sturgeon as an example. Farm raised non-native sturgeon
thrive when grown in the Florida climate. These sturgeon start out as
fertilized eggs that are imported from foreign fish farms and are CITES
certified as non-detrimental to the wild native stocks. There are many
generations separating these fish from the original wild stocks and the
exporting countries recognize this fact and thus allow for commerce.
A petition was filed in 2012 to list the wild populations of many
sturgeon species under the protection of the ESA. This includes several
foreign sturgeon species that are currently grown in Florida. If the
Final Determination rules in favor of these wild populations, the
Florida (and U.S.) non-native sturgeon industry will be forced with
closure simply as collateral damage to the original intent of
protecting the wild populations in their native ranges. The pending
petition has caused farms to close thereby ceding the U.S. market to
overseas farms that can sell to the U.S. under a captive exemption
provided by CITES and authorized by the ESA. SAVES would eliminate
regulation of non-native species and in doing so, would SAVE the U.S.
non-native sturgeon industry!
The United States is a leader in pioneering methodologies in
raising and commercializing the production of aquatic species through
sustainable and environmentally sound aquaculture techniques. U.S.
aquaculture benefits conservation by providing a viable marketplace
alternative to harvesting of wild stocks, thus reducing the fishing
pressures on both the legal and illegal fisheries. In addition,
aquaculture allows the academic communities to research topics such as
physiology, nutrition, pathology and endocrinology, without disturbing
or risking harm to non-native threatened and endangered wild stocks.
Florida aquaculture and U.S. aquaculture is being hindered by the
current ESA. I applaud and fully support Congressman Gohmert's efforts
to bring the ESA into the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Marty Tanner,
President.
______
Florida Tropical Fish Farms Association, Inc.
July 13, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I am writing to you to support the proposed ``Save our Endangered
Species Act'' that Representative Gohmert of Texas is planning to
introduce. Limiting the treatment of non-native species in the United
States as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973 will (1) reduce redundancy and interference among
regulations,(2) allow better conservation protections for imperiled
species and native ecosystems, and (3) benefit commerce and the U.S.
economy.
I represent the Florida Tropical Fish Farms Association an
organization of 116 aquarium fish and aquatic plant producers.
Thoughtful and well-planned commercialization of foreign aquatic
species currently listed under the ESA would greatly benefit my
members, U.S. aquaculture as a whole, and the nation.
The proposed Act would achieve numerous conservation, social, and
economic benefits.
(1) Regulations--The Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES) is the recognized international authority
for international trade in imperiled species. CITES subjects
international trade in imperiled species to controls designed to avoid
uses incompatible with the species' survival. Listing under ESA is
redundant and in some cases conflicts with CITES mission in that
international and U.S. state boundaries become barriers to proper
genetic management. Removal from ESA restrictions will further allow
states to better manage these non-native species within their borders
and permit commercialization.
(2) Conservation--Genetic management is central to conservation of
endangered species. Allowing freer movement of species across
international and state lines will facilitate increasing genetic
diversity of populations. Increasing the number of individuals of these
species in conserved populations or in captive-use populations will
further increase genetic diversity and improve the outlook of long-term
management plans for many imperiled species. On the rare occasions when
species that are imperiled in one part of the world threaten native
ecosystems in the United States, thoughtful and precise management of
these populations will be allowed, unlike under our current
regulations.
(3) Commerce--Several foreign species now listed under the ESA
would have considerable economic value in U.S. aquaculture and related
trade. Captive populations of such species as tropical marine corals,
sturgeon, crocodilians, and turtles could increase the value of U.S.
aquaculture/agriculture, provide exports for trade, and supply domestic
ornamentals, food items, and leather goods to U.S. citizens. An
outstanding example of the potential for commercialization of imperiled
species going hand-in-hand with effective conservation is the American
alligator. Once endangered, this species has rebounded in the wild to
the point where wild harvest (commercial and recreational) and culture
are commonplace. Culture has greatly assisted the rebound of alligators
which today provide meat and hides for domestic and international
commerce.
In closing, we appreciate the leadership of Rep. Gohmert in this
issue and strongly support the amendment to the ESA. If I or any of our
association members can provide any additional information, please let
me know.
Sincerely,
John Skidmore,
President.
______
Florida Veterinary Medical Association
July 12, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
Representing more than 5,300 veterinary medical professionals in
the State of Florida, the Florida Veterinary Medical Association (FVMA)
supports the introduction of the SAVES Act. The welfare of our state
depends largely on the conservation of our natural resources, and we
believe this legislation represents a common sense approach to
modernizing the conservation efforts which we have utilized since 1973,
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
We appreciate its intent to streamline conservation practices with
the removal of regulations that protect nonnative species, which in the
1970's, were included in the ESA to assist newly-formed international
regulatory agencies to implement the protection of threatened species
abroad.
We are supportive of the Act's intent of relinquishing regulatory
authority for the movement of nonnative species to states, to increase
commerce and economic opportunity through deregulation of interstate
movement, and decreasing federal spending for unnecessary regulation.
Most importantly, we strongly agree that the Act will enhance animal
welfare by allowing more animals to meet criteria for monitoring under
the Animal Welfare Act.
As the voice of veterinary medicine in the State of Florida, with a
mission to advance the profession, promote animal health and well-
being, and protect public health, the FVMA is required to be engaged,
and to support measures such as the SAVES Act, which will ultimately
positively impact our state's management of programs that protect
animals and the economy of Florida.
Sincerely,
Philip J. Hinkle,
Executive Director.
______
Fort Worth Zoological Association
July 28, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I am writing to you in support of H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act. The
Endangered Species Act (ESA) as it pertains to the breeding of
protected species in managed populations creates impediments to
conservation and research. By removing protections for species that are
not native to the United States, the SAVES Act will streamline the
transfer of specimens between institutions actively working to conserve
them.
As you know, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES) imposes strong and effective regulations that serve to
protect endangered species. With the support of nearly 200 member
countries, CITES provides the international framework to regulate and
conserve endangered species. As such, the ESA is duplicative and,
oftentimes, counterproductive. In addition to decreasing federal
spending and removing redundant regulations, the SAVES Act would
augment the conservation of endangered species by removing regulations
that hinder participation in global conservation programs.
The Fort Worth Zoo participates in coordinated breeding programs
for more than 110 species, many of which are vulnerable, endangered or
critically endangered. These programs manage the breeding of certain
species in order to maintain healthy and self-sustaining populations
that are both genetically diverse and geographically stable. However,
to move specimens across borders for recommended genetic breeding often
takes 6 months to a year for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
issue permits, while other countries issue permission in weeks. The
SAVES Act is critical in managing these populations globally and for
some species, like elephants and rhinos, it may be their only hope for
survival.
The Fort Worth Zoo supports the SAVES Act, as it will enhance the
conservation of non-native species. Thank you for your continued
efforts to improve the outdated regulations regarding endangered
species.
Sincerely,
Michael Fouraker,
Executive Director.
______
Medicine Park Aquarium and National Sciences Center
July 3, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I write to you today in strong support of H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act.
The SAVES Act is the best step towards conservation of endangered
species that the U.S. Congress has taken in 40 years. The SAVES Act
will not only remove onerous and duplicative government regulation and
enhance commerce, it will make conservation great again!
I have spent my entire career working for conservation of
endangered species, first as the herpetarium supervisor at the Oklahoma
City Zoo, then Curator of the New York aquarium, as founding Director
of the Seattle Aquarium, founding Director of the Aquarium at Moody
Gardens in Galveston, founding Director of the Oklahoma aquarium, and
now as the Executive Director of the Medicine Park Aquarium in Medicine
Park, Oklahoma. I have consulted extensively on exhibit design and
operations with a number of significant zoological parks including the
National Aquarium in Baltimore and Seattle's Museum of Flight and
Pacific Science Center.
The duplicative listing of nonnative species on the endangered
species act (ESA) has crippled our ability to maintain robust captive
populations to serve as a form of insurance against loss of these
animals in the wild. The ESA imposed arbitrary geographic boundaries
that created genetic islands within the states--in fact, the ESA
rendered each state essentially a country for the purposes of
interstate movement of endangered species.
It is past time that we admit the ESA is not perfect and
appropriately remove all nonnative species from the ESA by passing the
SAVES Act. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have need of
further information or have any questions.
Sincerely,
Doug Kemper,
Executive Director.
______
National Animal Interest Alliance Trust
July 13, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: H.R. 2603, ``Save America's Vulnerable and Endangered Species Act''
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I am writing to you on behalf of the NAIA Trust, a broad-based
animal welfare organization founded in 2001 to provide fact-based
answers to complex and controversial issues regarding animals. We are
dedicated to securing high standards of animal care and treatment; and
to preserving the human-animal bond. Amongst our members across the
United States are pet owners, hobby breeders, rescuers and animal
professionals, scientists and veterinarians.
I am writing to you today to ask you to support H.R. 2603, ``Saving
America's Vulnerable and Endangered Species Act'' (SAVES). This bill
would amend the outdated Endangered Species Act in a simple yet
powerful manner: by narrowing the scope to regulate species that are
native to the U.S. Nonnative species will be left to regulation under
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES). Much of the ESA restrictions on nonnative
species actually serve to HARM current conservation efforts by
restricting interstate movement of nonnative species, which creates
genetic isolation hindering breeding efforts. With this change, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services would then be able to focus all energy
and resources to the preservation of native U.S. species. However, it
is important to note that this does not impact the regulation of
INVASIVE non-native species.
The benefits of this legislation are endless. The government will
be saving millions it costs to enforce, not to mention defending and
fighting endless lawsuits and petitions from profiteering NGOs preying
upon the easy manipulation of ESA. Interstate commerce and economic
channels would be opened. H.R. 2603 is legislation that will truly
serve to help the conservation of nonnative species through the
expansion of captive populations and breeding programs.
Please help to conserve both native and nonnative species with your
support of H.R. 2603.
Sincerely,
Sara Chisnell,
Legislative Director.
______
National Aquaculture Association
July 7, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: H.R. 2603, Saving America's Endangered Species Act
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
The National Aquaculture Association (NAA) strongly supports
passage of H.R. 2603, the Saving America's Endangered Species Act. The
listing of nonnative species on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not
only duplicative, it hampers commerce and oppresses conservation.
The NAA is a non-profit trade association representing U.S.
aquaculture that is composed of approximately 5,500 farms with a farm-
gate income of $1.6 billion annually. Our members culture native and
nonnative fish, shellfish, reptiles, corals, crustaceans, and aquatic
plants for consumption as seafood, use as bait or for stocking for
recreational fishing, biological control of nuisance aquatic weeds, and
aesthetic enjoyment in garden ponds or aquariums.
Just last week, the National Marine Fisheries Service posted a
notice seeking public comment on a proposed listing for nonnative giant
clams. Several giant clam species are in the marine aquarium trade and
U.S.-owned farms in the Pacific are successfully producing these
animals. To be sure, these giant clams are not endangered in captivity
and should not be listed! If listed, the farms producing them will
surely decline as interstate movement and commerce will be
catastrophically impacted. They may not become priceless, but they are
sure to become worthless.
Within the aquaculture community there is significant experience,
knowledge, and applied science that has been cultivated over
generations and could be leveraged to assist in the recovery of at-risk
species. Unfortunately, the history of species listings indicates that
there is little flexibility within the Endangered Species Act that
would recognize this conservation benefit and allow farms to continue
to operate successfully. As a consequence, these invaluable resources
are lost.
Quite frankly, the listing of nonnative species on the ESA is not
beneficial to conservation, commerce or aquaculture and should be
stopped--H.R. 2603 will do this and the NAA strongly supports this
bill.
Sincerely,
Jim Parsons,
President.
______
The Parrot Fund
July 4, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I thank you very much for sponsoring H.R. 2603, ``Saving America's
Vulnerable and Endangered Species Act.'' I summarize below some reasons
why I agree removing non-native species from under the purview of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a change whose time has come.
(1) The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was and is ``to
protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which
they depend.'' How it has been implemented within the United States
certainly is open to discussion and disagreement, yet within our
country it has helped a large number of native species. The same cannot
be said for non-native species living in foreign nations over which the
U.S. has no jurisdiction, cannot make safe harbor agreements, or make
any of the other national-local agreements that promote species
conservation while reducing the negative impacts of the ESA on personal
freedoms and private property rights. It is superfluous regulation with
no purpose or beneficial effect.
(2) The present implementation of the ESA makes it nearly
impossible to maintain viable populations of non-native species in
captivity because of the time consuming, complex, costly and often
conflicting regulations that owners must contend with. Yet there is no
concomitant benefit to those species in their native countries.
Interstate exchanges of individuals for breeding purposes are hindered
by the permitting requirements and expenses, and surplus animals (and
presumably plants) cannot be sold but must be maintained by the
breeder, given away, or destroyed. I personally am trying to breed
several endangered parrot species. I know of out-of-state people who
would sell me important genetic representatives to add to my breeding
programs, but the present version of the ESA requires both of us to
have captive breeding permits that are difficult, expensive and time
consuming to try to obtain. I also have people who are interested in
buying any surplus birds I may have, but I must tell them I cannot sell
any to them because of the ESA regulations. I am thus a very small and
simple example of how the present version of the ESA hinders the
development of small businesses that might wish to do transactions
across state lines.
(3) Millions of dollars are wasted by the huge bureaucracies needed
in the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in responding to listing petitions, litigation, managing
the permitting processes, and performing the required periodic 5-year
reviews. Time that could be focused on native species and their
recovery is wasted on regulating U.S. ownership of non-native species
with only negative effects on the conservation of these species.
(4) H.R. 2603 cleans up duplicate regulations: CITES, a major
international conservation treaty with 183 parties, will continue to
regulate international movement and protection of endangered species.
There is no need for another U.S. law to regulate species not native to
the U.S. While the CITES treaty certainly could be improved to be more
effective and less political, the U.S. Endangered Species Act in no way
addresses CITES problems. And the Wild Bird Conservation Act is more
than adequate to regulate ownership of non-native birds in the United
States.
(5) Regulations should not impede personal freedom, economic
opportunity, and interstate commerce without benefits that markedly
exceed the damages caused. Applying the ESA to non-native species with
a broad brush does not deliver such benefits.
(6) Finally, I have had to point out to some people who initially
objected to H.R. 2603 because of the problem of dangerous and invasive
species, that H.R. 2603 does not impact the Government's ability to
regulate non-native invasive species under the Federal Injurious
Wildlife Law (Lacey Act 18 U.S.C. Sec. 42).
In closing, thank you for submitting this amendment to the House
Committee on Natural Resources. I have asked my Congressman Bill Flores
to support this much needed modernization of the Endangered Species
Act. I hope your efforts come to fruition.
Regards,
Janice D. Boyd,
President.
______
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
July 11, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
On behalf of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), I
write today in support of the Saving America's Endangered Species
(SAVES) Act, H.R. 2603. As the country's largest pet trade association,
representing the interests of all segments of the pet industry
throughout the United States, PIJAC counts among its members national
associations, organizations, corporations and individuals involved in
the commercial pet trade. More specifically, PIJAC represents the
interests of pet stores, distributors, pet supply manufacturers,
breeders, retailers and pet owners throughout the United States.
The SAVES Act addresses a very real defect in the way the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) is currently administered. By removing
non-native species from the auspices of the ESA, this Act would restore
uniform national oversight to the interstate transfer of non-native
species. It would permit the individuals and organizations across the
country who are committed to breeding for preservation and responsible
enjoyment to more readily interact with one another, thereby improving
the genetic diversity of breeding groups and removing restrictions that
currently result in surplus animals being held or even destroyed.
We at PIJAC are proud to work with the federal government and
international non-governmental organizations on a wide range of
conservation and protection efforts. We have a memorandum of
understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the
public-private partnership known as Habitattitude, which educates the
public on proper disposal of non-native and potentially invasive
species. We regularly engage with the government on issues stemming
from the Lacey Act's oversight of invasive species. And we are active
participants in discussions surrounding international trade in exotic
species through CITES.
It is with this experience and perspective that we are able to say
that the SAVES Act is a welcome attempt to remove a duplicative and
costly element of the ESA by clarifying that non-native species here in
the United States are not to be treated as endangered or threatened.
This change will not jeopardize existing protections, but it will
certainly improve efforts to preserve species that may be endangered or
threatened in their native habitats.
Respectfully,
Mike Bober,
President & CEO.
______
Rainforest Clinic for Birds & Exotics
July 14, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: PLEASE SUPPORT H.R. 2603
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I am an avian veterinarian and also an aviculturist (parrot
breeder). I work with many species of exotic (Non-native) birds which
are listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species
Act.
I support H.R. 2603 because listing of non-native species under the
ESA does not provide tangible benefits to the conservation of those
species and in fact it limits exchange of specimens between states,
thereby restricting genetic diversity in captive populations.
ESA listing of non-native species is un-necessary because they
receive adequate protection for the effects of trade by the CITES
treaty and more recently the Wild Bird Conservation Act. As part of a
working group associated with the American Federation of Aviculture, we
found no evidence that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided
any support to enhance the conservation of listed psittacines (parrot)
species in the wild.
This amendment will eliminate the need for the Captive Bred
Wildlife Program which requires costly and onerous permitting and
restrictions of birds and animals moving around the U.S., as well as
constant monitoring of the species status in the wild. The U.S. has no
jurisdiction in those species native countries.
Passage of H.R. 2603 will free up resources so that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service can concentrate on our native species.
H.R. 2603 will enhance the ability of U.S. Citizens to work with
and conserve U.S. captive populations of non-native species.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Clubb, DVM
______
The Snake Keeper
July 13, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Bishop:
I am writing to you in regarding H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act. I have
previously contacted your office as well as the offices of our other
congressional leaders here in the state of Utah regarding this bill.
My husband and I have been breeding and caring for various species
of reptiles and amphibians for the past 30 years. Through these years
there has been tremendous progress made in the captive husbandry and
propagation of numerous species of terrestrial animals, aquatic life
and plants. However, many of our laws regarding wildlife have not kept
up with the advances in wildlife husbandry.
We enthusiastically support H.R. 2603 as it will remove non-natives
from the ESA listing. This will allow individuals and institutions
working with endangered non-native species to establish stronger
breeding programs by allowing for greater genetic diversity of those
programs. The offspring from such programs will be far more robust and
they will become an invaluable asset for building the foundations of
future breeding programs.
There is a finite amount of resources available to implement
programs. It is impossible for the U.S. to control what happens in
other countries where ESA species reside. Removal of the non-native ESA
species will allow for greater resources to be used for our own ESA
species here in the U.S. Federal spending on non-native ESA species
would be decreased. U.S. Fish and Wildlife would be able to discontinue
the Captive Bred Wildlife permit system and associated reviews. This
would allow for more of their limited resources to be used for our own
native ESA species.
Thank you for your time. We urge you to strongly support H.R. 2603
as an effective way to strength conservation efforts of non-native ESA
species here in the U.S.
Sincerely,
Colette Sutherland,
Owner TSK Inc.
______
Southwick Wild Animal Farm, Inc.,
dba Southwick's Zoo
July 17, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
Today I write to express my full support of H.R. 2603--the SAVES
Act. For more than 4 decades the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has
hampered conservation through redundant and unnecessary regulation of
nonnative species.
Southwick's Zoo was opened in 1963 by my grandfather. Over the
years, the zoo has grown to 300 naturalistic acres and more than 850
animals. We welcome 450,000 visitors each year and offer them
opportunities to get close to and learn about some of the most
endangered species in the world.
Being located in Massachusetts, the oppressive nature of the ESA
regulation of nonnative species is particularly problematic. Given that
the states in the New England area are small, it is quite likely that
we are unable to engage with collections just a few miles away.
Certainly, if one is interested in conservation of endangered species,
one can clearly and readily understand that these draconian regulations
are not in the interest of conservation of endangered species.
Maintaining genetic diversity within the captive population is one of
the most valuable contributions available for ex-situ conservation--
listing nonnative species under the ESA fails to recognize this 21st
century approach to conservation.
As a veterinarian, I understand the complicated nature of ESA-
related issues including animal welfare and disease concerns. H.R. 2603
doesn't impact current disease regulations and may serve to enhance
animal welfare. Let's welcome the American conservation into the 21st
century and modernize the ESA by removing its oppressive listing of
nonnative species. Pass H.R. 2603!
Sincerely,
Peter J. Brewer, DVM
______
Turtle and Tortoise Preservation Group
July 13, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Support for H.R. 2603, ``Saving America's Vulnerable and Endangered
Species'' Act
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
On behalf of the Turtle and Tortoise Preservation Group (TTPG),
this letter is submitted in support of H.R. 2603, known as the
``SAVES'' Act. TTPG is an educational 501(c)(3) non-profit association,
The mission of the TTPG is to ensure survival of the world's turtle and
tortoises through captive breeding. The TTPG supports the private
ownership of chelonians and recognizes the substantial role that the
private sector has played in the captive breeding and conservation of
turtles and tortoises. TTPG members have specialized knowledge and
expertise on the captive care and breeding of chelonians obtained
through education, research, and practical knowledge gained from years
of experience in maintaining and breeding chelonians. The TTPG shares
knowledge and educate individuals and organizations regarding captive
care, husbandry, health, breeding, and conservation of chelonians.
Members pursue and encourage legal, ethical, and moral efforts to
prevent extinction of turtle and tortoise species. The TTPG recognizes
that captive breeding reduces the pressure on wild populations and
provides assurance colonies for species threatened in the wild due to
habitat loss, disease, or natural disasters.
One portion of the ESA that would be eliminated by H.R. 2603, and
directly impacts private breeding efforts, is the Captive Bred Wildlife
(CBW) permit system. This permitting system is redundant to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) global
administration in international trade and movement of endangered and
threatened species. CITES is a robust worldwide society with nearly 200
member countries. The strength and effectiveness of CITES makes the use
of the ESA, through the CBW permit system to protect non-native,
captive bred species held within the U.S. redundant.
In addition, the CBW permitting system is costly, labor intensive
for the U.S. breeders working with non-native endangered species and
the permit provides absolutely no benefit to the conservation of these
species. The regulatory body that oversees the permitting system, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), has also openly said they do
not believe in ex-situ breeding populations. What we have seen the
permit system actually do is discourage breeders in the U.S. from
working with any non-native endangered species that may actually
benefit the captive breeding the most. It will cost the breeder money
in permit fees every five years, time, and tremendous effort in filing
for permits that are administered by an office that discourages private
breeding of endangered species. The time for a response from USFWS to
your application routinely takes more than a year now. There is
additional time spent by the breeders to prepare the required annual
reports to USFWS. Those who do have the permit can stilI only sell to
others with the permit that have those species listed. Such hesitations
and restrictions inadvertently create genetic bottlenecks within the
existing captive breeding populations. This is not only detrimental to
the captive population, but only reduces the long-term vitality of
captive breeding populations that are no longer being removed from the
wild and imported into the U.S.
It is time to update the Endangered Species Act and remove this
redundant, costly, time wasting listing of nonnative endangered
species. This will allow USFWS to focus their resources on imperiled
native wildlife.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Vander Schouw,
Director of Operations.
______
Wildlife World Zoo, Aquarium & Safari Park
July 5, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
The SAVES Act, H.R. 2603, is a bill that is way overdue. Since 1973
when nonnative species were listed on the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
they should have been removed. Listing nonnative species in the ESA is
not only a duplicative, onerous regulation, but is counter-productive
to conservation and significantly impedes commerce by prohibiting
interstate movement of these animals.
For the past 33 years I have owned and operated Wildlife World Zoo,
Aquarium & Safari Park in Litchfield Park, Arizona. We are not only an
accredited zoo, but the largest in Arizona and the first aquarium in
Arizona. 400,000 people come to our park annually to experience rare
animals and learn about the value of animals and their care while
enjoying a family outing. Over 80,000 of these visitors are school
children on field trips who enjoy several educational presentations
each day featuring various animals. Since our opening in 1984, Wildlife
World has been dedicated to providing hands-on and up-close experiences
with some of the rarest species in the world in order to spark an
interest in conservation, in even the most cynical of our visitors!
Wildlife World not only exhibits endangered species, but we
successfully reproduce these animals as part of organized, cooperative
breeding programs for conservation. Our access to genetic diversity
among ESA-listed nonnative species is severely hampered by their
listing on the ESA. In fact, captive breeding programs are stifled by
ESA listings as interstate movement is largely prohibited and CBW
permits are becoming difficult to renew.
One of the reasons that our guests return to Wildlife World is not
only the connections they make with our animals, but to see the rarest
and most endangered species. If we are unable to maintain and continue
to successfully reproduce these species, our annual admissions will
certainly be negatively impacted. Wildlife World employs over 100
people full time and has significant community engagement. We owe this
not only to our great staff, but to the rare and endangered species
with whom our visitors can enjoy viewing and learning about.
Nonnative species should not be listed on the ESA. I strongly
support H.R. 2603 to remove this duplicative and onerous regulation and
to enhance conservation efforts in captive populations.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further
information or have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mickey Ollson,
Director/Owner.
______
Wildwood Aviaries
July 13, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I am writing in support of H.R. 2603, the SAVES Act. This positive
bill does the following:
Removes duplicative regulations.
Increases commerce and economic opportunity through
deregulation of interstate movement of non-native species.
(See details below.)
Decreases spending of millions of tax dollars to respond
to lawsuits related to listing of non-native species.
Allows USFWS to focus on monitoring and protection of
native endangered species.
The keeping and breeding of many different non-native species is a
widespread activity in the United States, with an accompanying strong
and vibrant positive impact on the U.S. economy. There are many
segments of the manufacturing and business sectors involved in the
production of goods and services related specifically to non-native
species kept and bred in the USA. Some examples follow:
buildings/barns, outdoor pens, ponds
variety of types of wire, plastics, containers, and
equipment
tremendous variety of food types, from grains, seeds, nuts
to meat and vegetable products
stores and shops which sell equipment related to the care
and keeping of non-native species
individuals keep/breed non-native species as a full time
or part time income-producing occupation
non-native species organizations produce annual or monthly
shows, exhibits, fairs in various parts of the United
States, bringing in visitors and income to local
communities.
ownership of non-native species has resulted in the
development of professions related to the care and keeping
of these species, such as non-native animal veterinarians
who treat everything from parrots to emus or from reptiles
to primates.
Speaking as a person who owns non-native endangered parrots, over
the past two years I have spent more than $250,000 in construction in
order to house these birds properly. Routine monthly expenditures
include the provision of food items, the use of avian veterinarians,
the purchase of transport containers, air cargo shipments, and
expenditure for workers hired to assist with daily routines. I am
simply one person among many thousands who work with non-native
species: birds, mammals, reptiles, etc. All of these individuals across
the U.S. are involved in the creation of jobs, demand for the
manufacture and sale of a wide variety of equipment and products,
demand for a wide variety of types of foods, etc., all of which results
in a huge economic boost for communities, and for the production of tax
dollars for the USA.
It makes sense to pass a law like H.R. 2603 which promotes economic
success while also making it much easier for the USFWS to do its work
to monitor and save native species, The ESA regulation of non-native
species does nothing to protect these species and they should be
removed from the ESA.
Sincerely,
Laurella Desborough,
Claremore, Oklahoma.
______
Wildwood Wildlife Park
July 13, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
I am writing today to express Wildwood Wildlife Park's full support
for H.R. 2603--the SAVES Act. This common sense legislation will
relieve the oppressive regulation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
from nonnative species and enhance conservation, increase commerce, and
remove duplicative regulation.
Wildwood Wildlife Park is home to more than 1,000 animals including
many endangered species. My family purchased the zoo in 1997. We had
previously owned and operated a private game farm. Our park is truly a
family affair with our sons playing an integral part of operations.
Indeed, we think of our guests as extended family and work to provide
them with unique opportunities to learn about endangered species and
through greater understanding, learn to love and conserve these
precious resources. Children in particular that visit the zoo must be
brought into contact with nature because they are the future caretakers
of this planet. In the zoo children develop a large sense of respect
and understanding towards the living world.
Our collection depends on sophisticated breeding management to
maintain a robust and healthy population. The redundant listing of
nonnative species on the ESA nearly prohibits interstate movement of
these species and significantly impacts genetic diversity within all
captive populations. Modem conservation science recognizes the
importance of not only genetic diversity but the true value of captive
populations. Robust captive populations serve as a type of insurance
against declining wild populations. If some natural disaster or disease
outbreak should wipe out an existing wild population, the habitat could
be restored and then restocked using animals from a healthy captive
population. Current listing of nonnative species on the ESA does not
contribute to the modern model for holistic conservation of endangered
species.
It is because of our love of endangered species and work in
conservation that we fully support H.R. 2603's efforts to remove
duplicate regulation, enhance commerce and animal welfare, and bring
conservation into the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Judy and Duane Domaszek,
Wildwood Wildlife Park Directors.
______
Zoosiana--Zoo of Acadiana
July 7, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Strong Support for H.R. 2603: The SAVES Act
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
My name is Matt Oldenburg and my family has owned and operated the
Zoo of Acadiana (dba Zoosiana) in Broussard, Louisiana for the past 15
years. We strongly support H.R. 2603, known as the SAVES Act. This bill
is long overdue and it will eliminate duplicative, onerous regulation
by removing nonnative species from the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Keeping nonnative species in the ESA is counterproductive to
conservation and significantly impedes commerce by prohibiting
interstate movement of these animals.
Zoosiana is an accredited zoological park and is the only one
privately owned and managed in Louisiana. We receive no taxpayer
funding--at neither the local, state, nor federal levels. We host
150,000 guests annually who come to our park to learn about and
appreciate the many animals living here. 30,000 of these guests attend
through school field trips!
Our zoo provides daily care and maintenance for more than 1,000
animals, representing 125+ species, many of which are endangered. We
are fortunate to take this a step further and have a long history of
successfully reproducing many of these endangered species. However, our
access to genetic diversity for these animals is severely hampered by
their listing in the ESA. Managed breeding programs are truly stifled
by ESA listings as interstate movement is largely prohibited and the
licenses to allow this, called CBW permits, are becoming difficult to
renew.
One of the reasons our guests continue to visit Zoosiana is to see
rare and endangered animals. If we are unable to maintain and continue
to successfully reproduce these species, our annual admissions will
certainly be negatively impacted. Zoosiana employs a staff of 35 people
and is heavily invested in the local communities. Our guests enjoy
viewing and learning about our rare and endangered animals and we owe
this to the first class animal care provided by our staff.
Nonnative species should not be listed on the ESA. We strongly
support H.R. 2603 to remove this duplicative and onerous regulation and
to enhance conservation efforts in managed populations.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further
information or have any questions.
Sincerely,
Matt Oldenburg
______
Zoological Association of America
July 6, 2017
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Gohmert:
The Zoological Association of America (ZAA) strongly supports
passage of H.R. 2603--the SAVES Act. The listing of nonnative species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is redundant and counter-
productive to conservation efforts for endangered species.
ZAA is the one of the largest trade association in the zoological
sector; counting among its members some of the finest facilities in
United States. ZAA promotes responsible ownership, management,
conservation, and propagation of animals through professional standards
in husbandry, animal care, safety and ethics.
Conservation, education and research are major pillars of our work
at ZAA. Our members are involved in conservation work including
reintroduction programs, rescue and rehabilitation, community outreach
and education programs, and a series of predator/prey conflict
avoidance programs and studies. Additionally, through maintenance of
robust captive populations of endangered species, ZAA institutions
create a conservation safety net for wild populations. These species
management programs are coordinated across our membership to ensure the
greatest genetic diversity and overall herd health for these species.
ZAA's commitment to the fields of research and education takes us
beyond animal ambassador programs and classroom education to more
comprehensive work with wildlife management professionals around the
globe. This work includes conducting and supporting research in
behavioral sciences and genetics and exchanging information and
training on husbandry, nutrition, best management practices, and
veterinary care.
Our members rely on the ability to move individual animals among
collections to best maintain a robust captive population and to provide
the best opportunities for successful breeding of endangered species.
The onerous and prohibitive regulation of captive bred, non-native
species under the ESA is counter-productive to conservation efforts. If
our members cannot successfully maintain a healthy captive population
of some of our most endangered species, we will lose that important
genetic safety net. In addition, the general public will lose the
opportunity to learn about these unique creatures while developing
stewardship and compassion for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species
ZAA members contribute to and support in situ conservation
worldwide, both independently and through the Hall Family ZAA
Conservation Fund with a direct correlation between the guests, our
member institutions, and supporting animals in the wild. We need to
assure our members and the public that conservation of endangered
species is a priority, and we can do that by lifting the redundant and
unnecessary regulation of nonnative species under the ESA.
H.R. 2603 is the best conservation policy in many years and ZAA
strongly supports its passage. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
John Seyjagat,
Executive Director.
______
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. I was touched by Mr. Corwin's
testimony about being able to introduce ferrets with his
daughter into an area where they were no longer. And that has
happened around the world, and thank God that it has. But it
normally happens, as I have been talking about, by groups that
have, in captivity, endangered species in another country that
are not at all endangered in the United States.
African scimitar, horned oryx, is one of those. African
Barbary sheep and Indian blackbuck antelope. India and Pakistan
had to come to Texas to get these that were extinct in their
country from people who were conserving them. But when the
Federal Government comes in and says, ``Hey, these are
endangered species,'' and they say, ``No, we have thousands in
the United States among our breeders,'' they say, ``Well, we
don't care. They're extinct overseas, we are going to list them
as endangered, and we are going to have to permit everything
you do on your land,'' they get rid of them and we lose those
species.
Only someone who thinks that whatever the question is the
answer is ``government'' would think that the SAVES Act is a
bad idea. Illegal wildlife trafficking will not be affected by
this, because if it is illegal to transport any species, then
it is still illegal after this bill passes. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman, you are recognized.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have some
very selective reliance on the position of our governors in
this case. I have heard this recurring theme, that the Western
Governors Association made a bunch of recommendations on the
Endangered Species Act.
Well, the Western Governors and governors all over this
country have not exactly been bullish on the Trump-care
legislation, and yet they were summarily ignored in this House.
But if they come along with recommendations that may be read or
construed to help weaken the Endangered Species Act, suddenly
they are very persuasive authorities in this hearing.
It is a good analogy that the Ranking Member made between
the Endangered Species Act and health care, because I keep
hearing again and again from my colleagues across the aisle,
``We don't want to see species go extinct, but,'' and then
begins the reasons why we have to do things to weaken the
Endangered Species Act.
There is really no conversation that I have had in this
Committee in my 5 years here about anything that would actually
strengthen the endangered species, anything that would actually
give some policy meaning to this stated support for wildlife
and species. All we ever talk about are pulling threads out of
the Endangered Species Act to make it weaker and weaker.
So, along come the Western Governors. In several of the
witnesses' testimonies, we have heard about their specific
recommendations because some of those recommendations are
consistent with the long-standing agenda of this Committee: to
weaken citizen enforcement, to make it harder to do listing, to
make it easier to do de-listing, to weaken independent science,
all the threads that the Committee keeps wanting to pull out of
the Endangered Species Act, which many of us believe would
cause it to unravel.
So, a couple things about that. First of all, there are
some of those recommendations from the Western Governors that
are being ignored, like the increased funding for implementing
the ESA. We don't talk about that. It certainly appears nowhere
in the Administration's budget. We just had the Secretary of
the Interior to testify about what a balanced budget looks
like. In his view, the way you balance the budget is you slash
the heck out of ESA implementation, so we have a disconnect
there.
The other disconnect is the implication that these
recommendations were done by consensus among the Western
Governors, because they were not. In fact, the largest of the
Western Governors, Gov. Jerry Brown in California, correctly
anticipated how this report would be misused by this Committee
and this Congress, and he went on record on June 23 with a
letter stating that, ``the current climate in Congress is
marked by chaos and partisanship. This climate will not result
in good conservation policy.''
And that is why he specifically said in his letter,
``California does not support congressional action on the
Endangered Species Act and will not be supporting the [WGA]
resolution.'' He was joined by Washington Governor Inslee, as
well.
So, I think it is important to note that this was not a
consensus among the Western Governors. Some of them correctly
foresaw the way politics would play out in this Committee and
in this Congress. And without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to enter Governor Brown's letter of June 23 into the
record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Rep. Huffman Submission
Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.,
Office of the Governor,
Sacramento, California
June 23, 2017
The Honorable Governor Matt Mead
Idelman Mansion
2323 Carey Ave.
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0010
Dear Governor Mead:
I am responding to your letter urging my support in adopting the
amendment of the Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 2016-
08. Unfortunately, California does not support Congressional action on
the Endangered Species Act and will not be supporting the resolution.
You spearheaded an inclusive thoughtful process. In contrast, the
current climate in Congress is marked by chaos and partisanship. This
climate will not result in good conservation policy.
Thank you again for your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely,
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
______
Mr. Huffman. All right. With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. When you called him the largest governor,
are you saying that Governor Brown is fat?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Maybe. All right. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this important hearing today.
Mr. Hegar, I have a question for you. In your written
testimony, you state that, ``Currently, decisions on species
must be made on the best scientific and commercial data
available. But often, relatively little is known about the
population, range, habitat, and needs of these species,
providing a poor basis for decisions that can have major
economic consequences.''
Can you address whether the legislation before us today
will help improve scientific cooperation and transparency?
Mr. Hegar. Yes, thank you for the question. Absolutely. In
part, because of the three principles that I laid out--one,
having a meaningful role for state involvement.
And say, for example, not only looking at Texas Parks and
Wildlife, which does a lot of work, and we work together
significantly on issues because we overlap, but you have many
other state agencies that have knowledge and information--
whether it is the Comptroller's Office, we are looking at
economic impact; the General Land Office, which has all the
lands out in west Texas, that oversees those and also our
beaches; or whether it is Texas Department of Transportation,
Soil and Water Conservation Board, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality.
My point being, there are multiple state agencies, and all
of these agencies have information, plus the states have
connections with the universities that are doing research, the
stakeholders that are involved, whether it is landowners or
various industry groups. So, therefore, allowing us to provide
that information makes better-informed decisions.
And say, for example, a lot of times the information is
decades old. So, the best-available data is something that is
20 years ago, and I don't think we want to use decade-old
information to make a listing decision, when the states have
research--say, for example, in Texas--and a lot of data that we
can provide. I think it is important that the Services take and
utilize that information to make better-informed decisions.
Mr. Lamborn. All right, thank you.
Mr. Holsinger, I am glad you are here today. I want to ask
you about the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. And, Mr. Sheehan,
I hope you are listening.
Was the listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse for
Colorado, but expressly not for Wyoming--I guess at the border
between the two states, something happens--was that based on
sound science?
Mr. Holsinger. Thank you, Congressman. It is nice to see
you. That is a terrific example of the Endangered Species Act
gone astray.
The Preble's mouse was listed in 1998 as a sub-species of
the meadow-jumping mouse. And it turns out that this meadow-
jumping mouse ranges across the greater part of North America,
the greater part of the continent, all the way up to southeast
Alaska, so the listing, I think, was very questionable.
And I also think it is virtually criminal that the Federal
Government is spending more money on the Preble's mouse than on
the blue whale. That is something we looked at closely some
years ago, and it is a wonderful example of how upside-down our
priorities have become.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Hegar, back to you again. Do you believe that the ESA
process should take into account the economic impacts of
critical habitat designations when they are doing their listing
decisions?
Mr. Hegar. Yes, I think all economic data and information
should be taken into account, because I believe that we can
better manage the resources and the species. And that is why,
as one example that I laid out over and over in my written
testimony, as well as the oral, was having all the stakeholders
involved.
You can gather all the information that you need, taking in
what is needed for the species, where are they located, what is
the habitat, and also taking in the economic considerations,
because the two are critically linked. And often, the resources
that we, as individuals, are utilizing are the same resources
that the species utilize. And making sure that those resources
are better for everyone is critically important.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Willms, what happens to state budgets
when an excessive, in my opinion, an excessive amount of money
is spent on listings, or mitigating listings, based on a
possible abuse, when that money could have been used for other
things that the state has to pay for?
Mr. Willms. Certainly. Well, we end up spending a lot of
money on species that have been recovered for a long period of
time, and that is money that we could be spending in other
places, like on our wildlife action plan, to work on non-game
species, on species of concern for the state of Wyoming that we
want to prevent the need to see listings of in the future.
It hamstrings resources in a certain area where it might
not be necessary.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you. Because my time is running
out, I am not going to ask my eight-part question. I yield
back.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our
witnesses for being here today.
First, I would like to take a moment to mention an
endangered species success in my congressional district. Given
the urban nature of the California 47th Congressional District,
you might not think that we have any wildlife to worry about,
but we do. We have the island fox on Catalina Island.
When the Center for Biological Diversity and the Institute
for Wildlife Studies petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service
in June of 2000 to list the species, there were only 103 of
these individuals left on the island. After a listing in 2001,
and a lot of hard work by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Catalina Island Conservancy, and other local partners, the
population of the Catalina Island fox has rebounded to a
sustainable population of about 1,700. So, we have gone from
103 to 1,700.
The Fish and Wildlife Service recently down-listed the
Catalina Island fox from endangered to threatened because the
species has recovered biologically, but there still remains
threats of disease. Without the Endangered Species Act, I
believe our Catalina Island fox would most likely be extinct.
So, for me, the Endangered Species Act is working, despite
many attempts--and it has been systematic--to undermine it at
every turn by attempting to exempt development projects from
meeting Endangered Species Act consultations, from altering
access to the judicial process, from blocking funding for
specific recovery projects, and by squeezing both Fish and
Wildlife and NOAA's budget, in general.
In spite of all this, I would like to say that 99 percent
of listed species have not gone extinct. That is an amazing
record.
Mr. Corwin, I have a question. One of the bills that we are
discussing today, H.R. 2603, is opposed by the conservation
community, as well as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
This is the prestigious organization now led by former Fish and
Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, that sets the gold standard
for zoos.
H.R. 2603 is endorsed by the Canned Hunting Operators,
which is the trophy hunters in which the animal is kept in a
confined area, the exotic pet industry, and it is also endorsed
by what I would call a questionable zoo accreditation group
called the Zoological Association of America. The bill
eliminates permitting requirements for foreign species which
are located within the United States.
Can you explain to me why this bill would exacerbate the
loss of wild populations of certain imperiled foreign species?
Mr. Corwin. Well, it is very important to note that,
through the AZA, which is one of the most important, robust
organizations for zoos and aquariums--it is sort of the ivy
league organization that these groups belong to--they have
many, many partners, including Federal partners.
When an endangered species is recovered, it is not done
alone on an island, it is with both private, state, and Federal
partners.
As for keeping species that are internationally recognized
as endangered, that has to remain constant. And we know, for
example, just recently in France, in a zoo, a rhino, one of the
most critically endangered species on the planet, a white
rhino, was actually poached in a zoo.
This gathered a tremendous amount of world attention
because it is critically endangered, and it is internationally
recognized and protected under CITES. So, we need to apply that
with wildlife that is in the United States, as well. Endangered
species from other countries still should be afforded the
protection here in the United States.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, I still have 49
seconds, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. I thought the endangered species
in your district was going to be you, but----
[Laughter.]
Dr. Lowenthal. That is true. We have two endangered
species, if we listen to the Chair.
The Chairman. Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank our panelists for joining us today. And I want to begin
by saying that certainly the Endangered Species Act is a very
important law. It has done a tremendous amount to both recover
and protect species. No debate about that.
I think, though, today is about where is the balance in
this Act? Where are the things that we see happening before us,
and how can we make sure we better create that balance?
Mr. Hegar, I want to go to you. You had spoken earlier
about needing to consider the economic impact of designating
critical habitat. And we see some of that happening in Virginia
and along the East Coast, with the listing of the Atlantic
sturgeon. In the listing of the Atlantic sturgeon now, NOAA is
looking at designating certain areas as critical habitats.
Those areas include New York Bight, the Chesapeake Bay, the
Carolinas, the South Atlantic, including major shipping lanes
and shipping channels.
And we all know that, through time, Mother Nature has a
tendency to fill those channels in. In order to make sure
commerce can continue in those areas, there is the need to be
able to dredge. If they are designated as critical habitat,
that has a significant impact to the economies of states up and
down this coast, on the Atlantic Coast, as well as the Nation's
economy, with the ability to move commerce over the waterways,
which I argue is a more environmentally friendly way to do
that, rather than thousands of trucks on the road. Yet, we see
this potential conflict there.
Could you give me, from your experience, an example of why
consideration of economic impacts is critical in looking at
these critical habitat decisions?
And can you give me an example about how you see
stakeholders working together to make sure we find reasonable
places to be on policy, and how we designate that habitat,
making sure there is a balance in that decision making?
Mr. Hegar. Yes. First, I will key off on the stakeholder
process, and in my written and oral testimony I mentioned that
when I was a State Senator, I had implemented a process by
which trying to resolve a 50-year ongoing struggle among all
the various stakeholders in the Edwards Aquifer with various
species.
So, by not only passing legislation, but being very
actively engaged and help stewarding that process along, where
everybody was at the table, it was key that everyone was there.
And we ultimately got to a successful HCP. And now, in this
job, I have made sure that we keep that open, transparent, and
everyone is involved.
And my point is, coming back to your previous question,
when you mentioned about economic conditions, and you,
yourself, mentioned one prime example. If you look at things in
a vacuum, and not the larger scale sometimes, which is the
economic circumstances, then you are talking about dredging in
a ship channel, where by now everything has to be by trucks and
traffic and congestion, you can cause significant other
environmental issues that can harm many other species when we
are looking narrowly at one and trying to preserve that one,
but we are not looking at the bigger picture at times.
And I use that example when we are talking about the
research that we are doing, and the significant amount of money
that the state is putting into studying the 12 mussels in the
four river basins that my office has authorized over $3 million
in research by working in all the different basins, and also
working with Fish and Wildlife, and using, actually, processes
whereby we are trying to make sure that we can reimplement and
put back species in areas, to make sure the species is safe,
but also balancing that economic need of the greater area there
in Texas, where there is a win-win. And I think those win-wins
can exist, but we have to look at them in conjunction.
Mr. Wittman. Give me your perspective, then, on what you
think we could do to the current ESA to improve it to better
include consideration of economic impacts, to make sure
decisions that are made are made with the full scope of
considerations, and make sure that, in the long term, we are
doing the right thing.
Mr. Hegar. I think to get to the economic considerations,
it is absolutely critical. Two of the first things that I
mentioned in making sure that we have a better process--(1)
state involvement, because we have a closer connection there to
the local communities and local areas. Even though Texas is a
$1.7 trillion economy and the 10th largest in the world, we are
engaged in all of those areas, me and my sister agencies, to
make sure that we are working with all the stakeholders.
And (2), which I think is more critical than anything else,
is it is data-driven. You have the facts, the data, and the
information. Say, for example, with the dunes sagebrush lizard
out in the Permian Basin, the lizard is not in the entire
Permian Basin. It is in certain areas. Being able to identify
exactly where is critical one, two, and three habitat, so we
can protect the lizard, but also enable that economic activity
that is booming out on the Permian Basin, and which is driving
not only Texas economy, but a lot of our national economy. The
two can go in conjunction, and it is very critical that you
have that data to make the right decisions.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tipton [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Clay, you are recognized for your 5 minutes.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Holsinger, in your testimony, you criticize
conservation groups for doing the same thing your industry
clients do all the time: suing the government to represent
their interests.
In the case of the conservation groups, however, those
interests represent millions of Americans, not just a few
people.
In February 2017, a GAO report examined an ESA deadline
suit filed against the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service between 2005 and 2015. It
found that, aside from helping the Services set schedules for
completing overdue evaluations, the suits and subsequent
settlement agreements and court orders did not affect the
substantive basis of procedural rulemaking requirements the
Services were to follow, or the substance of any rulemaking
action to be completed.
Do you disagree with the findings of this thorough and non-
partisan GAO review?
Mr. Holsinger. Thank you, Congressman. I think it is
important to look not just at the conclusions from the report,
but at the data from the report. And the data is real clear
that environmental groups are responsible for 90 percent of all
the litigation over ESA issues.
As to how much benefit these thousands of lawsuits have
been to the agency, I would be happy to defer to Mr. Sheehan.
But I strongly suspect that this has done nothing but tie our
agency in knots, and keep them from doing their jobs.
Mr. Clay. And I would think it would depend on what the
overall outcomes of the suits are, too.
The report also found that across the deadline suits filed
between 2005 and 2015, 44 different lead plaintiffs
representing a variety of interests filed suits against the
Services. These plaintiffs included environmental groups, trade
associations, local citizen groups, local governments, and
recreational groups.
So, while the groups you mentioned in your testimony have
filed lawsuits, it is important to note they are not the only
ones. Citizen petitions and suits are critically important to
wildlife conservation, as they present new science and force
the Services to take a hard look at species that the public
feels may need, or may no longer need, ESA protection. So, I
just make that point.
Let me go to Mr. Hegar. I find it odd that your agency is
in charge of state endangered species conservation when your
website refers to you as Texas' chief financial officer, the
state's treasurer, check writer, tax collector, procurement
officer, and revenue estimator. How many biologists do you
employ?
Mr. Hegar. Yes, our job is to go out and contract with the
public universities, which also then have subcontracts with
either other universities, that are both public and private, as
well as private sectors, to make sure that we collect the data.
Dr. Robert Gulley, who heads up that division--we only have
six people in the division. However, the fact is they are all
very well qualified. Our job is to not be the biologist, not to
be the person on the ground collecting the data, but to ensure
that the process by which, the data collection, as well as the
process upon which all stakeholders are involved in the
process, so we can ensure that Fish and Wildlife or Marine has
the information that they need to make the appropriate
decision.
Mr. Clay. So, you have more accountants than biologists.
Mr. Hegar. You could also say that I run a medium-sized to
large law firm, with almost 3,000 employees and over 100
lawyers. We are a jack of all trades. And interestingly, I am
always telling my former colleagues in the Legislature that--
thank you for this new opportunity to run a new program, but I
would like to just stick with what we are doing.
Our office has been an attractant to all kinds of various
things that are way beyond the constitutional scope of my
office, this one included. However, we perform the task, and we
make sure that we do it right.
Mr. Clay. It is still important to protect the shorelines
of Texas----
Mr. Hegar. It is important that we protect the economy,
protect the species, and make sure the data is given to Fish
and Wildlife to make the right decisions.
Mr. Clay. All right.
Mr. Hegar. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, and my time is up.
Mr. Tipton. I thank the gentleman. I would now like to
recognize Ms. Cheney for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of our witnesses for being here today. I think this
is a crucially important set of issues that we ought to be able
to discuss, absent sort of the ideology and the partisanship.
We all share the same desire to make sure that we preserve
these species that matter so much.
But we also need to make sure that the existing law is not
being exploited. I wanted to ask Mr. Willms, if you could speak
a little bit more toward this notion of the really unique,
bipartisan effort that you have headed up, that Governor Mead
headed up, that we have undertaken to try to reform the ESA in
a way that is real, in a way that makes sure it is there to
preserve species for future generations, but that also helps to
protect it from some of the exploitation and abuses that we
have seen.
Mr. Willms. Certainly. Thank you. First of all, I would
say that the Western Governors Association, the Species
Conservation and Endangered Species Act initiative had two
phases. The first phase finished with a resolution in the
summer of 2016 that passed unanimously. And I think it is worth
noting that it passed unanimously, and it laid out a series of
recommendations----
Ms. Cheney. Was that even California, Mr. Willms?
Mr. Willms. Yes, yes. It laid out a series of
recommendations for ways to improve the Endangered Species Act.
Over the course of this second year, we brought in
stakeholders from every possible sector you could imagine from
all over the country, to have the most complete, bipartisan
dialogue on the Endangered Species Act that we have probably
seen in a generation to generate the most specific
recommendations that the governors have adopted, perhaps, ever
through this organization.
It is true that those recommendations were not adopted
unanimously, although it was through a super-majority. But the
reasons for not adopting unanimously, based on what I have
seen, were not necessarily based on disagreement with the
recommendations in the resolutions themselves, but a fear about
the outcome once those recommendations get to this body. So,
that is----
Ms. Cheney. Thank you. Could you talk a little bit, as
well, Mr. Willms, about why it might be--one of the issues that
we deal with, as we are looking both at this reform and in
other areas, is how states are so different. And what Wyoming
might need to do, in terms of managing our species, may be
completely different from what other states need to do.
Talk a little bit about why a state might be better
positioned to make those decisions and determinations, rather
than basically being subject to sort of a one-size-fits-all
approach coming out of Washington, DC.
Mr. Willms. At a very fundamental level, I think it comes
down to a matter of trust. Right? At the local level, at the
state level, the trust that you have to build with the
stakeholders that are necessary to recover species or prevent
the need to list species are largely landowners. There are
other stakeholders involved as well.
But it is the state agencies and the state personnel that
have the trust and the relationship with those landowners that
are able to put programs in place, voluntary conservation
programs that can be unique and creative to a set of
circumstances on the ground that they know best and they can
fit conservation around the needs of their own people. And it
is the people on the ground that know each other better.
Ms. Cheney. And is there a difference, Mr. Willms, in the
way that the state, for example, might use data than in terms
of what we are seeing at the Federal level?
Mr. Willms. Can I have you----
Ms. Cheney. In terms of the type of data that the state is
relying upon, in terms of the caliber of the data, the quality
of the data, the transparency.
Mr. Willms. States are on the ground doing on-the-ground
research every day. We have a wildlife agency that--a lot of
people are under the misconception that our state game and fish
agencies are only hook-and-bullet agencies, just agencies meant
to manage species that are hunted and fished. But it goes well
beyond that. We have wildlife action plans to manage species
that go well beyond the hook-and-bullet species. And we have
data that nobody else in the world has on these species. We are
very well situated to be able to put together management plans
and conservation strategies for a whole host of species,
whether listed or not, to ensure that they are there for future
generations.
And we have been successful. We only have 12 listed species
in the state of Wyoming, and only 3 of those 12 are located
wholly within the state. I would say that is a pretty good
track record.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much. And again, I would just
like to commend you for your efforts, commend Governor Mead for
his efforts on these issues, and urge us to be able to move
forward with true reform, absent some of the partisanship that
we have seen in this hearing, even this morning.
Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gohmert [presiding]. Thank you. At this time the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
panel taking time to be able to be here.
Mr. Holsinger, I would like to direct my first question to
you. I thought it was interesting, reading your written
testimony, when you were citing the Gunnison sage-grouse--the
majority of habitat, which, by the way, happens to be in my
district in Colorado. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the
Gunnison sage-grouse. You note in your testimony that they did
this despite rising population numbers, rangewide conservation
plans, local working groups and conservation plans. And, the
state of Colorado has noted and estimated, $50 million in
conservation efforts to be able to achieve rehabilitation of
that species.
Do you find this is going to be kind of a chilling effect
when you see that type of local effort, that type of local
investment, that type of local planning going into actually
achieve the goal that we all admire in the ESA toward a
species--is that going to create a chilling effect on local
involvement, do you believe?
Mr. Holsinger. Absolutely, Congressman. That was a
terrible shock, and a slap in the face to years and years of
hard work, cooperation from the local governments, local
landowners, the state, doing tremendously good things for
Gunnison sage-grouse.
And I think it is good to remember that the majority of
habitat for rare species is either created or maintained by
private land ownership and private landowners and their
stewardship. This is a great example of no good deed goes
unpunished. Many, many people were extremely unhappy at that
decision. I think that is why the state of Colorado sued the
Fish and Wildlife Service, local governments sued, as well. We
hope there will be a better outcome.
Mr. Tipton. I found it interesting, going through our
district, Garfield County, Glenwood Springs had spent an
incredible amount of money to be able to do scientific mapping
for the habitat for that species. That was ignored.
In fact, reading through a lot of the testimony and some
background information, the BLM's own people on the ground in
the state of Colorado, their staff, utilizing geographically
unique circumstances and data, those were discarded simply by
Washington bureaucrats, as well.
I would like to be able to enter, Mr. Chairman, into the
record a letter from the Association of Northwest Governments
out of Colorado regarding the issues, a letter that they sent
to Secretary Zinke that is detailing the concerns that they
have with regards to the Gunnison sage-grouse Secretarial Order
3353.
Mr. Gohmert. Without objection.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Holsinger, you work, obviously, a lot with the
Associated Council, the Northwest Council of Governments in
Colorado. Can you briefly describe and elaborate maybe a little
more on the concerns that they have expressed in that letter?
Mr. Holsinger. You bet, Congressman. We have heard today a
recurrent theme that the Federal Government has historically
treated the states and local governments not as partners or
neighbors, but as landlords. That desperately needs to change,
and I was heartened to hear Mr. Sheehan speak to that.
In this case, the local governments had tremendous local
knowledge about greater sage-grouse. Garfield County's terrain
is vastly different than almost anywhere else in greater sage-
grouse range. It is very varied, very hilly. So, the Federal
Government just ignored all this great local data about ``here
is what we actually have on the ground,'' and instead,
blanketed great swaths of the county as greater sage-grouse
habitat when it should not have been.
So, many local governments have been very upset at the lack
of participation.
Mr. Tipton. Now, quickly, do you believe there is
transparency in the way listing decisions are made under the
Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Holsinger. I think transparency is a huge problem. In
fact, often these decisions rely on the USGS, the science arm
of the Department of the Interior. We found them to be the most
secretive of agencies. Their guidelines actually say that they
believe their information is too important for the public to
have access to it. So, we have real problems with transparency.
Mr. Tipton. I appreciate that and believe that if we are
going to be making public policy, it ought to be publicly
available, as well. I appreciate your comments.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman yields. I recognize the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Holsinger, a quick followup. I think we will probably
do this formally, but let me get a question to you about where
in their guidelines it says it is too important to be shared
with the public. I mean this is fascinating, and should be part
of the record.
Mr. Holsinger. Yes, Congressman. That is actually in the
USGS Information Quality Act guidelines. And when you read
those guidelines against the Department of the Interior
Guidelines and Policies on Scientific Integrity and
Transparency, and the Information Quality Act itself, it is a
huge chasm.
Mr. Beyer. Great, thank you for bringing that to our
attention.
Mr. Sheehan, congratulations on your acting status, I
think.
We have had the debate, for the measly 31 months I have
been here, about the de-listing of wolves--Wyoming and the
Western Lake states, specifically. So, if this legislation is
successful, and the original Fish and Wildlife Service de-
listing process goes forward, and there is no judicial review,
how long before the wolves are endangered again? If you can
again hunt them and I know they are not particularly popular
with the hunters and the ranchers.
Mr. Sheehan. Well, I think, as we look back at that, there
is this, oftentimes, misbelief that states don't try to do good
management conservation of all the species in their states. And
I guess, coming as from a prior State Director, we did not
agree with that. We believed that we could manage the species
in our state.
If you look to a congressional action that was done a
number of years ago on de-listing wolves in Idaho and Montana,
primarily, that was not subject to judicial review. I think
that there would have been an outcry that soon these wolves in
these two states that were no longer listed would soon be
eradicated or back into a threatened condition.
From the last data I have seen, and I think it is still
pretty current and accurate, those populations of wolves in
those states that were congressionally de-listed are still very
similar to what they were 5 or 6 years ago, when that action
was taken by Congress.
So, I am not a believer that those are going to be de-
listed and suddenly eradicated off the face of the Earth. And
part of the de-listing decision, it is important to realize, is
that mechanisms must be in place by states before that de-
listing to protect those.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Corwin, one of your criticisms of this
piece of legislation was that it denies citizens access to the
courts to challenge the Fish and Wildlife Service decision.
Mr. Corwin. Absolutely--the greatest opportunities for
environmental stewardship. And when one has a chance to step up
and speak out for a resource to be wisely managed, that
individual has a duty, and we need to have a responsibility to
provide them a voice and a proper environment to share their
opinions.
As for the wolves, while they are very polarizing, we know
for a fact that the restoration of wolves in the Greater
Yellowstone ecosystem brought about a tremendous sense of
balance. Prior to the wolves, after they were extirpated since
the end of the 19th century, there was one pair of beaver in
the entire Yellowstone National Park. With the recovery of the
wolves, it brought management of game to carrying capacity.
Beavers came back, because they had access to willow. That
willow then created waterways and aqua systems that caused an
increase in amphibians.
So, we can see how the restoration of endangered species
can have a ripple effect as it plays its role as a keystone
species.
Mr. Beyer. All right, thank you.
Mr. Sheehan, this may have already been asked, but in
Congressman Newhouse's bill on saving America's endangered
species--or maybe the one before, H.R. 1274--he talks about
automatically defining data submitted by states, tribes, and
counties as scientifically--the exact language--best available
science, and that Fish and Wildlife Service would have a
problem with that.
Will you recommend amending that to fix it so that the data
can be submitted, but would be treated as data with comparable
scientific integrity?
Mr. Sheehan. I think we would like an opportunity to work
with the bill's sponsor on that, and make sure that that data
is elevated and evaluated in a proper form and fashion, as you
have suggested, Mr. Congressman. And, hopefully, we can work on
that bill as it works its way through, so that we work out any
bugs that may be in there.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar, for 5 minutes.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Corwin, the Defenders of Wildlife is a particularly
litigious special interest activist group. Just in the past few
years, the Defenders have boasted of filing scores of species-
related lawsuits. Meanwhile, during the Obama administration,
Defenders received about 10 grants from the Department of the
Interior, totaling more than $150,000.
Mr. Corwin, yes or no, are you here today as a
representative of the Defenders of Wildlife?
Mr. Corwin. No, I am not.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Corwin, yes or no again, the Director of
Legislative Affairs for the Defenders of Wildlife directly
submitted your written testimony to the Committee on your
behalf. Did you author your own testimony for today's hearing?
Mr. Corwin. Absolutely.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Corwin, neither the lengthy biography or
disclosure form that you provided to the Committee indicate any
type of affiliation with Defenders of Wildlife. What is your
affiliation with the Defenders of Wildlife? Are you a member of
their Board of Directors?
Mr. Corwin. I am not a member of the Board of Directors. I
was before, but I have not been a member of the Board of
Directors for some time.
Dr. Gosar. Is there a reason why you are no longer a board
member?
Mr. Corwin. Because my term limit came to an end.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
Mr. Sheehan, I wanted to talk to you about some of the
inadequacies, particularly of one species where it has gone
astray, and that is the Mexican gray wolf. You knew where I was
going.
Once again, under ESA we are actually looking at taking
non-typical habitat and providing a habitat, particularly in
Colorado and Utah, which wolves were never a part of. And Fish
and Wildlife Services have actually looked at exploiting that,
have they not?
Mr. Sheehan. Certainly a couple years back, and I will
have to put on my past State Director hat, because as a
director of Utah, we certainly engaged in conversations with
leadership of the Fish and Wildlife Service about how they may
view an expansion of habitat into Utah and Colorado.
I will say, to the credit of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
they were willing to come together with our states and our
wildlife managers and re-evaluate some of the modeling that had
been in place and scientific evaluations. We brought all of our
best scientists together.
And a new draft recovery plan came out just a few weeks ago
that defines a recovery zone more into the area of the country
of Mexico, rather than back north of Interstate 40, where we
don't believe--or I did not, as a State Director in our state,
and the Colorado State did not believe that that was historic
habitat.
Dr. Gosar. But that was only after dismal failure, because
the recovery plan was, at best, up to that point, a basic
malpractice case. We saw an anemic recovery plan. We saw truly
a process that did not actually work. And it actually shows
that we need to have a better relationship, geospatially, with
Mexico in that application.
For Mr. Willms and Mr. Holsinger, we are now hearing about
the sixth massive die-off. And the way that we are approaching
the endangered species, wholesalely, does not work. You made,
particularly, innuendos in regards to working with local
communities, and particularly landowners. I want you to, if you
have any extra ideas that you need more time to expand on
besides what you gave to Ms. Cheney and to Mr. Tipton.
I will start with you, Mr. Willms.
Mr. Willms. As far as better places for state engagement?
Dr. Gosar. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Willms. I think we identified a few places in the
Western Governors Association resolution. One of the places
under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act, there is a
provision that calls for cooperating with states to the maximum
extent practicable. What maximum extent practicable means is
defined differently by every region of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and it can be as much as a phone call to working very
cooperatively with states.
So, I think a better understanding of what that means, and
creating more opportunities for states to implement portions of
the Act through that provision of the Act would be incredibly
helpful.
Dr. Gosar. And wouldn't you agree that if a constituent
actually gets to share and enjoy it, they actually have
tentacles to provide and preserve?
Mr. Willms. Absolutely. One of the things we have been
looking at is how do we go from having the Endangered Species
Act being viewed as a hammer by the landowner community to one
that is incentivizing involvement in conservation.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I appreciate it. I only have 10 seconds
left, so let that come for another time. Thank you.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. The Chair yields to the gentleman
from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. A couple things here.
In 2016, we had issues come to Northern California on water
demands, water needs. And I will direct this to Mr. Sheehan.
The need for--there were conflicting issues with the water
up in Shasta Dam in Northern California. National Marine
Fisheries Service wanted to reduce releases from Shasta to
preserve salmon by keeping more cold water, keeping it longer
into the year. At the same time, the Fish and Wildlife Service
wanted to have increased flows going out the delta for smelt.
So, they are completely conflicting in what the use of the
water is supposed to be, coming out of that lake, even to the
extent that they were not going to guarantee that farmers could
get crop water in the spring because of a strategy to hold more
cold water in behind Shasta until there was so much water in
the lake that they figured they could get away with allowing
farmers to farm.
What I would ask from Mr. Sheehan, has the current
administration taken a position on this issue of consolidation,
or what steps can the Service take to improve the
coordination--and that is the important part--and the decision
making of agencies before executing plans that are counter to
each other, and totally confusing for people that are on the
sidelines trying to sort out what it is they should be doing
for water supply issues they would have that are dependent on
that water source?
So, where you have Fish and Wildlife and Marine Fisheries
in complete conflict, and the people caught in between, what
has the Administration done to look at that?
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. That is an issue
we need to rapidly engage discussion on with Marine Fisheries
and Fish and Wildlife Service.
You said the word exactly correctly. How do we coordinate
that? How do we define what the proper balance of conservation
is?
I think that sometimes we see it as sort of these conflicts
between the Federal agencies. All I could tell you is I worked
on sage-grouse. In recent years, we saw--trying to work on
landscape conservation efforts for these species. The rule book
that we ran into with the Bureau of Land Management looked a
little bit different than the rule book of what the Forest
Service had for birds that shared the exact same habitat during
the same----
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, you talk about the need to do so. Is
there anything underway to review that and get an action going
on that, we had plenty of water this year, and it kind of
covered over a possible issue with that. But, if we don't get
the type of rainfall, we don't have as full of a lake or
system, then we could be caught right back in this again and
again.
With conflicting agencies that are supposed to work for the
people, and they cannot decide, and people are caught in
between, it is like, ``Go ask your father, go ask your
mother,'' for some kid trying to decide what they want to do,
only this is real life.
Mr. Sheehan. Sure. I guess all I could say at this point
is I am pretty new coming into this role, and it is something
that I really need to get on top of. I appreciate that
feedback, and we would be glad to come back and report what we
are learning right to you and your staff, if that would be
helpful.
Mr. LaMalfa. Please. I would like that. Thank you. We will
give you a shot at getting a good look at that.
For Mr. Holsinger, we have had legislation by Mr. Huizenga,
which was presented earlier, I understand. I had three
committees this morning, I am sorry. I am co-sponsor of that
and it will help with the end of the practice of groups suing
the Federal Government as a business plan.
So, would this actually help improve the ability of the
Service to fulfill its mandates, in addition to just having a
little litigation relief, where people are actually making a
living at that? Would it be able to, instead, focus on what the
mission is of fulfilling ESA and the Service's needs, instead
of maybe frivolous lawsuits?
Mr. Holsinger. Yes, Congressman, I believe so. The Service
has to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with these
deadline lawsuits. The budget issues, the attorney fees
collected at the end of the day are a tremendous drain. This
legislation would, I think, remove one of the worst incentives
for that very kind of litigation.
Mr. LaMalfa. It is merely aligning it with the type of
reimbursements paid on other types of litigation outside of
this realm, right?
Mr. Holsinger. Yes. In addition to more flexibility on the
deadlines to the Service, it would point to existing Federal
law in regards to how attorney's fees are recovered.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, thank you. My time has expired. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am echoing
what has been said here. We are grateful for all of you for
your time and your expertise today. I apologize in advance for
any duplication in the questions. We are all bouncing in and
out for other meetings and things today. You know how it works.
Mr. Sheehan, a couple questions for you. A Government
Accountability Office report on the deadline suits we have
talked about a lot today--by the way, the report was
commissioned by Ranking Member Grijalva--they found that the
Service prioritizes the completion of listing actions mandated
by closed-door settlement agreements resulting from the
lawsuits, and that during Fiscal Years 2005 to 2015, the
Service largely focused its Section 4 activities on completing
actions required by those legal cases. And the 2011 mega-
settlement played a major role in the agenda.
So, here is the question. If the Fish and Wildlife Service
misses a deadline to make a determination on a listing or a de-
listing petition, they don't really have much of a defense when
they are sued. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Sheehan. That is true. We are very limited and we
have, obviously, limited resources to address every species
that may come through the front door as a petition.
Mr. Johnson. In that regard, the agency is almost like a
sitting duck for these legal attacks. That is what I will say.
They are used as an offensive weapon.
Mr. Sheehan. Yes, and I don't mean to imply that we won't
devote resources to those species. But hitting 90-day and 12-
month findings can be very challenging at times, and I think
that has been demonstrated for quite a number of years now.
Mr. Johnson. The study also concluded that compliance with
the mega-settlement agreement in 2011 that was pushed by these
environmental groups swallowed nearly all of the petition and
budget resources for that activity. Isn't that right?
Mr. Sheehan. I wasn't here during that time, but I could
tell you that certainly that changed the focus on how and when
the Service had to address priorities through this process.
Mr. Johnson. Let me ask you about an issue that is very
perplexing in my state of Louisiana. Our Committee staff here
met with your southeast regional staff last month to get an
update on the Louisiana pine snake. And in that meeting, the
Service's staff indicated that the region has been overwhelmed
in its efforts to appropriately manage hundreds of species from
the mega-settlement agreement.
In your written testimony you said, ``The time and cost of
litigation is one of the significant challenges we face in
implementing the ESA.'' How did the mega-settlements impact
implementing the ESA, both at the headquarters level and then
in the regions themselves?
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Congressman. I am really still
trying to learn, quite honestly, how much of our resources
through our ecological service team--the folks that are out
there, doing that--are providing data and addressing litigation
that might be out there, not just on these timelines, but on
other litigation that may exist, versus what our folks are able
to do out in the field to affect good conservation.
I come from a background where we try to do collaborative
conservation. I think that is key, working with communities and
partners, landowners. We have heard a lot of that today, but it
is so true.
I would hope we could get to an environment where we have
more partnership arrangements, rather than litigation
arrangements, because there is only ever going to be so many
resources to go around in this agency or any other government
agency. I hope we can do the best that we can with those,
rather than tying up too much of that in litigation.
Mr. Johnson. Well, the Louisiana pine snake is a case
study in absurdity. It has only been seen, like, five times
since 1940, and it supposedly lives several feet underground.
Yet, we have taken tens of thousands of forestry acres out of
commerce for a snake that no one likes and is rarely ever seen.
Let me go on. Mr. Holsinger, you were talking about the
1,500 lawsuits that your study found since 1990--I believe that
is right. As a former public interest law litigator, I am
particularly concerned about the exorbitant attorney fee rates
we have talked about for these environmental litigators.
Wouldn't you agree that environmental law is no longer a rare
or specialized field to the point that it justifies these
higher attorney fee awards and hourly rates?
Mr. Holsinger. Yes, it is quite an extensive field these
days, unfortunately.
Mr. Johnson. I remember when I was in law school 20 years
ago and we started our environmental law clinic. It was this
newfangled thing. Everybody was excited about it. Now every law
school in the country, virtually, has one of those. Isn't that
right?
Mr. Holsinger. It is quite prevalent.
Mr. Johnson. We used to charge no more than about $250 an
hour for public interest law work, and these guys are getting
close to $800 an hour. And it just does not seem justified any
longer.
I hope this legislation will correct a lot of these
problems. I am out of time, but again, I agree and thank all of
you for your time and expertise today.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Costa, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Ranking Member, for holding this, I think, important hearing.
I am not going to ask any questions to the witnesses as it
relates to the need, I believe, to amend and make modifications
in the Endangered Species Act since it was put into law in
1973, but I would like to make a statement.
Over the 13-plus years now that I have been in Congress, I
have raised a number of concerns pertaining to how the
Endangered Species Act is implemented, and how its
implementation impacts not only the entire country, but what I
am most familiar with in California and in the San Joaquin
Valley.
Many of the bills here today address concerns that I have
raised in the past with regards to the ESA. For example, two of
the pieces of legislation discussion are addressed with the
notion of using sound science. I have long said that there is
an entire body of scientific knowledge that should be
considered in order to ensure that regulations and limitations
on economic activity under the ESA are appropriate, fair, and
increase the recovery of those listed species.
As we know, the evolution of science continues to increase.
We are better at it. We have more knowledge than we had in 1973
and over the last four to five-plus decades.
Another piece of legislation addresses non-native species.
We have had to contend with non-native species issues in
California for years. Let me give you an example. I have
introduced and gotten legislation passed that would explore the
impacts of striped bass predation on listed species, native
species in California, salmon and delta smelt, to begin to
address these by implementing programs that, in fact, remove
these non-native species that were introduced into California
waters in, I believe, 1876. And we know that hot spots in
certain waterways create vast impacts of predation, but yet we
don't contend to deal with that.
However, if we believe that ESA policy uses sound science,
that we know continues to increase and become more effective,
we also need to have regular consultation with affected
stakeholders. These principles must guide our response, whether
we like the outcomes or not.
More importantly, we must move past the talking points to
get to constructive solutions that modernize the Endangered
Species Act to address all the impacts that are sure to come,
impacts on ecosystems. We know today, climate change makes a
big difference, and we acknowledge the impacts of climate
change as it relates to the implementation of the ESA, but not
always evenhandedly or fairly.
The Act must reform to accommodate some of these changes
and develop the new science that continues to increase at a
phenomenal rate. Provide flexibility in the Act, that is
important. Obviously, the best way to avoid lands being
regulated under ESA is to put policies in place to avoid the
listing of species. Habitat conservation plans work well.
So, there are a lot of things that we need to do. We know
dinosaurs, of course, don't exist any more. And ecosystems that
continue to change will endanger more species over time. But
the fact is that, under the current policy, expansive critical
habitat designations for some species with significant native
consequences of economic development activities will need to be
developed, or that the critical habitat designation under the
process of the Act's regulations must be modified to be more
adaptive. These are among many of the things that we need to
do.
Additionally, the Act regulations must allow for reasonable
and prudent alternatives to be modified in new science brought
to bear to understand these complexities and these changes.
There is no simple answer to these challenges, but the truth is
that the only path toward Republicans and Democrats coming
together in this Committee to stop the political posturing,
that too often is what we do in this Committee, to various
special interest groups--and, in fact, we need to come together
to have an honest discussion to address the needs of our
communities in a thoughtful, constructive way that I think will
allow us to move forward.
Thankfully, in the absence of congressional action,
governors across the West are having significant discussions on
ways to reform the Endangered Species Act and to implement
policies to avoid--to avoid--listing decisions.
I appreciate my colleagues raising these issues. These
pieces of legislation are important. I remain committed to
finding common-sense solutions to actually move this forward in
a real bipartisan action, and hopefully to put aside the
political posturing that too often is how we characterize this
discussion.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes
the gentleman who replaced the current Secretary of the
Interior from Montana, Mr. Gianforte.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Grijalva. And thank you to the Committee. I will add my thanks
for your testimony today. I appreciate this conversation.
I will direct my comments to Mr. Sheehan. The rules de-
listing the wolves were, as you mentioned in your testimony,
based on the best-available science, were consistent with the
requirements of the ESA, reflected extensive work with states,
and a deliberative public comment process.
I recently had the chance to go into the field in Montana
with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, and learned about
their habitat and the recovery that has gone on. That work had
gone on for, as you are well aware, 40 years, collecting data
on the grizzly bear. Their data analysis and scientific
research has been central to the recovery of the grizzly bear
population in the Yellowstone ecosystem, and the recent de-
listing was a win for the grizzly bear and for Montana.
I also learned, while I was on the ground there, that in
fact, the grizzly bear population in the Yellowstone ecosystem
had reached maximum carrying capacity of the habitat 15 years
ago. And, despite scientific evidence of their recovery, some
groups believe it should continue to be listed as an endangered
species in perpetuity. I was pleased to see in your testimony
that you do not share the belief of several environmental
groups, that species should be listed indefinitely.
My questions really focus on the work of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife. In particular, what is the process for determining
recovery goals for a given species on the list?
Mr. Sheehan. Well, it gets back to what we have talked
about a number of times today, first of all, good science. What
are those critical habitats? What are the measures that need to
be evaluated that are in place?
As they are listed--as I said, what do we need to do to get
them out of the hospital as quick as we can? And I think that
diagnosis--again, define your recovery plans, define those
critical habitats, and the needs of that species, what are the
functions that got them to that point in the first place? So, I
think that there have been excellent efforts by the states and
by many partners.
You mentioned that interagency work group to do that. As we
go through that, typically a recovery plan is going to lay out
some timelines, some costs, some efforts that need to be
undertaken. I think that is pretty systematic. I think where it
gets gray is once we achieve the recovery, then what? And that
is why I hope we would move forward for de-listing.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes, so science is at the heart of making
the decision in the listing.
Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely.
Mr. Gianforte. But let me drill into that a little bit on
the recovery goals. What is the process that the Service uses
to determine when you have met those goals?
Mr. Sheehan. Well, again, normally some of those are very,
very definitive. They could be population numbers, they could
be numbers of acres of land that are protected in some
permanent fashion. Any one of those recovery goals, depending
on what the species is, is going to have a very different set.
But they are going to be a consensus of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, typically of states, typically of those who are
engaged in that process.
And again, dependent on if that is a fish species in
Florida or a grizzly bear in Montana, this could be very
different. But I think that the process of evaluating the needs
of that species come first and foremost.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. And when a species is listed, are those
definitive recovery goals always established when the species
is put on the list?
Mr. Sheehan. No. Many species do not have recovery plans
in place right now. That would be something that I would like
to see the Service work toward.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes. It is kind of hard to hit a target
when you don't have a----
Mr. Sheehan. Yes. I believe about a third of the species
listed on the ESA do not have a recovery plan in place.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Has the Service determined
scientifically that the gray wolves have recovered in Wyoming
and the Western Great Lakes?
Mr. Sheehan. Yes, Congressman. That was done in two
different reports at two different times, or two different
determinations, that all those factors have been met. The
populations have been achieved that the regulatory mechanisms
that exist in those states to protect those as a listed--
whereas now it would be a non-listed species--are sufficient to
meet that bar to turn those over.
That is a great accomplishment, and I think when we see
those sorts of successes--be it wolves, be it grizzly bears,
and any number of other species--we need to celebrate that. We
need to turn that back over and say that is how the Endangered
Species Act is showing success, not assuming that once we
extract that species out of state management into Federal
management, that once and for all it will live there forever.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. At this time, the Chair welcomes
back to the Committee, temporarily, the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Polis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to join
the Committee today. As a previous member of the Committee, I
was very interested in joining this conversation, and continue
to be, about the importance of the Endangered Species Act.
As you know, since 1973 the Endangered Species Act has
rescued dozens of species from extinction, helped more than
2,000 threatened species throughout the country. And those
protections are critical to maintaining the diversity and
functionality of our ecosystems.
I represent a state and district where over 60 percent of
the land is public land, and our wildlife is, frankly, the
building block of our economy and jobs. And without the
Endangered Species Act, my district and our state's economy
would suffer severe damage.
Mr. Corwin, I understand you discussed the black-footed
ferrets during your statement. The ferrets are a great example
of how the Endangered Species Act has been successful. In my
own district in Colorado, we had a history-making day in 2014,
thanks to the Endangered Species Act. In 2014, about 25 miles
north of Fort Collins in my district, right near the Wyoming
border, the black-footed ferret was released back into its
native habitat on the Soap Stone Prairie Natural Area.
As you know, it was twice declared extinct, incorrectly.
But, because of the Endangered Species Act, between 1985 and
1987, the species was saved, and the surviving 18 ferrets that
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife began a breeding program with are
now on their way to over 3,000 individuals.
Would you say that, without the Endangered Species Act, Mr.
Corwin, do you think states like Colorado would have
successfully brought back black-footed ferrets into the wild?
And what challenges still exist?
Mr. Corwin. Well, it is interesting. I remember filming
the black-footed ferret almost 20 years ago, and it was not
doing well. But one of the critical partners in the restoration
of the black-footed ferret was the Denver Zoo. And the state of
Colorado is a huge partner. I believe states are partners with
the Federal Government in managing the species.
But we know for a fact, when they are restored, there is
great benefit. Look at the state of Florida. The recovery of
the critically endangered alligator. We now know that this is a
keystone species. And with the recovery of this species, we see
healthier waterways, we see good prey abundance for predators.
So, there is a tremendous benefit to the restoration of these
species, both an aesthetic, recreational, and economic benefit.
And I think both the state and Federal folks served as partners
together.
Mr. Polis. Mr. Willms, moving on to that example of states
working together, our states of Wyoming and Colorado have
worked to protect the sage-grouse habitat, not only important
for that particular bird, but of course, also for deer, elk,
recreationalists, hunters, and so many others for whom
protecting the sage brush ecosystem is such a high priority.
I see the work done on sage-grouse as a huge success. It
shows how flexible and accommodating the Endangered Species Act
already is. I believe most of my Western colleagues agree that
the last thing Western states and communities need is the BLM,
a Washington agency, conducting a rushed internal review
process, and substituting that over the hard work of our
stakeholders in the states, 11 states and many years of hard
work.
My governor in Colorado, Governor Hickenlooper, a Democrat,
along with Governor Mead of Wyoming, a Republican, have met and
sent letters to Secretary Zinke about the states' efforts on
sage-grouse, and have said that the plans do not need to be
over-ruled by Washington insiders, and do not need significant
change at this time.
Can you explain why Wyoming invested so much time and
effort into sage-grouse conservation, and why do you think
there is this kind of Washington, DC attempt to overthrow what
we are trying to do in our states?
Mr. Willms. Well, as far as why we invested money in sage-
grouse conservation, it is because it was the right thing to
do. About 40 percent of all sage-grouse in the world are within
the state of Wyoming, and we take our job to conserve wildlife
for today and for future generations as critically important.
So, we did it because it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Polis. Why do you think there is this effort at the
Interior Department to kind of over-rule, and over-rule what we
and our states have already done with regard to sage-grouse
preservation?
Mr. Willms. I don't think I can speak to what the
motivations behind what Interior is looking to do right now. We
are looking forward to continuing to work closely with them,
and hope that we can come up with solutions that work for all
states, so that we can continue. Because right now, sage-grouse
are still state birds, and we want to make sure we continue----
Mr. Polis. And I would like to highlight this success
story, because in Colorado and Wyoming I think we have shown
that the Endangered Species Act can encourage a collaborative,
proactive approach involving not just state governments, but
local governments, the private sector, and recreationalists.
And protecting the sage-grouse habitat so that a listing
wouldn't be necessary is, frankly, a great success story of,
really, our local efforts coming up with a solution that works
for our area. And I applaud both Wyoming and Colorado in that
regard.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Polis. I thank the gentleman for the time, and I yield
back.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all know why we are
here today. In 1973, Congress finally had the vision to pass
the Endangered Species Act. Before that, for decades, we saw so
many critical species either go extinct or come to the brink of
that. And the program has been a smashing success: 99 percent
success rate.
I come from Florida, where we have the Florida panther, the
bald eagle, the Florida manatee, and the alligator, and I just
want to thank you, Mr. Corwin, for talking about your
experiences, because I think that gets lost in all this, this
idea of what obstacles there are for certain businesses, but we
don't look at the big picture. And I think that is what we
really have to focus on here.
Before the passage in 1973, how difficult was it, Mr.
Corwin, to really protect our species here in the United
States?
Mr. Corwin. Well, we had an incredible evolution in our
country when it comes to conservation. And, in fact, you can
look to one of the first creatures to be recognized for
national conservation. It was the heath hen. It is a great
example of when we sit back and we think a job is done, that
you can have calamity.
The heath hen was recovered and began to appear on the
heaths of the various islands off the coast of New England. It
had almost disappeared. The numbers exploded to over 2,000
animals. They called it the heath hen because everyone would
gather together and watch them in their little breeding leks.
There is one very famous one named Booming Ben. A couple of bad
winters, some feral cats and dogs, and one day there was only
one heath hen left; it was Booming Ben. Every day he would come
out, and boom, then one day it was quiet, and that was the end
of the heath hen.
So, I think it is incredibly important that we recognize
the value of this policy, and also recognize that,
historically, the ESA was not politically based. Remember, it
was produced in an administration that had tremendous
challenges. And if it wasn't for Richard Nixon and his
policies, we would not have bald eagles today.
I think what is unique about Americans is we recognize the
value of our natural resources, we celebrate the value of
natural resources going back to Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir,
through the work of Rachel Carson. And today we, as Americans,
are unique. We have such a splendid tableau of valuable species
and landscapes, and it can only stay through wise, pragmatic,
common-sense management. I believe the ESA is a big partner in
that.
Mr. Soto. Sure. And we see a bevy of proposed bills today
with the over-arching theme of potentially whittling away at
the Endangered Species Act. What would be your recommended
reforms? Is the system working? Are there things that we can
improve upon it?
Mr. Corwin. I think there are many successes and many
challenges with the Endangered Species Act. And there is always
room for improvement.
I do believe there is an incredible innate natural
partnership that exists between the Federal Government and
state agencies. And, in fact, as has been said here, many of
the state folks, they are the ones that have skin in the game.
This is their landscape, their resources.
But in the end, when we protect a species such as the
Louisiana pine snake, which I disagree with the Congressman,
but I love that snake. It is an awesome species of snake, but
that isn't just for Louisiana. Louisiana is the steward of that
for our entire Nation. That snake has a very vital role to play
in the ecosystem.
I believe that there is improvement to be made, but I think
in many ways we can strengthen the opportunities that the
Endangered Species Act can use to ensure the conservation and
survival of our most imperiled, uniquely American species.
Mr. Soto. I want to end with the economic benefits of the
Endangered Species Act. A lot of people watch your show,
obviously. They are very interested in seeing our environment.
But there are also local tours, there are also wilderness
hikes, and so many different things.
What do you think it means, economically, for those types
of industries, from television down to hiking, to have this Act
in place, as it is now?
Mr. Corwin. There is huge value in nature. There is the
aesthetic value, there is the symbol of nature as a
representation of who we are as a nation. There is the economic
and commercial value of natural resources. It is all about wise
and pragmatic management.
Coming from Florida, natural resources, when it comes to
fishing, or when it comes to observing wildlife or connecting
with a nice, clean, healthy coastal ecosystem, that is a big
draw, economically, commercially, and recreationally, for your
state.
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
At this time we have one last valued member of the Committee to
recognize, the gentlelady from American Samoa, Mrs. Radewagen,
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking
Member. I too would like to add my welcome to the panel for
appearing today.
I have a question for you, Mr. Sheehan. I understand one of
the prior questions was casting doubt on the Interior
Department's review of the BLM's greater sage-grouse plans. Do
you want to comment on the importance of this review for
several Western states?
Mr. Sheehan. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think the
intent of that Secretarial Order from Secretary Zinke was to
say, were the plans that were Federal plans--land management,
Forest Service, but primarily BLM, as it is within the
Department of the Interior--were those in concert with what the
states' conservation plans looked like?
Under a prior administration, Secretary of the Interior
Salazar came to the states and said, ``Go identify good
management in your states, we want to see what it looks like,''
because it is different, as we have heard today. Sage-grouse
management in eastern Wyoming, or eastern Montana even, looks
very much different than sage-grouse management in western
Nevada or in southern Utah.
So, the question was, as these plans came in, were they
looking at a one-size-fits-all model, or were they looking at
what the states had to define, what works well within their
local sage-grouse management strategies, their plans, and do
those best align themselves?
So, I think it may have been premature for a discussion of
how will this review under the Secretary be forthcoming to
change those plans, or will it just acknowledge what exists at
the states and see perhaps how those could be fine-tuned. That
is yet to come. That will be released on the first of August,
and then we will see what that tells us.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you.
Mr. Sheehan, our friends across the aisle will point to
funding as a solution to the problems that countless witnesses
have highlighted with ESA over the past four Congresses.
However, funding increased under the Obama administration,
and yet the problems persisted. Problems that drained resources
away from conservation and have been perpetuated by
environmental groups through unending litigation and an
onslaught of petitions. Each species on the list costs
taxpayers money, including those species that have recovered
and could be transferred to state management.
How would the ability to de-list more recovered species
impact available agency resources and allow for more focus on
species that are in the recovery or listing process?
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you again. Getting more species off the
lists helps us focus on those that are in need of care right
now. And I would hope that it would also reduce some of the
litigation that also detracts from our ability to do
conservation.
There is no doubt about it that, whether the budgets go up
or down, we are still going to have to look to collaborate with
our communities and the people on the ground. We have heard
that over and over today, the people on the ground who are
bringing resources, and sometimes that is industry, sometimes
it is local government, and sometimes it is a private
landowner. It comes from many different places. Those are,
first and foremost, where the dollars are coming from to
conserve species across America. It is not all coming through a
Federal budget channel.
We still need enough money within the Fish and Wildlife
Service to administer a program. But if we cannot look to those
folks outside to help, then I certainly don't think that we
should have the Federal Government be the first stop for
funding all conservation in America.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. Actually, I have three or four
more questions for you.
Mr. Sheehan. OK, I will be brief.
Mrs. Radewagen. I am really out of time here, but let me
throw another one at you.
Mr. Sheehan. OK.
Mrs. Radewagen. Each species and candidate species
requires agency investments in science, surveys, and data.
While the Federal Government, in practice, relies upon mostly
Federal information, such data is available from a variety of
sources, including states, tribes, and local governments. Would
the utilization of data from those sources free up some of the
pressure on agency resources?
Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely. The more good data we can get
from the more sources, the more good research we can get from
the more sources, it is only going to make better decisions,
and we will be able to, hopefully, expedite those decisions as
well as we obtain that data.
Mrs. Radewagen. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentlelady yields back.
At this time, I want to thank all the witnesses for your
patience and for your valuable testimony. It means a great
deal. I appreciate the Members' questions.
Under Committee Rules, members of the Committee may have
some additional questions. If so, we ask that they submit them
within 3 business days following the hearing by 5:00 p.m. The
hearing record will be held open for 10 business days to
receive the responses.
I have three letters to enter into the record in support of
H.R. 424. The first is from the Public Lands Council and
National Cattlemen's Beef Association; the second is from the
American Farm Bureau Federation; and the third is from the
Minnesota Farmer's Union.
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
It just is a pleasure to have you here testifying as to
your own experiences. It is a pleasure to be serving with, you
heard the term ``Washington insiders,'' we are serving here on
the Committee with Members who are elected from the states and
really come here as outsiders. We appreciate your efforts and
our efforts to return power to the states and people.
If nothing further, this Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
Humane Society Legislative Fund
July 24, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
When people think about the canned hunting of lions, where captive
lions are stocked and shot within fenced enclosures, the African
savanna is typically the location that comes to mind--but that might be
about to change. If Congress passes H.R. 2603, the innocuous-sounding
and deceptively named Saving America's Endangered Species Act, this
despicable activity may become commonplace across the United States.
The bill eviscerates protections established by the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) for species that are nonnative to the United States. The
legislation could have far-reaching implications not just for lions but
also for many other species, including elephants, tigers, leopards,
rhinos, and chimpanzees.
Captive, or ``canned,'' hunting operations exist in numerous
states, but thanks to ESA safeguards these operators cannot stock their
enclosures with foreign ESA-listed species such as lions or elephants.
Yet some members of Congress are intent on carving out ESA exemptions
to this for the benefit of canned hunting ranches. After a federal
court required ranch operators to apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for permits to shoot and kill three species of endangered
African antelopes in canned hunts, Congress intervened to pass a bill
removing the requirement. Another bill, the Sportsmen's Heritage and
Recreational Enhancement Act, awaiting introduction to the House, gives
a further nod to trophy hunters. Among other troubling provisions, the
bill removes federal protections for gray wolves in Wyoming and the
western Great Lakes, allowing the resumption of trophy hunting and
trapping in those states, and creates an exemption to the ESA and
Marine Mammal Protection Act for 41 trophy hunters to import the bodies
of polar bears--a federally protected species--that they killed in
Canada.
H.R. 2603 also could increase the U.S. market for imperiled foreign
species and their parts, thereby stimulating global wildlife
trafficking. The United States is a principal end-market for ivory, the
traffic in which causes the killing of more than 35,000 African
elephants every year and fuels the rapid decline of the species. The
ESA helps protect the African elephant--a threatened species under the
Act--by banning, in most instances, the interstate sale of ivory.
Although importing ivory from recently killed elephants is also
illegal, wildlife traffickers regularly smuggle ivory into the country.
If H.R. 2603 passes, the interstate commerce of ivory in the United
States would likely become legal, spurring demand and providing an even
greater incentive to traffickers to smuggle in their wares.
Americans value and have great respect for the majestic nonnative
wildlife the ESA protects, as evidenced two years ago when the nation
issued a collective gasp of horror after Minnesota dentist Walter
Palmer shot Cecil, a beloved African lion, just outside Hwange National
Park in Zimbabwe. People launched online petitions, held vigils, and
protested and boycotted Palmer's office for weeks. If H.R. 2603 passes,
endless Cecils could be bred for the bullet and shot in pens by anyone
willing to dish out a few dollars. After all, traveling across state
lines to a canned hunt is a lot easier than flying to Africa.
As people learn more about the macabre world of trophy hunting, and
the organizations that promote it, such as Safari Club International,
public disgust will continue to grow. A 2015 poll from HBO Real Sports/
Marist Poll, conducted after the death of Cecil, showed that a whopping
86% of Americans find the sport hunting of big game such as lions and
elephants distasteful, and 62% think it should be illegal.
Endangered and threatened species, whether native to the United
States or not, desperately need all the protection they can get.
Removing ESA protections for imperiled foreign wildlife is nothing more
than an accommodation of the Walter Palmers of the world, and sends a
message that exploiting rare and endangered animals is acceptable as
long as they are not native to our country.
The Humane Society Legislative Fund strongly opposes H.R. 2603, and
we urge the House of Representatives to do so too.
Sincerely,
Tracie Letterman,
Vice President, Federal Affairs.
______
Union of Concerned Scientists
July 18, 2017
Dear Representative:
This Wednesday, the House Committee on Natural Resources is holding
a legislative hearing on several bills, including H.R. 424, H.R. 717,
and H.R. 1274. Together, these legislative proposals threaten the
important role of science in implementing the Endangered Species Act
and allow for politics to intrude into decisions about which species
need protection. The Union of Concerned Scientists, representing more
than 500,000 members and supporters across the country, urges you to
oppose these bills as they are intended to undermine our nation's most
effective science-based laws for protecting imperiled species on the
brink of extinction.
H.R. 424, the so-called Gray Wolf State Management Act, arbitrarily
blocks federal Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in
the Great Lakes states and Wyoming. The misguided bill would ignore the
Endangered Species Act's science-based decision-making process and
remove existing protections for gray wolves in the Midwest.
Particularly egregious is the provision that would prohibit any
judicial review of Congress's decision to remove science-based
protections for gray wolves, eliminating any opportunity for the
scientific community and the public to weigh in in the future.
Legislative delisting measures like this only undermine scientific
determinations that underpin the success of the Endangered Species Act
and set a dangerous precedent for other vulnerable species.
H.R. 717, the misleadingly named Listing Reform Act, allows
decision-makers to put economic impacts, which can easily be tampered
with, above best available scientific evidence. The decision to protect
a threatened species would be overruled by economic considerations
directly contrary to the goal of the act. The legislation goes one step
farther by preventing the Department of Interior and the Department of
Commerce from reconsidering the decision to not protect threatened
wildlife unless there is new analysis showing that the species can be
protected without having any of the aforementioned economic impacts.
H.R. 1274, the deceptively named State, Tribal, and Local Species
Transparency and Recovery Act, would undermine the Endangered Species
Act's science-based determination process by prioritizing any
information provided by states, tribes, or counties to constitute
``best available science'' regardless of the scientific merit of that
information. However, the Endangered Species Act already requires
federal cooperation with state wildlife managers and local officials.
In addition, decisions to list or delist a species are already required
to use the best available science, which of course can include state,
tribal, and local scientific studies when they are conducted in
accordance with well-established scientific standards. Best available
science is not something that can be determined based on region or
state borders. It is a culmination of the efforts undertaken by
scientists and wildlife experts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service, where they conduct studies,
gather data and other information from the scientific community and the
public, including collaboration with state, local, and tribal
governments and industry, and then make a determination based on the
best available science.
In addition to these three bills, we also stand in solidarity with
our partner organizations in opposition to H.R. 2603 and H.R. 3131.
Combined with these three anti-science bills, both of these proposals
attempt to substitute politics for scientific judgment and make it
harder for the public to engage in wildlife stewardship. We urge you to
oppose all five of these ill-informed pieces of legislation that
undermine our nation's most effective science-based conservation law,
the Endangered Species Act.
Sincerely,
Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,
Director, Center for Science and Democracy.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Gohmert Submission
--Letter addressed to Vice-Chairman Gohmert from Phil Goss,
President of the United States Association of
Reptile Keepers dated July 10, 2017.
Rep. Peterson Submissions
--Letter addressed to Representative Peterson from Thomas
O. Melius, Regional Director at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service dated January 30, 2015.
--Survey Description and Figures of Wolf Populations
conducted by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources dated July 2017.
--Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva from Ken Hamilton, Executive Vice
President of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation
dated July 17, 2017.
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
--Letter from Alaska Wilderness League, American Rivers,
Animal Welfare Institute, Born Free USA, Center for
Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife,
Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Howling
For Wolves, Humane Society Legislative Fund,
International Fund for Animal Welfare, League of
Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation
Association, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Oceana, Save Animals Facing Extinction, Sierra
Club, WildEarth Guardians, and Wildlands Network
dated July 18, 2017.
--Testimony of Kate Dylewsky, Senior Policy Advisor for the
Animal Welfare Institute dated July 19, 2017.
Rep. Tipton Submission
--Letter from Bonnie Petersen, Executive Director of the
Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado to
Secretary Ryan Zinke, Department of the Interior
dated July 7, 2017.
[all]