U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

87–584 PDF 2015

H.R. 4315, ‘‘21ST CENTURY ENDANGERED 

SPECIES TRANSPARENCY ACT’’; H.R. 4316, 

‘‘ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY 

TRANSPARENCY ACT’’; H.R. 4317, ‘‘STATE, 

TRIBAL, AND LOCAL SPECIES TRANSPARENCY AND RECOVERY ACT’’; AND 

H.R. 4318, ‘‘ENDANGERED SPECIES LITIGATION REASONABLENESS ACT’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, April 8, 2014 

Serial No. 113–69 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Katherine M. Clark, MA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 ................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 4 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bean, Michael, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ................. 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Budd-Falen, Karen, Owner/Partner, Budd-Falen Law Offices, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming ........................................................................................................ 65 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66 

Courtney, Steven P., Associate, National Center for Ecological Analysis 

and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, California .................................................. 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Holsinger, Kent, Attorney, Holsinger Law, Denver, Colorado ...................... 75 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 76 

Jankovsky, Hon. Tom, Commissioner, Garfield County, Colorado ............... 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30 

Percival, Robert V., Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law, Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland Francis King Carey 

School of Law, Baltimore, Maryland ........................................................... 71 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 72 

Ramey, Rob Roy II, Ph.D., Wildlife Science International, Nederland, 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Rauch, Sam, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC ........... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26 

Seliger, Kel, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas .................................... 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record: 

American Loggers Council, prepared statement of ........................................ 54 

Casperson, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 56 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4315, TO AMEND THE 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO REQUIRE PUBLICATION ON THE INTERNET OF THE BASIS FOR DETERMINATIONS THAT SPECIES ARE ENDANGERED 

SPECIES OR THREATENED SPECIES, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES, ‘‘21ST CENTURY ENDANGERED SPECIES 

TRANSPARENCY ACT’’; H.R. 4316, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO IMPROVE THE 

DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES UNDER 

THAT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY TRANSPARENCY ACT’’; 

H.R. 4317, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

OF 1973 TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE TO STATES OF THE 

BASIS OF DETERMINATIONS UNDER SUCH ACT, TO 

ENSURE USE OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY STATE, 

TRIBAL, AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS IN DECISIONMAKING UNDER SUCH ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL SPECIES TRANSPARENCY AND RECOVERY ACT’’; AND H.R. 4318, 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’’ 

Tuesday, April 8, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastings, Bishop, Lummis, Benishek, 

Tipton, Gosar, Southerland, Flores, Mullin, Daines, Cramer, 

LaMalfa; Holt, Grijalva, Costa, Huffman, Shea-Porter, and Garcia. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Today we are 

having a legislative hearing on H.R. 4315, the ‘‘21st Century 

Endangered Species Transparency Act’’; H.R. 2316, the ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Transparency Act’’; H.R. 2317, the ‘‘State, 

Tribal, and Local Species Transparency Recovery Act’’; and 

H.R. 4318, the ‘‘Endangered Species Litigation and Reasonable 

Act.’’ The Chair notes a presence of a quorum. 

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Neugebauer from Texas be allowed to sit in the committee and participate in the hearing. 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. And the same 

courtesy would be applied to Mr. Huizenga, if he also wants to 

come and testify. 

2 

We will begin now with opening statements, as confined to the 

Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent that any Member who wants to have a statement appear in 

the record have it to the committee before the close of business 

today. And, without objection, so ordered. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRMAN. Today marks the legislative phase of updating, 

improving, and modernizing the Endangered Species Act for the 

21st century. It is a product of years of Committee oversight on 

this 40-year-old law, which was last reauthorized 26 years ago, in 

1988. 

Last year I, along with my colleague from Wyoming, Mrs. 

Lummis, created the Endangered Species Act Congress Working 

Group. It is comprised of Republican Members from affected States 

nationwide. This group held forums and received hundreds of public comments from all sides. 

In February the working group released its final report with 

more than 20 recommendations. The group found that while there 

is strong support for conserving endangered species, there are key 

areas where improvements could be made to make the law more 

effective for both species and for people. Today’s bills reflect some 

of those recommended improvements. 

I have said it has never been my intent to introduce a sweeping 

overhaul of the Endangered Species Act. I don’t believe that is the 

best way to go forward. Instead, the focus needs to be on thoughtful, sensible, and targeted proposals. We have those before us 

today. 

First is a bill I introduced, H.R. 4315, the ‘‘21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act.’’ This legislation simply requires 

that data used by Federal agencies for ESA listing decisions be 

made publicly available and accessible through the Internet. The 

last significant update to ESA was when the Internet was in its infant stages. Posting data, supporting key ESA decisions online will 

greatly enhance transparency and is something, frankly, that 

should have been done a long time ago. 

In my own Central Washington district, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, rather than using actual DNA data, based its decision to 

list a plant called a bladderpod largely on publicly inaccessible data 

from a 2006 unpublished manuscript. Other examples include the 

Federal Government’s citation to taxpayer-funded studies that conclude without actual data that listing the greater sage-grouse 

across 11 Western States is warranted. 

Now, whether one agrees with the conclusions that I just cited 

or not, refusing to make tax-funded data available to the American 

public flies in the face of transparency and good science. 

H.R. 4317, the ‘‘State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency 

and Recovery Act,’’ sponsored by our colleague from Texas, Mr. 

Neugebauer, would enhance State, local, and tribal involvement in 

ESA decisions. This bill would require that before any listing decision is made, the Federal Government must disclose all data used 

to States affected by such actions. This gives States the opportunity 

3 

to verify, dispute, or complement such information, and encourages 

a stronger role for States and species conservation policies. 

The bill also ensures that data from local, State, and tribal entities—those are the governments closer to the ground—be included 

in ESA listing decisions. 

H.R. 4316, the ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Transparency 

Act,’’ sponsored by Mrs. Lummis, would require the administration 

to track and make available online the millions of taxpayer dollars 

being spent on ESA-related litigation, to give American people 

clear information about the time and resources currently used to 

address ESA-related lawsuits. 

And the final bill, introduced by Mr. Huizenga from Michigan, 

would reduce taxpayer-financed attorney fees to help ensure that 

resources for species protection are focused more on species than 

on lucrative legal fees. It puts in place the same reasonable hour 

caps on attorney fees used in another Federal law, the ‘‘Equal 

Access to Justice Act.’’ This common-sense bill would help reduce 

the often current exorbitant taxpayer-funded fees, often upwards of 

$500 an hour, and make them limited to the hourly rate for attorneys that prevail against the Federal Government at $125 an hour. 

This is in line with the Equal Access to Justice Act. 

And just last week, at the Appropriations Committee hearing, 

the Director of Fish and Wildlife acknowledged that there could 

be—and I will quote—‘‘opportunities to make incremental improvements’’ to the ESA. And that is exactly what we are doing here, 

in a manner that I hope will be bipartisan. 

These bills provide a starting point for this committee’s legislative efforts on the Endangered Species Act. Moving forward with 

these simple, narrowly focused proposals would help bring needed 

transparency for significant Federal ESA decisions for both people 

and for species. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE

ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Today marks the legislative phase of updating, improving, and modernizing the 

Endangered Species Act for the 21st century. It is the product of years of committee 

oversight on this 40-year-old law that was last reauthorized in 1988. 

Last year, I along with Rep. Cynthia Lummis, created the Endangered Species 

Act Congress Working Group. Comprised of Republican Members from affected districts nationwide, this group held forums and received hundreds of public comments 

from all sides. 

In February, the Working Group released its final report with more than 20 recommendations. The Group found that while there is strong support for conserving 

endangered species, there are key areas where improvements could be made to 

make the law more effective for both species and people. Today’s bills reflect some 

of those recommended improvements. 

I’ve said it has never been my intent to introduce a sweeping overhaul of the ESA. 

I don’t believe that’s the best way forward. Instead, the focus needs to be on 

thoughtful, sensible, and targeted proposals. We have those before us today. 

First is a bill I introduced, the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency 

Act. This legislation simply requires that data used by Federal agencies for ESA 

listing decisions be made publicly available and accessible through the Internet. The 

last significant update to the ESA was when the Internet was in its infant stages. 

Posting data supporting key ESA decisions online will greatly enhance transparency, and is something that should have been done long ago. 

In my own central Washington district, the Fish and Wildlife Service, rather than 

using actual DNA data, based its decision to list a plant called the bladderpod largely on publicly inaccessible data from a 2006 ‘‘unpublished’’ manuscript. Other examVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:22 Mar 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP08 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87584.TXT DARLEN
4 

ples include the Federal Government’s citation to taxpayer-funded ‘‘studies’’ that 

conclude, without actual data, that listing the Greater Sage Grouse across 11 western States is warranted. Whether one agrees with the conclusion or not, refusing 

to make taxpayer-funded data available to the American public flies in the face of 

transparency and good science. 

H.R. 4317, the State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act, 

sponsored by Rep. Neugebauer, would enhance State, local and tribal involvement 

in ESA decisions. This bill would require that before any listing decision is made, 

the Federal Government must disclose all data used to States affected by such actions. This gives States the opportunity to verify, dispute, or complement such information and encourages a stronger role for States in species conservation policies. 

The bill also ensures that data from local, State and tribal entities—those closest 

to the ground—be included in ESA listing decisions. 

H.R. 4316, the Endangered Species Transparency Act, sponsored by Rep. 

Lummis, would require the administration to track and make available online the 

millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on ESA-related litigation to give the American people clear information about the time and resources currently used to address ESA-related lawsuits. 

The final bill, introduced by Rep. Huizenga, would reduce taxpayer-financed attorney fees to help ensure that resources for species protection are focused more on 

species than on lucrative legal fees. It puts in place the same reasonable hourly caps 

on attorney fees used in another Federal law, the Equal Access to Justice Act. This 

common sense bill would help reduce the often current exorbitant, taxpayer-funded 

fees—often upwards of $500 per hour—and make them limited to the hourly rate 

for attorneys that prevail against the Federal Government at $125 per hour. This 

is in line with the Equal Access to Justice Act. 

Last week, at an appropriations hearing, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service acknowledged that there could be ‘‘opportunities to make incremental improvements’’ to the ESA. That is exactly what we’re doing here, and in a manner 

that, I hope will be bipartisan. 

These bills provide a starting point for this committee’s legislative efforts on the 

ESA. Moving forward with these simple, narrowly focused proposals would help 

bring needed transparency for significant Federal ESA decisions for both species 

and people. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, with that, I will recognize the distinguished 

Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for yielding. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. After numerous hearings and a partisan task force 

which concluded that the Endangered Species Act is a failure because it has not recovered enough species, we now have before us 

four bills that would create red tape, divert agency resources, and 

dictate what data constitutes the best available science, regardless 

of whether the data is, in fact, the best, or even scientific. None of 

these bills will actually lead to the recovery of more species. 

The pattern of this committee with respect to ESA has been all 

too familiar to other issues we have before us. Partisan hearings, 

excessive document demands from agencies that require thousands 

of man-hours to address, the all-Republican task force, and, yesterday, another subpoena for Fish and Wildlife Service, which, by 

now, must be feeling pretty popular with the Natural Resources 

Committee. 

Finally, today we consider four bills that have been before—that 

have been developed with no consultation with the Democrats. 

Ironically, a few of these bills have concepts that—some changes 

could probably be supported. But, as drafted, they have significant 

5 

problems. If the past is a prologue, there will be no effort to try 

to make the changes that will garner bipartisan support, and the 

Majority will just move forward to mark up, because, as we all 

know, they have the votes. 

This, unfortunately, is not the way to successfully legislate. And 

unchanged, these bills will very likely go the way of the dodo bird. 

No real progress will be made to improve agency efficiency and increase recovery rates for species or to truly improve transparency 

in a way that benefits citizens, agencies, and the species. Perhaps 

that is what the other side wants: the ability to endlessly attack 

ESA and repeat accusations that have been around for decades, 

that environmentalists are getting rich off ESA lawsuits and species are not recovering. 

The fact is, like it or not, ESA is one of the most important environmental laws of our time, and protecting endangered species is 

broadly supported by the public. When the father of ESA, Congressman John Dingell, introduced his bill in 1973, species were 

disappearing at an accelerated rate. As Mr. Dingell noted then, and 

is still true today, the protection of endangered species is far more 

than a matter of aesthetics. Once a species is gone, it is gone. 

When we fail to protect endangered species, as then-Committee 

Chairwoman Margaret Sullivan noted, we tinker with our own futures, and run risks whose magnitudes we barely understand, if at 

all. 

Does the recovery of species take time? Of course it does. Species 

that end up on the list are those that have been driven to the 

brink, but saved from extinction after decades of habitat loss and 

degradation or, in the case of the wolf, a concerted extermination 

effort. Were it not for ESA, however, scientists estimate that more 

than 200 species would have gone extinct in the time since the 

law’s passage. Moreover, when comparing the actual recovery rate 

of listed species to the recovery plans that have been developed 

under the law, 90 percent of the listed species are recovered at a 

rate that was expected in the plan. 

We have a duty and a responsibility to protect all creatures, 

great and small. And I cannot support legislative initiatives that 

will undermine that goal. If the Republicans want to improve recovery, increase transparency in a manner that truly benefits species, we are prepared to talk. If this effort is just another talking 

point on the too-much-regulation or sue-and-settle agenda, however, the discussion will be unproductive and short. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement, 

and I am very pleased to recognize our first panel. We have Dr. 

Rob Roy Ramey from Nederland, Colorado, who is with the Wildlife 

Science International. We have The Honorable Kel Seliger, State 

Senator from Amarillo, Texas; Dr. Steve Courtney, Associate for 

the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, from 

Santa Barbara, California; Mr. Michael Bean, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks for the U.S. Department of the Interior, here, in Washington, DC; Mr. Sam Rauch, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs for the 

National Marine Fisheries Service at the U.S. Department of 

6 

Commerce, here, in Washington, DC; and The Honorable Tom 

Jankovsky, Commissioner of Garfield County, Colorado. 

For those of you who have not had the opportunity to testify in 

front of the committee, we ask all of you to submit a written statement, which you all did. And that will be part of the record. However, with your oral remarks, I would ask very much that you keep 

them within the 5-minute time period. And that timing light in 

front of you is how we kind of keep score here. When the green 

light is on, it means you are doing extremely well. When the yellow 

light comes on, it means that you are coming to the end of your 

5 minutes. And then, when the red light comes on, that means that 

the 5 minutes are over. So, I would ask you to end your remarks 

before that red light comes on, if you can do that. And if we do 

that, we will have plenty of time, hopefully, for questions. 

So, with that, I want to introduce first Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, II, 

from Nederland, Colorado. And you are recognized for 5 minutes, 

Dr. Ramey. 

Dr. RAMEY. Thank you, Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF ROB ROY RAMEY II, PH.D., WILDLIFE SCIENCE 

INTERNATIONAL, NEDERLAND, COLORADO 

Dr. RAMEY. Thank you, Chairman. This hearing today considers 

modest bills that seek to correct several longstanding issues with 

transparency and prioritization of conservation effort in administration of the Endangered Species Act. 

The first bill, H.R. 4315 (Hastings), would restore the public’s 

right to know by providing public access to the data that are the 

basis of ESA decisions. H.R. 4315 is also consistent with a long 

trend of legislation on the openness and transparency of government. In 1982, congressional amendments to the Endangered Species Act required that listing decisions be based upon data, rather 

than opinion or information. 

Subsequent legislative expansions of the public’s right to know 

including the Shelby Amendments and circular A110, from the Office of Management and Budget, to require that all data produced 

under a Federal award be made public; the Freedom of Information 

Act in 2000; the Federal Advisory Committee Act, also in 2000; and 

the Data Quality Act in 2001, for which all the agencies have produced policies. 

This tradition of openness continued in 2009, with President 

Obama’s executive order requiring greater openness under the 

Freedom of Information Act. ‘‘The presumption of disclosure also 

means that agencies should take up affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from 

the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform 

citizens of what is known by their government, and disclosures 

should be timely.’’ 

Moreover, within the scientific community, an increasing number 

of scientific journals require that the data be archived and publicly 

available. The benefits of making data public and independent review are obvious. Here are a few of the benefits recognized by the 

National Institutes of Health and National Academy: reinforcing 

open scientific inquiry, encouraging a diversity of analysis and 

opinion, promoting new research, testing of new or alternative 

7 

hypotheses, enabling exploration of topics not envisioned by the 

original investigators, permitting the creation of new data sets by 

combining data sets from multiple sources, and promoting new 

ways of looking at problems. 

Just as maintaining scientific progress to benefit human health, 

these same reasons apply to solving problems with ecosystem 

health facing endangered species. And withholding data does not 

further the goal of species recovery. 

Despite a trend toward openness in virtually all other areas of 

government, many far-reaching ESA listings and regulatory decisions are being made without the opportunity for independent analysis of the underlying data. The ESA is sorely in need of updating 

in this regard. And the services are working from an outdated 

model. 

Should the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service be making far-reaching decisions based upon data 

that are not publicly available, and even data that they and peer 

reviewers retained by them have not seen? I don’t think so. 

Now, what about the criticisms of this bill? In my 34 years of experience working with endangered species in the wild, the risks of 

data disclosure are overstated. Most of the data we are talking 

about reveals nothing about specific locations that would put plants 

and animals at risk. Measurements, genetic data, mortality data, 

disease data, behavioral data, experimental data, past locations recalling an animal’s move from one place to another, their sex, age, 

and number. These don’t put the animals at risk. And in cases 

where there are regularly used nest sites, water sources, and these 

are host to human activity, and a documented risk exists, seasonal 

closures are an effective tool for protection. 

The purported risk of poaching or harassment of wildlife is a red 

herring. It has been my direct experience that if the public knows 

where nests are, or the water sources are, it can be counted on to 

protect them from trespass and harm. It has also been my experience that poaching is a crime of opportunity and chance. It is not 

one facilitated by data mining. And there are severe penalties for 

poaching, and that includes felonies. 

Now, the privacy of land owners is something of concern to all 

of us. And that could be protected in the same way that privacy 

of individuals involved in clinical trials and medical research can 

be protected, through the use of legally binding, non-disclosure 

data-sharing agreements. And these are in wide use. 

In conclusion, I do see one grave risk to this openness and proposed data disclosure. It is to those who have sought to maintain 

their power, money, and authority by withholding scientific and financial data from the public, and this comes at the cost of recovering species. 

And just a few words on H.R. 4316 and 4318. I think in 1978, 

when the Supreme Court interpreted the language of the ESA to 

conclude that listed species must be protected at whatever the cost, 

they weren’t referring to paying out exorbitant lawyers’ fees. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramey follows:] 

8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROB ROY RAMEY II, PH.D., WILDLIFE SCIENCE INTER- NATIONAL, NEDERLAND, COLORADO ON H.R. 4315, H.R. 4316, H.R. 4317, AND H.R. 

4318 

‘‘There is, to begin with, the kind of secrecy that everyone deplores but that is 

fostered by institutional cultures of self-interest, both public and private—when 

scientific facts that the public has a right to know are intentionally hidden and 

knowingly withheld to preserve the economic or political standing of powerful organizations.’’ 

Sheila Jasanoff, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. 

The hearing today considers bills that seek to correct several long-standing issues 

with transparency and prioritization of conservation effort in administration of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The bills would restore the public’s right to know 

when it comes to ESA decisions; ensure cooperation with State, local, and tribal governments; and ensure that the public’s funds go where they are needed most—to 

species conservation rather than into lawyers’ pockets. 

As a biologist who has dedicated a 34-year career to the conservation of endangered species, and who has risked life and limb on countless occasions to save endangered species in the wild, I support these bills. While the details of these bills 

may be discussed and debated, the need for them is unquestionable. 

H.R. 4315, (Hastings), ‘‘21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act’’ 

The first bill, H.R. 4315, addresses a subject that I have written extensively 

about in scientific papers and in previous testimony before this committee, on 

August 1, 2013. I include a copy of that testimony as an attachment in support of 

my testimony today, however, let me reiterate several key issues and address several concerns raised by critics. 

First, the ESA requires that decisions to list species as threatened or endangered, 

and enact regulatory actions to aid their recovery, be made ‘‘solely on the basis of 

the best available scientific and commercial data.’’ However, Federal agencies actually rely on published and unpublished studies, and professional opinion, rather 

than the underlying data used in the studies. This means that many far-reaching 

ESA listing and regulatory decisions are being made without an opportunity for 

independent analysis and verification of the underlying data upon which the cited 

studies are based. 

Second, when data are not publicly accessible, legitimate scientific inquiry is effectively eliminated as no third party can independently reproduce the results. Such 

secrecy does not further the goal of species recovery. Such secrecy also puts the evidentiary basis of some resource agency decisions outside the realm of science and 

in clear violation of the Information Quality Act. And finally, it has the effect of concentrating power, money, and regulatory authority in the hands of those who control 

access to the data. 

Third, peer review is not a panacea. It is a useful but imperfect filter on information quality and not a substitute for public access to the underlying data that allows 

for an independent, third party review. 

Fourth, there are precedents that support the archiving of data that is being proposed in this bill. Several publicly accessible data repositories exist on the Internet, 

as well as traditional museum and library archives where data may be archived 

without charge. Additionally, a growing number of scientific journals require that 

the data be published with the paper or deposited in an online archive. As an 

example, data archiving and sharing policies that have been developed by the 

National Institutes of Health are straightforward and address many of the issues 

raised by critics for similarly requiring data archiving and sharing of data used as 

the basis of ESA decisions. (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/ 

data_sharing_faqs.htm#902). 

And finally, as I was asked in previous testimony, ‘‘Are there situations where 

public access to data should be limited, such as revealing the locations of endangered species?’’ To that question I answered, ‘‘In most cases, this threat is overstated. However, in those situations where there is a legitimate concern (i.e., where 

poaching has been clearly documented), the risk should be weighed against the potential benefits of more effective management aiding species recovery. If the risk of 

disclosure is real, then the solution is to allow only ‘narrowly drafted exceptions to 

the general rule of open access’ as ‘broad exceptions tempt agencies and other decisionmakers to shield their programs from criticism’ (Fischman and Meretsky 2001).’’ 

One widely used mechanism that allows for data sharing when disclosure has risk 

or data are considered proprietary, is the use of legally binding, non-disclosure/data 

sharing agreements. These are in widespread use in the medical research fields and 

9 

examples can be downloaded from the websites of major research universities (i.e. 

MIT, Cornell, Yale). 

As noted by Jasanoff (2006) ‘‘Important legislative expansions of the public’s right 

to know and assess information used by the government include: the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2000), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. app. § § 1–15 (2000), and the Data Quality Act, a rider to the Treasury and 

General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. No. 106–554, § 515, 114 

Stat. 2663 (2000).’’ To this list, I add the Shelby Amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 1999, Pub. L. No. 105–277, 64 FR 5684 (Feb. 4, 1999) which 

amended OMB Circular A–110 to require that Federal awarding agencies ensure 

that all data produced under an award are made available to the public through 

the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act. H.R. 4315 is consistent with that legislative trend of openness and transparency. 

H.R. 4317, (Neugebauer), ‘‘State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and 

Recovery Act’’ 

The next bill, H.R. 4317, addresses a long-standing frustration experienced by 

State, local, and tribal governments I have worked with, at having their data and 

plans effectively ignored by the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) unless the agency was forced to do otherwise (i.e. through litigation). We are currently seeing this 

issue play out on the lesser prairie chicken, that was just listed by the USFWS, as 

well as Gunnison and greater sage grouse, whose decisions are pending. In all of 

these cases, the data and the plans were developed with substantial expenditures 

of earnest effort. However, there is no guarantee that superior local data will be 

considered by the USFWS as best available scientific and commercial data in its decisionmaking. 

A poignant example comes from Dolores County, Colorado. It is the poorest county 

in that State and facing devastating economic consequences with a potential listing 

of the Gunnison sage grouse. That proposed listing has crippling economic consequences because most of the county, including the town of Dove Creek and most 

of its agricultural land, was mapped and proposed as critical habitat by the USFWS. 

The county commissioned an independent GIS analysis of critical habitat, which 

found (using higher resolution data) large areas of non-habitat mapped as critical 

habitat and submitted comments to the USFWS pointing out these problems. However, given the experience of other counties whose mapping efforts have been ignored, the County is not hopeful. 

Commissioner Tom Jankovsky of Garfield County, Colorado can describe a similar 

situation there, where their sage grouse habitat is naturally fragmented by topography and vegetation, but the agencies treat it as if it were contiguous habitat, and 

have ignored the County’s superior mapping efforts. 

Perhaps even more disturbing is that fact that there is no mechanism for the 

USFWS to cooperate with State, local, and tribal governments in development of 

conservation plans and provide assurances that proposed conservation efforts will 

meet the standards of the Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When 

Making Listing Decisions (PECE policy). Essentially, State, local, and tribal governments find out whether their hard work has paid off only at the time of a listing 

decision. That is a disincentive for investing conservation efforts. This bill could 

make a difference in providing a mechanism whereby greater assurance is provided 

in advance. 

H.R. 4316, (Lummis), ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Transparency Act’’ 

I applaud the intent of H.R. 4316 to track the funds expended to respond to ESA 

lawsuits, including the number of employees dedicated to litigation, attorney’s fees 

awarded in the course of ESA litigation and settlement agreements. To this I would 

add the requirement that these expenditures also be tracked by species, and that 

ESA expenditures at other Federal agencies be tracked as well, so that the public 

can determine the total Federal cost of implementing the ESA. Such data would go 

a long way toward setting priorities. 

H.R. 4318, (Huizenga), ‘‘Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act’’ 

And finally, I have a few words to say about H.R. 4318, (Huizenga). In 1978, the 

U.S. Supreme Court interpreted language of the ESA to conclude that listed species 

must be protected ‘‘whatever the cost.’’ However, I do not think the Supreme Court 

was referring to ‘‘whatever the cost’’ applying to exorbitant, run-away lawyer’s fees. 

This bill will reprioritize expenditures so that they will do the most good for species 

recovery. 

10 

Literature Cited 

Fischman, R.L., and V.J. Meretsky. 2001. Endangered species information: access 

and control. Washburn Law Journal 41:90–113. 

Jasonoff, S. 2006. Transparency in public science: purposes, reasons, limits. Law 

and Contemporary Problems. Duke University. 

Ramey, R.R. 2013. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources. Oversight Hearing on: ‘‘Transparency and Sound Science Gone Extinct?: The Impacts of 

the Obama Administration’s Closed-Door Settlements on Endangered Species and 

People.’’ (Provided oral and written testimony.) 1 August 2013. 

Attachment A 

TESTIMONY OF ROB ROY RAMEY II, PH.D. 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘TRANSPARENCY AND SOUND SCIENCE GONE EXTINCT?: THE IMPACTS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S CLOSED-DOOR SETTLEMENTS ON ENDANGERED SPECIES AND PEOPLE,’’ HELD AUGUST 1, 2013 

‘‘A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.’’ 

Barack Obama (from Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies, on the subject of the Freedom of Information Act) 

My Qualifications 

I am an independent scientist with 33 years of experience in conservation, research and management of threatened and endangered wildlife. Having worked on 

many species, including peregrine falcons; California condors; desert, Sierra Nevada, 

and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep; argali sheep of Asia; meadow jumping mice; 

sage grouse; delta smelt and African elephants, I am well aware of the scientific 

issues surrounding species listing and recovery. I earned a Ph.D. from Cornell 

University in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; a master’s degree from Yale 

University in Wildlife Ecology; and a bachelor’s degree in Biology and Natural History from the University of California Santa Cruz, and postdoctoral experience included research at University of Colorado, Boulder and as a visiting scientist at the 

Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species at the San Diego Zoo. After 5 years 

as Curator of Vertebrate Zoology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, I 

served as a consulting Science Advisor to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

the Interior in Washington, DC. I am member of the Caprinae Specialist Group at 

the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and serve as a 

science advisor to the Council for Environmental Science, Accuracy, and Reliability 

(CESAR). I consult on endangered species scientific issues and conduct scientific research with Wildlife Science International, Inc. 

I bring to your attention two key transparency issues with the implementation of 

the U.S. Endangered Species Act. These are issues that undermine legitimate conservation efforts, waste scarce conservation dollars, and impose ineffective regulatory burdens on the public. In the worst cases, they can harm the very species 

they were intended to protect. I also provide potential solutions that I think both 

sides of the aisle may find agreement on. 

ISSUE 1: MOST ESA DECISIONS ARE NOT BASED UPON PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (US–ESA) requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) make decisions to list species as threatened or endangered, and 

enact regulatory actions to aid the recovery of species, ‘‘solely on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data available’’ (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Although referred 

to as data, the USFWS actually relies on published and unpublished studies, and 

professional opinion, rather than the underlying data the cited studies are based 

upon (see http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/ and the Department of Interior’s 

Scientific Integrity policies (DOI 2011)). Despite having adopted the Office and Management and Budget Information Quality Guidelines which require transparency in 

studies used in regulatory decisionmaking, currently, neither the USFW, nor the 

National Marine Fisheries Service have a requirement that data relied upon in decisionmaking be publicly available. 

Resource agency reliance on the papers and reports which summarize results and 

contain the opinions of scientists, rather than the underlying data, as specifically 

required by the ESA, has created an untenable situation where: 

11 

1. Far-reaching ESA listing and regulatory decisions are being made without an 

opportunity to independently analyze the underlying data and assumptions 

upon which the cited studies are based. 

2. Resource agencies have effectively replaced the scientific method in implementation of the ESA (i.e., data, hypothesis testing, and reproducible results) with 

the opinions expressed by the authors of the cited studies, especially when 

those opinions are erroneously represented as if they were rigorously tested 

against the data. 

What are the effects of this lack of transparency on the public? When data are 

not publicly accessible, legitimate scientific inquiry is effectively eliminated as no 

third party can independently reproduce the results. This action puts the evidentiary basis of some resource agency decisions outside the realm of science and 

in clear violation of the Information Quality Act. Furthermore, it has the effect of 

concentrating power, money, and regulatory authority in the hands of those who 

control access to the data (Ramey 2012). 

That is neither transparent nor is it democratic; it relies on authority. 

There are sound reasons to question such authority. Key studies used in decisionmaking on the greater sage grouse, Gunnison sage grouse, boreal toad, Prebles 

meadow jumping mouse, coastal California gnatcatcher, delta smelt, desert bighorn 

sheep, and hookless cactus have one of more of the following: mathematical errors, 

missing data, errors of omission, biased sampling, undocumented methods, simulated data used when more accurate empirical data were available, discrepancies between reported results and data, misrepresentation of methods, arbitrarily shifting 

thresholds, inaccurate mapping, selective use of data, subjective interpretation of results, fabricated data substituted for missing data, or no data at all. Clearly, the 

agency’s scientific peer review process that should have caught these errors is not 

as effective as it is portrayed to be. 

It has been my experience that when data has not been provided to the agencies, 

then obtaining access to data held by researchers, even after publication, can be difficult, if not impossible. As the following responses to data requests illustrate, seeking data can frequently resembles a shell game: 

‘‘It is very possible that this data set does not exist any longer.’’ 

‘‘The USFWS data was deliberately provided in a format that would not facilitate a detailed analysis by those unfamiliar with the manner in which it was 

collected.’’ 

‘‘Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the raw data you have requested at 

this time.’’ 

‘‘We categorically do not release this information to anyone including the United 

States Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and 

Game.’’ 

While some researchers have been responsive to data requests, others simply ignore our data requests altogether. Some researchers apparently feel a need to control access to the data, determining if, when, and to whom it will be released, 

sometimes years after the data were collected. However, many of these studies were 

permitted and/or funded by the USFWS (or other source of Federal funding) through 

grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements. Therefore, it follows that the data 

should be public, yet there is no consistent requirement from the USFWS that the 

data be public or provided to the agency. 

This problem is more widespread than one might initially think. In a notable case, 

colleagues at the California Fish and Game (CDFG) had to track down and net-gun 

endangered desert bighorn sheep from a helicopter so they could manually download 

data from the GPS radio collars (that provide precise locations at regular time intervals). They were forced into this extreme course of action because a researcher had 

reset the access codes on the collars so only he could download the data remotely, 

and the researcher refused to share the data with the CDFG who needed it for management of the population (Dr. V. Bleich, CDFG retired and K. Brennen, pers. 

comm). Funding for purchase of the GPS radio collars was provided by the USFWS 

for use by the researcher. 

In two other cases (coastal California gnatcatcher and desert bighorn sheep in the 

Peninsular Ranges) a court order was required to obtain the data. 

Clearly, the public interest in having timely access to data overrides perceived 

ownership of data by some researchers. As noted by ESA scholars, Fischman and 

Meretsky (2001): 

‘‘In addition to the rapid responses often needed to recover endangered species, 

most research in conservation biology is also distinguished by a dependence on 

12 

government resources. The funding for research; the scientific permits allowing 

researchers to collect, harass, or harm animals; the permission for access to public lands; and the regulation controlling activities to ensure continued existence 

of imperiled species all point to the pervasive public interest in the resulting information. This public claim for access countervails the customary control researchers exert over data they collect.’’ 

In my experience, recovery of threatened and endangered species is most effective 

when there is active scientific debate and discussion about the best courses of action 

to identify and ameliorate threats, and how to devise more effective conservation 

measures. Such urgency requires open and timely access to data. 

A solution to this issue is neither difficult, nor costly. There are publicly accessible 

data repositories (i.e. GenBank for DNA sequences and Dryad for general purpose 

data archiving http://datadryad.org/), as well as traditional museum and library archives where data may be archived without charge. All that is needed is a requirement the data be archived prior to the agency relying on the report or paper in its 

decisionmaking, and that the data (both raw and final data sets) and methods are 

provided in sufficient detail to allow third party reproduction. 

Are there situations where public access to data should be limited, such as revealing the locations of endangered species? In most cases, this threat is overstated. 

However, in those situations where there is a legitimate concern (i.e., where poaching has been clearly documented), the risk should be weighed against the potential 

benefits of more effective management aiding species recovery. If the risk of disclosure is real, then the solution is to allow only ‘‘narrowly drafted exceptions to the 

general rule of open access’’ as ‘‘broad exceptions tempt agencies and other decisionmakers to shield their programs from criticism’’ (Fischman and Meretsky 2001). 

ISSUE #2: PEER REVIEW IS NOT A PANACEA

Peer review is a useful but imperfect filter on information quality. However, it is 

not a substitute for public access to the underlying data that allows for an independent, third party review. 

Despite the best of intentions, there are no guarantees that peer reviewers will 

be provided access to data, or that if data is provided, it will be used in developing 

their review. As previously noted, peer reviewers do not always catch errors of significance. Moreover, as detailed in my previous testimony to the committee (Ramey 

2007), if there was a bias or selective presentation of information by the USFWS 

to peer reviewers, the outcome of the peer review can be less than objective. And 

finally, despite agency assurances, there is no guarantee that reviewers will be free 

of conflict of interest or will deliver an impartial assessment. The reasons for this 

are summarized in the following excerpt from my recent paper, On The Origin of 

Specious Species (Ramey 2012): 

‘‘The problems that lead to these issues [with peer review] are three fold. First, 

the number of experts involved with a particular species is often limited. Whole 

careers are sometimes dedicated to the study of a species (or subspecies or population), and a listing can produce what is perceived as needed ‘‘protection’’ for 

that species under the ESA. Additionally, ESA listings can have the effect of putting these experts into positions of power, money, and authority, through their 

roles on Recovery Teams, Habitat Conservation Plans, and consulting as 

USFWS ‘‘approved biologists.’’ Because few ESA-listed species are ever delisted, 

this guarantees a virtual lifetime of employment on one’s favorite species. Thus, 

experts used in peer review may also be advocates, or have an emotional, ideological, or financial stake in the proposed listing.’’ 

‘‘Second, a network of individuals who work on a particular species (or issues 

common to several species) can form powerful ‘‘species cartels.’’ These social networks can influence the peer review process, provide a united front to advocate 

for particular decisions, and repress the publication of information that does not 

agree with their positions.’’ It has been my experience that the FWS and NMFS 

typically rely on species specialists, which exacerbates this problem. 

‘‘And third, the use of other Federal biologists in peer review, especially those 

from the USFWS and the USGS-Biological Resources Division (USGS–BRD), 

cannot be viewed as conflict free. The increasing codependency of the USFWS 

and USGS–BRD, results in a growing and previously unrecognized conflict of interest in science used in support of ESA decisions and the use of USGS biologists 

as peer reviewers on information used in ESA decisions. This extends to the role 

of USGS biologists who serve as editors and reviewers for scientific journals, and 

who peer review highly influential scientific information used in ESA decisions.’’ 

13 

To avoid the pitfalls of peer review described above, the solutions are relatively 

straightforward: 

1. To ensure that peer reviews are transparent, conducted in an objective and 

consistent manner, that the underlying data are both available and analyzed 

by reviewers, and that potential conflicts of interest are clearly identified, accountability is required: make failure to comply with Information Quality Act 

an arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the agency. 

2. Ensure that that all agency sponsored and administered peer reviews, including those conducted internally by biologists at the USGS, be public information if they are relied upon by the USFWS or NMFS. 

3. Require that the USFWS and NMFS identify and make available online all 

information including contrary information that it has received. 

CONCLUSIONS

The American people pay for data collection and research on threatened and endangered species through grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and administration of research permits. They pay the salaries of agency staff who collect data, 

author, edit, and publish papers based upon those data. They, for the most part, 

are willingly regulated based on those data. It is essential that the American people 

have the right to full access to those data in a timely manner, as it is in the public 

interest. A requirement that data and methods be provided in sufficient detail to 

allow third party reproduction would raise the bar on the quality and reproducibility 

of the science used in ESA decisions and benefit species recovery. Failure to ensure 

this level of transparency will undermine the effectiveness of the very programs that 

the data were gathered for in the first place. 

It should not take a subpoena (or intrepid, net-gun toting State biologists leaping 

from helicopters) to obtain data that should be public under the ESA. 

Accountability is needed in the implementation of Information Quality Act, particularly in regard to public access to data and the peer review process. 

Qualified third party reviews have the potential to reduce the workload of agencies, and improve the caliber of regulatory actions. 

The ongoing ‘‘bio-blitzkrieg’’ of ESA listing petitions, lawsuits, and settlement 

agreements does a disservice to bona-fide conservation efforts. Every time another 

species is added to the list of threatened and endangered species, or a new deadline 

is imposed by litigants, the resources to recover species becomes more thinly spread. 

Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution, nor is allowing decisionmaking by fiat. The solution is to ensure that the scientific evaluations are done 

properly the first time, and that means relying upon data and objective application 

of the scientific method, as required by the ESA. 

Literature Cited 

DOI. 2011. Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities. Department Manual. 

Part 305, DM, Chapter 3:1–38. Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Interior. available at http://www.doi.gov/scientificintegrity/index.cfm. Accessed October 

2, 2012. 

Fischman, R.L., and V.J. Meretsky. 2001. Endangered species information: access 

and control. Washburn Law Journal 41:90–113. 

Ramey, R.R. 2007. Written testimony submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, for the Legislative Hearing on: ‘‘Crisis of 

Confidence: The Political Influence on Agency Science and Decision-Making.’’ July 

31, 2007. 

Ramey, R.R. 2012. On the Origin of Specious Species. Chapter 4, In: Institutions 

and Incentives in Regulatory Science. J. Johnston (ed.), Lexington Books. Pp. 77– 

97. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Ramey, for your testimony. I will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Neugebauer, for purposes of introduction. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, and thank 

you for your—and I appreciate you allowing me at this hearing 

today to consider—take the opportunity—H.R. 4317, which is the 

‘‘State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act.’’ 

14 

We know better decisions are made when you have the best facts. 

One of the things—Fish and Wildlife—the States and the stakeholders the data—to make those determinations. At the same time, 

give States the opportunity to furnish data to Fish and Wildlife— 

decisions. 

And so, I think this is a proactive approach, and I appreciate— 

hearing today—want to make sure that we are—working toward 

the—of the species, as well at the same time acting—and so, I 

think this is a—, and I think— 

It is my honor to welcome not only a friend, but—from Texas. 

Kel represents 37 counties, and there are only 254 counties in 

Texas. And so, when I say that Seliger represents Texas, I mean 

he represents Texas. He is a former mayor of Amarillo, Texas. But, 

more importantly, while he has been in the Senate he has been 

very involved in the Endangered Species, its impact on Texas, its 

impact on—So, it is my privilege to recognize Mr. Seliger, Senator 

Seliger. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Seliger, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEL SELIGER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. SELIGER. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you 

very much for the opportunity to talk to you today about the 

State’s role in the process of endangered species. I particularly appreciate Congressman Neugebauer’s interest and work in this area, 

because it is very important. The district that I represent produces 

20 to 25 percent of the Nation’s oil and gas, and a substantial 

amount of the Nation’s cotton, grain sorghum, wheat, corn, beef, 

milk, and pork. 

Two years ago I chaired an Odessa, Texas, hearing of our 

Natural Resources Committee to deal with the dune sage brush lizard. And there were two overarching, I think, fundamental principles that came out of the hearing. One, any determinations under 

the Endangered Species Act should be based upon good science, scientifically reliable science that provides clear measures of what the 

problem is, what the potential solution is, and what the effects of 

the remedies are. 

The other thing that we found out—and some of the largest independent producers of oil and gas in the country were there, all people who own or have rights on substantial acreages in West Texas 

and New Mexico—was that nobody wanted to be responsible for the 

extinction of any species, however physically small and insignificant that they may be. And I think that is particularly important 

because, at the end of the day, the way I understand the Endangered Species Act, it is about the protection or restoration of the 

species, not just a settlement of litigation. 

The States’ engagement, I think, is critical, because that is where 

so much of the science is generated that will be used. In the case 

of the dune sage brush lizard, which we believe is in a unique habitat in West Texas and Southern New Mexico, there may be more 

than one, but the primary authority is a State employee, a Professor Lee Fitzgerald at Texas A&M University, whose research 

has been very transparent and peer reviewed. 

15 

And the pathways to success vary by States. And I think that is 

particularly important. In the case of the dune sage brush lizard 

there are mitigation credits by land set-asides. When it comes to 

the lesser prairie chicken, there are five States involved in that 

habitat: Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado. And 

they have set aside large amounts of property. And it is just a different way to do it. But each species may require a different solution, and those solutions may be specific and characterized by the 

presence in those States. 

There are 168 million acres in Texas, 95 percent of which is privately held. In the United States as a whole, only 30 percent of the 

land is owned by the Federal Government. The rest in those States 

is privately held. Largely in the West, we look at areas that have 

large land areas, be it the Permian Basin or the Great Plains, or 

whatever. 

Most of the States—certainly in the case of Texas, Colorado, and 

Oklahoma—there are parks, wildlife, wildlife fishery organizations, 

that have tremendous scientific assets in which to do the research 

to make sure that it is transparent, as it must be, as State agencies, and to see to it that the remedies work, because they are the 

ones who will provide the empirical measures to show us what the 

effects are of those measures used. 

In the case of the lesser prairie chicken, 35 companies enrolled 

over 4 million acres. In the case of the dune sage brush lizard, private companies put up about $2 million to pay for the research that 

would be done in the State of Texas, under the auspices of Fish 

and Wildlife Service, to see to it that the research was good, effective, and transparent. 

But the overall point of the whole thing is endangered species is 

meant to serve a specific purpose: the protection, restoration, if 

necessary, of species, and the restoration and maintenance of habitat. 

The end goal is not simply the settlement of litigation, but to 

have a positive effect on species possibly affected. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Seliger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEL SELIGER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE

OF TEXAS ON H.R. 4317 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on Natural Resources. 

I am pleased to support the ‘‘State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and 

Recovery Act,’’ H.R. 4317 by Congressman Randy Neugebauer. Current law clearly 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to ‘‘cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the states’’ when carrying out the Endangered Species Act, and for good 

reason (16 U.S.C. 1535(a)). State fish and wildlife agencies have the necessary jurisdiction, resources, and imperative relationships with businesses and landowners to 

create comprehensive wildlife action plans that can preclude the listing of a species. 

No one wants a species to be listed; the method for preservation of the species is 

at the center of the debate. The entities that are best suited to take on this role 

are the States themselves. Timely and meaningful coordination between State and 

Federal agencies is imperative in order to preserve potentially endangered species. 

Second, a definition of ‘‘best scientific and commercial data available’’ that includes information obtained by the States is essential. It is the essence of local control to not only allow, but also to empower and rely on the local jurisdiction to have 

the most current data and best understanding of the issue at hand. To forgo information from State fish and wildlife agencies, who are in the field each and every 

day, simply does not make sense. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should engage 

16 

State agencies early and communicate efficiently and effectively throughout the 

entire review of a species. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Seliger. I will 

now recognize Dr. Steven Courtney, Associate for the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis from Santa Barbara, 

California. 

That is a long title, I might say. Don’t say it quickly, but you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN P. COURTNEY, ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL 

CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS, 

SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 

Dr. COURTNEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am 

Steven Courtney, I am a principal scientist at Western EcoSystems 

Technology, Inc. (WEST)—based in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and an 

associate at NCEAS, based in Santa Barbara. I am a biologist with 

22 years working with ESA on behalf of private, tribal, State, and 

Federal clients. My particular expertise is in designing and implementing peer review, fact finding, other processes for difficult or 

controversial situations. That includes, a few years ago, leading a 

synthesis on a little critter called the Northern Spotted Owl, which 

I think the Chairman may have heard of. I also worked on a 

science process that helped to diffuse the headwaters controversy 

in northern California, the Columbia, the Missouri, the Rio Grande, 

the Klamath, Sacramento, and a few other places. And most recently, I led the review on Fish and Wildlife Services’ proposal to 

delist the gray wolf. For my day job I work on greater sage-grouse 

and advise both private and State clients. 

So, you can see that I am not an expert on any one issue or any 

region. Instead, I help those who are trying to develop efficient and 

science-based solutions, and to design transparent processes that 

are aimed at determining best available science. So my comments 

here are really on those two issues, on the role and value of transparency, and how we can ensure that the decisions of Federal agencies are based on best science. 

While we all agree that transparency is pretty much a good 

thing, and it increases the likelihood that we will get new ideas, 

it increases the likelihood that any mistakes can be found and corrected, and, most importantly perhaps, it increases the likelihood 

that stakeholders will be able to understand the reasons for agency 

decisions. But it is important to distinguish between scientific information and use of that information in a deliberative process. 

I would argue that attempts to improve ESA decisionmaking for 

increased transparency could more usefully be targeted. For instance, when setting up an evaluation process to understand the 

status of the spotted owl, I was very careful, given the history of 

that controversy, to be as transparent as possible. The science 

groups met in public, stakeholders were invited to attend those 

meetings and to present information. And, ultimately, the process 

led to a change in Federal management of the Northwest forests, 

as our work showed that major threats were not just in the harvest, but invasion of—by barred owls and catastrophic wildfires. 

17 

Essentially, the same process has been followed in many other 

situations. And the processes that I run, reviewers are not anonymous, there is a record of how information is used and weighed and 

evaluated, and then of how decisions are reached. 

So, when science-based decisions are discussed openly and fairly, 

there is a greater engagement by all sectors, enhanced cooperation, 

less litigation, and, I believe, better decisionmaking. So, transparency of process is very important, and fair and open explanations of decisions can also be quite valuable. 

But complete transparency could be detrimental. I represent private clients whose information on timber inventory or mineral deposits—they would be very upset if that information became public, 

and if their ability to access those resources due to endangered species constraints also became public. 

So, I encourage and recommend that the committee consider how 

to encourage transparency when it would be helpful, primarily in 

ensuring the process is open and fair and as clear as possible; and 

second, in encouraging decisionmakers to set forth the rationale for 

their decisions. 

Turning now to H.R. 4317 regarding best available science, I will 

only state that I believe that it is always important to reach best 

available science, and that there are techniques in place to do that, 

including peer review, joint fact finding, other things like that. And 

we do catch and—advise Federal scientists on the need for change. 

And most recently on the gray wolf, perhaps. And I would argue 

that legally defining best available science cannot be effective in 

swaying the minds of scientists themselves, who will continue to 

evaluate science based upon tried and trusted criteria, such as 

falsifiability, replicability, and the weight of evidence. And I would 

encourage you to make use of existing techniques. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Courtney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN P. COURTNEY, ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL CENTER

FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS (NCEAS), SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA

ON H.R. 4315 AND H.R. 4317 

I am Steven Courtney, Principal Scientist at Western EcoSystems Technology, 

Inc. (WEST) and Associate at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). For the past 40 years, I have been a biologist, with 22 years of 

working with the Endangered Species Act. This experience has included work on behalf of private, tribal, State, and Federal clients, on many different species and ecosystems. My particular expertise is in designing and implementing peer review, factfinding, and other processes to enhance understanding of science and related issues 

within the context of difficult or controversial situations. A sampling of this work 

includes: 

• Leading a synthesis of Spotted Owl biology that identified current threats to 

that species; 

• The science process that helped resolve and defuse the Headwaters controversy in northern California; 

• Reviews of water management on the Missouri, Columbia, and Rio Grande 

Rivers, and in the Everglades and the Edwards Aquifer; 

• Investigations of allegations of scientific malpractice against Federal scientists in the Sacramento delta and the Klamath Basin; and 

• Most recently, leading a review of the use of science by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding de-listing the wolf. 

Currently, most of my work concerns range management and conservation of 

sage-grouse, advising private and State clients, as well as the USFWS. 

I have been privileged to work on many systems. Without being an expert on any 

one species or region, I have, instead, been engaged first hand on a wide variety 

18 

of the issues faced around the country regarding management of wildlife and natural resources. I have strived to help those looking for efficient and science-based 

solutions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), in particular, by designing 

transparent processes aimed at determining the ‘best available science’. My comments on the four bills before you are focused on those two issues: what is the role 

and value of transparency; and how can we ensure that the decisions of Federal 

agencies are based on the best science? 

TRANSPARENCY

Science depends on the clear and fair evaluation of information. In the context 

of the ESA, decisions made by regulatory agencies, (USFWS and NOAA-Fisheries), 

as well as other parallel decisions taken by action agencies (such as the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Forest Service (USDA–FS), and the bureaus 

within the Department of the Interior) depend critically on the quality of the scientific evaluations they carry out. Increasing the transparency of such scientific assessments has the potential to increase their quality. Transparency encourages the 

consideration of new or alternative ideas, and it increases the likelihood that mistakes will be corrected. Of course, one of the key advantages of increasing transparency is that stakeholders can see the basis for agency decisions. 

On the face of it, transparency would appear to be straightforward and a positive 

attribute. However, my experience with diverse systems suggests a need for caution 

and careful application and design of transparent disclosure of information. In particular, it is useful to distinguish between scientific information itself, and the use 

of that information in a deliberative process. Attempts to improve ESA decisionmaking through increased transparency need to be targeted and carefully designed 

in order to avoid negative effects on commercial activity and on conservation. 

When setting up an evaluation process to understand the status of the Spotted 

Owl, I was careful, given the history of that controversy, to be as transparent as 

possible. The science group met in public, and stakeholders were invited to attend 

these meetings and to present information. All meetings were recorded, and the 

technical deliberations among the scientists became part of the administrative 

record. In this way, we ensured that any party could understand our reasoning, and 

see how we reached our conclusions. Ultimately, that process led to a change in Federal management of northwest forests, as our work showed that loss of habitat to 

invasive Barred Owls and to wildfire were major threats comparable to the impacts 

of timber harvest. 

Essentially the same process has been followed in many other situations. For 

reviews on the Everglades, the Missouri, or wolf-delisting, there is no secrecy regarding the process. Reviewers are not anonymous, and there is a record of how information is weighed and evaluated, and then participants provide a record of how 

decisions are reached. We make an effort to ensure that stakeholders understand 

the evaluation process, and how to contribute to these processes, and, likewise, we 

explain our reasoning and the rationale for final assessments. This openness has 

proven to be both popular and effective. When science-based decisions are discussed 

openly and fairly, there is greater engagement by all sectors; enhanced cooperation; 

less impetus for litigation; and (I believe) better decisionmaking. 

By contrast, a lack of clarity can cause problems. In 2011, I was asked to evaluate 

allegations of scientific misconduct against Interior employees on the Sacramento 

Delta. While the investigative panel found no evidence of misconduct (and found 

that the employees had followed good scientific procedure), we did determine that 

they had not explained clearly the rationale for their decisions. That lack of an open 

explanation and of how they reached their evaluations led to significant misunderstandings and frustrations. 

In short, transparency of process is important, and fair and open explanations of 

decisions can be valuable. I commend the interest in transparency by this committee. However, in some situations, complete transparency can be detrimental. 

Many landowners, for instance, regard information about wildlife on their lands to 

be proprietary. Full and transparent disclosure of such information could have significant financial impacts. For instance, information on the presence of Spotted 

Owls and of the quality of their forest habitat can readily be used by outsiders to 

predict a company’s timber inventory and the likelihood of the company being able 

to harvest that resource. Similarly, a company with significant populations of a listed species might be unable to access mineral resources. If such detailed information 

on a species’ distribution were to be made generally available, it could impact the 

company significantly, creating an advantage to competitors, potentially decreasing 

shareholder confidence, and so on. In short, release of such proprietary information 

is often opposed by such landowners, for good reason. Requiring full transparency 

19 

in such situations can also deter landowners from participating in constructive conservation agreements with the USFWS or other agencies. 

The possibility of complete transparency of data is a potential threat to conservation planning. Many landowners may be unwilling to even enter into discussion 

with USFWS regarding Conservation Banks, or Conservation Credit systems, if 

there is a belief that all information will become public. The innovative conservation 

exchange system for the Lesser Prairie Chicken acknowledges this wariness on the 

part of landowners and allows habitat evaluations to be carried out by independent 

third parties, precisely to assure landowners that their private information will remain private. Many species listed under the ESA, and many others that may be considered for listing, occur predominantly on private lands. For such species, the 

goodwill of landowners is imperative, and their concerns for privacy of information 

cannot be ignored. 

Two of the bills before this committee, H.R. 4315, and H.R. 4317, discuss the importance of transparency. I recommend that the committee consider how to ensure 

that transparency is encouraged in those areas where it would be helpful. This is 

primarily in two realms—first, in ensuring that the process used in scientific assessments is as open, fair, and clear as possible; second, in encouraging decisionmakers 

clearly to set forth the rationale for their decisions, including the information on 

which the decision was based and why that information is relevant and deemed to 

be the best available information. 

BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE

Let me now turn to the matter of best available science. H.R. 4317 specifically 

addresses one of the lynchpins of ESA—that actions by NOAA-Fisheries and 

USFWS must be based on the ‘best scientific and commercial data available.’ Many 

existing policies and management programs of the two regulatory agencies are 

aimed at ensuring that the statute is followed and that ‘best available science’ is 

identified and used. Hence, internal and external reviews, consultations with affected parties (including Tribal Nations, States, and other Federal agencies), collaborative conservation efforts, and other policies all aim to improve the use by USFWS 

and NOAA-Fisheries of good science. Specific tools and programs, such as peer review and Structured Decision Making, are similarly designed to identify and use 

best science. 

To the extent that H.R. 4317 would codify consultation with States and tribes, 

it appears duplicative of existing programs and efforts; however, if H.R. 4317 results in the data from States and tribes being defined as either the ‘best available’ 

or equal in quality to other ‘best available’ information, it would undermine the existing intent under ESA that science (whatever its source) be fairly evaluated in an 

impartial manner, and only then that the ‘best available science’ be employed in decisionmaking. 

Generally, Federal agencies receive judicial deference on scientific and technical 

issues. This deference reflects the expertise of the agencies on such matters. Nevertheless, Federal scientists are not infallible; there exist numerous programs to take 

corrective actions, or to use ‘adaptive management’ to improve the quality and use 

of science. While stakeholders (including States and tribes) may be dissatisfied with 

individual agency actions, there are already mechanisms available for review and 

consultation and techniques and tools by which the decisions of Federal agencies 

can be examined and amended by the agency concerned. Encouraging the wider use 

of such cooperative and engaged approaches would likely meet the objectives of 

stakeholders and enhance both transparency and the application of best available 

science. 

In 2000, I led a program designed to address a seemingly intractable debate— 

whether deepening the shipping channel of the Columbia River would harm endangered fish. The opinions of three regulatory agencies (NOAA, USFWS, and EPA), 

of the action agency (USACE), and of numerous stakeholders (including States and 

tribes) were in conflict. The parties agreed to a neutral and impartial process, in 

an attempt to resolve their differences over interpretation of the science. Over the 

course of 7 months, the parties met and debated the science in public, with the guidance of a team of nine eminent scientists. New science was commissioned. At the 

end of the process, there was an unequivocal result and finding: deepening of the 

channel would not harm the fish. In this case, entrenched positions were abandoned, a cooperative program was adopted, and Federal scientists were willing to 

change their opinions. 

Late last year, I helped carry out an independent peer review of some of the 

science underlying the USFWS’s proposal to de-list the Gray Wolf under the ESA. 

A panel of independent scientists was convened by NCEAS at the request of the 

20 

USFWS. In the course of their review, the panelists unanimously concluded that the 

USFWS’s position on the taxonomy and genetics of wolves was not rooted in the 

‘best available science’. Note that the USFWS has not yet made a final determination on its proposal, and, thus, it is not yet clear how this scientific finding will be 

used. Nevertheless, the fact that the USFWS sought and received truly independent 

review, which did then not concur with the agency’s position, is indicative that we 

already have processes in place that can identify situations when corrective action 

may be warranted. 

There are many other examples where stakeholder input can help improve decisionmaking by Federal agencies. To name just one, the wind energy/wildlife 

guidelines, developed with the aid of a Federal Advisory Committee, are widely acknowledged to be a good, scientifically based program. 

Legislation that re-defines what constitutes ‘best available science’ cannot be effective in swaying the minds of scientists themselves, who will continue to evaluate 

science based upon tried and trusted criteria such as logical consistency, 

replicability and the weight of evidence. Efforts to improve Federal decisionmaking 

under ESA may instead be best served by programs that provide opportunity and 

resources for increased consultation and collaborative assessments. The Columbia 

River program in 2000 cost some $500,000; the recent wolf peer review, much less. 

There are many options for improving the availability of programs to improve scientific evaluations, scaling from standing FACA committees, to once-off public meetings, to small scale document reviews. All of these may have value when used appropriately, and all are currently available to the agencies concerned. 

LITERATURE

Review of Proposed Rule Regarding Status of the Wolf Under the Endangered Species Act. 2014. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. 

Science Review of Testimony in the Delta Cases; Summary Report 2013 Atkins and 

RESOLVE. 

Evaluation of Scientific Information regarding Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 

2007 SEI. 

Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl 2004 SEI. 

Reducing Uncertainty and Risk: Peer Review of the Potential Impact of Dredging 

and Disposal on At-Risk Salmonids in the Lower Columbia River Estuary, 2001 SEI. 

Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind-energy Wildlife Interactions. National Wind 

Coordinating Collaborative 2011. 

Lesser Prairie Habitat Exchange (documents at http://www.thehabitatexchange.org/ 

species/lesser-prairie-chicken/). 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Courtney. I will next 

recognize Mr. Michael Bean, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary 

for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, here, in Washington, DC. 

And, Mr. Bean, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BEAN, COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BEAN. Thank you, sir. Chairman Hastings, Representative 

Grijalva, members of the committee, I am Michael Bean, Counselor 

for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at the Interior Department. 

I want to begin by noting that the Fish and Wildlife Service is 

committed to the use of the best science available in its ESA listing 

decisions, as the law requires it to do. The Service is also committed to transparency in its decisionmaking processes. 

In furtherance of that goal of transparency, it is the established 

practice of the Fish and Wildlife Service to make available the relevant scientific and commercial data on which it relies when making listing decisions. That data is generally maintained in the field 

21 

offices that have the lead for those listing decisions. In addition, a 

list of literature, studies, and other relevant data, and copies of pivotal documents are posted on regulations.gov. 

Service listing decisions are carefully crafted, fully explained, 

and copiously documented, addressing each of the factors that Congress has specified as relevant to those listing decisions. 

We are pleased that the bills under consideration today seek to 

further the goals of science-based decisionmaking and transparency. We do not, however, support them in their current form, 

for reasons that I will explain. 

Let me begin by noting that we strongly agree that States, the 

data from States, is often the best available data for us. Because 

of the extensive experience and responsibilities of the States, the 

ESA already directs the Service to carefully consider the information that States provide. The Service must take into account the 

work of the States in its listing decisions. And the Service must 

provide the States with a written explanation whenever it makes 

a listing decision at odds with the recommendations of a State. 

However, not all States have responsibilities or programs for all 

the types of species eligible for ESA listing: in particular, plants 

and invertebrates. For species such as these, for example, the best 

available data may come from universities, museums, conservation 

organizations, and industry. For counties and tribes, the situation 

is more varied. In most States, the jurisdiction and responsibility 

for wildlife rests with the State, not with the counties, which generally have no research programs related to ESA listing decisions. 

Given these facts, it is apparent that the question of what constitutes the best available data should turn on an evaluation of the 

data itself, and not who provided it. To presume at the outset that 

the data from a particular source will always constitute the best 

available data would negate the very purpose of requiring the use 

of the best available data. Moreover, it is clear that data from 

States, counties, and tribes cannot all constitute the best available 

data when the data from these sources are in conflict, as they 

sometimes are. 

Frequently the publications, studies, and reports on which the 

Service relies are based upon underlying data collected and maintained by the States, who control access to it. State law sometimes 

stringently restricts the release of certain wildlife data, as does the 

State of Texas, for example. There are a variety of reasons why the 

States choose to limit access to wildlife data: either it reveals the 

location of sensitive species, could expose those species to collecting, disturbance, or vandalism. In addition, States often depend 

upon private land owners who give them access to their lands to 

gather wildlife data. Maintaining that access may mean respecting 

the land owner’s desire to avoid unwanted trespassers, poachers, or 

simple curiosity-seekers. 

The bottom line, however, is that the raw data underlying the 

publications, reports, and studies on which the Service routinely relies may not ever be in the possession or control of the Service. 

Thus, to the extent that H.R. 4315 is intended to require the Service to post such data on the Internet, it may create an obligation 

impossible to fulfill, and provide yet a new basis for challenging the 

validity of listing or de-listing decisions. 

22 

Finally, with respect to the two bills concerning litigation costs, 

it is not clear that they would have the effect of allowing more resources to be devoted to conservation, but may instead have the opposite effect. With respect to all four bills, we would be pleased to 

work with the committee to find effective ways of addressing the 

issues raised by those bills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bean follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. BEAN, COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT SEC- RETARY, FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ON H.R. 

4315, H.R. 4316, H.R. 4317, AND H.R. 4318 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the committee, 

I am Michael J. Bean, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks at the Department of the Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding four bills to amend the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Although the Department cannot support these four bills 

in their current form, the Service recognizes the importance of data transparency 

and availability and is willing to work with the committee to address the issues that 

the bills raise. 

OVERVIEW OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The ESA provides a critical safety net for America’s native fish, wildlife, and 

plants. And we know it can deliver remarkable successes. Since Congress passed 

this landmark conservation law in 1973, the ESA has prevented the extinction of 

hundreds of imperiled species across the Nation and has promoted the recovery of 

many others—like the bald eagle, the very symbol of our Nation’s strength. 

Earlier this year, the Service published a proposal to recognize the recovery of, 

and to remove from the protection of the ESA, the Oregon chub, a fish native to 

rivers and streams in the State of Oregon. The recovery of the Oregon chub is noteworthy because it is attributable in significant part to the cooperation of private 

landowners who entered into voluntary conservation agreements to manage their 

lands in ways that would be helpful to this rare fish. In some cases, landowners 

agreed to cooperate in reintroducing the fish into suitable waters on their property. 

The help of private landowners and the cooperation of State and Federal partners 

were critical to the success in bringing this fish to the point at which it is no longer 

endangered and no longer in need of the protection of the ESA. 

The recovery of the Oregon chub has taken a little more than 20 years of sustained effort. That is a relatively speedy timeframe within which to undo the effects 

of what are often many decades of habitat loss and degradation and the other 

threats that are responsible for the endangerment of many species. For example, the 

recovery and delisting of the bald eagle was the culmination of a 40-year conservation effort. The Aleutian Canada goose recovery took 34 years. Efforts to recover the 

whooping crane have been under way since the 1940s when fewer than 20 cranes 

remained. Those efforts have been dramatically successful, with a wild population 

today of several hundred birds. Likewise, the California condor and black-footed ferret, both of which were so perilously close to extinction that no individuals of either 

species survived in the wild, have made extraordinary progress. Today condors and 

ferrets have been successfully bred in captivity and reintroduced to the wild, where 

they have successfully produced wild-born offspring. Despite the dramatic progress 

toward recovery that each of these species has made, the whooping crane, California 

condor and black-footed ferret are still endangered species and will likely remain 

so for many more years. That is the virtually inevitable consequence of waiting until 

a species has been greatly depleted before beginning efforts to recover it, as is the 

case for most species protected under the Endangered Species Act. 

As the Oregon chub example makes clear, private landowners can hasten the recovery of endangered species through their cooperative efforts. The Oregon chub is 

just one of many endangered species that landowners are helping recover through 

voluntary agreements with the Service known as ‘‘safe harbor agreements.’’ These 

agreements provide participating private property owners with land-use certainty in 

exchange for actions that contribute to the recovery of listed species on non-Federal 

lands. Safe harbor agreements with Texas ranch owners have helped restore the 

northern aplomado falcon to the United States, from which it had been absent for 

roughly a half century. In the southeastern United States, more than 400 landowners have enrolled nearly 2.5 million acres of their land in safe harbor agreements for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. These landowners have effecVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:22 Mar 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP08 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87584.TXT DARLEN
23 

tively laid out the welcome mat for this endangered bird on their land, as a result 

of which populations of this endangered bird are growing on many of these properties. Many others are doing similarly for other endangered species. 

Thus, the Endangered Species Act provides great flexibility for landowners, States 

and counties to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service on voluntary agreements 

to protect habitat and conserve imperiled species. Through Safe Harbor Agreements, 

Candidate Conservation Agreements, Habitat Conservation Plans, Experimental 

Population authority, and the ability to modify the prohibitions on take of endangered species in Section 9 by crafting special rules for threatened species under 

Section 4(d), the Act allows and encourages creative, collaborative, voluntary practices that can align landowner objectives with conservation goals. 

H.R. 4315 AND H.R. 4317: DATA QUALITY AND ACCESSIBILITY

If enacted, H.R. 4315, the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act, 

would establish a requirement to make publically available on the Internet the best 

scientific and commercial data that are the basis for each listing determination. If 

H.R. 4317 were enacted, the State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and 

Recovery Act would amend the ESA to require FWS provide States with all data 

used in ESA Section 4(a) determinations prior to making its determination, and define ‘‘best available scientific and commercial data’’ to include all data submitted by 

a State, or tribal or county government. 

‘‘Best Available’’ Data 

The decisions that the Fish and Wildlife Service makes with respect to listing or 

delisting of species must be made ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.’’ Congress added this explicit directive in 1982, in response 

to the perception that some listing decisions then were being influenced by non-scientific considerations. Congress made clear then that the threshold decision of 

whether a species is endangered or threatened is a scientific judgment to be informed by the best available information alone. 

Often, the States are among the best sources of such information, particularly 

with respect to game and other actively managed species. However, some States 

lack authority or programs to conserve certain species that are eligible for protection 

under the Endangered Species Act, such as invertebrates and plants, and therefore 

collect insufficient data. Counties and other units of local government generally 

have neither jurisdiction nor programs to manage wildlife. For all of these reasons, 

the best available scientific information may come from such sources as universities, 

museums, conservation organizations, and industry. Thus, to define ‘‘best scientific 

and commercial data available’’ as always including data submitted by a State, tribal or county government—as H.R. 4317 does—may not always be accurate. Section 

4(b)(1) of the Act already requires the Service to take into account the efforts and 

views of States and their political subdivisions when making listing decisions, and 

Section 4(i) requires the Service, if it makes a listing determination at odds with 

the recommendations of a State, to provide that State with a written explanation 

of the reasons for doing so. Finally, it should be noted that defining all data submitted by States or counties as the ‘‘best available,’’ would create a quandary if 

there were conflicting data from such sources. A concrete recent example concerned 

several counties in Kansas who took strong exception to the conservation plan for 

the lesser prairie-chicken that the State proposed. The counties and the State took 

diametrically opposed positions based on conflicting data. In this example, both cannot be the ‘‘best available.’’ 

As noted, the studies, reports, and research publications by State agencies or their 

employees are often the best studies and analyses available to the Service. A broadranging requirement to post on the Internet this State data—particularly if that requirement extends to the raw data underlying such studies and analyses—would 

almost certainly elicit a number of well-considered concerns from the States themselves. Those concerns would start with the fact that in some instances State law 

prohibits the release of certain wildlife data. For example, Texas Government Code 

Section 403.454 prohibits the disclosure of information that ‘‘relates to the specific 

location, species identification, or quantity of any animal or plant life’’ for which a 

conservation plan is in place or even under consideration. 

Even where there is no State law barrier to releasing the raw data underlying 

State studies, there are many reasons why States would be reluctant to have that 

data widely disseminated via the Internet. To the extent that such data reveals the 

location of rare or sensitive species, its disclosure would put such species at added 

risk, both from collectors or vandals as well as from people with entirely innocent 

motives, such as the desire to get an up-close photo of an eagle and its young in 

their nest, or of prairie-chickens displaying on their mating grounds. 

24 

The ability of States, and of scientific researchers generally, to gather wildlife 

data often depends upon the willingness of private landowners to grant them access 

to their lands. Many landowners can reasonably be expected to be less likely to 

grant such access if they know that the data collected on their land would be posted 

on the Internet. Their concerns might include the well-being of the wildlife on their 

land as well as their own sense of privacy and desire not to have to contend with 

trespassers, vandals, and simple curiosity seekers. The disclosure requirement that 

the sponsors of H.R. 4315 intend to produce better scientific data could have the 

unintended consequence of reducing the amount and quality of such data. While the 

Service is willing to explore other approaches, it has generally found satisfactory to 

most States and researchers its current records management process. As part of 

that process, the Service makes available all of the relevant scientific and commercial data that it has and on which it relies in making a listing determination under 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. The data is generally maintained at the field office that 

is the lead for making the listing determination. Additionally, a list of literature, 

studies, and other relevant data used in making the determination and copies of 

pivotal documents are posted on Regulations.Gov, the government Web site for electronic records and public comments. These documents are generally made available 

to the public electronically upon request. However, there may be limitations to the 

release of certain data if it falls within one of the exceptions to disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act (for example, the Service sometimes obtains from 

the Defense Department certain high resolution photographs that the Department 

requests not be released to the public because of national defense considerations). 

In these cases, the Service refers the requester to the party from which the data 

originated. Further, in many circumstances, such as peer-review published literature, FWS relies on a synthesis or analysis of data that is summarized by the 

prevailing scientific expert or author of the paper. In such circumstances, FWS relies on the expert evaluation and analysis of the data and may not have in its possession or be able to obtain the underlying data. 

H.R. 4316 AND H.R. 4318: LITIGATION REFORM

The Endangered Species Recovery Transparency Act, H.R. 4316, would require 

the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to provide an annual report to 

Congress detailing litigation expenditures from agencies within their respective Departments within 90 days of fiscal yearend. Agencies would need to provide the 

Secretary with detailed information, including a description of the claims; the 

amounts of resources expended responding to notices of intent to sue letters and all 

other actions in preparation of or related to litigation, as well as attorney’s fees 

awarded and the basis for such awards. H.R. 4318, the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act would limit the hourly rate for prevailing attorney fees to 

$125 per hour, thereby focusing resources on conservation and recovery rather than 

litigation. In consultation with Department of Interior’s Solicitor’s Office, we find it 

is unclear whether the amendment as drafted would actually amend the ESA to 

place a cap on fees and awards and, even if it did, considering the complex interplay 

between the provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Endangered 

Species, whether doing so would have the intended effect. 

The Service would like to explore with the committee whether there are administratively easier means of tracking and reporting fee awards than what has been proposed. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, Mr. Chairman, America’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources belong to 

all Americans, and ensuring the health of imperiled species is a shared responsibility for all of us. In implementing the ESA, the Service endeavors to adhere rigorously to the congressional requirement that implementation of the law be based 

strictly on science. At the same time, the Service has been responsive to the need 

to develop flexible, innovative mechanisms to engage the cooperation of private 

landowners and others under the Endangered Species Act and other laws, both to 

preclude the need to list species where possible, and to speed the recovery of those 

species that are listed. The Service remains committed to conserving America’s fish 

and wildlife by relying upon the best available science and working in partnership 

to achieve recovery. Thank you for your interest in endangered species conservation 

and ESA implementation, and for the opportunity to testify. 

25 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bean, for your testimony. Next I will recognize Mr. Sam Rauch, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, here, in Washington, DC. 

Recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SAM RAUCH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATORY PROGRAMS, NATIONAL MARINE 

FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RAUCH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

My name is Sam Rauch, and I am the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs at the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. We jointly administer the Endangered Species Act with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, and our focus is mainly on ocean species and Pacific salmoides, as they go inland. 

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened and endangered species and their ecosystems. Congress 

passed the law on December 28, 1973, recognizing that the natural 

heritage of the United States was of aesthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our Nation and its 

people. 

It was understood that, without protection, many of our Nation’s 

living resources would become extinct. The Endangered Species Act 

has been successful in preventing species extinction. Less than 1 

percent of the species listed under the law have gone extinct, and 

over 30 species have recovered. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service has recently de-listed the 

eastern population of Steller sea lions. This is the first de-listing 

for our agency that has occurred because of recovery since 1994, 

when we de-listed the now-thriving eastern population of Pacific 

gray whales. 

Actions taken under the Endangered Species Act have also stabilized or improved the downward population trend of many marine species. For example, in 2013 we saw record returns of nearly 

820,000 adult fall Chinook salmon passing the Bonneville Dam on 

their way up the Columbia River to spawn. This is the most fall 

Chinook salmon to pass the dam in a single year, since the dam 

was completed in 1938, and more than twice the 10-year average. 

Recovery of threatened and endangered species is a complex and 

challenging process. We are engaged in a range of activities under 

the Endangered Species Act that include listing species and designating critical habitat, consulting on Federal actions that may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat, and authorizing research to learn more about protected species. 

We also partner with a variety of stakeholders, including private 

citizens, Federal, State, and local agencies and tribes, and interested organizations and industry that have been critical to implementing recovery actions and achieving species recovery goals. 

For example, several NMFS programs provide support to our 

partners to assist with achieving recovery goals. From 2000 to 

2012, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund provided almost 

26 

$1 billion in funding to support partnerships in the recovery of listed salmon and steelhead. 

From 2003 to 2013, the Species Recovery Grants to States 

awarded 37 million to support State recovery and research projects 

for other listed species. And from 2001 to 2013, the Prescott Program awarded over $44.8 million in funding through 483 grants to 

Stranding Network members to respond and care for stranded marine mammals. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service is dedicated to the 

stewardship of living marine resources through science-based conservation and management. The Endangered Species Act is a 

mechanism that helps guide our conservation efforts, and reminds 

us that our children deserve the opportunity to enjoy the same natural world we experience. 

We are currently analyzing the four legislative proposals that 

were recently introduced into the House of Representatives regarding the Endangered Species Act, and we would be happy to work 

cooperatively with you on these draft bills. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, and I am available to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rauch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAM RAUCH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATORY PROGRAMS, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ON H.R. 

4315, H.R. 4316, H.R. 4317, AND H.R. 4318 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Sam Rauch and I am the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs for the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 

the Department of Commerce. NMFS is dedicated to the stewardship of living marine resources through science-based conservation and management. 

This year we celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). The purpose of the ESA is to conserve threatened and endangered species 

and their ecosystems. Congress passed the ESA on December 28, 1973, recognizing 

that the natural heritage of the United States was of ‘‘esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our Nation and its people.’’ It was 

understood that, without protection, many of our Nation’s living resources would become extinct. There are more than 2,140 species listed under the ESA. A species 

is considered endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A species is considered threatened if it is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

within the Department of the Interior and NMFS share responsibility for implementing the ESA. NMFS is responsible for 93 marine species, from whales to sea 

turtles and salmon to Johnson’s sea grass. 

NMFS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ESA

NMFS conserves and recovers marine resources by doing the following: listing 

species under the ESA and designating critical habitat (section 4); developing and 

implementing recovery plans for listed species (section 4); developing cooperative 

agreements with and providing grants to States for species conservation (section 6); 

consulting on any Federal agency actions where the agency determines that the action may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat and to minimize 

the impacts of incidental take (section 7); partnering with other Nations to ensure 

that international trade does not threaten species (section 8); enforcing against violations of the ESA (sections 9 and 11); cooperating with non-Federal partners to develop conservation plans for the long-term conservation of species (section 10); and 

authorizing research to learn more about protected species (section 10). 

27 

How Species are Listed or Delisted 

Any individual or organization may petition NMFS or USFWS to ‘‘list’’ a species 

under the ESA. If a petition is received, NMFS or USFWS must determine within 

90 days if the petition presents enough information indicating that the listing of the 

species may be warranted. If the agency finds that the listing of the species may 

be warranted, it will begin a status review of the species. The agency must, within 

1 year of receiving the petition, decide whether to propose the species for listing 

under the ESA. NMFS may, on its own accord, also initiate a status review to determine whether to list a species. In that instance, the statutory timeframes described 

above do not apply. The same process applies for delisting species. 

NMFS or the USFWS, for their respective species, determine if a species should 

be listed as endangered or threatened because of any of the following five factors: 

(1) present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 

and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The ESA 

requires that listing and delisting decisions be based solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. The Act prohibits the consideration of economic impacts 

in making species listing decisions. The ESA also requires designation of critical 

habitat necessary for the conservation of the species; this decision does consider economic impacts. 

The listing of a species as endangered makes it illegal to ‘‘take’’ (harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to do these things) 

that species. Similar prohibitions usually extend to threatened species. Federal 

agencies may be allowed limited take of species through interagency consultations 

with NMFS or USFWS. Non-Federal individuals, agencies, or organizations may 

have limited take through special permits with conservation plans. Effects to the 

listed species must be minimized and in some cases conservation efforts are required to offset the take. NMFS’ Office of Law Enforcement works with the U.S. 

Coast Guard and other partners to enforce and prosecute ESA violations. 

Interagency Consultation and Cooperation 

All Federal agencies are directed, under section 7 of the ESA to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species. Federal agencies must also consult with NMFS on activities that may affect 

a listed species or its designated critical habitat. These interagency consultations 

are designed to assist Federal agencies in fulfilling their duty to ensure Federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Biological opinions document NMFS’ 

opinion as to whether the Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. Where 

appropriate, biological opinions provide an exemption for the ‘‘take’’ of listed species 

while specifying the extent of take allowed, the Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

necessary to minimize impacts from the Federal action, and the Terms and Conditions with which the action agency must comply. Should an action be determined 

to jeopardize a species or adversely modify critical habitat, NMFS will suggest Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, which are alternative methods of project implementation that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the species or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. Nationally, NMFS conducts approximately 1,200 

ESA consultations per year. 

SPECIES RECOVERY

Recovery of threatened and endangered species is a complex and challenging process, but one which also offers long-term benefits to the health of our environment 

and our communities. Actions to achieve a species’ recovery may require restoring 

or preserving habitat, minimizing or offsetting effects of actions that harm species, 

enhancing population numbers, or a combination of all of these actions. Many of 

these actions also help to provide communities with healthier ecosystems, cleaner 

water, and greater opportunities for recreation, both now and in future generations. 

Partnerships with a variety of stakeholders, including private citizens, Federal, 

State and local agencies, tribes, interested organizations, and industry, are critical 

to implementing recovery actions and achieving species recovery goals. Several 

NMFS programs, including the Species Recovery Grants to States and Tribes and 

the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, and the Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program provide support to our partners to assist with achieving recovery goals. From 2000–2012 the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund has 

provided $1.03 billion in funding to support partnerships in the recovery of listed 

28 

salmon and steelhead. From 2003–2013 the Species Recovery Grants to States has 

awarded $37 million to support State recovery and research projects for other listed 

species. From 2001–2013 the Prescott Program awarded over $44.8 million in funding through 483 grants to Stranding Network members to respond and care for 

stranded marine mammals. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SUCCESSES

The ESA has been successful in preventing species extinction—less than 1 percent 

of the species listed have gone extinct. Despite the fact that species reductions occurred over often very long time periods, in its 40 year existence, the ESA has 

helped recover over 30 species. NMFS has recently delisted the Eastern population 

of Steller sea lion, our first delisting since 1994 when NMFS delisted the now thriving eastern population of Pacific gray whales. Between October 1, 2010, and 

September 30, 2012, of the 70 domestic endangered or threatened marine species 

listed under the ESA, 27 (39 percent) were stabilized or improving, 16 (23 percent) 

were known to be declining, 6 (8 percent) were mixed, with their status varying by 

population location, and 21 (30 percent) were unknown, because we lacked sufficient 

data to make a determination. 

In addition to Pacific gray whales and Eastern Steller sea lions, ESA recovery actions have stabilized or improved the downward population trend of many marine 

species. For example, listed humpback populations are currently growing by 3–7 

percent annually. In 2013, we saw record returns of nearly 820,000 adult fall 

Chinook salmon passing the Bonneville Dam on their way up the Columbia River 

to spawn. This is the most fall Chinook salmon to pass the dam in a single year 

since the dam was completed in 1938, and more than twice the 10-year average of 

approximately 390,000. A substantial number of Hawaiian monk seals are alive 

today because of direct interventions by the NMFS Recovery Program. Because of 

these efforts directed at monk seals, the population is 30 percent larger than if we 

had not acted, offering hope for future recovery and assurance our actions are making a difference. We face continuing challenges in recovering numerous other species. Declines in habitat in coastal areas from wetlands to coral reefs is often a 

major causative factor. As stresses on coastal ecosystems increase, it is important 

to place a priority on habitat protection and restoration in order to prevent listings 

and facilitate recovery and delisting. 

PENDING LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

NMFS is currently analyzing the four legislative proposals that were recently introduced into the House of Representatives: H.R. 4315, the ‘‘21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act,’’ H.R. 4316, the ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery 

Transparency Act,’’ H.R. 4317, the ‘‘State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency 

and Recovery Act,’’ and H.R. 4318, the ‘‘Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act.’’ 

CONCLUSION

Extinctions are currently occurring at a rate that is unprecedented in human history. Each plant, animal, and their physical environment is part of a much more 

complex web of life. Because of this, the extinction of a single species can cause a 

series of negative events to occur that affect many other species. Endangered species 

also serve as ‘‘sentinel’’ species to indicate larger ecological problems that could affect the functioning of the ecosystem and likely humans as well. As importantly, 

species diversity is part of the natural legacy we leave for future generations. The 

wide variety of species on land and in our ocean has provided inspiration, beauty, 

solace, food, livelihood and economic benefit, medicines and other products for previous generations. The ESA is a mechanism to help guide conservation efforts, and 

to remind us that our children deserve the opportunity to enjoy the same natural 

world we experience. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss implementation of the Endangered 

Species Act. We would be happy to work cooperatively with the committee on these 

draft bills and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the legislation in more detail. I am available to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rauch. And our last 

witnesses—for purposes of introduction, I will recognize my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Tipton. 

29 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would certainly 

like to welcome today a friend of mine from my home area in my 

district in Colorado, Tom Jankovsky. He is a County Commissioner 

in Garfield County in Colorado, a third-generation native Coloradan who is serving his first term as the Garfield County Commissioner. 

Commissioner Jankovsky serves on the public lands lead for the 

Board of County Commissioners. During his tenure he has also 

served on the Garfield County Human Services Commission, the 

Garfield County Clean Energy Board, the county’s Investment Advisory Board, and as a member of the Compressed Natural Gas 

Collaborative in Western Colorado. 

The commissioner is currently working as a General Manager for 

Sunlight Mountain Resort in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. He has 

held that position at the ski area since 1985. And Tom was inducted into the Colorado Ski and Snowboard Hall of Fame in 2012. 

I am still trying to secure a picture of Tom on a snowboard. He is 

currently on the board, and is past Chair for Colorado Ski Country 

USA. 

I certainly appreciate him, Mr. Chairman, taking the trip, and 

look forward to his testimony. And, with that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jankovsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM JANKOVSKY, COMMISSIONER, 

GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee. I am here to speak in favor of H.R. 4315 

and H.R. 4317 about the issues of transparency between local, 

State, and Federal Governments regarding the Endangered Species 

Act, as it relates to the potential listing of the greater sage-grouse. 

The underpinning message to be conveyed is there is a serious 

lack of openness and fairness, transparency, in decisions being 

made by State and Federal agencies that are hidden behind the 

cloak of the ESA that have serious impacts on local communities. 

Information used by these agencies to make extraordinary decisions with enormous impacts on local communities, such is done 

with ESA, should be available for review and verification by those 

it impacts. To operate otherwise furthers the appearance—and perhaps the fact—that the information is inaccurate, misleading, has 

no scientific basis, and is agenda-driven by special interests. Therefore, by design, it is meant to be hidden from objective review. And, 

ironically, the ultimate casualty is the ESA and the species it is 

meant to protect. 

At the local level, Garfield County has experienced this lack of 

transparency and freedom of information, as a cooperating agency 

with the BLM in the greater sage-grouse EIS. From the start, as 

a cooperating agency, we questioned the accuracy of habitat maps 

produced by the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife and 

used by the BLM in the development of the alternatives. 

The greater sage-grouse habitat in Garfield County is unique. It 

is fragmented, located on ridgetops, with significant drops into valley floors. In our research and discussions with CPW it was discovered that the mapping was prepared at a 50,000-foot view, based 

on very coarse vegetation data, a subjective occupied range map, 

30 

and a 4-mile lek buffer that assumes large expanses of intact habitat. Ultimately, contrary to Federal requirements, the map is not 

reproducible, and is based on data that the agency used—refuses 

to release to the public, despite a Colorado open records request. 

As a result, we were left to create our own habitat maps at considerable expense. The map developed by Garfield County shows a 70 

percent reduction in habitat. 

I have questioned how the greater sage-grouse could ever be listed as an endangered or threatened species. The current estimated 

population numbers for the greater sage-grouse are reported to be 

between 350,000 and 535,000 birds, which is 70 to 107 times greater than the minimum effective population. At the reported current 

rate of decline of 1.4 percent per year, it would take 300 years for 

the population to dwindle to the minimum effective population. 

In our view, there remains the fundamental breakdown in the 

types of information used to make decisions. For example, it has 

been reported that between 2001 and 2007, hunters bagged 

207,000 birds. Additionally, 9,000 birds were harvested in Nevada 

alone in 2009 and 2010, which is just shy of the total number of 

birds currently estimated for the State of Colorado. 

As a cooperating agency, we also question the science used in the 

EIS, which has adopted policies contained in the national technical 

team report. We question the science behind the 3 percent disturbance cap on development and habitat. This winter our own 

Governor Hickenlooper wrote to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Colorado’s formal comments, ‘‘It is our understanding that 

there is limited scientific evidence that supports either of the two 

numbers currently in play for anthropogenic disturbance. Imposing 

an arbitrary cap on the landscape could have catastrophic impacts 

on resource use.’’ 

Garfield County requests for data use by State and Federal agencies concerning the greater sage-grouse EIS has been denied or not 

responded to. Through our biologist, Dr. Rob Ramey, we have requested population and population count data from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to no avail. We would appreciate this committee’s interceding on our behalf to obtain this data as soon as possible. 

I support H.R. 4315 and H.R. 4317. Greater transparency and 

sharing of data will help local governments affected by ESA decisions that will have lasting social economic impacts on our communities. 

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jankovsky follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM JANKOVSKY, COMMISSIONER, GARFIELD

COUNTY, COLORADO ON H.R. 4315 AND H.R. 4317 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

My name is Tom Jankovsky, County Commissioner from Garfield County, Colorado. 

I am here to speak in favor of H.R. 4315 and H.R. 4317 about the issue of transparency between local, State and Federal governments regarding the Endangered 

Species Act as it relates to the potential listing of the Greater Sage Grouse. The 

underpinning message to be conveyed is there is a serious lack of openness and fairness (transparency) in decisions being made by State and Federal agencies that are 

hidden behind the cloak of the ESA that have serious impacts on local communities. 

31 

Information used by these agencies to make extraordinary decisions with enormous impacts on local communities such as is done with the ESA should be available for review and verification by those it impacts. To operate otherwise, furthers 

the appearance and perhaps the fact that the information is inaccurate, misleading, 

and erroneous, has no scientific basis, and is agenda driven by special interests. 

Therefore by design is meant to remain hidden from objective review and ironically, 

the ultimate casualty is the ESA and the species it is meant to protect. 

At the local level, Garfield County experienced this lack of transparency and freedom of information, as a Cooperating Agency with the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) in the Greater Sage Grouse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). From 

the start, as a Cooperating Agency we questioned the accuracy of habitat maps produced by the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and used by BLM 

in the development of the alternatives in the Greater Sage Grouse EIS. 

The Greater Sage Grouse habitat in Garfield County is unique, it is fragmented, 

located on ridge tops with significant drops into valley floors. In our research and 

discussions with CPW, it was discovered that the mapping was prepared at a 50,000 

ft. view; based on very coarse vegetation data, a subjective occupied range map, and 

a 4-mile lek buffer that assumes large expanses of intact habitat. Ultimately, contrary to Federal requirements, the map is not reproducible and is based on data 

that the agency refuses to release to the public, despite a Colorado Open Records 

Act request and offers for data sharing agreement protections. As a result, we were 

left to create our own habitat maps at considerable expense. The map developed by 

Garfield County shows a 70 percent reduction in habitat. 

A transparent review and validation of CPW data could have resulted in a habitat 

map that is effective for proper bird management in Garfield County’s highly unique 

habitat; instead, we have two radically different habitat maps, where CPW’s inaccurate map will produce lasting and extraordinary socio-economic impacts to our region. 

I have questioned how the Greater Sage Grouse could ever be listed as an endangered or threatened species. The current estimated population numbers for the 

Greater Sage Grouse are reported to be between 350,000 and 535,000 birds which 

is 70 to 107 times greater than the ‘‘minimum effective population.’’ At the reported 

current rate of decline of 1.4 percent per year (nationally assumed), it would take 

300 years for the population to dwindle to the minimum effective population. How 

can the current status warrant inclusion on the endangered species list? 

In our view, there remains a fundamental breakdown in the types of information 

used to make decisions. For example, it has been reported that between 2001–2007 

hunters bagged 207,000 birds. Additionally, 9,000 birds were harvested in Nevada 

alone in 2009 and 2010 which is just shy of the total number of birds currently estimated for the entire State of Colorado. 

As a Cooperating agency we also question the science used in the EIS, which has 

adopted policies contained in the National Technical Team (NTT) Report. We question the science behind the 3 percent disturbance cap on development in habitat. 

This winter, our own Governor Hickenlooper wrote to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service in the Colorado’s formal comments, ‘‘It is our understanding that there is 

limited scientific evidence that supports either of the two numbers currently in play 

for anthropogenic disturbance (3 percent and 5 percent) . . . Imposing an arbitrary 

cap on the landscape could have catastrophic impacts on resource use.’’ 

In addition, in our County we question the science behind the 4-mile buffer from 

a lek (mating area of the Greater Sage Grouse). The 4-mile radius from a lek in 

Garfield County will start in sage brush habitat on the top of a ridge, go down a 

slope into an Aspen forest to the valley floor, go back up through a conifer forest, 

to the top of the next ridge and again start back down the next ridge. This shows 

the fragmentation of the habitat and why a 4-mile buffer does not work in our 

County. 

Garfield County requests for data used by State and Federal agencies concerning 

the Greater Sage Grouse EIS, have been denied or not responded too. Through our 

biologist, Dr. Rob Ramey we have requested population and population count data 

from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. We wish to verify this data as requested 

under the Information Quality Act. We would appreciate this committee’s interceding on our behalf to obtain this data as soon as possible. 

I support H.R. 4315 and H.R. 4317, greater transparency and sharing of data 

will help local governments, affected by ESA decisions that will have lasting socioeconomic impacts on our communities. 

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. We appreciate this opportunity and would be more than happy to answer any questions this committee may 

have. 

32 

Attachment 1: Topography Differences 

Attachment 2: Suitable Habitat Mapping Differences 

Attachment 3: Coordination Diagram 

Attachment 4: BLM Instructional Memorandum 2012–044 

Attachment 5: Key Differences That Make the Garfield County Greater Sage Grouse 

Plan a More Effective Conservation Tool Than Those Proposed by Federal Agencies 


87584.001.eps 87584.002.eps
33 


87584.003.eps
34 


87584.004.eps
35 


87584.005.eps
36 


87584.006.eps
37 


87584.007.eps
38 


87584.008.eps
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Commissioner Jankovsky, 

and I want to thank the panel for your statement. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questioning. 


87584.009.eps 87584.010.eps
40 

The common thread in all of these four bills, particularly two of 

them, is transparency so that people know why decisions are being 

made. And, frankly, on a larger scale, unless you have transparency in the form of government that we have, we don’t have a 

government of the people. I mean that is just common sense, to me. 

So, with that in mind—and I suppose that cuts both ways—but, 

Mr. Bean, let me ask you a question, or for a comment. When I introduced H.R. 4315 several weeks ago, the Center for Biological 

Diversity characterized it as a weakening of the Endangered Species Act. Now, I found that a bit puzzling. And the reason I found 

that puzzling, because on December 19 the Center for Biological Diversity, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council and the 

Sierra Club sent a letter to you when you were looking at removing 

the grizzly bear from the list. And this is what they said in their 

letter, toward the end of the letter: ‘‘Yellowstone grizzly bear data 

have been collected nearly exclusively under the authority of the 

Federal Government and funded by taxpayers. Release of this data 

will promote efficiency and effectiveness in government. Simply 

put, release of this data is consistent with the principles of good 

governance, transparency, and good science.’’ Now, that is from the 

Center of Biological Diversity, which was part of the megasettlement that was done behind closed doors that has affected a 

lot of people, potentially, throughout the country. 

Two questions. Have you responded to that letter, do you know? 

Mr. BEAN. Not to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have not responded to that. Yes, you have 

not responded to that letter. 

Mr. BEAN. Not to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. If you have, would you provide to the committee your response to that letter? 

Mr. BEAN. Yes, of course. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. And the last part—and I understand that 

you did not say transparency was not a good idea, but you had 

some conditions of that transparency. So, I just wonder if this is, 

I guess, part of examples where transparency is good. 

Mr. BEAN. What I believe I said was that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is committed to transparency in its decisionmaking, and its 

regular processes are ones that disclose the data upon which it relies, as well as the Service does make available the data that it has 

in its possession or control. 

I tried to make the point that often what the Fish and Wildlife 

Service utilizes are published studies, reports, analyses, and so 

forth, and those published reports, analyses, and studies are often 

based on State data that the Fish and Wildlife Service neither has 

nor has the right to give to others. 

But, to the extent the Service has that data in its own possession, unless there is some compelling reason under FOIA to withhold it—I would give us one example. Sometimes the Fish and 

Wildlife Service gets from the Defense Department certain highresolution photographs about species locations, and the Defense 

Department asks that that data not be released to the public for 

security-related purposes. Unless there is a reason like that, the 

Service, as a general matter and a routine matter, makes available 

the data that it has. 

41 

The CHAIRMAN. But the principle of the data being made on listings is good policy. 

Mr. BEAN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. OK. Dr. Ramey, would you—in your ending 

oral remarks you kind of alluded to potentially this sort of contingency, I guess, with some of the groups that are involved. Would 

you care to comment on that? 

Dr. RAMEY. Information is power. Data is power. And if data are 

withheld, then the group or the agency that hold that data can 

maintain their power. And it has been my experience in trying to 

obtain data from individuals, researchers that are permitted by the 

Federal agencies—and it is not really very much State data, 

Michael, it tends to be more independent researchers—it can be 

like pulling teeth to try and obtain that data. You write a polite 

letter, you get a refusal, the questions come back, ‘‘What are you 

going to do with this?’’ 

‘‘Well, I would like to actually look at your study.’’ It is not just 

me; other colleagues of mine have had the same issue, over and 

over again. There are times that you can submit a FOIA to obtain 

data. But, ultimately, some data sets have been obtained under 

subpoena, like the Coastal California gnatcatcher data. And then— 

it shouldn’t come to that. 

Here, we are facing a situation with a listing of greater sagegrouse, where some of the data is maintained by States, but that 

data set is now 7 years old. There have been numerous papers published on this. The data set is shared among a good old boys club 

of people, and yet the data is not public, and we are about to spend 

billions, if not trillions, of dollars on this listing. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. My time is expired, but I just wanted 

to make the point it comes both ways. This letter that I referenced 

was for de-listing. Should not the same principle apply for listing? 

That is what the issue is. 

With that, I will recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bean, 

let me just get an answer and you can amplify that answer. Is it 

true that the only way to get data from Fish and Wildlife that you 

use in listing the decision is through a FOIA request? 

Mr. BEAN. No, I don’t believe that is true. I think the Fish and 

Wildlife Service commonly makes available data that it has by publishing the reports and studies, or certainly a list of reports and 

studies on which it relies with the proposed and final listing decisions. That data is published on the regulations.gov Web site for 

anybody to access who cares to see it. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And I appreciate that, because that is the question that we are going to hear over and over again today. 

Dr. Courtney, do you think there is any sound scientific basis for 

pre-determining that certain sources of data are always going to be 

the best scientific and commercial data available? 

Dr. COURTNEY. Congressman, science is a process. And so it is 

an ongoing process, and it is always a work in progress. And there 

is no reason to assume that your science is better than mine, just 

because you are sitting up there and I am down here. 

42 

The processes of science are self-correcting, and we figure things 

out, and ultimately the truth is out. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Dr. Courtney, you noted that the peer review you 

led regarding the Fish and Wildlife’s proposal to de-list the gray 

wolf unanimously found that the proposal was not based on the 

best scientific and commercial information available, and that is an 

indication of a situation where, as you mentioned, it is an ongoing 

process, so corrective action is warranted. In your opinion, is that 

corrective action in this case of withdrawal of de-listing—is the 

withdrawal of that de-listing decision—— 

Dr. COURTNEY. I have no opinion on what the Service should do, 

Congressman. My task was very simple, which was to guide a process to look at what the science said and a panel unanimously found 

that the science in that case did not support one part of the agency’s proposed de-listing. We didn’t consider all aspects of the proposal. And, of course, the use of science is a totally different thing 

from creating science. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Appreciate that. Commissioner Jankovsky, in your 

testimony you say that with respect to the greater sage-grouse EIS 

that was developed by the Bureau of Land Management, that, 

‘‘From the start we questioned the accuracy of habitat maps produced by the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife,’’ and that 

the maps produced by your county were much different. Let me try 

to understand this. So are you saying there was a conflict, fundamental conflict, between the data in the maps that the State and 

county were providing the Bureau of Land Management? 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. I was saying that the maps provided by the 

State of Colorado to the Bureau of Land Management that were 

used in the greater sage-grouse EIS for northwest Colorado were 

considerably different from our maps. Garfield County, Colorado, is 

very unique in its habitat. It is fragmented—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Mr. JANKOVSKY [continuing]. And we found a 70 percent reduction in the amount of habitat in Garfield County. 

Dr. RAMEY. Could I jump in? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So they were different. 

Dr. RAMEY. That mapping was done at a 2-meter resolution—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Excuse me, I have a question over here, thank 

you. I really don’t have any questions for you, so I want to concentrate here. 

What would happen, Commissioner, again, if Fish and Wildlife 

were required to consider the county data and the State data to be 

the best information available? How would—if you have them in 

conflict? 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. They are in conflict. And we did use 2-meter 

resolution, where the State used a much broader—actually, State 

Fish and Wildlife people stated that it was a 50,000-foot view—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So—— 

Mr. JANKOVSKY [continuing]. They used on the mapping, where 

we went down—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With regard to the legislation, then, the county 

data, which you feel—you support, is, in your estimate, the best 

available data, and not the State’s. 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. That is correct. And we feel—— 

43 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So that would hold precedent in any decision. 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. I don’t know if it would hold precedent in any 

decision—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That is fine. 

Mr. JANKOVSKY [continuing]. But we feel that we have the best 

available—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, thank you. 

Mr. JANKOVSKY [continuing]. Data, and the best science—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I will recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Ramey, I would 

like to be able to hear your answer. If you can keep it brief, we 

have a limited amount of time. We are talking about best available 

science. What was the discrepancy between the State of Colorado 

and the map produced by Garfield County? 

Dr. RAMEY. It is a question of the resolution of the data. Much 

higher resolution in the vegetation mapping provided—done by the 

county and their GIS group, as opposed to that being proposed by 

the Federal agencies. The same situation has been found in the 

Gunnison sage-grouse, as well, where large parts of non-habitat, including the Town of Doat Creek and Gunnison Gorge, were declared as critical habitat. 

And so, if one has the chance to obtain the data and do a superior analysis, it benefits species protection, because you can put 

the—— 

Mr. TIPTON. So it goes to the Commissioner’s statement it was 

a 50,000-foot view, you narrowed this down to actually look at 

something that—you noted in your testimony you need a certain 

amount of ground cover, you need a certain amount of water to be 

available if you really want to be able to recover the species. The 

broad brush stroke simply doesn’t work. Is that accurate? 

Dr. RAMEY. That is very accurate. There is a lot of collateral 

damage, in terms of public support, when critical habitats are overextended. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Commissioner, let’s talk about real acres. I 

think in the West it is so expansive. You said a 70 percent reduction. How many acres did they want to include in Garfield County, 

and what did you reduce it to with good science? 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. Garfield County has 220,000 acres of priority 

habitat, and with good science that was reduced to about 70,000 

acres. 

Mr. TIPTON. About 70,000 acres, a huge reduction in that. 

You know, Mr. Bean, I would like to be able to find out—you 

talked about transparency, and wanting to be able to open the door 

on that. And why are we not releasing the NTT Report? 

Mr. BEAN. The NTT Report was published a couple years ago. It 

has been released. 

Mr. TIPTON. We don’t have the information. Have you received 

the information, Mr. Ramey? 

Dr. RAMEY. I think you are mistaken on that. I think that what 

you might be referring to is the sage-grouse lek count data that are 

the basis, the fundamental basis, of the 2010 listing decision on the 

greater sage-grouse. And that data was analyzed under this 

44 

Federal cooperative agreement from the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and yet 6 years later the data are still not public. 

Mr. TIPTON. Why is that not public, Mr. Bean? 

Mr. BEAN. The data—well, first of all, the study is a study by Dr. 

Garten and others that—the authors of the study are employed by 

the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, and the University of Idaho. The data they used to compile their report is State-maintained data. That data has never 

been made available to the Fish and—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Are you making decisions off that data? 

Mr. BEAN. We are not making decisions off of that—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Are you using that data? 

Mr. BEAN. We will be using the report and other information to 

make a decision—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Don’t you think that ought to be public, if we are 

talking about transparency? 

Mr. BEAN. I think that if the States decide to release that data, 

it would be a good thing. 

Mr. TIPTON. You are an advisor to Fish and Wildlife and the 

Department of the Interior. Are you giving them advice, ‘‘We need 

to be able to have transparency so we can make good, sound judgments’’? 

Mr. BEAN. I have advocated in my testimony and elsewhere, 

transparency. I have also made clear that we cannot withhold what 

we do not have. And, in this instance, the information involved is 

maintained and controlled by the States. 

Mr. TIPTON. Let’s talk a little bit about population count. Commissioner, have you been given a goal to be able to reach, how 

many birds? And we have achieved a recovery? 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. No, I think that is one of the difficulties that Dr. 

Ramey was talking about, is that even in our small area, there is 

no set population. It is an estimate, and we actually have a biologist from CPW working there, but we don’t have a number that is 

specific to our area. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Bean, how do we get recovery if we don’t know 

what the numbers are? 

Mr. BEAN. Numbers are a part of the equation. The main focus 

is threats, identifying and addressing threats. The Fish and Wildlife Service is required by Congress’s law, the Endangered Species 

Act, to consider five factors in deciding whether or not a species is 

to be listed. 

Mr. TIPTON. You know, the Commissioner just gave us some 

pretty big numbers, in terms of the population of the bird. How do 

we know, when we have an 11-State recovery program, if we have 

had success in Colorado—it is still going to be listed if it is not 

achieved by some ambiguous number that you won’t give us in 

Wyoming—that we have achieved recovery? How do we actually 

win, given what you are actually laying out, without transparency? 

Mr. BEAN. Well, what the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing at 

present is working closely with Colorado and the other 10 States 

that have—— 

45 

Mr. TIPTON. Our Governor pointed out that we have the best 

science on the ground in the State of Colorado, and are achieving 

recovery—— 

Mr. BEAN. I am aware of the Governor’s letter. With respect to 

the matter that Mr. Jankovsky raised, the Bureau of Land Management’s EIS is a draft EIS. They have made no final decision. 

They have made no final EIS. They are in the process of incorporating data from the county and others in a revised EIS. It is a 

testament to the strength of the process that the information available to the Bureau can improve through the input from the counties and others. And, as the Bureau makes a decision on its land 

use plan, it will have the benefit of the counties’ input, and will 

have the ability to make a well-informed decision. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, thanks very much. I appreciate that 

the stated concern, stated purpose of this hearing and this legislation we are talking about today is over species recovery and delisting. On at least that much I think both parties can agree. We 

want to see species recover, we want to see them de-listed. 

That is about where it ends, though, because the premise of the 

bills we are considering and a lot of the debate is that the problem 

is that we are not recovering more species because we are somehow 

listing too many, or that we are somehow spending too much time 

on lawsuits that seek listing. And I find that a bit too far. We are 

not going to help the Endangered Species Act with the conservation 

and de-listing of species by making it harder to list them, or by 

making it harder to enforce the Act. 

But it does appear to me that there is something we can do to 

help species recovery and de-listing, and that is to actually invest 

in species recovery and de-listing. So I have a question for our witnesses from NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service. I would like 

to ask you how much you have requested for your various efforts 

to recover species in the last fiscal year, and then tell us how much 

was appropriated in response to those requests. 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you for the question. I don’t have those exact 

numbers. We will get them to you from the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Is it fair to say that your requests have 

not been matched in the appropriations, that there is a shortfall? 

Mr. RAUCH. I do not know the specific numbers. I know that 

since 2010 Congress has not appropriated the full amount we have 

requested for at least Pacific salmon. There has been a shortfall 

there, where the President has requested more than we have received. In 2014 we received some of those numbers back, so I don’t 

know if that trend continues. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Mr. Bean, can I ask you? I know you 

have requested millions in cooperative recovery and de-listing efforts. Tell us about how the appropriations have matched that. 

Mr. BEAN. I only know part of the answer to your question, 

which is for the FY 2015 budget request the Service has requested 

an $18 million increase for recovery-related purposes. 

46 

Mr. HUFFMAN. How many species are currently listed as warranted but precluded because your agencies lack resources to implement adequate protections? Do either of you know, off the—— 

Mr. RAUCH. I do not believe that NMFS has any listed as 

warranted but precluded. 

Mr. BEAN. I don’t know the precise number. My guess is it is in 

the ballpark of 150 or so for the Fish and Wildlife Service. That 

may give or take 20. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. My information is that you have 145 candidate 

species, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site, 51 species currently proposed for listing, according to your Web site. Can 

either of you identify any currently protected or listed species 

whose recovery you think would benefit from the passage of any of 

these four bills? 

Mr. BEAN. I cannot. I think the concern that I expressed was 

that these bills, although they are directed at the purpose that we 

share of improving transparency and improving reliance upon good 

science, I do not see how these bills will increase the resources, or 

increase the effectiveness of the tools we now have to recover species. 

If I can say a word just about recovering species, so far in this 

administration some 11 species have been recovered and de-listed 

due to recovery, which is more than in any prior administration. 

There are, indeed, nine others proposed for de-listing because of recovery. So we are making good progress in recovering and delisting species, but there are a lot of species that are still a long 

ways from recovery that are clearly doing very well, compared to 

their historical numbers. And among them, California condors, 

black-footed ferrets, Florida manatees, and whooping cranes, all of 

which are at or near their historic highs over the last half-century 

or more, all of which will remain endangered species for many 

more years, because they were reduced to very low numbers, but 

all of which are clearly major successes for the Endangered Species 

Act, even though they are still endangered species not yet recovered. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Mr. Rauch? 

Mr. RAUCH. I concur with Mr. Bean’s statements regarding the 

effects of these bills on recovery. I do not see a direct link between 

these bills and efforts to recover the species. And I would also echo 

his comments about the success on recovery that this administration has had. There are large efforts that have been made, and I 

think we can all be proud of those. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Seliger, let’s 

start with you for a minute. Can you cite any examples of how better cooperation or better, actually, data communication regarding 

ESA matters would have better facilitated the Federal Government 

implementing ESA, and resulted in a better outcome for Texas? 

Mr. SELIGER. I think I can, Congressman Flores, in that the process we believe, should be data-driven. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. 

47 

Mr. SELIGER. There clearly is an empirical measure of species 

population to determine whether they are increasing or declining. 

And then, where the science comes in is to analyze the problems, 

the threats, and the possible solutions. And then, very importantly, 

to measure the progress made to consider de-listing. 

And I find it interesting, reflecting on Congressman Huffman’s questions just last week, Director Ashe suggested a $9 million decrease in grants to States to be used in the scientific inquiry 

around endangered species. It is a big help to States. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Senator Seliger. Commissioner 

Jankovsky, how has your interaction with the Bureau of Land 

Management and Fish and Wildlife Service on the sage-grouse impacted your county, and what have your county’s own efforts produced in the way of sage-grouse needs and management? I think 

you drilled into that a little bit—— 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. OK. We are definitely at the local level. I mean, 

you know, we are the ones that make local land use decisions that 

affect the bird, at least in our county, and we have coordinated 

with the Bureau of Land Management, and they have come to 

meetings, and we have talked about issues, and we have had direct, face-to-face discussions. We have sent letters to—at least to 

Denver, to Fish and Wildlife Service, and those letters have not 

even been responded to. 

And we do have questions about the science, especially in our 

county. And we look at it at the local level, and we have control 

at the local level, and that is what is missing, in my opinion. 

Mr. FLORES. OK, thank you. Dr. Ramey, Mr. Courtney has suggested that data transparency could threaten conservation planning, and he cited as an example the lesser prairie chicken, which, 

despite extensive State, local, and private efforts to keep it off the 

list, was listed by FWS 2 weeks ago. 

A report by the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy, and 

Reliability concluded that the FWS listing rule for the prairie 

chicken failed to consider data and analysis demonstrated in the 

lesser prairie chicken populations were increasing, and that genetic 

isolation has not occurred. So, in this regard I have two questions. 

First of all, do you agree with Mr. Courtney, that data transparency could threaten conservation planning? 

Dr. RAMEY. Briefly, just a correction. That report, I believe, refers to the greater sage-grouse and the genetic diversity in that—— 

Mr. FLORES. I am sorry—— 

Dr. RAMEY [continuing]. Numbers. 

Mr. FLORES. That is right. 

Dr. RAMEY. Yes. In my direct experience, having worked on endangered species in the field, including California condors and peregrine falcons, peninsular bighorn sheep, Sierra bighorn sheep, and 

on and on, openness and transparency and having the data allows 

you to have a re-examination of the threats to the species, and you 

can have a discussion and debate about those and prioritize. If data 

are withheld, there is no opportunity for that. 

You can have all the studies you want, you can have all the peer 

reviews you want. But unless the peer reviewers and the public 

have access to the data, there is no way that this is truly an effective scientific decision. And the statute requires that these deciVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:22 Mar 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP08 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87584.TXT DARLEN
48 

sions be based on data, not opinions, not speculation in papers. The 

Office of Management and Budget, with the Data Quality Act, require that these be based on data. 

Mr. FLORES. Well, that brings us to my next question, and that 

is, you know, this data discrepancy that is described in this report, 

is that another example of how important State and local data is 

for the Federal Government to use before the ESA listing? 

Dr. RAMEY. Well, State and local data are essential to having an 

effective recovery, because local data, local knowledge, certainly 

like in Garfield County, is essential. You can’t have one-size-fitsall solutions to endangered species. It has to be tailored to the 

problems, and you need to prioritize your effort on addressing the 

threats. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Courtney, I have a question for you, but, given 

my time, you will have to answer following this report. Maybe you 

can do that in writing for us. 

I have some conflicts among the answers that you gave. First of 

all, in your testimony you said that you recommend making use of 

existing technologies. But in your answers you said sciences work 

in progress and science is self-correcting. So I think there is a conflict between using things that are existing, but still trying to 

always use the best-available science. So if you would submit an 

answer following this hearing, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. COURTNEY. Of course. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To the scientists that are here, and some of the other folks that are dealing 

with these issues on an ongoing basis, I kind of have a statement 

that I want to make, because I think the notion of trying to create 

further transparency is meritorious, I think, when we are dealing 

with the challenges facing the Endangered Species Act. I think 

many of us who feel that there ought to be changes or modifications to reflect the reality of the challenges we face today in species 

recovery often times get drowned out. 

When we talk about best science available, we know that the— 

to take a follow-up on the comment from the gentleman who just 

spoke, Mr. Flores—the science is changing, so we learn more. And 

so, the best science available is never a stationary place. And I 

think that, you know, we can look to all the experts, and we do— 

National Academy of Sciences and others—who opine and write 

opinions on changing developments. But our credibility is always 

lacking when we have difficulty in species recovery. 

And, of course, with changes in climate, we have a lot of noted 

biologists, scientists, and others that say that it may be literally an 

impossible feat to accomplish to recovery species in which water 

temperatures are changing over a period of time, and other factors. 

And we don’t take that into account. 

So, I guess, in terms of our credibility, how do we define success? 

How do we define success in species recovery? And often times, I 

mean, you talk about the California condor, we talk about salmonid 

recovery. I mean there is a whole host of issues that I am familiar 

49 

with on the West Coast. The fact is that, often times, there are 

multiple factors that cause the decline in these species. 

And so, when we deal with—most of the time, from a regulatory 

standpoint, we don’t have the ability to deal with multiple factors, 

and it is like trying to fly an airplane when you have only one control, and that is over power, and you don’t have control over the 

airlines or other elements that would factor in. 

So, who wants to try to take this on, when we talk about changes 

that are necessary in the law? 

Dr. RAMEY. I will be glad to jump in. And, as you know, the delta 

smelt is a case where, because the data are public and available, 

there have been, over the last 2 years, 3 years, six papers, including a paper by scientists at NCEAS, to re-examine all the data set 

and look at it in new ways, in trying to figure out what are the 

current problems for the delta smelt. Not the past problems, but 

the current problems. And one of those they identified is the ammonia deposition caused by the Sacramento waste water treatment 

plant, something that people hadn’t considered before. But because 

the data are public, it is possible to have that kind of—— 

Mr. COSTA. Are predator bass—— 

Dr. RAMEY. And predator bass. 

Mr. COSTA [continuing]. That consume a lot of the smelt. So how 

do we get there? 

And then you have the gentleman from Davis, noted fish biologist, who indicates that as water temperatures continue to increase 

over the next four, five, six decades, that it may be impossible to 

recover some of these species. 

Dr. RAMEY. In that one you are facing an ecosystem collapse. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Mr. BEAN. Sir, if I can answer your—— 

Mr. COSTA. Well, change. But, I mean, millions of years before— 

we obviously are impacting all of it, that’s given. But the fact is 

that species have declined and become extinct as a result of a meteor hitting in the Yucatan Peninsula. I mean there are a lot of 

things that cause factors, right? 

Mr. BEAN. Mr. Costa, if I can address your earlier question of 

how do we define success in this area, I think we can define it in 

a number of ways. We start with avoiding extinction of species we 

have identified as endangered. We have done a good job of avoiding 

extinction. 

Second, and perhaps most importantly, measuring our ability to 

make a more secure future for these species. As I indicated, many 

species, although still endangered, have a clearly more secure future ahead of them because of—— 

Mr. COSTA. But is it fair, when we have multiple factors that are 

causing the decline of a species, to only use one? 

Mr. BEAN. We have to address all the factors, sir. You are correct 

about that. 

Mr. COSTA. But we don’t do that. 

Mr. BEAN. We try our best to do that. 

Mr. COSTA. I can cite many examples where we are not. 

Mr. BEAN. There are certainly many examples where it is very 

difficult to do that, and we have more or less success doing that. 

But in every instance we try to address every threat that we can. 

50 

Mr. COSTA. All right. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Discussion to be continued. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will, I know that. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the discussion goes 

back and forth here today, we hear different ideas about the legitimacy of these bills being helpful. I mean I think what is important, how they are helpful isn’t maybe necessarily with however 

recovery of species works now, but with people’s ability to have 

transparency with it, to know what actually the data is, and if it 

is being applied correctly, and if you have a complete set of data. 

So, I think, whether this is a dollar toward recovery, I think it 

can actually be helpful in that, because you have a broader range 

of data to work from, using local government, using local people’s 

input on it. 

You know, I have a situation up in Siskiyou County that has to 

do with water usage and water rights up in northern California, 

where they were bringing some group from Massachusetts in to 

help conduct the surveys and design a model, and they didn’t really 

seem too interested in hearing from the locals, the farmers and 

ranchers, on that. Yet this is what is being imposed on people. 

Now, when you hear that there are ideas for listing 145 or, by 

some other counts, maybe 374 new species—or considered for 

threatened or endangered status, I wonder if—the ultimate goal 

seems to tying up every single acre west of the Mississippi from 

usage by humankind for—whether it is very needed timber 

thinning and management, being able to access water supplies that 

are desperately needed for California’s drought, a multitude of 

things that are being contemplated for people in these—the wise 

use of resources. Every one of these listings means much more time 

spent fighting with government agencies to try and have access to 

the resources. Every listing. 

Now, in California, for example, we have the longhorn elderberry 

beetle—don’t even get me started on the smelt—which was listed 

some years ago and has been in a de-listing process for about 8 

years, and actually reached to the point where they have had the 

data brought to them, the recommendation by the Wildlife Service 

board that the de-listing move forward. Yet, for 2 years, they have 

been sitting on it. The answer I hear on that is they are not happy 

with one of the peer review—one member of a peer review board 

has issues with some of the way the data is collected. 

Well, how are we supposed to—out here, whether it is the general public or us in this representation position—be able to have 

any kind of input whether the data, the collection process, is even 

working when they are counting burros for beetles? And yet we 

have very important flood control projects in northern California 

and probably across all the West, similarly, that are being held up 

because the agencies can’t get off the dime and respond to a possible de-listing. 

So, with that, I had a comment or a question I am seeking for 

you on that, Dr. Ramey. You have mentioned that lack of available 

data is hurting the process. We also have in northern California 

51 

the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat designated, or a designation being contemplated. Yet the people involved doing the economic analysis have never visited the area, and are considering 

only the impact on Federal agencies, and maybe a little bit on utilities. Please expound on how the transparency would help our local 

governments to have a better input than just somebody that hasn’t 

even visited the site. 

Dr. RAMEY. I don’t do economic analysis. But if I was to do something like that, I would certainly want to know where the species 

occurred, and then go from there to figure out, from higherresolution mapping, where the potential economic costs would be. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Who would best know what those economic costs 

would be? 

Dr. RAMEY. Well, I would leave that to the economists to figure 

out. But obviously, local people have some knowledge there. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Some or a lot? 

Dr. RAMEY. Well, I was being—that’s an understatement there. 

The problem there is that, whether it is scientific data or economic 

data, local data is going to be very, very valuable, and, in some 

cases, absolutely essential, especially when a species is occupying 

a very, very small area. 

And speaking about economic analyses involving critical habitat, 

a number of those have been overturned, due to inadequate economic analysis. The coastal California gnatcatcher is one, for example. So, this is a relevant issue. It does spill over into economics. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. And I think on the biological side, as well, at least 

seeking some input from local people on how things work, you 

know, maybe not the final word, but might be helpful to design a 

model. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. Let me begin by pursuing that line of 

questioning that we were just hearing. Let me address this, I suppose, to Mr. Bean and Mr. Rauch each. In what sense, in what circumstances, does best equal all? 

The ESA says we should be using the best scientific and commercial data available. Certainly linguistically best does not equal all. 

In an evaluation situation, in actual practice, does best equal all? 

If you were trying to make a decision based on scientific evidence, 

do you want a data dump, or do you want some discrimination in 

what is best and relevant? 

Let me ask Mr. Bean first, and then Mr. Rauch. 

Mr. BEAN. Thank you, sir. I think that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, when it makes its listing decisions, goes through a rulemaking process in which anybody who cares to provide any data 

that they—— 

Dr. HOLT. Could you speak into the microphone more, please? 

Mr. BEAN. Sure. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. BEAN. When the Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to list 

a species, it goes through a rulemaking process in which anybody 

who wants to comment and provide any data at all can do so. The 

52 

Service must take all that into account. However, Congress has 

been clear that the decision to list or not list is to be based solely 

on the best available scientific and commercial data. And that does 

require the Service to make some informed judgment of which of 

the data at its disposal is most reliable, most scientifically defensible, most useful. So, yes, best does not equal all. 

Dr. HOLT. Mr. Rauch? 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you. I do agree that best does not equal all. 

We do, as does Fish and Wildlife Service, accept all the data, and 

we actively seek out data, including data from States and others. 

Anybody who will give us data, we will accept it. 

We have a 1994 policy between us and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service which talks about how we weight those data differently. 

Just because we accept it doesn’t mean they are all of the same caliber. We will weight things more highly, for instance, if they are 

peer-reviewed, if they are public, they get much greater weight in 

our analysis. So we look at those factors, and that is spelled out 

in this 1994 policy in which we do grade the data. And we try to 

determine what is the best, and then rely on that. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. Senator Seliger, you said that no one 

wants a species to be listed. I think those were your words—— 

Mr. SELIGER. Nobody wants species to be extinct. 

Dr. HOLT. Well, in your prepared testimony I think you said 

‘‘listed.’’ No? 

Mr. SELIGER. I am sorry, I don’t recall. 

Dr. HOLT. I will take a look again. But species listed—listing, of 

course, is the first step under the Endangered Species Act. With regard to some of the demonstrable successes of the Endangered Species Act—the iconic bald eagle or the American alligator or the 

great whale—are you arguing that listing in the ESA was not responsible for their revival, or that the revival no one wanted? 

Mr. SELIGER. No, sir. I am certainly not, and I apologize, because 

the intention was to say no one wants to see a species extinct. 

Clearly, there can be situations—and there have been—where populations are so threatened that a listing is necessary, as long as it 

is based upon good science. 

Dr. HOLT. Well, actually, I do have this letter from April 4 on 

your stationery, ‘‘No one wants a species to be listed. The method 

of preservation of a species is at the center of the debate.’’ 

Well, I am running out of time, so I will just finish with a statement, which is the ESA is an unusual law. It is one of the strongest environmental laws. It is based on a zero tolerance approach, 

which gives a lot of people heartburn. But it is demonstrably successful. There are many species that I think are vibrant populations now that would not be, but for the ESA. And so that listing, 

I think, has been critical to the prospering of the bald eagle, and 

the American alligator, the gray whale, and others. 

So, I would ask you to think carefully about your words there, 

and consider the successes we have had. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Daines. 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, too, 

for your leadership on this important topic. The Chairman had 

field hearings in both Montana and Wyoming this past fall. I think 

53 

it is always helpful to get out of the world of academia in 

Washington, and out into the field, where reality exists. 

It was summed up out in Montana at the hearing, that the ESA 

is like a 40-year-old ranch pick-up. It once served a useful purpose, 

but is in bad need of repair. And I think we sit here today, seeking 

to make this better, and to repair something that is now 40 years 

old. 

And I can tell you, as I travel around the State of Montana, the 

threat of the listing of the greater sage-grouse is a major threat to 

our local economies and our everyday lives. Talking to the ranchers 

out there in eastern Montana, sometimes it is just refreshing to get 

to their perspective, as we hear all views on this around the impact 

of predators and coyotes, of ravens, eagles, hawks, and so forth, as 

it relates to—as well as habitat, and everything else. But you talk 

to multi-generational families out there on the ranches, they can 

tell you pretty quickly what causes sage-grouse populations to go 

up, and what causes them to go down. 

I understand that in Texas the information provided by States, 

local governments, and other affected stakeholders informed the 

Fish and Wildlife Service enough to reverse its decision on the 

dune sage brush lizard as endangered. But, however, last week it 

has been discussed in this hearing the Fish and Wildlife Service 

listed the lesser prairie chicken, despite the State efforts. And I can 

tell you Montanans are very concerned that this decision that we 

saw happen in the last couple weeks is an indication of the decision 

that awaits us on the greater sage-grouse coming September, 2015. 

And I surely hope the intent is not to dismiss the recommendation 

from the respective 11 States that have prepared sage-grouse 

conservation plans. 

In fact, Montana and Wyoming have the largest populations of 

sage-grouse, and are putting a lot of effort into conserving habitat 

and bird population numbers which we still hunt today in 

Montana. And as someone who strongly believes that this country 

would be a whole lot better if DC looked more like Montana and 

not the other way around, let me ask you, do you have any recommendations—maybe I could direct this to Dr. Ramey. 

Any recommendations for the States of Wyoming and Montana 

in working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide the data 

that could have been missing in the lesser prairie chicken case, but 

was provided by the State and local governments in the lizards 

case? We are trying to maybe get an answer here before we take 

the test here in September of 2015. 

Dr. RAMEY. The State of Wyoming makes all of its sage-grouse 

data public, and that is a great start. I don’t know about Montana, 

but if it hadn’t been for the fact that the State of Wyoming had 

made their data public, a number of analyses, including one we are 

to be publishing soon, wouldn’t have been possible. So making the 

data public is very commendable, and it is a great way to lead. 

Mr. DAINES. Any other comments, what we could learn from 

what happened just in the last month? Any of the panelists? Ideas 

that we don’t fall into the same trap that happened? 

Mr. BEAN. Sir, if I may, I would just respond to your concern 

that the decision on the lesser prairie chicken is somehow a 

foretelling of the future decision on the greater sage-grouse, I 

54 

would caution not to make that connection, because the circumstances are quite different. The lesser prairie chicken suffered 

a fairly dramatic population collapse. Its numbers are a small fraction of sage-grouse numbers. 

Perhaps most importantly, the 11 States with sage-grouse have 

been working for the last 4 years cooperatively with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, with BLM, with Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, to put together programs and plans to address the threats 

to that species. They are making real progress in that. So I think 

that will be decided on its merits, independent of the decision for 

the lesser prairie chicken. 

Mr. DAINES. I sure hope so, because I think you have some important stakeholders there in Montana that—we desire, I think, 

the same outcome here, of protecting the species. But I—we really 

do believe that the folks back home oftentimes are closer to the 

issues than the folks who are thousands of miles away, here in 

Washington. 

Is there something—moving back to Dr. Ramey, is there something Congress can do? You mentioned the transparency with 

Wyoming data. Anything else that States and local governments 

could do—to have a stronger voice in this process? Would 

H.R. 4317 help in that regard? 

Dr. RAMEY. Well, let me say I do concur with Rauch and Bean 

here, that best does not equal all. However, I am going to add to 

that, that you only get to best available by considering all the data. 

And I think that that is the frustration that local governments, 

tribes, and States have, is that their data are frequently not considered in a decision. And it is extremely frustrating. 

And just to use the example of the Agua Caliente v. Scarlett case 

on critical habitat and peninsular bighorn sheep, that particular 

case resulted because the tribes and others had better data, and 

they had to go to court in order to force the decision on a critical 

habitat, which resulted in about a 50 percent reduction. But that 

allowed the conservation effort to be more focused on what is most 

important for the animals and aid their recovery. And they are almost recovered. 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Benishek. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you for holding this hearing today, and I would also like to take 

this opportunity to enter additional testimony from both the American Loggers Council and Senator Tom Casperson, who represents 

the 38th District of Michigan into the record. 

These folks couldn’t be here in person with us today, but they 

strongly support these bills that work to reform the Endangered 

Species Act. I appreciate their support and work to conserve species that are important to Michigan. 

[The information submitted by Dr. Benishek for the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LOGGERS COUNCIL BY DANIEL J. DRUCTOR, 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ON H.R. 4315, H.R. 4316, H.R. 4317, AND H.R. 4318 

The American Loggers Council (ALC) appreciates the opportunity to submit written comments in support of four recently introduced bills that would make signifiVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:22 Mar 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP08 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87584.TXT DARLEN
55 

cant changes in the administration of the Endangered Species Act. These four bills, 

H.R. 4315; H.R. 4316; H.R. 4317 and H.R. 4318, all suggest improved procedures 

and accountability for decisions to list species as threatened or endangered under 

the act. We would like to thank Representatives Hastings, Lummis, Neugebauer 

and Huizenga, respectively, for introducing these bills. 

ALC is a coalition of some 30 State logging associations from throughout the country. Our members collectively represent over 10,000 family owned businesses that 

employ over 50,000 workers. Our members are largely located in rural communities 

and support an industry that typically is the mainstay of the local economy. Each 

and every one of our members can tell a convincing story about how the Endangered 

Species Act has affected their operations and personal lives whether they be on 

Federal, State, private or tribal lands and they understand the need for the reforms 

embodied in these proposals. Transparency in decisionmaking; public access to data, 

research and assumptions regarding listing decisions; and modernizing the process 

for legal challenges of the act’s administration are all reforms that we strongly support. 

Often, the data, research and assumptions that lead to a decision to list a species 

is a mystery to the public. In our experience, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relies heavily on internal research and scientific expertise and to academia for information about candidate species. It is our opinion that scientists who are invited to 

provide input to the agency and provide the scientific basis for making a listing decision is often an exclusive club of hand-picked individuals. In the current process, 

it is not unusual for outside information and research to be ignored because it does 

not support preconceived positions of the agency or it may originate from sources 

the agency believes has an economic interest in the decision. There is plenty of evidence that the agency excludes valid and credible information in its quest for ‘‘the 

best scientific information available.’’ There is no better example than the northern 

spotted owl. Listed in 1990, credible evidence was provided to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service that questioned the dependency of the owl on old growth habitat. 

Information was also provided that suggested the barred owl was a significant factor 

contributing to the decline of spotted owl numbers. Both of these assertions were 

ignored by the agency as its selected group of scientists (a cartel is an appropriate 

description) who did not want to believe these suggestions to be credible. Twentyfour years later, the agency is now advocating for the management of second growth 

forests for habitat recruitment and has determined that more habitat exists today 

than when the owl was listed as a threatened species. Also, the agency recently 

completed an environmental impact statement that authorized the killing of barred 

owls to reduce competition with its close cousin, the northern spotted owl. You can 

imagine the chagrin of the tens of thousands of forest industry workers who lost 

their jobs as a result of the listing of the northern spotted owl. 

Another example of the need for transparency is in the agency’s reliance on computer models for predicting a species reaction to management alternatives. Population data is often lacking and when it is available it is often discounted in 

deference to the attitude that ‘‘the amount and quality of habitat is more important 

than the population of the species.’’ So, the agency will use a computer model to 

predict the amount of a species’ habitat that will be available over time and under 

different management options. The problem with this approach is that the prediction the model makes is entirely dependent on the quality of the data and assumptions that go into it. These inputs into the model should be fully disclosed and 

explained to the public. Also, the certainty associated with these inputs should be 

disclosed. Are they best guesses? Do they represent a consensus of the scientific 

community? Do they consider alternative views, opinions or research? Or is it all 

hardwired to predict a preconceived outcome? These are questions the public deserves an answer to. 

Finally, H.R. 4318 would impose a $125 per hour limit on attorney’s fees for suits 

filed under the Endangered Species Act. This limit is currently included in the 

Equal Access to Justice Act and we support including it in ESA litigation, as well. 

There is no question that certain special interest groups have exploited ESA litigation as a means to finance their existence and sustain their litigious activities. Just 

this year, the State of Oregon settled a lawsuit brought by an environmental organization involving the marbled murrelet. The suit alleged that the management of 

State forest lands in Oregon was resulting in the ‘‘take’’ of marbled murrelets. The 

marbled murrelet is a seabird that spends 90 percent of its life in the ocean to feed. 

It spends 10 percent of its life inland nesting in coastal forests. The suit was based 

entirely on habitat modification and a dead or injured murrelet was never produced. 

The State agreed to reduce timber harvest levels on the subject forest lands by over 

80 percent to settle the case even though the land in question is required by the 

State’s constitution to generate financial resources for public education. But to avoid 

56 

going to court, the State agreed to a huge reduction in timber harvest levels and 

paid the environmental organization’s attorney $391,000 of taxpayer’s money to settle the suit. The attorney never stepped foot into the court room. This is but one 

example of the kind environmental extortion that currently occurs under the existing litigation process. 

In summary, the American Loggers Council urges the committee to pass these 

bills and send them to the Floor of the House of Representatives for consideration. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM CASPERSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

MICHIGAN

Legislation before the Natural Resources Committee to amend the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), H.R. 4315–H.R. 4318, offers much needed reforms that should 

be approved by the committee as it will help address concerns I hear about routinely 

from my constituents and residents of Michigan. 

As the State Senator for most of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (UP), my district 

covers an area that is bigger in size than nine other States, yet has a mere 270,000 

people. Given the make-up of my district and the land-based economic activities that 

most residents depend upon to make a living and support our communities, which 

are historically based and culturally centered, we have been significantly and adversely impacted by various environmental laws and regulations including the ESA. 

It is common to hear from constituents who strongly believe that changes are needed to environmental laws and regulations, with the ESA being one of the laws most 

in need of changing. 

That is why I appreciate the work of the ESA Working Group and the introduction of legislation to reform the ESA including H.R. 4318 by Congressman Bill 

Huizenga of my home State. The purpose of H.R. 4318 is to help make ESA decisions less susceptible to litigation which would be a significant and valuable victory 

for taxpayers and those who repeatedly see the ESA used to stifle reasonable use, 

conservation, and enjoyment of the natural resources. 

As we have seen in Michigan, environmental groups and so-called animal welfare 

groups are repeatedly using litigation to impact decisions made under the ESA. 

And, in some cases their attorneys are being awarded huge sums of money ranging 

from $300–$500 per hour with taxpayers covering that cost when they prevail in 

ESA cases. 

It is frustrating enough for residents of Michigan to have to continue to endure 

the impacts of those decisions on their lives, but it adds insult to injury to have attorneys profiting with their hard-earned dollars when the tax money could instead 

go to something much more important such as transportation or education needs. 

To address this, H.R. 4318 is a common sense measure to place the same $125 per 

hour cap on ESA cases that applies to other government litigation cases. 

A few examples in Michigan will help to portray why reform is needed to the ESA. 

Most recently, the wolf population has been a hot topic in the UP and across 

Michigan as most UP residents call for more management and control to curb the 

negative impacts that a growing wolf population has had on residents, pets, livestock, wildlife and visitors. 

Wolves were recently delisted from the endangered species list in January 2012, 

but the delisting was long overdue. When wolves were listed as an endangered species more than three decades ago, a recovery goal of 200 animals was set which was 

the target number at which time the animals would be delisted. However, delisting 

didn’t happen for years after that goal was attained with at least part of the delay 

brought on by certain animal welfare groups challenging the process and bringing 

litigation. 

During that time, the wolf population in Michigan expanded to approximately 700 

wolves, well above the recovery goal of 200 in Michigan alone. Our neighboring 

States of Wisconsin and Minnesota have approximately 800 and 2,200 wolves respectively. This has led to many negative impacts on UP residents where the wolves 

are concentrated in Michigan. Farmers are losing livestock to wolves, family pets 

and hunting dogs have been killed, other wildlife are being impacted, and wolves 

are even entering communities such as the city of Ironwood where eight had to be 

killed within the city itself to address residents’ fears that they were becoming too 

habituated to humans. A wolf was also hit by a car in Escanaba in December. 

Delisting has allowed us to move forward as a State to enact some management 

tools, but had we been able to address the situation earlier, UP residents would not 

be enduring the impacts they see from the wolf population today. 

57 

In addition, most economic activity in the UP is dependent on land-based economic sectors including forestry and mining. The ESA has unreasonably and negatively affected those sectors with environmental groups and bureaucrats successfully 

using the laws and regulations to slow down sustainable use of the land. 

For example, there are three Federal forests in Michigan, with two of them being 

in the UP. Each Federal forest has a forest service management plan in which an 

‘‘allowable sales quantity (ASQ)’’ is established. This is essentially a timber harvest 

plan. Since 1986 when the first plans were written, the U.S. Forest Service has 

never sold the ASQ of timber in the forest plans for the Ottawa and Hiawatha 

National Forests in the UP. Specifically, over the last several years, less than half 

of the timber required to maintain forest health was harvested with the amount 

ranging from 38 to 45 percent of ASQ. 

Many believe, myself included, the lack of management on forestland is directly 

attributable to environmental laws, including the ESA, which has been used to stall 

or prohibit management efforts. 

This has left our forests in poor health, which is in part responsible for the natural disasters that have befallen them, and it also equates to loss of jobs and economic activity in rural areas that depend on the land-based industries to survive. 

For example, in 2010, the Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forests cumulatively fell 

short of annual ASQ by more than 115 million board feet. This equates to a loss 

of 1,265 jobs using a calculation based on 1 million board feet of harvested timber 

providing enough raw materials to sustain 11 direct jobs and multiple other indirect 

jobs. 

In addition, the ESA was recently cited by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) in its many objections to the development of County Road 595 in Marquette 

County. The road would have addressed public safety concerns and aided in economic development opportunities related to forestry and mining. However, after 

much local and State support and hundreds of hours of negotiation by the 

Marquette Road Commission to try to address concerns, the road project was not 

advanced due to concerns from Federal agencies including the EPA, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

For example, in a 44-page EPA document titled ‘‘Responsiveness Summary EPA 

Objection to the Issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit to construct 

County Road 595’’ from December 2, 2012, the following statement was made: ‘‘The 

project could cause impacts to Kirtland’s warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii) and Canada 

lynx (Lynx candaensis) which are protected under the Endangered Species Act and 

which have the potential to be present within the proposed CR 595 corridor.’’ 

The document also points to concerns about impacts on wetlands and references 

various threatened and endangered species that could be located in those areas 

which would have been impacted. It is significant to note, however, that the applicant was willing to mitigate any impacts on wetlands to a much higher degree than 

any impact they would have caused—and at one point offered to mitigate 22 acres 

of wetlands with an astounding offer of 1,600 acres of wetlands. 

In short, it was a tremendous loss for the UP when the Federal agencies used 

various environmental regulations and hoops to reject the united local and State efforts to build County Road 595. 

While the ESA has served a purpose, it has been abused and used as a tool by 

those who do not want to see human activity on natural resources. There must be 

more balance between environmental regulations to protect truly sensitive areas 

while allowing sensible activity as well, including economic development and recreational uses. 

Today’s law does not provide that balance to ensure property rights and use are 

maintained and promoted where appropriate, and that is why the committee should 

vote to approve H.R. 4315–H.R. 4318 to help provide residents of Michigan and its 

sister States some relief from those who take advantage of originally well-intended 

laws that now are in need of reform to allow States to respond appropriately to local 

needs, provide transparency and allow better use of tax-payer dollars. 

Dr. BENISHEK. I represent the northern half of the State of 

Michigan, and have seen firsthand how the ESA impacts my district. For example, when a county wanted to build a road, the ESA 

said the project could cause impact to Kirtland’s Warbler and Canada Lynx, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act, 

and which have the potential to be present with the proposed counVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:22 Mar 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP08 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87584.TXT DARLEN
58 

ty road corridor. Despite offers by the county to include thousands 

of acres of offsets for the potentially impacted area, the road was 

unable to be built. The regulators could not be satisfied. 

Commissioner Jankovsky and Dr. Ramey, do you think that the 

ESA adequately takes into account State and local actions for conservation that may already be under way? 

Dr. RAMEY. I think one of the issues here is that the State and 

local governments, and tribes, may produce conservation plans and 

invest heavily, as Huffman had mentioned, in conservation efforts, 

but not find out whether they receive any credit for that until the 

time of a listing decision, for example. And that, I think, is a strong 

disincentive for conservation efforts for State and local governments to invest in those. 

And it would be best if, under the PECE policy, the Policy on Effectiveness of Conservation Efforts, if the services worked more cooperatively with these State, tribal, and local governments, and 

gave them some assurances in advance that their efforts are not 

going to be, essentially, in vain. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Mr. Jankovsky? 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. Yes, and I would just add to that. I think at the 

local level, and especially with local land owners, we almost feel as 

though we are not being heard. And we look at these issues and 

how important they are to our economies, and also the conservation 

of the species, and it is—we are not being heard, and that is our 

concern. 

Dr. BENISHEK. A couple more questions for you two. If you listen 

to those folks that have been opposed to 4315, the status quo is apparently working just fine when it comes to scientific transparency. 

To them, the legislation is not necessary to publish the data on the 

Internet. 

Can you, from your perspective, tell us why we need this legislation? 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. First of all, I don’t think the transparency is 

there. I don’t think you can get to the data. I think that local governments are now—especially after the spotted owl—are looking at 

what the impacts are. The impacts are immense to our economies 

and to our citizens and to how we operate—and to the ability to 

be able to continue into the future as productive economies. So that 

is the concern. 

That is why, if you can have this data transparent, so we can be 

at the table, and we can look at it, and we can dissect it, and we 

can respond back and have a dialog, it is going to make a big difference for the local governments. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Any further comment, Dr. Ramey? I just point 

this out because, you know, here we had, in my district a potential 

for huge economic development with the construction of a road that 

every single elected official in the State was in favor of, which the 

Michigan Department of DNR was going to oversee the wetlands, 

and that. 

But when the answer that you get from the Environmental Protection Agency is that there is a species that has the potential to 

be present as a reason for stopping an effort for a local economic 

activity, it is a very bad answer for the hundreds and maybe thousands of people that don’t have a job. There are no data to support 

59 

the fact that these endangered species, animals, were even there. 

It is just that they had the potential to be there. It is very difficult 

for people in the local community to trust the bureaucrats in 

Washington when they give an answer like that that affects hundreds of people. 

Well, I am out of time, but thank you so much. 

Mrs. LUMMIS [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Bean, Fish and Wildlife Service recently requested nearly 40 

new employees for ecological services as part of the sage-grouse initiative. How many of those employees will be on the ground, implementing conservation plans like Wyoming’s plan, which is, by the 

way, Fish and Wildlife Service-approved? 

I would be delighted to have that information. What I understand is most of them will be desk jobs here in Washington, but 

I would love to see a breakdown of that. 

Mr. Seliger—is it Selinger? 

Mr. SELIGER. It is Seliger. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Seliger. 

Mr. SELIGER. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. Mr. Seliger and Mr. Jankovsky—now, did I 

get that right? Thanks. Could you each think of specific examples 

where better cooperation with the Federal Government on data 

would result in better outcomes, both for species and for the State 

and local governments that you represent that are trying to recover 

species before they are listed? 

Mr. JANKOVSKY. Well, we are definitely the individuals on the 

ground and we work with the private land owners. We actually 

have a good rapport with the State governments and, to some extent, for the Federal employees that are working at a local level. 

And so, we really can see what the impacts are. And through voluntary basis, and also by working with the Federal Government, 

we can make things happen at the local level. And if we don’t have 

the cooperation from Washington, DC, if we are not being heard, 

then land owners and local governments are just going to—we are 

not going to work with the Federal Government, because there is 

just an impasse. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Seliger? 

Mr. SELIGER. Yes, ma’am. The local—I say local—State, in this 

case, scientists and biologists are as much an asset to Fish and 

Wildlife Service as they are to the individual States, I believe. 

It was interesting recently that the lesser prairie chicken’s threat 

level, if you will, or its priority status was eight, which is relatively 

low, and then was moved to two. And I am not aware of the sort 

of definitive evidence that was presented for a serious move like 

that, but it appeared to be motivated somewhat more by settlement 

deadlines with litigants than based upon any change or information, scientific information, generated that most likely would have 

been generated in those State Fish and Wildlife Services. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. Mr. Bean, the Fish and Wildlife Service has a peer review process, correct? 

Mr. BEAN. Yes, that is correct. 

60 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Dr. Ramey, can the Service guarantee scientific integrity while scientists are denied the underlying data and methodologies? 

Dr. RAMEY. I think one can go and look at the Office of Management and Budget discussions concerning the Information Quality 

Act, and that provides for a rebuttable presumption that peer review is adequate, and that it requires that there be reproducibility 

in data and methods and analysis by an informed member of the 

public. 

So, there are plenty of examples across the field of science where 

peer review has been inadequate. It is a useful tool. It is an imperfect tool. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Following up, Dr. Ramey, should the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service be basing listings and other important decisions on studies and opinions 

that cannot be accessed or verified? 

Dr. RAMEY. That is a great question for the people of this country. It is clearly in violation of the Information Quality Act, that 

if you can’t obtain the underlying data, there is no reproducibility. 

You can’t ask any questions. Again, you can have all the peer reviews you want, but unless you have the access to that, it is different. 

And peer reviews are sometimes incredibly conflicted. On the 

hookless cactus, one of the peer reviewers was actually on the 

board of directors of the NGO that litigated to list the species. Another one was one of the original authors of the taxonomy of the 

species. I mean that is not an independent review. 

So these things have an opportunity to go—I know that Dr. 

Courtney has worked to try and prevent that, but it is—the problem is that science is a human process. It has its faults, as well. 

But it—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. We are—— 

Dr. RAMEY [continuing]. Fundamentally goes back to the data. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. We are indeed fallible people. I thank the panel. 

And my time has expired. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, 

Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Chairman—Chairwoman. Mr. Bean and 

Mr. Rauch, you just talked a minute ago about a lot of your data 

coming from the Department of Defense, and that that data is restrictive on their direction. 

So, my question is, as any NGO, environmental, or conservation 

group who has initiated sue-and-settle been privy to that information that would otherwise not be disclosed to anybody else? 

Mr. BEAN. Not to my knowledge, sir, no. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Rauch? 

Mr. RAUCH. No, not to my knowledge. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Ramey, are you familiar with anything? 

Dr. RAMEY. No, I am not. 

Dr. GOSAR. Would you go back and—I would like all the members of this panel to come back and answer that, post-operatively. 

I am a dentist, so if I speak in medical terms—I would like to have 

a conversation in regards to that, because I actually think there is. 

So, Mr. Bean, last month Fish and Wildlife Service designated 

over 700,000 acres of land in southern Arizona as critical habitat— 

61 

now you are going to see where this question came about—in regards to the rarely present jaguar. I think DoD has a big overlap 

with that aspect. 

Game and Fish Assistant Director for Wildlife Management, Jim 

deVos, stated at the time, ‘‘I find it difficult to justify designating 

critical habitat for a species that is so rarely found in Arizona. And 

looking at the available data on the presence of jaguars, there has 

been no documentation of a female jaguar in Arizona for nearly a 

century.’’ You would agree? 

Mr. BEAN. I don’t have any independent knowledge, sir, I am 

sorry. 

Dr. GOSAR. OK. Such designations should be based on good 

science and effective conservations, which are both lacking with 

this designation. This designation does nothing to further the conservation act on the jaguar. What best available scientific and commercial data was used to justify this listing? 

Mr. BEAN. I don’t know the details, I am going to have to supply 

that to you post-operatively, as you say. 

Dr. GOSAR. OK, I would expect that. Mr. Bean, last night the 

Fish and Wildlife Service announced that they were reopening the 

comment period going to designating a critical habitat for the New 

Mexico meadow jumping mouse, commonly known as Rip Van 

Winkle, the sleeping mouse. This proposed rule seeks to stifle economic development, harm grazing on over 15,000 acres in New 

Mexico, Colorado, and my home State of Arizona. Wild Earth 

Guardians report that this rodent typically hibernates for 10 

months out of the year. Environmental groups have been pushing 

for this designation since 2007. 

Is your agency pushing for the designation of critical habitat for 

the sleeping mouse, based on actual science, or to appease extremist groups that are threatening lawsuits? 

Mr. BEAN. Let me answer that this way, sir. I don’t know the 

facts of this particular instance. But I can assure you that in no 

instance is the Fish and Wildlife Service proposing critical habitat 

to appease the interests of extremist groups. I can assure you of 

that. 

Dr. GOSAR. So we would like to have a review on sue-and-settle. 

So we would like, once again, going back to the sue-and-settle aspect, and privy documentation. 

Dr. Ramey, can you provide examples of where data sharing has 

been beneficial for species conservation, and examples of where it 

is needed? 

Dr. RAMEY. Certainly the delta smelt case is probably the first 

and foremost in my mind, because we just published on that about 

a year ago. Identifying the threats is extremely important to allocating conservation efforts. 

On the boreal toad, we were able to obtain data on the genetics 

and the distinctiveness of the various groups, and we found large 

amounts of missing data in the data sets, and the lines were basically arbitrarily drawn around those groups. And so, that independent re-evaluation allows for a refocusing of research needs and 

conservation effort. 

In terms of the California condor, peregrine falcons, there had 

been previously thought to be human disturbance of nest sites as 

62 

being a problem. However, when the data were in, that was not the 

issue; DDT and predation were. And so, having open access to data 

allowed for that kind of re-analysis. 

Like I said, the greater sage-grouse is an example where it is 

sorely needed. I mean we don’t have the basis of the data that was 

cited 64 times in the 2010 listing decision. On the Gunnison sagegrouse, there is no measurement data, there is no color data. The 

supposed historic range is entirely based upon speculation, no data. 

So, those are two very relevant recent cases where that is needed. 

Dr. GOSAR. So, Mr. Bean, is there a case that we have made mistakes in regards to restrictive habitat? I can think of one that I 

kind of want to hedge my bet on this, and that would be the spotted owl, Mexican spotted owl. 

Mr. BEAN. I am sorry, sir, I didn’t hear your question. 

Dr. GOSAR. Have we made any mistakes in regards to habitat restrictions in regards to endangered species? 

Mr. BEAN. The Fish and Wildlife Service has, on occasion, delisted species that it originally listed on the basis of error, taxonomic error or other informational defects. There are relatively few 

of those, but, yes, there have been some of those. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mexican spotted owl would actually be one of those, 

wouldn’t it be, because we have an overgrowth of timber, and 

Mexican spotted owls really don’t like that, do they? 

Mr. BEAN. I am sorry, sir, I don’t have the facts—— 

Dr. GOSAR. I think it proliferates the common barn owl. And 

what we have done in Arizona and a lot across the West is we have 

actually allowed these forests to be over-occupied. And we in 

Arizona have become victims of these catastrophic fires because of 

this. 

I hope that you would really reconsider yourself, and look at 

some of this critical habitat in a conscientious way, and utilize 

State and local maps. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Ranking 

Member has one follow-up question, after which we will excuse this 

panel. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, Dr. Courtney, in the testimony today—follow 

up on something that was said. If peer reviews in and of themselves are imperfect tools, what would be the alternative, number 

one? 

And, number two, in the many peer reviews that you conducted, 

there is publicity attached and there is full transparency? And that 

is the question. 

Dr. COURTNEY. Well, thank you, first, for giving me the last 

word. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. COURTNEY. Peer review is—it is the best tool we have. Like 

democracy, right? It is the best tool we have. If it is carried out 

transparently, if the process is carefully designed, if all records are 

kept, then it gives you a clear record of how evaluations are made, 

and that then becomes useful for a decisionmaker. Is it always 

going to give us the best result? No, I think it should be an ongoing 

process. 

And to answer Mr. Flores’ question from a little bit earlier, the 

tools that we have, like peer review and like some of the processes 

63 

that are in place within the two agencies, they are good tools. 

Whether they are used as openly and as commonly as we might 

like, that probably can be improved, and—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Dr. COURTNEY [continuing]. I am very much in favor of things 

being done in public. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And in closing, I just want to—for the record—that we did have a jaguar in 

Arizona, Macho B. Unfortunately, that jaguar met its demise at the 

hands of Arizona Fish and Wildlife in a capture. 

With that, I yield back. 

Dr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman? To correct the record, it was a 

male jaguar, not a female. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlemen. We have had one of our 

members return. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Southerland, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions will 

be brief. I am curious, as I am looking through this data, Mr. 

Rauch, I want to ask you a question. 

I am looking at the FWS 2011 90-day finding that the Center for 

Biological Diversity has petitioned to list the 374 aquatic species in 

several Southeastern and Gulf States. The listing may be warranted, is their finding. 

I am just curious. I am on the Fisheries Subcommittee. I know 

that the red snapper is clearly an irritating fish to you guys. I am 

just curious. How can we do 90-day findings for 374, and yet we 

can’t get good findings for one fish in the South Atlantic for over 

3,000 days? 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you for the question. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I am sure you appreciate that question. 

Mr. RAUCH. I do appreciate the question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RAUCH. We have had many discussions, I think, in this very 

chair on this topic. I can’t speak to Fish and Wildlife Service’s petition. I do know that it is sometimes difficult for us to make 90-day 

findings on very large numbers of species when we have similar 90- 

day findings. The standard for a 90-day finding is much lower than 

the standard for an ultimate listing. That is based on substantial 

information from the petitioner that indicate it may be warranted, 

which is a particularly low standard. We then would engage in the 

kinds of—the status review process, which is more akin to the 

stock assessment process that you are familiar with with the red 

snapper. That would only occur after that 90-day finding is met. So 

there is a much lengthier process after the 90-day finding is met. 

I will say that, in terms of the South Atlantic red snapper, as I 

think I—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. How lengthy? I am just curious. How lengthy 

should that process be? 

Mr. RAUCH. Under the Endangered Species Act? We have up to— 

by statute, we have up to a year. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK. 

Mr. RAUCH. To finalize that process. That includes the 90 days. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. So, therefore—and I know we are jumping 

tracks, but this is the same, the same Department, OK, same agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:22 Mar 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP08 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87584.TXT DARLEN
64 

cy. So, when you mention those—you know, the timeframe there, 

the expectation that the people that live in the South Atlantic, the 

Gulf of Mexico, regarding one fishery, one, and then it has taken 

over 3,000 days certainly seems to be an inconsistency of thought 

for the Department. 

Mr. RAUCH. So I will say that we have scheduled that stock assessment. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Well, that is wonderful. 

Mr. RAUCH. For the end of this year, yes. At the end of 2014 we 

are—we are concerned, as well, that that stock assessment has 

lagged behind for the South Atlantic red snapper. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK. So that is really just my—I mean I am 

just amazed, as I heard—as I read the data for today, to know that 

the inconsistency by the Department on this particular fish that— 

Magnuson clearly, clearly outlines the economic value of the fish— 

is a determinant factor. It must be, according to law. That is not 

interpretation; it is clear that that fish must be—must have the 

surveys in a timely manner. I just find that inconsistency to be 

glaring, and so I am thrilled to hear you state that that is scheduled for the next year. 

So, really, that is just—that is my only point. And, Madam 

Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman, and I very much want to 

thank this panel of witnesses for their valuable testimony. 

Members of the committee may have additional questions for 

you, and we would ask that you respond to these in writing. The 

hearing record will be open for 10 business days to receive these 

responses. And, again, with our tremendous gratitude, we excuse 

this panel, and will now hear from our second panel of witnesses. 

We are pleased to be joined by Ms. Karen Budd-Falen, of 

Cheyenne, Wyoming; Mr. Robert Percival, of Baltimore, Maryland; 

Mr. Michael Bean, and Mr. Sam Rauch, who were with us on our 

last panel, will continue and join us on our second panel, as will 

Mr. Kent Holsinger, from Denver, Colorado. 

To the gentlemen who so patiently sat through the first panel 

and now have the pleasure of doing so again, if you wish to get up 

and stretch your legs during the testimony of the three new witnesses we have, feel free to do so, and then come back and join us, 

as we may have additional questions for you. You will not be asked 

for prepared testimony for this panel, since we had the pleasure of 

hearing from you during the first panel. 

So, now, I would like to thank and welcome our current panelists. And the Chair recognizes herself to introduce the first witness 

on this panel. 

Ms. Budd-Falen is from my home State of Wyoming. She has 

been a tireless researcher on the subject of agency funds that have 

been used for payments to attorneys who sue the Federal Government and either receive payment for their legal fees and costs in 

settlements, or in the court, and how this has affected the budgets 

of Federal agencies. 

Most of the information she has assembled has been anecdotal, 

as we don’t have, currently, a formal system of reporting those dollars that are paid out of agency budgets for attorney’s fees, which 

is the subject of one of the bills before us today. I deeply want to 

65 

thank Ms. Budd-Falen for her work in bringing this issue to our 

attention. And I welcome her to present for 5 minutes. 

As Chairman Hastings would say, if he was here, the green light 

indicates you are good to go. The yellow light asks you either to 

talk faster, or summarize more quickly. The red light truly is the 

conclusion of your spoken testimony. And we do have the advantage of your written testimony, so don’t feel that, just because you 

didn’t get to say it all, that it has not been called to our attention. 

Again, gratefully, for the second panel the Chair recognizes Ms. 

Budd-Falen for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN BUDD-FALEN, OWNER/PARTNER, 

BUDD-FALEN LAW OFFICES, CHEYENNE, WYOMING 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Thank you, Congressman Lummis and members of the committee. My name is Karen Budd-Falen, and I am 

a rancher and attorney in Wyoming. I represent many ranchers, 

land owners, and local governments who feel the direct impacts of 

the Endangered Species Act and critical habitat designations. 

There has long been a concern that litigation, rather than 

science, is overtaking decisions under the ESA. Although there has 

been a great deal of discussion and consternation, large settlement 

agreements are happening right now, dealing with multiple species. But that has actually always been the case. It was very interesting. 

In preparing for this testimony, I located a settlement agreement 

that was agreed to in the Clinton administration, where the 

Clinton administration agreed with Defenders of Wildlife and Fund 

for Animals that it needed to review the candidate list for 443 species in a period of 5 years. Under that settlement agreement you 

had species that the environmental groups that sued believed were 

languishing on the candidate list, and that needed review. So they 

created a time deadline to deal with that. 

At the end of the 5-year time deadline, the Clinton administration determined that it simply could not comply. Now, certainly at 

the end of that timeline you had some issues with appropriations, 

but there were 4 years in which the Clinton administration could 

comply, and it simply could not. The Fish and Wildlife Service then 

issued a listing final priority guidance, and I think the language 

of that guidance, was important as it was to President Clinton as 

it is today. 

The guidance strongly stated that good science, rather than litigation, should drive the listing of species under the Endangered 

Species Act. The decision also said that to continue to deal with 

these species would result in increasing backlogs as species are 

currently being petitioned. So, you have the mega-settlements of 

today, in which the Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to take 

1,053 actions over the course of 5 years. 

The settlement agreements did not stop the Center for Biological 

Diversity from filing additional petitions. And, as you heard the 

gentleman speak of earlier, Center for Biological Diversity has filed 

a petition for hundreds of mussels and fish and other species in the 

South Atlantic, as well as species in every other State. So, it begs 

the question: How is the Fish and Wildlife Service going to conVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:22 Mar 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP08 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87584.TXT DARLEN
66 

tinue to deal with this? And the reality is they don’t have the 

money to do it. 

Now, although the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service can continue to blame Congress for its 

problems, in my opinion sue-and-settle actually does make a difference. And what I would cite to this committee is the run sheets 

the Department of Justice recently released. Those run sheets listed what the Department of Justice believed was its litigation for 

approximately 3 years and 3 months. Only dealing with Endangered Species Act, only relating to the wildlife section in the 

Energy and Resources Department. 

Now, the run sheets didn’t total the attorney’s fees paid, so I did. 

We just simply did the math with a large calculator. We figured 

out that, in those 3 years and 3 months, 573 cases had been filed; 

489 of those were filed by environmental groups. Only 19 of those 

cases were filed by what you would call industry groups or water 

districts; 65 cases were filed by individuals, so we couldn’t tell their 

affiliation. And in that time period, $52,518,628.93 had been expended in attorney’s fees. 

I think that that does speak to the issue regarding litigation and 

attorney’s fees. I think that the Justice Department numbers are 

wrong, because GAO report after GAO report has reported that 

they do not have a good method of tracking. I think that we need 

to look at the priorities. Although the Center for Biological Diversity will tell you that I am simply willing to kill every endangered 

species on the planet, that is absolutely not true. But we have to 

look at priorities, and we have to look at our citizens as we are 

doing it. That is who you represent. 

With that, I would stand for any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Budd-Falen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN BUDD-FALEN, OWNER/PARTNER, BUDD-FALEN LAW

OFFICES LLC, CHEYENNE, WYOMING ON H.R. 4316 AND H.R. 4318 

My name is Karen Budd-Falen. I grew up as a fifth generation rancher and have 

an ownership interest in a family owned ranch west of Big Piney, Wyoming. I am 

also an attorney specializing in environmental litigation (including the Endangered 

Species Act). I represent the citizens, local businesses, and rural counties and 

communities who may not necessarily be the defendants in litigation under the 

Endangered Species Act (‘‘ESA’’) but who absolutely feel the consequences that are 

the results of endless ESA litigation. My clients, friends and family have to live with 

the results of the species’ listings and critical habitat determinations; my clients, 

friends and family also pay the litigation fees to feed the litigation machine. 

If I had to select one word to describe the bills before you today, it would be honesty. As it currently stands, there are only two ways for the general public to get 

information related to why a species was listed or critical habitat was designated 

under the ESA, or whether attorney’s fees were paid related to ESA litigation. With 

regard to the basis for listing or critical habitat determinations, the only publically 

available source of information is through filing a Freedom of Information Act 

(‘‘FOIA’’) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’) or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (‘‘NMFS’’) asking for the data. While a listing or critical habitat 

rulemaking published in the Federal Register may describe ‘‘why’’ the FWS or 

NMFS believed that listing or critical habitat designation was appropriate or prudent, the agencies do not have to publish sources of the ‘‘best scientific and commercial data’’ used to make their decisions. Unless Federal court litigation is filed and 

an administrative record is produced, the ‘‘best scientific and commercial data’’ is 

only available through FOIA, at a cost of $24, $42; and $61 per hour for search and 

managerial review time, $.15 per page for black and white copies and $.90 per page 

for color copies. Maps and odd size reproductions cost more. See 43 C.F.R. Part 2, 

Subpart G. 

67 

Public information regarding payment of attorneys’ fees for ESA litigation is 

equally difficult to access. Although it is possible to publically search Federal court 

databases through PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records], those 

searches are based upon individual Federal courts and only by party name. The 

public then has to research the docket sheet for each case to determine if attorney’s 

fees were paid and why. There is a service charge that has to be paid to be able 

to search PACER and downloading any document bears an additional cost. This is 

very difficult and expensive for taxpayers who are footing the bill for the attorneys’ 

fees payments. 

In reviewing these four bills and moving away from the hype that even the subject of the ESA seems to provoke, there is nothing evil or right-wing about this legislation. These bills change nothing of substance to the requirement that Congress 

commanded the Federal agencies to ‘‘provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon 

which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved’’ and ‘‘to 

provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened 

species.’’ 16 U.S.C. § 1532(b). 

The proposed legislation can be described as follows: 

H.R. 4315 requires that the information and data used to list species as threatened or endangered and make critical habitat decisions be put on the Internet. It 

does NOT require the FWS or the NMFS to gather more, different or additional 

data; it does not change the existing requirement that the ‘‘best available scientific 

and commercial data’’ be used; it does not add to the citizen suit provisions or create 

a new cause of action to sue to change the listing process; it does not include any 

new deadlines. Under this bill, deference will still be owed to the Federal agency 

regarding what to consider as the best scientific and commercial data available. See 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 11 F.Supp.2d 529, 549 

(D.Vi. 1998). The bill also does not require that only ‘‘peer’’ reviewed or published 

information be considered nor does it require that the FWS or NMFS conduct new 

studies or await the completion of new studies and analysis. See California Native 

Plant Soc’y v. Norton, 2004 WL 1118537 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2004). This bill merely 

requires that the FWS and NMFS take the ‘‘best scientific and commercial data 

available’’ supporting their decision scan it onto the Internet. If litigation is filed related to the listing or critical habitat decision, this data has to be produced for the 

administrative record anyway. H.R. 4315 does nothing to change that. This bill is 

not a radical change to the ESA. 

H.R. 4316 similarly only adds a requirement for reporting of data that should already be available. This bill requires a report on attorney’s fees and costs for ESArelated litigation. Again, this bill does not change the citizen suit provision of the 

ESA to add or subtract the amount or type of litigation that can be filed; this bill 

does not take away any of the Department of Justice’s authority or ability to settle 

litigation at any point, this bill does not bypass the ‘‘existing legal safeguards’’ ensuring that the Federal Government follows its procedural and legal mandates, including ensuring that deadlines are met. See Testimony of Robert V. Percival, 

Before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on 

‘‘Mandate Madness: When Sue and Settle Just Isn’t Enough,’’ June 28, 2012. In his 

testimony, Professor Percival opines that the citizen suit and Administrative Procedures Act (‘‘APA’’) waivers of sovereign immunity to allow litigation against the 

Federal agencies are ‘‘desirable and favored by public policy,’’ and that ‘‘existing 

legal safeguards preclude collusive litigation.’’ H.R. 4316 does nothing to dispute or 

change any of those arguments. The bill simply requires reporting of existing litigation and attorney’s fees payments to the public. It should not be a radical notion 

for the public to know how much is being paid by the Federal Government and to 

whom the check is written. 

H.R. 4317 is equally benign. This bill states that the FWS and NMFS must cooperate and consult with State agencies with regard to the data that the Federal 

Government considers, and that ESA listing decisionmakers consider data submitted by State and local governments and Indian tribes. State and local governments and Indian tribes have significant interest and expertise in protecting plant 

and animal species and habitats, particularly given that they have local conservation district managers, State game management agencies, and tribal government 

resources to use for this task. It seems exceedingly arrogant for the Federal Government to not want to coordinate with these local experts. Other Federal statutes, 

such as the National Environmental Policy Act, require coordination and consultation with State and local governments and Indian Tribes; the ESA should be no 

different and Federal biologists should take advantage of this important local knowledge. 

As with H.R. 4315, H.R. 4317 does not define ‘‘best scientific and commercial 

data available’’ nor does it require the FWS of NMFS to wait until the State or local 

68 

1This is exactly the same requirement as the current Center for Biological Diversity and 

WildEarth Guardians multi-species settlement agreements, although the current multi-species 

settlement includes 1053 ESA actions. 

government or Indian tribe develops independent data. The terms ‘‘cooperate’’ and 

‘‘consult’’ do not give State and local governments or Indian tribes any type of ‘‘veto 

power’’ over the Federal agencies nor do these terms regulate the requirements of 

the ESA to a subservient position with regard to State, local and tribal interests. 

The Federal cases that define ‘‘cooperate’’ cite to the dictionary definition of the 

term from the Webster’s New International Dictionary which defines the term as 

‘‘to work together.’’ See Long Term Capital Holdings v. United States, 330 F.Supp.2d 

122, 168 (D. Conn. 2004) aff’d sub nom. Long-Term Capital Holdings, LP v. United 

States, 150 F.App’x 40 (2d Cir. 2005). 

The Federal courts define ‘‘consult’’ by stating: 

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines ‘‘consultation’’ as ‘‘the act of 

consulting or conferring,’’ and it defines ‘‘consult’’ as ‘‘to deliberate together,’’ 

among other things. See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 268 (11th ed. 

2005). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language similarly defines ‘‘consultation’’ as ‘‘[t]he act or procedure of consulting’’ and defines ‘‘consult’’ as ‘‘[t]o seek advice or information of’’ or ‘‘[t]o have regard for; consider.’’ 

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 286 (1978). 

Makua v. Gates, 2008 WL 976919 (D. Haw. Apr. 9, 2008) order clarified, 2009 

WL 196206 (D. Haw. Jan. 23, 2009). 

Consulting and cooperating with State governments, local governments and 

Indian tribes does not change the mandates or substance of the ESA, but it ensures 

that all data and information is available to the FWS and NMFS so that they can 

make the best decision they can. 

Finally, H.R. 4318 caps the hourly fee that attorneys can charge for ESA litigation filed pursuant to the ESA citizens suit provision at the same rate as the hourly 

fee allowed under the Equal Access to Justice Act (‘‘EAJA’’). 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412(D)(2)(a)(ii). Although the citizens suit provision waives sovereign immunity 

for ESA litigation related to alleged violations of ESA section 4 (cases related to species listing, critical habitat designation, development of recovery plans and special 

rules), litigation filed against the Federal Government related to other ESA provisions are not subject to the citizens suit provision. For example, a substantial 

amount of litigation related to the ESA stems from charges that the Federal 

Government is violating the section 7 consultation requirements of the ESA. 16 

U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). Sovereign immunity for those suits is waived pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (‘‘APA’’); attorney’s fees for cases brought pursuant to 

the APA are paid under the EAJA. EAJA statutorily sets the attorney’s fees cap at 

$125 per hour. If the purpose of litigation enforcing the ESA is truly species protection driven, is seems very inequitable for attorneys litigating ESA section 4 cases 

to receive ‘‘unlimited’’ hourly fees, although those attorneys litigating the equally 

important ESA section 7 consultation provisions only receive $125 per hour. This 

bill would not stop litigation, change any of the causes of action possible under either the ESA citizens suit provision or the APA enforcing the provisions of ESA section 7; it just treats all ESA plaintiffs’ counsel equally. 

The concern that litigation, rather than biology or science, would overtake the 

ESA is nothing new. In fact, settlement agreements like the multi-district settlement agreements in 2011 are not new. In Re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 

Deadline Limitation, Misc. Action No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165. Just 

over 10 years ago, the Clinton administration’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued 

its Final Listing Priority Guidance because, even at that time, pending and threatened litigation was ‘‘diverting considerable resources away from the Service’s efforts 

to conserve endangered species.’’ See Notice of Listing Priority Guidance, 61 FR 

24722–02, 24724 (May 16, 1996). That notice was published because the Service 

wanted to publically announce that it would not ‘‘elevate the priority of proposed 

listings simply because they are the subjects of active litigation. To do so would let 

litigants, rather than expert biological judgment, control the setting of listing priorities.’’ Id. at 24728. 

The publication of that guidance was based upon a 1992 Clinton negotiated settlement agreement with Plaintiffs Fund for Animals and Defenders of Wildlife that 

required the FWS to resolve the conservation status of 443 candidate species by 

publication of a proposed listing or a notice stating why listing was not warranted.1

Fund for Animals et al v. Babbitt, 92–cv–800 (D.D.C. April 2, 1992). The complaint 

was never answered by the Justice Department. Rather a settlement agreement was 

69 

negotiated, and attorney’s fees of $67,500 were paid. In 1996, the Fund for Animals 

revived the same litigation to seek a court ordered compliance with the original settlement agreement because the FWS could not keep up with the ambitious decisionmaking schedule. Fund for Animals et al v. Babbitt, 92–cv–800 (Motion filed by 

Plaintiffs enforcing the settlement agreement, docket 19 (August 19, 1996)). Again, 

no answer was filed by the Justice Department, but a new schedule for the remaining decisions was negotiated and another $24,500 was paid in attorney’s fees. It was 

then that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued its Final Listing Priority Guidance to ensure that the work of agency’s biologists would not be driven by litigation. 

See 61 FR 24722–02, 24728 (stating that ‘‘The Service will not elevate the priority 

of proposed listings for species simply because they are subjects of active litigation. 

To do so would let litigants, rather than expert biological judgments, control the setting of listing priorities. The Regional Office with responsibility for processing such 

packages will need to determine the relative priority of such cases based upon this 

guidance and the 1983 listing priority guidance and furnish supporting documentation that can be submitted to the relevant Court to indicate where such species fall 

in the overall priority scheme.’’) 

The events leading up to the 1996 Listing Priority Guidance Federal Register notice are eerily similar to the 2011 multi-species Obama settlement agreement with 

the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians. The litigation in both 

cases was filed by environmental groups who were not satisfied with the pace of decisions issued by the FWS or NMFS. Rather than answering the litigation, the 

Justice Department entered into settlement agreements committing the Federal 

agencies to strict time deadlines for making decisions that either list species or determine that listing is not warranted. Decisions to place the species on the ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ or on the candidate list are not allowed under either the 1992 

or 2011 settlement agreements. Between the settlement agreement in 1992 and the 

motion to force compliance with the settlement agreement in 1996, the FWS determined, on its own, that it could not comply with the settlement time schedule and 

its regular workload. 61 FR 24726 (noting that if the Service were to devote its 

budget to compliance with the settlement agreement, it would be devoting no resources to the final listing decisions of the 243 species that were proposed for listing 

at the time. ‘‘This course of action would also result in a still larger backlog of proposed species awaiting final decision.’’). 

Still other FWS notices decry the concern over the immense amount of ESA litigation. For example, in the proposed rules listing the Spalding’s Catchfly (plant) as 

threatened, the Service stated that because of ‘‘litigation demands’’ even though the 

petition to list was presented on November 16, 1998, action was not taken until 

December 3, 1999. 64 FR 67814–02 (December 3, 1999). The plant was not finally 

listed as threatened until October 10, 2001. 66 FR 51598–01 (October 10, 2001) 

(again citing litigation demands as one of the reasons for the delay). Even as recently as 2010, the Service noted that ‘‘resource demands associated with litigation’’ 

delayed the finalization of the draft recovery plan for the bull trout. 75 FR 2270– 

01 (January 14, 2010). Any claim that the current pace of litigation does not impact 

implementation of the ESA is simply not borne out by the FWS’ own documents. 

Recently, there have also been claims that ESA litigation costs are ‘‘not a concern 

under the Endangered Species Act.’’ See Center for Biological Diversity (‘‘CBD’’) 

March 29, 2014. In support of its claim, the CBD cites two studies that it simply 

did not read. First the August, 2011 Governmental Accountability Office (‘‘GAO’’) 

study entitled ‘‘Environmental Litigation Cases Against EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and Associated Costs over Time’’ shows a dramatic increase in litigation against the EPA from 2009 to 2010. Because the EPA does not administer 

the ESA, it is not a surprise that ESA litigation against the agency is limited. The 

two ESA cases reported against the EPA dealt with claims that the EPA had failed 

to comply with the section 7 consultation requirements of the ESA. One environmental group, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, was paid $40,000 in 2010; 

the CBD was paid $405,000 for its section 7 consultation case against the EPA in 

2007. Because these cases involved ESA section 7 claims, the attorney’s fees were 

paid based upon the Equal Access to Justice Act. Additionally, the 2011 GAO report 

complained, ‘‘Justice [Department] maintains separate, decentralized databases containing environmental case litigation and does not have a standard approach for collecting and entering data. Without a standard approach, it is difficult to identify 

and summarize the full set of environmental litigation cases and costs managed by 

the department agency wide.’’ 

The second GAO study cited by the CBD, ‘‘USDA Litigation, Limited Data Available of USDA Attorney Fee Claims and Payments,’’ March 26, 2014 also does not 

support the CBD’s claims. That study noted that there is no central internal or external tacking of attorney fee payments within the Department of Agriculture 

70 

2The Farm Services Agency is one of the USDA agencies that does not track attorney’s fees 

payments. 

(‘‘USDA’’). With regard to ESA litigation, again because the Department of 

Agriculture does not implement the listing and critical habitat provisions of the 

ESA, litigation relates to alleged violations of the ESA section 7 consultation provisions. Of the 33 USDA agencies, 29 do not track attorney’s fees payments at all, 

even though some of those agencies have been sued for alleged violation of ESA section 7 consultation requirements. See, e.g., Buffalo River Watershed Alliance et al 

v. United States Department of Agriculture et al, 13–cv–450 (E.D. Ark, August 6, 

2013) (claiming that a loan decision backed by the USDA’s Farm Services Agency 2

and the Small Business Administration violated the section 7 consultation provisions of the ESA). Clearly this report cannot be said to support the proposition that 

ESA litigation is ‘‘not a concern.’’ 

The CBD press release, dated March 26, 2014, fares no better. This press release 

was based on a 276 page spread sheet run released by the Department of Justice 

(‘‘DOJ’’) listing litigation summaries in cases defended by the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Wildlife Section of DOJ. The spread sheets are titled 

‘‘Endangered Species Defensive Cases Active at some point during FY09–FY12 

(through April 4, 2012)’’. Although the DOJ release itself contained no analysis, my 

legal staff calculated the following statistics: 

Total Number of Cases Filed .......................................................................................... 573 

Total Number of Cases in which Attorney’s Fees were Paid ......................................... 183 

Total Cases Filed by Environmental Group .................................................................... 489 

Total Cases Filed by Industry Group, Local Government or Water District ................... 19 

Number of filed by Individuals Who Did Not Seem to be Tied to any Group ............... 65 

Total Attorney’s Fees Paid .............................................................................................. $52,518,628 .93 

And while the payment of $52,518,628.93 of American taxpayer’s money over an 

approximate 3-year period seems high, use of the FOIA has shown that the DOJ 

does not keep an accurate account of the cases it defends. For example, in 2009, 

my firm sent a FOIA request to the DOJ asking for the amount of litigation defended and attorney’s fees paid to a named environmental group based upon litigation against the Federal Government filed in the Federal District Court for the 

District of Idaho. The Justice Department responded with what it believed were all 

cases that met the criteria, a total of 67 cases in all. Reviewing those cases, according to the Justice Department’s list, this environmental group received approximately $900,000 in attorney’s fees in 9 years. However, when the list provided by 

the Justice Department was compared with the actual PACER documents from the 

Federal District Court of Idaho, it was discovered that the Department failed to account for an additional 23 cases filed by this single group in the District Court in 

Idaho. We also discovered that this single group had received $1,150,528 in tax 

payer dollars over the applicable period. This is just one illustration that shows that 

the DOJ run sheets attached to the 2014 CBD press release do not account for all 

the litigation filed or the attorney’s fees paid. 

I would thank this committee for holding this hearing and for starting the discussion related to the ESA. The FWS Web site, as of April 5, 2014, shows that 1337 

species have been listed, but only 30 recovered. While the advocates can argue about 

whether the Act is working, these bills at least make the decisions more apparent 

and transparent to the American public and the bill-paying taxpayers. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the witness, and wish to recognize Mr. 

Robert Percival for 5 minutes. Thank you for being here. 

71 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. PERCIVAL, ROBERT F. STANTON 

PROFESSOR OF LAW, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 

PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FRANCIS KING 

CAREY SCHOOL OF LAW, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

Mr. PERCIVAL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a bit of a cold, 

but I am the Director of the Environmental Law Program at the 

University of Maryland School of Law. 

The Endangered Species Act is the product of a remarkable bipartisan consensus concerning the moral imperative of preserving 

biodiversity. I remind the committee that it was approved by Congress overwhelmingly by a 92-to-0 vote in the Senate, and with 

only 12 dissenting votes in the House. The ESA has been recognized as one of the most profound moral accomplishments of the 

human race, because it recognizes that we have an ethical obligation to preserve all of God’s creation. 

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its first decision, interpreted the 

Act—called it the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation, and it emphasized the importance of citizen involvement provided by the Act 

with respect to petitioning to list species, and also the citizen suit 

provisions of the Act. 

One chronic problem with implementation of the Act, though, is 

that the agencies have not been given sufficient appropriations to 

carry out all their statutory duties, and that is a large reason why 

they have been subjected to so many lawsuits. 

I do want to make one correction to Ms. Budd-Falen’s testimony. 

She refers in it to a 1992 Clinton administration-negotiated settlement with the Fund for Animals and Defenders of Wildlife that required the Fish and Wildlife Service to resolve the conservation 

status of 443 candidate species, and she cites the case as having 

the settlement agreement approved on April 2, 1992. I would remind her that President Clinton was not elected President until 

November 1992, and did not take office until January 1993. That 

indeed was the settlement negotiated by the Bush administration, 

which I think makes my point that this has been a chronic problem 

with respect to implementation of the Act under both Republican 

and Democratic administrations. 

Now, the legislative proposals we have before us today would 

only exacerbate this problem by imposing new, unfunded mandates 

on the agencies. Until Congress provides adequate funding to enable the agencies to discharge in a timely fashion their responsibilities for listing endangered species, consulting with other Federal 

agencies concerning their conservation, obligations for listing species, and for promoting species recovery acts, the current pattern 

of litigation is likely to continue. 

Three of the four bills under consideration at this hearing would 

create new statutory responsibilities for the agencies implementing 

the ESA without increasing the already inadequate funds made 

available to them. The fourth would change the standard for 

awarding attorney’s fees under the Act. The ability of citizen 

groups and businesses to go to court to hold agencies accountable 

has been one of the most important features of our legal system 

that makes it the envy of the world. It has been absolutely critical 

to ensuring that our Federal environmental laws are implemented 

72 

1 Richard M. Nixon, Special Message to Congress Outlining the 1972 Environmental Program, 

Feb. 8, 1972 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3731). 2 Roderick F. Nash, The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics (Univ. Wisc. 

Press 1989). See also Evangelical Environmental Network, On the Care of Creation: An Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation (1994) (http://www.earthcareonline.org/ 

evangelical_declaration.pdf). 

and enforced in a manner consistent with statutory directives, as 

the Supreme Court noted in its landmark TVA v. Hill decision. 

The citizen suit provision currently in Section 11(g) of the 

Endangered Species Act mirrors those provisions contained in virtually all the other major Federal environmental laws. There is no 

warrant for singling out the Endangered Species Act and cutting 

back on the possibility of attorney’s fees, just because some don’t 

like litigation, which occurs in both Republican and Democratic administrations. 

The ESA is a landmark piece of legislation that was the product 

of an overwhelming bipartisan consensus concerning the importance of preserving biodiversity. Congress authorized citizen suits 

to hold agencies accountable for violations of the Act. Measures to 

oppose additional unfunded mandates on agencies implementing 

the ESA will only make it more difficult for them to carry out their 

statutory responsibilities. There is certainly no justification for singling out the ESA’s attorney’s fee-shifting provision that currently 

mirrors those contained in virtually every other major Federal environmental law. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Percival follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. PERCIVAL, ROBERT F. STANTON PROFESSOR OF

LAW, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

FRANCIS KING CAREY SCHOOL OF LAW, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND ON H.R. 4316 AND

H.R. 4318 

My name is Robert V. Percival. I am the Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and 

the Director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of Maryland 

Francis King Carey School of Law. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. For 

more than two decades I have been the principal author of the most widely used 

environmental law casebook in U.S. law schools, Environmental Regulation: Law, 

Science & Policy (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 7th ed. 2013). I have taught Environmental Law for more than a quarter century and I also teach Constitutional 

Law, Administrative Law and Global Environmental Law. 

I. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REFLECTS OUR HIGHEST MORAL ASPIRATIONS

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the product of a remarkable, bipartisan consensus concerning the moral imperative of preserving biodiversity. In his Special 

Message to Congress on February 8, 1972, President Richard Nixon called on 

Congress to enact ‘‘legislation to provide for early identification and protection of endangered species,’’ to ‘‘make the taking of endangered species a Federal offence for 

the first time,’’ and to ‘‘permit protective measures to be undertaken before a species 

is so depleted that regeneration is difficult or impossible.’’ 1 Congress responded by 

enacting the ESA by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority. The legislation passed 

the Senate by a vote of 92–0 on July 24, 1973. On September 18, 1973, the House 

approved its own version of the bill by a vote of 390–12. The final legislation that 

emerged from a joint conference committee was agreed to by the Senate unanimously on December 19, 1973 and by the House by a vote of 355–4 on December 

20, 1973. President Nixon signed the ESA into law on December 28, 1973. 

The ESA is a profoundly ‘‘pro-life’’ piece of legislation. It creates a presumption 

that humans should avoid activity that would harm endangered species and that 

Federal agencies should avoid actions likely to jeopardize species continued existence. The ESA has been recognized as one of the most profound moral accomplishments of the human race because it recognizes that we have an ethical obligation 

to preserve all of God’s creation.2

73 

3Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978). 

4 Id. at 194 (1978). 

5 Id. at 181. 

6During the spotted owl controversy in 1992, voters supported the ESA by a margin of 66 

to 11 percent. When asked to choose between protecting species or savings jobs and businesses, 

species protection was favored by a margin of 48 to 29 percent. Sawhill, Saving Endangered 

Species Doesn’t Endanger the Economy, Wall. St. J., Feb. 20, 1992, at A15. 7 437 U.S. at 178–79. 

8 Id. at 184. 

9 National Research Council, Science and the Endangered Species Act 4 (1995). 

10 Id. 11Letter from 5,738 Biologists to the U.S. Senate Concerning Science in the Endangered Species Act, March 2006 (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/ 

biologists_california.pdf). 12Donald C. Baur, Michael J. Bean & William Robert Irvin, A Recovery Plan for the Endangered Species Act, 39 Envt’l L. Rep. 10006, 10010 (2009). 

In its first major decision interpreting the ESA, the U.S. Supreme Court declared 

the Act to be ‘‘the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered 

species ever enacted by any nation.’’ 3 It explained that ‘‘Congress has spoken in the 

plainest of words, making it abundantly clear that the balance has been struck in 

favor of affording endangered species the highest of priorities.’’ 4 As an illustration 

of ‘‘the seriousness with which Congress viewed this issue,’’ the Court specifically 

cited the ESA’s ‘‘provisions allowing interested persons to petition the Secretary to 

list a species as endangered or threatened and bring civil suits in United States district courts to force compliance with any provision of the Act.’’ 5

Despite strong public support for the ESA,6 it often has been a target for political 

attacks because the costs of species protection measures are more visible and immediate than the more diffuse, long-term benefits of preserving biodiversity. Yet the 

bipartisan majority that enacted this landmark legislation rejected the notion that 

species should be sacrificed to political expediency. As the Supreme Court explained 

in TVA v. Hill ‘‘Congress was concerned about the unknown uses that endangered 

species might have and about the unforeseeable place such creatures may have in 

the chain of life on this planet.’’ 7 Thus ‘‘the plain intent of Congress in enacting’’ 

the legislation ‘‘was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.’’ 8

Balanced, scientific evaluations of the ESA have consistently endorsed its basic 

principles. Evaluating more than two decades of experience with the ESA, the 

National Research Council in 1995, in a report commissioned by Congress, found 

that ‘‘the ESA is based on sound scientific principles.’’ 9 It concluded that ‘‘there is 

no doubt that it has prevented the extinction of some species and slowed the decline 

of others.’’ 10 In a letter to the U.S. Senate in March 2006 a group of 5,738 biologists 

praised the ESA and criticized proposals to weaken its protections. The biologists 

noted that the ESA had contributed to ‘‘significant progress’’ in species protection. 

They stressed the importance of the ESA’s emphasis on ‘‘best available science’’ and 

they criticized proposals to mandate the use of non-scientific factors to delay or 

block listing decisions, designations of critical habitat or implementation of species 

recovery plans.11

II. INADEQUATE FUNDING HAS JEOPARDIZED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ESA. IMPOSITION

OF ADDITIONAL UNFUNDED MANDATES ON AGENCIES WOULD ONLY EXACERBATE THIS

PROBLEM. 

A fundamental problem with implementation of the ESA has been the chronically 

inadequate funding that has been afforded the Federal agencies charged with 

implementing the Act. Since it was last reauthorized in 1992, the ESA has been implemented through annual appropriations that have been inadequate to enable the 

agencies promptly to comply with their statutory responsibilities.12 This has made 

the agencies targets for lawsuits seeking to compel them to perform their nondiscretionary duties. Until Congress provides adequate funding to enable Federal 

agencies to discharge in a timely fashion their responsibilities for listing endangered 

species, for consulting with other Federal agencies concerning their conservation obligations for listed species, and for promoting species recovery efforts, the current 

pattern of litigation is likely to continue. 

The imposition of additional unfunded mandates on the agencies would only exacerbate existing problems of inadequate agency resources. Three of the four bills 

under consideration at this hearing would create new statutory responsibilities for 

the agencies implementing the ESA without increasing the already-inadequate 

funds available to them. 

74 

13See ESA § 4(b)(3)(B), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B) (‘‘the Secretary shall promptly publish such 

finding in the Federal Register, together with a description and evaluation of the reasons and 

data on which the finding is based.’’) and ESA § 4(b)(4), 16 U.S.C. § 1553(b)(4) (mandating that 

the informal rulemaking provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553, apply to regulations issued under 

the ESA), and ESA § 4(b)(8) (requiring that publication in the Federal Register of any listing 

regulation ‘‘shall include a summary by the Secretary of the data on which such regulation is 

based and shall show the relationship of such data to such regulation.’’). 14See Letter from Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell to Chairman Hastings, January 15, 2014 

(http://www.eenews.net/assets/2014/01/16/document_daily_04.pdf) (estimating that the Depart- ment of Interior spent more than 19,000 staff hours and nearly $1.5 million responding to 27 

document requests from this committee). 15 437 U.S. 153, 181 (citing the ESA’s ‘‘provisions allowing interested persons to petition the 

Secretary to list a species as endangered or threatened and bring civil suits in U.S. district 

courts to force compliance with any provision of the Act.’’) 16 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g). 17See generally, Congressional Research Service, Award of Attorneys’ Fees by Federal Courts 

and Federal Agencies, June 20, 2008. 18 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(4). 19 463 U.S. 680 (1983). 20 Robert V. Percival & Geoffrey P. Miller, ‘‘The Role of Attorney Fee Shifting in Public Interest Litigation,’’ 47 Law & Cont. Problems 235 (1984), available online at: http:// 

scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3755&context=lcp. 21Laura Peterson, Lawsuits Not Hurting Endangered Species Act—FWS Director, Greenwire, 

July 5, 2012; Berry Bosi & Eric Biber, Citizen Involvement in the U.S. Endangered Species Act, 

337 Science 802 (Aug. 2012). 

H.R. 4315 would require publication on the Internet of the basis for determinations that species are endangered and threatened. This is unnecessary given the 

agencies’ existing statutory obligation under the ESA and the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) to provide public notice of proposed and final agency actions 

in the Federal Register, which is available on the internet, and to describe and 

evaluate the reasons and data upon which agency actions are based.13

H.R. 4316 would require the Secretary of Interior annually, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Commerce, to gather and to submit to Congress detailed data concerning not only every citizen suit brought under the ESA, but also every notice letter informing the agency of an alleged violation of the Act. This data would include 

not only direct expenditures by the agencies on any aspect of preparation for, or conduct of such litigation, but also estimates of employee time devoted to such activities. The bill targets only citizen suits and does not require reporting of the costs 

of responding to oversight requests by congressional committees, which have been 

quite substantial.14 By focusing solely on the costs of performing agency duties 

under the ESA, without any consideration of the benefits of such actions, this data 

would contribute to a distorted view of the value of the ESA. 

H.R. 4317 would dictate that the ‘‘best scientific and commercial data available’’ 

include ‘‘all such data submitted by a State, tribal, or county government.’’ If this 

is interpreted to mean that any data submitted by such a government must be 

deemed to be the ‘‘best scientific and commercial data available,’’ the requirement 

would constitute an improper effort by Congress to dictate scientific judgments. If 

instead it means only that when governments submit scientific and commercial data 

that is indeed the best available, it is unnecessary because this is already permissible under existing law. 

III. CONGRESS SHOULD NOT AMEND THE ATTORNEY FEE-SHIFTING PROVISIONS OF THE

ESA

The ability of citizen groups and businesses to go to court to hold agencies accountable is one of the most important features of our legal system that makes it 

the envy of the world. It has been absolutely critical to ensuring that our Federal 

environmental laws are implemented and enforced in a manner consistent with statutory directives, as the Supreme Court noted in its landmark TVA v. Hill decision.15

The citizen suit provision contained in Section 11(g) of the Endangered Species 

Act 16 mirrors those contained in the other major Federal environmental statutes.17

It authorizes the court to ‘‘award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney 

and expert witness fees) to any party, whenever the court determines such award 

is appropriate.’’ 18 In Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club,19 the Supreme Court interpreted 

similar language in the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act to require success 

on the merits before a party can become eligible for an award of attorney’s fees. 

The attorney fee-shifting provisions Congress has enacted in nearly all the Federal environmental laws are designed to enable ordinary citizens to ensure that the 

laws are implemented and enforced.20 Despite claims to the contrary, citizen suits 

have proven to be essential to effective implementation of the ESA 21 and the other 

75 

major Federal environmental statutes. Thus, there is no justification for measures 

to discourage such actions. 

H.R. 4318 would replace the existing standard for awarding attorney’s fees under 

the ESA with a more restrictive standard contained in the Equal Access to Justice 

Act (EAJA). Rather than allowing judges to award ‘‘reasonable’’ fees to prevailing 

parties when ‘‘appropriate,’’ as authorized under existing law, this amendment 

would single out ESA citizen suits and subject them to below-market fee caps under 

the EAJA. There is no justification for removing citizen suits brought under the 

ESA from the same fee-shifting standards applicable to the other major Federal environmental laws. As noted above, Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club already restricts 

attorney’s fee awards to prevailing parties. Thus, H.R. 4318 is merely a measure 

designed to make it more difficult for citizens to hold government agencies accountable for failing to implement the ESA. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The ESA is a landmark piece of legislation that was the product of an overwhelming, bipartisan consensus concerning the importance of preserving biodiversity. Congress authorized citizen suits to hold agencies accountable for violations of 

the Act. Measures to impose additional unfunded mandates on agencies implementing the ESA will only make it more difficult for them to carry out their 

statutory responsibilities. There is no justification for replacing the ESA’s attorney’s 

fee-shifting provision that currently mirrors those contained in virtually every other 

major Federal environmental law. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize Mr. 

Ken Holsinger of Denver, Colorado. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF KENT HOLSINGER, ATTORNEY, HOLSINGER 

LAW, DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. HOLSINGER. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. It is my honor to be here to testify in support of H.R. 4316, 

the ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Transparency Act,’’ and 

H.R. 4318, the ‘‘Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness 

Act.’’ 

As the manager of a small Denver-based law firm that specializes in lands, wildlife, and water law, I can attest to the rampant 

litigation abuses that have been perpetrated under the Endangered 

Species Act. Last year was the 40th anniversary of the Act. It has 

been amended in 1978, 1982, and, last, in 1988. Now, to put that 

in perspective, in 1988 the Soviet Union was a superpower, and 

Def Leppard topped the pop charts. It is high time to modernize 

and update this law. 

Like none other, litigation drives the ESA. And, unfortunately, a 

few activist groups have buried the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

in petitions and litigation. The Center for Biological Diversity and 

Wild Earth Guardians in particular have petitioned to list hundreds and hundreds of species. And when the Fish and Wildlife is 

overwhelmed in trying to respond, these groups are litigating 

against missed deadlines. They are creating the very problems they 

are suing over. 

For example, Wild Earth Guardians, formerly known as Forest 

Guardians, and Center for Biological Diversity have been litigants 

in no fewer than 1,366 cases between 1990 and the present: Wild 

Earth Guardians in 401 cases, Center for Biological Diversity in 

965. 

Now, looking closely at the Wild Earth Guardians cases, most 

have been brought against the Federal Government, about 95 perVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:22 Mar 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP08 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87584.TXT DARLEN
76 

cent. Most have been against the Department of the Interior, and 

most have been on ESA issues. 

Center for Biological Diversity, you can see, has filed most of 

their cases in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is, by the way, 

a chart showing, by each U.S. district court, cases filed by Center 

for Biological Diversity. We got this information through the Public 

Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, and searched each 

and every Federal jurisdiction to find where Center for Biological 

Diversity and Wild Earth Guardians had filed suit. 

We also searched the appellate courts and the number of cases. 

You can see a huge preference for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 

the most overturned circuit in the Nation. And if you tally these 

965 cases brought by CBD, about two-thirds were in the 9th 

Circuit and the District of Columbia. 

Wild Earth Guardians, in the next slide, a little bit different. You 

can see many cases filed where they are based in New Mexico, of 

their total of 403 cases filed. 

In 2011, as you know, Wild Earth Guardians and CBD entered 

a significant settlement agreement with Fish and Wildlife Service, 

auspiciously to help prevent litigation and stem this vicious sueand-settle cycle. Unfortunately, since then, CBD has still been a 

party to 179 lawsuits, Wild Earth Guardians, 88. 

These actions are robbing the species to pay the attorneys. And 

as long as 10 years ago the Fish and Wildlife Service itself recognized, in discussing litigation over critical habitat, it provides little 

real conservation benefit. ‘‘Driven by litigation in the courts, rather 

than biology, it limits our ability to fully evaluate the science, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge societal and 

economic costs.’’ That quote is more apropos today than ever. 

H.R. 4316 and H.R. 4318 would do much to improve the ESA, 

and make sure that resources are used where they belong. Let’s 

use our scarce conservation resources wisely, rather than on this 

frivolous and needless litigation. 

Madam Chair, thank you again for the opportunity to testify in 

support of these measures. We have seen a windfall to the attorneys in these few activist groups, and it is high time that Congress 

address these issues, update and modernize the ESA for the betterment of people, wildlife, and the communities that depend upon 

them. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holsinger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENT HOLSINGER, ATTORNEY, HOLSINGER LAW, LLC, 

DENVER, COLORADO ON H.R. 4316 AND H.R. 4318 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 4316 (the Endangered 

Species Recovery Transparency Act) and H.R. 4318 (the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act). Holsinger Law, LLC is a small, Denver-based law firm 

that specializes in lands, wildlife and water law. I am testifying as the manager of 

Holsinger Law, LLC. In that capacity, I can attest to the rampant litigation abuses 

under the Endangered Species Act (‘‘ESA’’) and the need for H.R. 4316 and 

H.R. 4318. These measures would improve and update the ESA while ensuring 

scarce conservation resources go to real, on-the-ground work rather than taxpayerfunded litigation. 

I. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SHOULD BE UPDATED

Last year was the 40th anniversary of the ESA. The ESA is the most powerful 

environmental law in the world. The end product of nearly a century of Federal encroachment on State authority and control over wildlife, it was passed by the ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:22 Mar 10, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP08 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87584.TXT DARLEN
77 

1Formerly known as Forest Guardians. 

gress and signed by President Nixon in 1973. The ESA replaced 1966 and 1969 laws 

which provided for the listing of endangered species but with little substance. The 

1973 Act has been reauthorized eight times. Significant amendments have been enacted in 1978, 1982, and 1988, while the overall framework of the 1973 Act has remained essentially unchanged. 

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, 2005 under the 

leadership of former House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo. Unfortunately, the Senate never adopted similar legislation. The last time the ESA was 

updated (1988), the Soviet Union was a superpower and Def Leppard topped the pop 

charts. 

II. LITIGATION ABUSES

Like no other law, litigation drives the ESA. Unfortunately, a few activist groups 

have buried the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’) with listing petitions and 

litigation under the ESA. The Center for Biological Diversity (‘‘CBD’’) and 

WildEarth Guardians (‘‘WEG’’) have petitioned to list hundreds and hundreds of 

species under the ESA. As soon as the FWS is overwhelmed responding to petitions, 

these groups start litigating over missed deadlines. They are creating the very problems upon which they are suing the FWS. 

CBD and WEG 1 have been litigants in no fewer than 1,366 cases between 1990 

and the present. WEG was involved in 401 cases while CBD was a party to 965 

cases. Of the WEG cases, approximately 95 percent have been brought against the 

Federal Government. In 2010, WEG filed more than one new lawsuit per week. 

Most of these have been brought against the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 

and most have raised claims related to the ESA. In just the past 5 months, these 

two groups have been a party to an additional 19 cases. 

We compiled this information using the Public Access to the Court Electronic 

Records (‘‘PACER’’) system and performing a query for ‘‘WildEarth Guardians’’ and 

‘‘Center for Biological Diversity’’ as a party in each of the Federal district courts, 

courts of appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The earliest case included in this 

data was filed in 1990. The search using this method was finished on November 12, 

2013. In order to update the information, the PACER ‘‘National Case Locator’’ function was utilized to search for cases in which WEG or CBD were a party that were 

filed between November 13, 2013 to April 4, 2014. These cases were then added to 

the numbers generated using the former method. 

Responding to litigation-driven settlement agreements has consumed the FWS 

and a significant part of its budget. Activist groups often collect taxpayer-funded attorney fees when new deadlines are negotiated in these cases—perpetuating a vicious ‘‘sue and settle’’ cycle. 

In the summer of 2011, WEG and CBD announced a settlement agreement with 

the FWS that imposed deadlines for final determinations for listed status on 757 

species no later than September, 2016. The Plaintiffs collected over $140,000 in attorney fees and costs from the taxpayers as part of the settlements. Since the settlements, CBD has been a party to approximately 179 lawsuits and WEG has participated in 88 lawsuits. 

On March 17, 2014, the State of Oklahoma (‘‘Oklahoma’’), along with the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (‘‘DEPA’’), filed suit against the FWS citing the use 

of ‘‘sue-and-settle’’ tactics. Additionally the settlements require the FWS to submit 

either a ‘‘warranted’’ or ‘‘not warranted’’ decision, effectively eliminating the ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ category. Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General, also stated that the ‘‘sue and settle’’ timelines force decisions from the FWS before they have 

had a chance to review the science, which violates the original structure of the ESA 

requiring sound science before a listing determination is made. Overall, the parties 

argued that FWS has deviated from the ESA requirements and the guidance FWS 

adopted thereunder by committing to these unrealistic deadlines; and that this action undermines support for State-led voluntary conservation programs of other species. 

Despite the settlement agreements, CBD has boasted of filing new ESA petitions 

(including one emergency petition) and lawsuits as recently as April 3, 2014, with 

15 press releases announcing notices of intent to sue, lawsuits filed, and lawsuits 

joined since the beginning of the year. 

78 

2 69 FR 53135 (Aug. 31, 2004). 

III. ROBBING THE SPECIES TO PAY THE ATTORNEYS

Congress passed the Endangered Species Act with visions of protecting grizzly 

bears and bald eagles from reckless human-caused extinction. Few could have foreseen how all-out protective efforts on behalf of such little-known creatures as the 

burying beetle, the pallid sturgeon, or the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse would 

adversely impact U.S. taxpayers due to rampant litigation abuses in which millions 

of dollars of taxpayer funds are used to prepare, litigate, and settle lawsuits brought 

by just a few activist groups. 

This abusive litigation does little to further conservation of species. It does much 

to pad the pocketbooks of a few litigious groups and their attorneys. The Center for 

Biological Diversity (‘‘CBD’’) posted an astonishing $1,406,139 in legal returns in 

2012 (17 percent of that year’s total revenue) and $503,509 in 2011. In WEG’s 2011 

Financial Report, they stated $303,406 in legal income—accounting for 16 percent 

of their total income for the year. 2010 brought them $153,545 in legal income. 

Even the FWS has recognized the huge social and economic cost of such activist 

litigation. In discussing critical habitat, the FWS has stated it: 

. . . provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by litigation and the 

courts rather than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science 

involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social 

and economic cost. The Service believes that additional agency discretion 

would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest 

benefit to the species most in need of protection.. . .2

IV. H.R. 4316 AND H.R. 4318 WILL IMPROVE THE ESA

Currently, no one seems to know exactly how destructive this litigation is. 

H.R. 4316, The Endangered Species Recovery Transparency Act, introduced by Rep. 

Lummis, would require the FWS to report the resources used to respond to ESA litigation, including the number of employees needed, the funds used, and the attorney’s fees awarded due to litigation and settlement agreements. This information is 

vital to determine how taxpayer dollars are being consumed by attorneys rather 

than being used to support real conservation work. By reviewing this information, 

steps can be taken to direct funds where they will more effectively promote the conservation and recovery of endangered or threatened species, and to also support 

boot-on-the-ground conservation efforts at the local level. 

As an attorney in private practice, I have seen environmental groups claim excessive hourly rates in litigation. It is not uncommon to see claims for more than $500 

per hour. H.R. 4318, The Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act, introduced by Rep. Huizenga, would place a cap on attorney fees that can be awarded 

by the courts. Litigation abuses result in excessive pay-outs of taxpayer funds. A 

cap limiting the hourly rate for prevailing attorneys would diminish the incentive 

to ‘‘sue and settle’’ by activist groups, but more importantly, allow taxpayer dollars 

to be more effectively allocated to the conservation and recovery of species. 

I strongly support the passage of these measures to improve the ESA and urge 

the committee to advance them in the legislative process. 

V. CONCLUSION

Now is hardly the time for ‘‘business as usual’’ under the ESA. Scarce resources 

are being wasted on litigation driven by a handful of activist groups with little or 

no real conservation benefits. People and wildlife would benefit from improvements 

to the ESA, through enactment of H.R. 4316 and H.R. 4318. I urge Congress and 

the administration to work together to reduce frivolous litigation through disclosure 

of costs to the taxpayers and a reasonable cap on the hourly rate for awards of attorney fees. It is high time to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and rewarding frivolous 

and abusive litigation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these important measures. 

79 


87584.011.eps
80 


87584.012.eps
81 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank you, and want to thank all of our panelists 

for their testimony. The Members will now have questions for you. 

Each will receive 5 minutes to ask questions. The Chair will begin 

by recognizing herself. 


87584.013.eps
82 

Ms. Budd-Falen, did the multi-species settlement in the 1990s 

help or hinder the agency’s ability to manage its workload, in your 

opinion? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Actually, in the opinion of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service itself it hindered their ability to manage their 

workload. Particularly toward the end, when the listing priority 

guidance was filed, the Service was concerned that dealing with the 

backlog of the species under the settlement agreement was going 

to create a backlog of considering current petition, and the Service 

itself said that it was not going to allow this backlog to continue. 

That is why the listing priority guidance was issued in the first 

place. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Do we run the same risk with the current megasettlement, since there is no limitation on groups continuing to 

submit listing petitions? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Actually, I believe that the backlog and the 

risk is worse. The original settlement only had 443 species. The 

current mega-settlement has 1,053 actions. So you have dramatically increased the number of backlogged cases that they have to 

deal with, as well as the Center for Biological Diversity and Wild 

Earth Guardians continuing to petition more and more species, 

which just puts the agency further and further behind. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Bean, I used to be on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. And how do you develop a budget when you 

don’t know how much you will be spending annually on litigation 

and attorney’s fees? Because this comes out of your—well, out of 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s budget. 

Mr. BEAN. Some of the fees come out of our budget, some come 

out of the judgment fund, which is not Fish and Wildlife 

Service—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Exactly. But the judgment fund has money in it, 

whereas, when it comes out of your—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

budget, that comes out of the agency’s appropriated budget. 

Mr. BEAN. I believe, in the case of these deadline suits, that they 

do not come out of the agency budget. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. That is just the opposite of what I was told by 

Director Ashe when I was on the committee. Now, did you make 

a distinction that I misunderstood? 

Mr. BEAN. I am not sure what Director Ashe may have said. My 

understanding is that the attorney’s fees paid in the deadline suits 

are paid from the judgment fund. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK, a deadline suit being different from some of 

these mega-settlements. 

Mr. BEAN. No, the mega-settlements all—the MDL settlement, as 

we call it, dealt only with deadline cases. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. So if it is true that mega-settlements are paid 

out of the judgment fund, what types of litigation are paid for out 

of the agency’s budget, in terms of reimbursing lawyers? 

Mr. BEAN. Yes, my understanding is if the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is sued under the Administrative Procedure Act for—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Missing deadlines. 

Mr. BEAN. Not for missing deadlines, but for discretionary actions that are alleged to be arbitrary and capricious, if we lose 

those cases we pay out of our agency funds. 

83 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. So do you just guess about how many settlements of those kinds of suits there will be every year, where your 

budget is actually tapped? 

Mr. BEAN. I don’t know the precise process. My assumption is 

the Fish and Wildlife Service looks to the past as a guide to the 

future, and anticipates based on past experience. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. At this time I am going to recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Percival, do you agree with the 

statement that was just made, that the ability to file citizens suits 

has made ESA essentially a situation where those suits are robbing 

species—that we are robbing species protection to pay for litigation, 

and pay attorney’s fees? 

Mr. PERCIVAL. No, definitely not. Citizen suit provisions are 

sometimes the only lawyer the species has, if it is not adequately 

being dealt with, or being ignored by the agency. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. You know, and just a quick follow-up on citizen 

suits. You know, suing the government is as American as apple pie. 

And the issue is litigation in terms of education, voting rights, 

health care that just went to the Supreme Court, where citizens 

brought that to that court, seeing it as a last resort. So it is not 

a unique situation that we are talking about in this instance with 

ESA. And if you could, just expand on that. 

Mr. PERCIVAL. It is certainly not unique under American law. It 

is one of the aspects of American law that makes our system the 

envy of the world. In the last several years I have done a tremendous amount of work in China, where they have immense environmental problems. And the Chinese environmentalists realize that 

the one thing they are never going to be able to do is to sue their 

national government to enforce the environmental laws. And that 

is one aspect of U.S. environmental law that they would love to be 

able to have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Budd-Falen, while you have repeatedly challenged the merits of the attorney’s fees recovered by 

environmental organizations, in 2001 your firm received 100,000 in 

fees under the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association case 

brought under the Endangered Species Act; 2005, again, Cattle 

Growers against Fish and Wildlife, 59,000 in fees, Section 11(g) of 

ESA; in 2006, 165,000 in fees, 4,500 in costs under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act and the ESA in the Nebraska Habitat Conservation. Can you tell this committee whether there have been 

other ESA-related cases, where you successfully recovered fees? 

And how much recovered, either under ESA or Equal Access to 

Justice Act? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Mr. Grijalva, I believe that you have listed the 

ESA cases. We have settled other cases with regard to getting 

EAJA funds. 

But you are totally mischaracterizing my testimony. I am not arguing that the Endangered Species Act citizen suit provision should 

be eliminated. I am not arguing that attorney’s fees shouldn’t be 

paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act. What I am arguing, 

and what I have offered on behalf of every client that I have received fees from is that those ought to be transparent to the public. 

Those fees are American taxpayer dollars. And if my clients receive 

84 

them, the public should know. If the Center for Biological Diversity 

receives them, they should—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. You are saying they should come out of Equal 

Access—that the payments should be capped under the Equal 

Access, right? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act they are 

already capped at—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I know, and so—not out of the judgment fund. 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So, if the cases you litigated are under the suit 

provisions of ESA, that section that is not capped, 11(g), were you 

able to avail yourself of unlimited and unreasonable fees, as you 

claim other litigants under the same provision, in citizen suits, are 

doing so? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Actually, if you look at the petitions that we 

filed, we requested our regular attorney’s fees. My maximum hourly rate, as of 2014, is—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, it is a goose and gander question. Because 

if it is—we are assuming, then, that other organizations, whether 

it be the Center for Biological Diversity—are somehow playing the 

system and not doing the practices that you are doing. So, therefore, you are not availing yourself of unlimited fees and collections 

there, the assumption can be that potentially no one else is, either. 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. I strongly disagree with you. If you look at the 

last attorney’s fees request from Earth Justice—maybe it wasn’t 

the last, but it was a recent one—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN [continuing]. They requested $775 an hour for 

attorney’s fees. There is not an attorney in the United States worth 

$775 an hour—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me just—if I can wrap up, Madam Chair, I 

have similar questions for Mr. Holsinger, relative to his fees, and 

relative to the collection of those fees, including a thing yesterday, 

which was $600 an hour per page, $6,000. I have those. I will submit those for appropriate answers following the goose and gander 

scenario that I am trying to ask about. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The gentleman’s time is expired. And before the 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah for 5 minutes, I would 

like to ask the staff to put up the chart on the Center for Biological 

Diversity litigation 1990 to present. Thank you very much. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And you recognized me on the first 

guess, too. I appreciate that. 

We had in the first panel a whole lot of talk about the kinds of 

data that are used. So, Ms. Budd-Falen, if I could ask you, first 

question about data. Are critical habitat designations only limited 

to natural features? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. No, your Honor. Actually, there has—I am 

sorry. I am so used to court. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. And from now on, Grijalva is going to use that all 

the time. I appreciate it. 

[Laughter.] 

85 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Actually, we recently had a decision by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Chiricahua leopard frog. That 

Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat designation includes manmade stock tanks created by ranchers in the 1930s and 1940s. 

Those ranchers in Arizona are now being told that they have to ensure pH and all of these different criteria for water tanks that they 

developed that is now critical habitat. Those frogs wouldn’t be 

there, had it been for the ranchers, and they are trying to cut the 

ranchers’ ability to use their grazing allotments. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, I appreciate that. Let me follow up with 

another question to you on a different track of what the second 

panel is more interested in doing. 

The second—I am sorry. The administration says that it wants 

to explore administrative options to track costs. Why is legislation 

necessary to achieve this, Ms. Falen? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Because, quite frankly, the administration is 

doing a terrible job at tracking costs, even according to the GAO 

reports that have come out. The GAO reports very clearly state the 

Department of Justice does not clearly track these costs. It also 

stated that, with regard to the USDA and the recent report that 

came out on that, as well as the EPA and the GAO report on that. 

And, in my own experience, when we filed a Freedom of Information Act request with Department of Justice asking for all of the 

cases filed by a certain environmental group in one Federal district 

court in a certain period of time, when we compared the docket 

sheets with the Federal court database, they missed 23 cases. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So to both you and Mr. Holsinger, does anything in H.R. 4316 or the other bill—I can’t remember the number 

right now—prohibit litigants from suing the Federal Government 

on ESEA? ESA, I am sorry. 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Absolutely not. And I think the idea that— 

claiming that this is somehow harming the citizen suit provision is 

just a red herring, because people are so afraid to modernize the 

ESA. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Holsinger? 

Mr. HOLSINGER. I would echo that. There is absolutely no prohibition. And I would liken back to Congressman Grijalva’s comment 

that litigation is like apple pie. Well, if that is the case, then CBD 

and Wild Earth Guardians have had 1,366 servings, and that is 

outrageous. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And I wish you could do the same thing 

on ESEA, which is another pain I have to bear. But I am a teacher, 

so forget that one. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I—again, to the two of you, Mr. Holsinger and 

Ms. Falen, one of your colleagues there has testified that 

H.R. 4318 discourages lawsuits by reducing taxpayer-financed attorney’s fees. You have extensive experience with these kind of 

fees. This committee has found instances where environmental attorneys have charged the government over $500 per hour. And one 

attorney received exorbitant fees for successfully using the ESA to 

stop construction of an elementary school. 

86 

How do you address the argument that attorneys should not live 

under the same attorney’s fee standard as the Equal Access to Justice Act? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Actually, I do not think that there is a justification. The Equal Access to Justice Act has the same purpose 

as the fee shifting provisions under the citizen suit provision, 

which is to reimburse reasonable attorney’s fees. It was not a getrich-quick, make-a-lot-of-money-for-your-organization proposition. 

The Equal Access to Justice Act attorney’s fees have been updated. They are now approximately $200 an hour, considering cost 

of living and all that other kind of requirements. I see no reason 

that an attorney for a veteran should be treated any different than 

an attorney for a tree or a rock. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, thank you. Mr. Holsinger, 30 seconds or 

less. 

Mr. HOLSINGER. I can say, as an attorney in private practice, 

that my practice is nowhere near as lucrative as some of the outrageous fees that we have heard about today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And Mr. Bean, I actually had one last 

question for you. Unfortunately, I have 20 seconds, and it would 

have fit better in the first panel anyway, so next time you come up 

here you’ve got it coming. 

Mr. BEAN. Beg your pardon, sir? 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry. I will save it until the next time you 

come up here. 

Mr. BEAN. OK. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yield back. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman and recognize the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Daines. 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. In Montana, we 

know too well how land management actions by Federal agencies 

are halted, due to habitual litigants. This is all to the detriment 

of responsible resource management and our local economies. From 

providing timely renewals of recreation permits, to approving 

much-needed timber sales, or preventative treatments for catastrophic wildfire, Federal agencies spend millions of dollars analyzing their decisions to bullet-proof them from lawsuits that are 

then only halted in court. 

You know, in Montana national forests cover about 15 million 

acres. That is about 60 percent of the total forested acreage in the 

State. But timber sales on national forests have declined by 58 percent since 2009. And, meanwhile, our timber mills are obtaining 

logs hundreds of miles away from their mills to keep their business 

afloat, while their resources deteriorate in our Montana forests. 

In fact, I was up in Lincoln County, met with a couple from 

Eureka, Montana at dinner, and they shared with me. They said, 

‘‘We describe this part of the State any more as poverty with a 

view.’’ The poverty rates in our forested counties in Montana are 

well above the State average. In fact, in Lincoln County, 75 percent 

of the ground up there is owned by the Federal Government, and 

the unemployment rate is 15.2 percent. 

Now, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, one of these environmental groups that file lawsuits, they filed an injunction of timber 

87 

sale in the Little Belt of Montana, based on the lynx habitat impact. This sale could have provided logs to a mill in Montana. 

The more resources spent on analyzing decisions, fighting in 

court, not only waste taxpayer dollars, but reduces the value of the 

resource, and kills jobs in rural communities. Additionally, after 

these decisions are made, the taxpayers foot the bill for the attorney’s fees. In fact, the Alliance for Wild Rockies challenged the 

Cabin Gulch Vegetation Management Project, a project intended to 

treat beetle-infested trees. These are trees that have died in the 

Big Belt Mountains in Montana. This 9th Circuit that is referred 

to here on the screen, the 9th Circuit Court judge upheld the 

Forest Service actions—upheld the Forest Service actions—in 11 of 

the 12 counts. But they halted the project, due to potential impact 

on lynx habitat. 

And then here is what happened, to add insult to injury. The 

Federal judge awarded 100 percent of the attorney’s fees, requested 

at a rate in excess of the normal fee, despite the Forest Service 

challenge. The court paid $300 an hour, instead of the standard 

Montana rate of $220 an hour. And although the Forest Service 

prevailed in 11 of the 12 counts—that is not too bad a batting average—the Forest Service must now pay $72,000 in attorney fees. 

Those are taxpayer dollars. 

Karen, maybe we could start with you. Could you tell me what 

effect does litigation and attorney’s fees, pay-outs, have on actual 

species recovery? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Absolutely none. The problem is the money 

isn’t going to on-the-ground projects or on-the-ground improvement 

for the species. It is simply going to pay attorneys to file more litigation to stop more projects that are happening on the ground. 

Mr. DAINES. Mr. Holsinger, you know, we are making some pretty rich apple pies up there in Montana, based on your analogy 

there. Could you comment on that? 

Mr. HOLSINGER. Yes, Congressman. I would echo Ms. Falen. I 

have personal knowledge of working with the Upper Colorado River 

Recovery Program, an effective program to help recover and de-list 

species in the Colorado River. They were faced with litigation filed 

against them, much like we are talking about today. And I can tell 

you that tied them up for years in responding to the document requests and the huge burdens of litigation. It prevented them from 

doing their jobs, which were to try to recover the listed fish in the 

Colorado River. I am sure that plays over time and time again. 

And I am, frankly, mind-boggled. I have a great deal of respect 

for Mr. Bean. I am stymied that he would devote only a sentence 

of his oral remarks on this litigation issue. And, Mr. Rauch, who 

I did not know until today, as far as I could tell, virtually ignored 

it. 

Mr. DAINES. I have to tell you. I was at a mill recently in southwest Montana, and we only have 9 timber mills left in Montana; 

we used to have 30. Working with these hard-working Montanans, 

they are looking at having to go 450 miles away for a timber sale 

right now, out of State and, by the way, outside the 9th Circuit jurisdiction, to get logs. 

As we are having this conversation, looking at a hillside of dead 

trees on national forests, killed by beetles, next to a hillside that 

88 

had been wiped out by a forest fire that we still have recoverable 

timber, and we couldn’t go up there and harvest it, and having to 

travel over 500 miles to get logs to supply the mill—I see my time 

is up, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, the gentleman’s time is expired. We will have 

a second round. Each Member will be asked to limit themselves to 

one question. The Chair recognizes herself. 

There has been a lot of concern expressed on the first panel 

about how data transparency might jeopardize proprietary data. 

And we know that medical and other scientific fields have dealt 

with the issue of proprietary data versus transparency for nonproprietary data and protected personal data. 

Ms. Budd-Falen, have voluntary efforts to conserve the sagegrouse, including candidate conservation agreements, been undermined by the reluctance of the Federal Government to protect 

proprietary data in the case of land owners’ personal data? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Absolutely. And I find that a totally fascinating subject here, because you have the Federal agencies on 

one hand, saying that we have to protect all this data on which the 

decisions are made, yet, for example, on the sage-grouse CCAA in 

Oregon that we are trying to do, the Fish and Wildlife Service is 

saying that if a land owner signs up to voluntarily do species protection, that all of his data is subject to FOIA, and that that can 

go out. 

And so, it really seems a conflict to me. And the idea that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service just voluntarily gives this data is truly 

laughable to a lot of us, because under FOIA is the only way that 

you know that you get all of the information in data. When they 

just voluntarily release it, you have no idea if they are cherrypicking the data, or if they are cherry-picking the information. 

And so, to say that the current system is working with regard 

to the release of data is simply not correct and not transparent at 

all. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. The Chair’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, and the issue of proprietary is confusing to me. The fluids and chemicals used in fracking are proprietary. And, therefore, that shouldn’t be released. But data that 

somebody might consider proprietary in ESA, that shouldn’t be protected. 

Anyway, Mr. Percival, what authority—third factor in this discussion. What authority do the Federal courts have to ensure that 

attorney fees, awards are reasonable, and only provided when appropriate under the citizen suit provision of ESA? And are the 

Federal courts vigorous in vetting that process? 

Mr. PERCIVAL. Yes, it is definitely the case that the Supreme 

Court in the Ruckelshaus case, as I mention in my testimony, said 

that before any party could be eligible for an attorney’s fee they 

had to be a prevailing party. And that means you have to win some 

aspect of the lawsuit before you can even be eligible to apply for 

the attorney’s fees. 

Then, the standard for receiving attorney’s fees under the attorney’s fees shifting provision of the Endangered Species Act requires 

that the court determine that the fee is reasonable. So, in each of 

89 

these cases where attorney’s fees awards have been made that 

some are touting as outrageous, you had a member of the independent, neutral, Federal judiciary determining, based upon an 

assessment of the amount of work and skill that went into the litigation, that that fee award was reasonable. And those are very important safeguards that ensure that fee awards are not outrageous 

windfalls to plaintiffs who bring non-meritorious litigation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Yield back, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the Ranking Member. The gentleman from 

Utah is recognized for one question. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I have a three-parter. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry. Mr. Bean, I have a chance to ask you 

the question, after all. So, during the hearing last August I was 

able to ask Director Ashe if it would be both possible and preferable that actual data be used for ESA decisions that affect both 

species and people, and should be available for everyone to see online and on the Internet. And he answered, clearly, yes. That is the 

verbiage that is up there. 

So, for A, just for the record, I would like to get—is your answer 

yes or no to that same question? 

Mr. BEAN. I would answer the same way. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So then, B, I further asked Mr. Ashe, then, that 

the Fish and Wildlife Service would look at the very questionable 

data that was referenced in a letter from Fish and Wildlife to the 

State of Utah relating to the greater sage-grouse, namely relating 

to tall structures, buffers, and disturbance limits. The concern for 

many of the States, including Utah, was intensified last week when 

Secretary Jewell alluded to a scenario where 40 regulations might 

be used in the event the sage-grouse is listed. 

So, instead of that, why shouldn’t the Department of the Interior 

simply make good on its stated purpose of endorsing the State 

plans, and keep it off list in the first place? 

Mr. BEAN. The Fish and Wildlife Service has made no decision 

about whether the sage-grouse will go on the list or not. I will not 

make that decision, will not propose a decision, until September of 

2015. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Then, in that case, my question is rhetorical, and obviously, preferable than doing the 4(d) speculation that 

could be taking place. States have done a great job, they need to 

have their data there. 

And my part C, I need to ask if the Chairlady would be kind 

enough to tell me what my part C is. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Oh, I thank the gentleman. Part C would be addressed to the gentleman from Denver regarding why the 9th 

Circuit is the preferred circuit for the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental litigants. 

Mr. BISHOP. I knew that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HOLSINGER. Thank you, Madam Chair, Congressman. You 

know, one can only speculate, but it is commonly known that the 

9th Circuit is the most commonly over-turned circuit in all of the 

U.S. court system. I think these litigants are picking their venues. 

Mr. BISHOP. With that, I yield back. 

90 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. And I thank the panel. 

This has been a productive hearing. It follows a year’s worth of 

hearings to develop the legislation that you see before you. And I 

appreciate the panel’s feedback on the legislation you see before 

you, now that it has been drafted. 

As I mentioned before, Members will have additional questions 

for witnesses, possibly, and we ask that you respond to these in 

writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 business days to receive these responses. 

Now, with our tremendous gratitude to the people who are here 

today—because we know how much time it takes to get to 

Washington and to prepare the testimony you have presented 

today—we want you to know we are extremely grateful for your 

input. If there is no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ