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

26–936 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–96 

CONSERVATION, CONSULTATION, AND CAPACITY: 

STATE VIEWS ON THE NEED TO MODERNIZE 

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 10, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 10, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 1 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Wiley, Nick, Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission .................................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 27 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 31 

Response to an additional question from Senator Booker ............................ 37 

Voyles, Larry, Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department ............................ 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 66 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 75 

Coit, Hon. Janet, Director, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management ................................................................................................................. 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 94 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 97 

Response to an additional question from Senator Booker ............................ 105 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Duckworth ........................ 105 

(1) 

CONSERVATION, CONSULTATION, AND CAPACITY: STATE VIEWS ON THE NEED TO MODERNIZE THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Wicker, 

Fischer, Rounds, and Ernst. 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call the Environment and 

Public Works Committee to order and like to defer to the Ranking 

Member, Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. I thank the Chairman. 

I apologize to our witnesses, some of whom have come quite a 

distance. The Democratic leader in the Senate has called for an 

emergency caucus meeting to discuss the issues leading up to the 

dismissal of James Comey as our FBI Director and to discuss how 

we might move quickly to ensuring that a special prosecutor is assigned and put to work right away. 

If I have the opportunity to return at the end of our caucus meeting, I will come back, and perhaps some of my colleagues will as 

well. 

I really appreciate the Chairman’s understanding of this and giving me a chance to give the opening statement first. 

Good to see you all. Thank you. This is important stuff. 

I am very interested, and I know my colleagues are, to learn 

more from our State witnesses about your experiences with the Endangered Species Act, the roles that States play, the partnerships 

that they have cultivated, and the lessons that you have learned, 

the challenges that you face, and what you think we need to know. 

I am not sure we could have gathered a more knowledgeable or relevant panel. Altogether, our witnesses represent nearly a century 

of natural resource, environmental, as well as fish and wild, experience, which leads me to believe you must have started very early 

in your lives. 

This is our second Endangered Species Act hearing this year. I 

would like to emphasize a couple points that struck me from our 

2 

first hearing on this very important issue. The first is that the 

world is experiencing an exponential increase of species in peril. 

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has declared that almost one-third of all known species of plants and animals, some 22,000-plus species, are currently at risk of extinction. 

The second is that there are so many species ending up on the 

endangered list. If, as we will hear from our witnesses today, 

States are concerned about and equipped to handle species conservation in their States, then why are so many species in trouble? 

Are there funding challenges? Are there legal challenges? 

The Endangered Species Act should be the last backstop against 

extinction, and the evidence clearly shows that when States, when 

Federal agencies, when stakeholders collaborate effectively, we can 

better prevent species from being listed in the first place. 

We established at our last hearing that there is generally ample 

notice that species are at risk. Often, biologists and citizens know 

years and sometimes even decades in advance that a plant or an 

animal is in trouble. Governor Freudenthal disclosed at our earlier 

hearing that until recently, despite this notice, States really 

haven’t focused on all those non-game species that are struggling, 

and therefore their status becomes critical and a source of contention. 

The question is, then, are States focusing on them now? How 

much and with what resources? And how effectively? Hopefully, our 

State experts here today can help us appreciate the lay of the land 

and thus help us understand what the Federal Government needs 

to do to be a better partner to get this critical job done. 

I have to say, the numbers are not encouraging. I understand 

that States spend about a quarter of what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service invests to protect Endangered Species Act listed and 

candidate species. If we include all the Federal agencies spending, 

the collective State investment is, I think, about 4 percent. Granted, this likely means we need to invest more in our States. But it 

also means that States have some soul searching to do. And if you 

need the ESA and the Federal agencies to back you up because you 

will not or cannot carry this burden, then we need to know that. 

Congress always intended endangered species protection and restoration to be a joint and collaborative effort among Federal agencies and their State partners, and a host of landowners, along with 

business interests, and conservationists. Our goal should be to 

make sure we are firing on all cylinders given the magnitude of 

trouble our fellow inhabitants on this planet face today. 

I say these things with the greatest of respect, as a recovering 

Governor, for the work that you do and the unique capacity you 

have to understand the challenges in your States, how best to resolve them, and the partnerships that you need to reach these 

goals. But in this particular instance you are front and center in 

a fight not only for State interests, but also a national concern for 

species that are part of our natural heritage. These plants and animals travel and disperse with little concern for our political boundaries. 

If indeed you tell us it is time to modernize this crucial Act, then 

please let us know how the changes you propose will make all of 

us better equipped to conserve, to protect, and to restore these 

3 

plants and critters and places that they call home. This isn’t just 

our legal obligation; I think it is our collective moral duty as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the chance to go first, and I 

hope I have a chance to come back and be with all of you a bit later 

this morning. Thank you so much. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. I 

think, as you know, the Democrats have invoked the 2-hour rule. 

That means this hearing will only go until about 11:30 this morning, which is 2 hours after the Senate gaveled in. So we will be adjourning at 11:30. 

Today, the Environment and Public Works Committee continues 

its efforts to consider feedback from State officials on the need to 

modernize the Endangered Species Act. 

The Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973 to conserve 

species identified as endangered or threatened with extinction, and 

to conserve the ecosystems upon which those species depend. State 

governments, particularly their State fish and wildlife agencies, 

play a central role in fulfilling the Endangered Species Act’s mission. 

Some have tried to argue that the Federal Government, not the 

States, is the only entity capable of saving endangered species, and 

that the States should take a back seat on wildlife conservation for 

species at risk of extinction. Well, endangered species don’t care 

whether the Federal Government or a State government protects 

them; they just want to be protected. 

Combined, our nation’s 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are a 

formidable wildlife conservation machine. Since enactment of the 

Endangered Species Act almost 45 years ago, State fish and wildlife agencies have enhanced their staff, their expertise, their habitat management techniques, their science capability, their relationships with private landowners and local communities, and political 

support. And again, these are the State fish and wildlife agencies. 

According to a 2014 to 2015 survey of State fish and wildlife 

agencies conducted by the Association of State Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, our States’ wildlife conservation machine is comprised of 

50,000 highly trained and highly motivated employees, including 

11,000 degreed wildlife biologists, 10,100 law enforcement officers, 

6,000 employees with advanced degrees, 2,211 employees solely 

dedicated to educating and informing the public about wildlife conservation issues. An additional 190,000 volunteers nationwide devote their time and energies to wildlife conservation in support of 

State agencies. 

In recent years, State governments and their State fish and wildlife agencies have increasingly voiced concerns that the Endangered Species Act isn’t living up to its conservation potential. So 

have counties, wildlife managers, homebuilders, construction companies, farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders. 

The Endangered Species Act impacts us all. Ninety-nine point 4 

percent of all the counties in the United States are home to at least 

one species listed as endangered. That is according to a recent 

analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data by the National AssociaVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:21 Oct 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26936.TXT SONYA
4 

tion of Counties. So we must all be concerned when the Endangered Species Act isn’t living up to its conservation potential. 

We are fortunate that national and regional stakeholder groups 

have already been working for several years in bipartisan ways to 

identify challenges with the Endangered Species Act and opportunities to make the statute work better. 

In March 2016 the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

adopted a set of principles to modernize implementation of the Endangered Species Act, to better promote fish and wildlife conservation, and to better facilitate the participation of landowners and 

other stakeholders. 

In June 2016 the Democrat and Republican Western Governors’ 

Association unanimously adopted the Western Governors’ Association’s Endangered Species Act policy under the leadership of Wyoming Governor Matt Mead. The Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Western Governors’ Association, other bipartisan 

groups, and individual stakeholders consistently hit on three 

themes when they discuss ways to modernize the Endangered Species Act. 

Conservation. How can the Act better incentivize conservation 

activities to, No. 1, avoid listing of species as endangered or threatened, and No. 2, recover species when they are listed as endangered or threatened? 

Consultation. How can the Act better facilitate the Federal Government’s consultation with State and local governments so that 

decisionmaking is based on the best available information and 

State and local capacity is adequately leveraged? 

Capacity. How can the Act provide sufficient resources to fulfill 

the mission of the Act and better allocate those resources to species 

most in need? 

According to feedback from across the nation and across the political spectrum, modernization of the Endangered Species Act in 

these areas could lead to better outcomes for imperiled species, for 

government entities, for private parties and other stakeholders. 

So I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses about common sense, bipartisan opportunities to modernize and strengthen 

the Endangered Species Act to make it work better for wildlife and 

for people. 

We would now like to hear from our witnesses, starting with 

Nick Wiley, who is the Executive Director of the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission and the President of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Thanks so much for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF NICK WILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

Mr. WILEY. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking 

Member Carper and members of the Committee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak with you today. My remarks will represent 

the views of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, or AFWA. 

My views regarding the Endangered Species Act are shaped by 

over 31 years of experience as a professional wildlife biologist and 

a State fish and wildlife agency administrator. During this time, I 

5 

have been fortunate to work in Florida, where we have an amazing 

diversity of fish and wildlife resources featuring a number of iconic 

species that have been benefited from listing under ESA, including 

bald eagles, manatees, Florida panthers, sea turtles, and American 

crocodiles. 

My direct experience and work with States across the nation reflect that ESA has served our nation well as a strong tool for protecting and recovering species that are on the brink of extinction. 

State fish and wildlife agencies really value and appreciate how 

ESA has driven many conservation success stories. 

We also see firsthand, however, that ESA has not adapted well 

to the tremendous changes across our nation’s conservation landscape. Federal agencies do not have sufficient capacity or funding 

to keep pace with ESA workloads, resulting in delays and litigation. 

The ESA is often viewed by private landowners and businesses 

with great trepidation rather than opportunity for cooperative conservation. It is troubling that the primary purpose for the ESA has 

shifted over time from an effective focus on rescuing species from 

the brink of extinction to a broad brush that perpetuates the highest level of Federal regulatory protection even when the threat of 

extinction has been eliminated and ongoing protection is assured 

under State management. 

State fish and wildlife agency directors generally believe the ESA 

is not performing as it should and is not sufficiently leveraging 

State agency expertise and cooperation. We believe there are many 

areas where ESA should be improved, refocused, and modernized 

to effectively deal with the scope, scale, and complexity of today’s 

conservation challenges. 

When we talk about modernizing ESA, we are talking about improving how ESA is administered and implemented. We are talking 

about optimizing partnerships with State agencies and better utilizing our growing expertise and conservation capacity. And we are 

also talking about keeping ESA decisions in the hands of conservation professionals at State and Federal agencies, rather than in the 

judicial system. 

With these concerns in mind, AFWA developed a list of general 

principles for improving ESA. These principles were developed by 

State ESA practitioners and calibrated with the Western Governors’ Association and the National Governors’ Association, reflecting the national scope and significance of ESA. We are hopeful 

the ideas and recommendations presented in AFWA’s general principles will inspire and guide a constructive and collaborative path 

to a more effective ESA. 

Coupled with improving ESA, we also believe that addressing the 

life needs and habitat requirements of declining species to prevent 

ESA listing is more prudent and more economically and biologically 

sound approach to managing species that are otherwise trending 

toward listing. Through State wildlife action plans, the State agencies have identified species of greatest conservation need and key 

actions needed to conserve them. We want to continue working 

with Congress to more fully fund this preventative approach 

through legislation like the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act introduced last Congress. 

6 

State fish and wildlife agencies want to be even more value 

added in ESA implementation to the degree we each have capacity 

and funding authority. We are suggesting an opt in approach that 

opens doors for the fullest cooperation with State agencies that 

have or will develop capacity and concurrent authority. We are not 

suggesting that all 50 States are ready to fully engage, but many 

are, if we can get a seat at the table. 

Yet, the way ESA is constructed and interpreted, State agencies 

can be involved in key decisions only at the discretion of Federal 

agencies. Although section 6 requires a maximum extent practicable cooperation, this provision has never been fully realized. As 

the primary trustee for fish and wildlife resources, State agencies 

should have the option to serve as a full jurisdictional partner in 

all ESA processes and decisions, as originally intended by Congress. 

We believe conservation of our fish and wildlife resources, particularly protecting and recovering endangered species, is at the 

core of our American values. The current version of ESA accomplished much, and we should be proud of this. But we can’t afford 

to let ESA rest on its laurels and continue to decline. The time is 

ripe for ESA to be upgraded to a more cooperative model, and we 

are hopeful for strong bipartisan support to move this forward. 

Thank you, and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiley follows:] 

7 


26936.001

and \Yildlife 

1100 Fmt Sttttt, NE, Suite 82S 

ASSOCIATION,/ 

FISH & WILDliFE 

AGENCIES 

f'l...-.::: 202-350-9869 

Email: .info@fi$Jtu:-ildlife-.c.tg 

Testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

"Conservation, Consultation, and Capacity: States' Views on the Need to Modernize the 

Endangered Spedes Actn 

Nick Wiley, Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and 

President, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

May 10,2017 

Chairman Barrassoj Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee l appreciate th(:: 

opportunity to speak with you today, I want to with some background about my 

profession a! experience. I have worked as a fish and wildlife conservation professional for over 

31 years, most of that time tn Florida, l have served as Executive Director for the Florida F!sh 

and Wi!d!lfe Conservation Commission for over seven years, ! have a bachelor's degree in 

biology from Georgia Southern University a master's degree wildlife science from Auburn 

University. J currently serve as President for the r"J..ssociatlon of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(AFWA). As you may know, AFWA represents the collective perspectives of the SO state fish and 

wHdlife agenciE.'!.s (state agencies) natlonw!dr., 

l have professional experience spedfic to the Endangmed Species Act {ESA) in number of ways 

including work to preclude listing of candidate species, listing and def!sting species, 

coordination of ESA regulations with private l<mdowners, and species recovery planning. l have 

worked closely with our state ;;1gency experts on management and recovery of high profl!e 

listed species including West Indian manatees; Florida panthers, snail kltes, American 

cr{){:odi!es, red-cockaded woodpeckers, and Florida scrub j<Jys, On the national level,! served as 

chair for the AFWA Threatened and Fndaneered Species Policy Committee for five years and 

currently serve as co-chair for the State-Federal Joint Task Force on ESA lmplernent<1Uon. 

My remarks today wit! represent the views of AFWA and Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. I wi!l cover 5 key points jn thls session indud!ng: 1) AFWA prlorltles 

for F..SA irnprovement adopted by 50 state agencies; 2) the intended roles and authorities for 

;tate agencies as ESA was adopted amended by Congress; 3) the degree to which these 

roles and authorities were tKtua!ly realized; 4) a heiter path forward leveraging state agendes 1 
8 


26936.002

expertise and authority along with funding to address CJt risk species to preclude the need for 

ESA listing; and 5) examples of success stories illustrating why state agencies are weH 

positioned to exercise much stronger roles and authorities ln new, modernized version of the 

ESA, 

Let me pause on this last point to make something clear. The state agencies support and value 

the ESA as J strong and effective tool for protecting and recovering species that are on the 

brink of extinction, Most state agencies believe, however, that the F.SA not performing as it 

should and is not sufficiently leveraging cooperation between federal agencie.~ and state 

agencies, We be!icve there are many areas where ESA needs to be improved, strengthened 

and refocused to perform as orlglnaHy intended by Congress when enacted 44 yc\ars ago. The 

ESA simp!y has not adapted we!l to the tremendous changes across our nation's conservation 

landscape and needs to be modernized to effectively deal with the scope and scale of imperiled 

species challenges we face today. ·when we talk about modernizing the ESA, we are talking 

about improving how the ESA is administered and implemented; we are talking about 

recognizing the state agencies as fuH partners with concurrent authorities as originally intended 

by Congress; we are talkihg about more effectively leveraging thE~ expertise and conservation 

delivery by the state agencies; and we are talking about keeping the ESA declstons in the hands 

of the conservation professlona!s in state and federal agencies rather than the Court system. 

The federal agencies responsible for administering the ESA are working diligently to irnplement 

the law as ctdopted by Congress and interpreted by the Courts. But in spite of their best efforts 1 

these agencies r.annot keep pace with the growine number of species subject to petitions for 

federal listing, They simply do not have capacity to handle the growing workloads associated 

wlth the petition and listing process, regulatory responsibilities} take perrnitting, administering 

conservation incentives, assurances and mitigation programs1 Section 7 consultations, 

addressing !ltigJtion, recovery p!anning, and managing through the recovery and del!sting 

process" Moreover, many of these administrative responsibHlties take their focus and funding 

away from the conservation work on the ground needed to actually recover listed sper:ies 

leaving much of this responsibility to the state agendes. 

State agencies appreclate the value of the ESA as a !andrrtark federal law to protect and recover 

the imperiled species listed under the AcL The ESA was last amended and authorized in 1988, 

Enacted in 1973 1 over the almost 44 years of lmp!cmentation, we have !earned much about the 

conservJtion of listed species and thelr recovery needs, such as how to facilitate, not proscribe, 

privJte landowner involvement The AFVVA Gener8! PrlndpiE~s for !rnprovlng Jmplementation of 

the ES.t-\ approved by the State Agencv Dlrectors ln March 20161 are in the Appendix/ but below 

fs a brief description of some of them ;md why we want to improve our ability to recover 

species under the ESA, These Genera! Principles were developed through initial discu.:;sions with 
9 


26936.003

state agencies' endangered species experts serving on AFWA's Threatened and Endangered 

Species Policy Comrnittee and were further honed by the State Agency Directors. AF\IVA 

contlnues to participate Jn the Western Governors' Species Conservation and Endangered 

Species Act Initiative led by Governor Matt Mead (WY), and continues to coordinate with those 

staffs. Further, AFWA's principles are also consistent with the policy recommendations adopted 

by the National Governors Association. The modernization ideas areal! congruent, and AFWA 

!n cooperation with the Governors utl!fzing al! of these ideas os we contemplate future ways 

to improv-e implementation of the Act and more quickly recover species !lsted under the ESA. 

Elevate the Role of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Central to AFI/I/A's General Principles is the recommendation to increase opportunlties for state 

agencies to serve equal partners with federal agencies and have a rnore forma!, active role 

and more fully participate in ESA implementation actions as intended by Congress under 

Section 6 Cooperative Agreements, State agencies, as the trustees of fish and wi!d!lfe, should 

be full jurisdictional partners to implement ESA; not just one of many stakeholders in the 

process. 

legislative history of the ESA, excerpts from which are in the Appendix, substantiate that 

Congress intended approved Section 6 agreements to avoid preemption of state law. State 

agencies have broad expertise, experience and often comprehensive data sets and analyses on 

many specles,, but primarily for those species hoving secure and dedicated funding sources for 

management, because before they were listed, these species were solely under the state's 

management and jurlsdlctlon. These data and state agencies' interpretations should be more 

readily utilized by our federal partners throughout the ESA processes, State agencies should be 

afforded the opportunity to participate in ali implementation aspects of the ESA from listing 

decisions, to recovery plan development and conservation recovery efforts on the ground, to 

decisions regarding down-Hsting and delisting of recovered species. 

Many state agencies particularly want stronger ro!e in providing guidance and support for 

private landowners on the use of state and federal conservation incentive programs. State 

agendes want to work with federal agencies to help engage private landowners as partners in 

conservation and provide them more certainty and Jess trepldotlon regarding ESA 

implementation. State agencies have the rcsponslblllty but have not been able to fully exerdse 

the authority under the ESA because of misunderstanding Jnd misinterpretation by the federal 

executive branch agencles and courts, of the comprehensive 

Congress, 

of Section 6 as intended by 

The Florida Flsh and Wl!dllfe Conservation Commission enjoys J strong and productive working 

relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries 
10 


26936.004

Service (NMFS) wlth regard to ESA irnp!crncntatlon, but current provisions and interpretations 

of the ESA still result in significant roadblocks limiting our ability to participate as a full 

jurisdictional partner. Recent \vork with ES/\ reclassification petitions regarding black bears and 

manatees provide exarnples where the state agency should have been more dosely included as 

full jurisdictional partner. We were critical in collecting and analyzing data but were not fully 

brought into the fin a! decision making discussions and process for action.s related to these two 

even though it was our science and our conservation actions on the ground that were 

under consideration. Those dt::dsion making processes lasted more than a year, and the state 

was not kept fu!ly Llpprised of progress or stfltus of decisions other than being told it was being 

reviewed. These delays can impact the state agencls abflity to irnplement state-based 

conservation actions, for example updating our state species management plans under review. 

Restore the Distinction Between Threatened and Endangered Species 

J\ key recommendation in AFWA's General Principles is to restvre the distinction between 

threatened and endangered to provide ere.?~ter flexibility for manar;lng these cat0gories 

differently and more effectively. Congress intended that the states have the opportunity to lead 

the management of threatened spedes 1 lndudlng the provision of "take" as a means of 

conservation of the species, as substantioted in the 1973 ESA Legislative history. Unfortunately, 

the USFWS promulgated a default rule (50 CFR 17.31) in the mid-1980s that applies all Section 9 

restrictions for endangered species to threDtcned spcdes unless the Secretary determines 

otherwise. Thls essentially e!imin<'lted the distinction between the two listing categories. 

Improve the listing Process 

/'\FWA General Princip1es recognize that actua! listing process is not working effident:ly .=md 

effectively and the fuH value of state agency engdgement and support Is not being rea!lzed, 

particularly regarding statutory timellnes for ESA listing decisions, how best available science 

generated by state agencies l.s utlHzed in the process, how preexisting stJ.te led conservation 

efforts are treated; and how boundaries are considered. AFWA !s recommending 

improvements to the !isting process by estab!!shinp.; more rP.alistic time frames for listing 

decisions so there Js more time to work with state agencies} ensure the best available science ls 

fully and accurately considered, and provide more flexibility for recognizing state boundaries, 

state agBncy led recovery efforts, and species with d<1ta deficiencies, 

Adjustments of ESA listing dPcision time frarncs would provide opportunity to improve the 

quaHty of petitions submltted so they are more sciGnce informed and !nitlal evaluation can 

more readily <:-lscertain the need to move forward with further cons!dert1tlon. AFWA supports. a 

provision authorizing a prioritization process for species con.sidercd for listing to focus 

resources and energy on the species most in need of immediate recovery efforts w!th a dear 
11 


26936.005

path for other petitioned spedes. The process needs to insure that all state species data are 

utilized and conslderedj giving great weight to the state data and its interpretation by state 

agencies in decision-making. !n some cases, this improvement can preclude the need to list a 

species under the ESA because of the quantity and quality of state data, Moreover, federal 

agencies should consult with state agencles, a full jurlsdictionat partner, to assess 

recommendation of listing actions including 90 day findings and 12 month reviews. The current 

work pliln recently designed by USFWS to address Multi,Species Listing Petitions b step in the 

right direction and should be utl!ized to prioritize petitioned species. This system should help 

reduce the litigation over mlssed deadlines and allow the prloritlzation of species rnost in need 

of assistance whlle Jetting successfut ongoing state-led conservation efforts to continue 

uninterrupted. 

litlgationf court decisions nnd "preservation ls the oniy way" attitude has moved the goal 

posts on what it endangered species" means. The goal posts need to be reca!ibrated to be more 

consistent with Congress' intent with respect to what constitutes a threatened or endangered 

species. Currently, the threshold of what constitutes f!endangered species," in many circles and 

particularly with high-profile species, ls inconsistent with the population status that is backed 

by sdence~informed fish and w!ldllfe conservation. Testament to this problem is the negative 

reaction by some interests to down-Hstlng the West Indian manatee from endangered to 

threatened, The species now numbers well over G,OOO individuals compared to 1,200 

individuals ln 1991. lt is hard to argue on scientific basls that the West indian rr1Jnatee !sin 

udanger of extinction throughout aH or significant portion of its range,'' which is the statutory 

definition of "endangered" We seemed to have lost perspective for what constitutes an 

'''endangered species." 

Species that are robust in population or that fully occupy their ranfw should be maintained 

under state agencies' mana§ement authority with a state,led conservation plan until the ESA 

would otherwise be triggered due to declining populations. The listing under the ESA of a 

population that is healthy today only ties the hands of and places unmanageable burdens on 

ioca! communities and state agencies when there is nothing we do today that wHl positively 

affect the status of population 50 or 100 yeilfs from now, 

These improvements in the listing process would bt::! em lmportant step toward leveraging the 

value of strong state based conservation efforts while reducing the cost and regulatory 

imp!lcations of federal listing under the ESA For example, Florida·'s state imperiled species 

listing process is robust and wldely respected, lt identifies and implements focw;ed 

management for species well before the need for federal listing" r:!orida's proce5s requires 

development of management pions which should be considered any listing decision by the 

USFVv'S. For example, there are 19 species included in Florida's lmper1!ed Species Managernent 
12 


26936.006

Plan that are petitioned for fed era! llsting. Because these speties have comprehen:Sive science 

and stakeholder Informed state plans and protectlon 1 there ls strong conservatlon program ln 

place at the state level that should preclude the need for federal listing. 

The gopher tortoise a good example where fiex1bl1ity ls needed to recognize state boundaries 

under the ESA !lsting process. The gopher tortoise is ?I candidate for federal listing across its 

range east of the Mississippi River lnduding the states of Alab<Jma, Florida, Georgia and South 

Cnro!ina. F!orlda has comprehensive and successful gopher tortoise: conservation program 

that includes listing lt as state threatened species, a 11

no tortoise left behind" pollcy, legal 

protection of tortoises on both publlc and private lands1 and a funding source that ensures 

!ong~term conservation and habitat protection, ESA !!sting decisions should glve recognition of 

state conservation efforts, and federallistlng should not be considered ln states th<Jt hdve 

effective state-based conservation programs, This approach would further incentivlze and 

reward state led conservation efforts rather than. add even more workload, unneeded 

regulatory burden, and cost associated with federal listing. 

Strengthen and leverage State Cooperation in the Recovery Planning Processes 

AFWA Guiding Principles recommend statutory enhancement and clarification of state 

agencies' ro!e in the recovery p!annlng process, !t should be clarified under ESA that recovery 

teams should be established to de\lelop science-informed recovery plans for prospectively 

listed species and that state agendes have the option to lead recovery planning and 

implementation. Whether a state agency leads recovery planning or not, lt should be required 

that the state agency or agencies and the Secretary agree on the size and composition of the 

recovery team, with the stale agency director dedding which state agency experts sit on the 

recovery team< Recovery can be expedited by supportlng and continuing stCJte leve! 

conservation lnitiatlves,, management plans and pmtnerships to recover listed spedes. Further, 

require that once an approved recovery plan's popu!atlon and/or habitat objectives established 

by the recovery team are reached, the Secretary must initiate the de!lst!ng process. 

Jeanie, hlgh profile species are more likely to have recovery plans that are up to date; however} 

many plans for other species are not actively being implemented or updated or have never 

been written. State agency staff work on management and recovery while~ the federal focus is 

often regulatory. State agencies would prefer a more collaborative approach thot focuses on 

biological recovery goals and implementation of strategies that achieve these goals, For 

example, the flatwoods salamander was listed in 2009, but a federal recovery plan hils yet to be 

finalized. State agency biologists are currently formlng a working group to address management 

and conservahon of this species in the absence of a recovery plan. 
13 


26936.007

Relocate Critical Habitat Designation to Recovery Plan Development 

r\nother area where ESA implementation can be improved and strengthened to relocate the 

designation of critical habitat to recovery plan development and provide more discretion for 

the Secretary to designate or not designate critical habitat based comprehensively on 

continued imp!ementat!on of state conservation plans or initiatives, state lessons learned, 

implications for communities} funding avai!abllity, and other aspects that directly impact the 

recovery of a species, The scope of critical habitot should be better defined and cleor guidance 

given to when designations are needed or required, !n Florida, designation of critical habitat for 

manatees and panthers was !engthy, controversial, and !ltigious and credted barriers and delays 

to conservation and recovery, 

Revise Down-listing and Delisting Processes 

AFWA Genera! Principles recognize ihe need to <1ddrcss with the process for down-listing 

and dellsting species once recovered. There should be incr0:ased reliance on and great welght 

given to actually achieving recovery plan population and habitat goals. One of our greatest 

challenges to de!ist!ng .species after meeting recovery objectives continues to be the federal 

agencies' ongoing revision of a species' recovery goal once we have successfully reached or 

surpassed the recovery population and habitat goals. We need look no further than the 

ongoing saga to de!lst the Grizzly bear ln the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem-- years after state 

agencies have met the Grl:zz!y bear population recovery goal Jn the recovery plan, the USFV\!5 

continues to increase the population threshold which changc5~ the requirements for dellstJng. 

The ESA should be in specifying that achievement of recovery goals determined by the 

recovery team should initiate the delisting or down-listing process" Also, the ESA should be 

clarified to create more ecological and geographical flexibility for down-listing and delisting 

regarding valid listable entities regardless of how they were originally listed. The ESA should 

emphasize timely execution of the down··!isUng and de!lstlng process to realize conservation 

successes and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, reflecting the mirror im<'lge of the 

::urrent :J.2 .. ·month !lstlng timeline that allows for public comment. And finally, recovery and 

reclassification should acknowledge St8te boundaries as the <1gendes are the trustees for 

fish and wildlife in the states. Federal agencies should be able to redassify or delist species 

Nithln a specific State, but the courts have interpreted ESA ln manner that Hrnits thls option. 

cSA changes are needed to provide more specificity and flexibility in the delisting process 

3Heviate lengthy and unnecessary regulatory burdens on !ocal communities by allowing both 

he listing and delisting of a species as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS), and other 

mprovements. Unfortunatt:-:ly, there are less statutory details provided for the delist!ng 

Jrocess, and we deduce that Congress assumed that delisting, which is the objective of the ESI\, 

vould quickly follow the recovery of il species because protections of the ESA were no longer 
14 


26936.008

required. That has not been the case with a number of .specles, and dellsting can take decades 

and require overcoming many obstacles evt:n species' recovery goals ure met. Further, 

once a species is delisted, should return to state jurisdiction for sustainable conservation 

designed by state agency, with a report to the Secretary after 5 ye?lrs and during which 

should be protected from judicial rev!nw. Thls will a !low agencies and local cornmunitJes 

to work together to sustain and grow the recovered population vvithout the fengthy uncertalnty 

that nccompanies litigation and jeopardizes further conservation on the ground. 

These issues regarding recovery planning are important in Florida, For example, panthers 

cannot be delisted regardless of the and sustainability of r~:covery withln the state. 

Dellsting is dependt:nt on actions in other states. The ESA should specify flexib!Hty for recovery 

success to b1~ recognized within state boundaries thereby providing further incentives for states 

to invest more in recovery and foster greater cooperation for species. recovery in partnership 

with private landowners. Additionally, manatee down-listing would have been faster and !ess 

controversial had the USFWS been able to conslder the down-!isting of just the florida 

population, and not have been required to Include the Puerto Hico population. 

Improve Implementation of Section 1!l(j), Experimental introductions 

Changes and darffkatlons also are needed under Section 100} of ESA regarding of 

experimental introductions of listed species to improve or accelerate recovery often under 

uniQue conditions. This ESA tool should used in a more cooperative manner where state 

agencies working in partnership and in agreement with federal agencies. For example, the 

Secretary and state agencies should share decisions regarding boundaries of lO{j) rE:leJses, 

and it should be clarified that federal must comply with state permitting outhorities 

before 10(j) individuals are This wl1l ensure better coordination between state. and 

federal agencies and e-nsure that state conservation efforts for other high priority spedc~s are 

not compromised by the releaS<' of lO(i) individuals, 

Jurisdiction Authorities; State-Federal Relationship and ESA Section 6 

let me briefly review the jurlsdlctional authorities for fish and wildlife in the state-federal 

relationship. Fish and wildlife conservation was one ot "The powers not r1elegated to the Unlted 

States by the Constitution, [and thus] reserved to the States respectively, or to the 

people" (10th Amendment), In the United States, fish and wildlife arc owned by the public and 

rnanaged as trust resources by state ogenc1es. State agencles have primacy for manae;ing fish 

zmd wHdllfe within the.lr bordt~rs and have concurrent management Juthority with federal 

agencies on migratory blrds, inter-jurisdictional fishes, and the topic of today's discussion 

threatened anci endaneered Just for darlflcation, candidate species under the 

management authority of state agencles 1 not the fed era! agencies. Only Congress can eive a 
15 


26936.009

federal agency authority to preempt the states' duthority for management of fish and wildl!fe, 

and then only for certnin federal action5, The ESA is one example, but in doing this, Congre~s 

explicitly t:~ffirmed that the federal authority they gave the federal agencles exists concurrent 

with the pre-existing authority ofthe state agency (defined in the ESA as the state fish and 

wildlife agency) for listed fish and wildlife species. 

Section 6 of the ESA gives the Secretary explidt direction on how Congress expected the 

federal-state jurisdictional relationship to work. It starts with Sec. 6.(a) GENERAL·-··" In carrying 

out the program authorized by thls Act, the Secretary shaH cooperate to the maxlmum extent 

practicable with the States". Section 6 goe5 on to describe agreements that the Secretary may 

enter into to allow qualified state to implement the ESA. These cooperative agreements 

contemplated that the Secretary, upon the state's demonstration of the appropriate authority 

and adequate program destgn, would authorize approved state to k-:>ad ESA actlvltles by 

delegating his or her concurrent authority to the state. The state would then be directing 

research and management of llsted spedes, not just applying the Secretary's program for each 

species. 

Unfortunately, the Section 6 authorities available to the states have never been fully realized by 

the states. Admittedly in the first dozen or so years of the ESA, only a few states had the 

capadty and polJtical support to realize the authorities under Section 6. Hence, the Secretary 

through the USFWS exerdsed through rule and policy, very significant portion of the ESA 

authorlty. Since the mld-l980s, many states have t~nhanced their staff,. expertise~ habitat 

management techniques, sdence capabl!lty for listed species, relationships wlth private 

landowners and local communities, ond political support that would enable them to more fully 

exercise their authorities and ro!es ln implementing the ESA as Congress origina!ly intended as 

substantiated in the l973legislative history. We believe' in implementing the ESA, the concept 

of "cooperat!on with the state agencyv should apply to a!! actions under the entire Act and 

afford states of varying sizes and capacities the opportunity to opt into decision-making and 

recovery of species consistent with their capacity and authorities. W~:'! should we willing to 

-accept any and al! assistance state agencies are willing to provide: to the fed era:! agencies. 

Clarlficatlon and validation of state authorities under Section 6 and through more 

comprehensive Section 6 agreements would provide a path forward for state agenc1es to opt 

into exercising more authority for ESA implementation tailored to the 0vailable capacity and 

interest of each state agency. Without more clarity in this regard, sharing ESA workload with 

state agencies is a major challenge. Working with the USFWS, the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission was able to amend the standJrd Section 6 agreement to share 

workload regarding incidental take permitting through a set of mutually agreeable guidelines. 

Unfortunately due to questions about authority and of litigation, we have not exercised 
16 


26936.010

this option in our Section 6 agreement that could provide rnuch needed assistance to the 

USFWS. 

Conservation Capacity in State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

I would like to expand a bit on state agencies' growing capacity. In 2014-2015 under AFWA 

President Larry Voyles (AZ), we conducted a survey to better understand state agencies' 

ind!vidua! and collective resources to manage fish and w!!dllfe wlthln their borders. We 

discovered that state agencies employ nearly 50,(100 highly-trained and highly--motivated 

employees and leverage the efforts of 190,000 volunteers. Collectively, state agencies have 

about 11,000 degreed wildlife biologists, 10,100 law enforcement officers, and nearly 6,000 

employees with advanced degrees. State agencies have 2,211 employees solely dedicated to 

educating and informing the public regarding wildlife and issues that affect conservation, 

Natlonwlde, state agencies coordinate the efforts of 189,393 volunteers who devote their tlme 

and energies to wildlife conservation, multiplying our fuH··time workforce by about 5.5 times. 

State agencies are proud of their successes wlth recovering listed species and restorlns 

ded!ning species to sustalnab!e popu!Jtlons so the provisions of the ESA are not necessary. For 

most state agencies, lt has been a challenge bu1ldlng cr1pacity, funding and staffing to do this 

necessary conservation work. lnsufficient funding to fed era! agencies for recovering a listed 

species often thrusts an unfunded fiscal burden on state Jgencies to manage the fed era! 

regulatory requirements of a federally listed species. !fthe federal agencies bell0ve there 1s a 

compelling need to list a species under the f:SI\ then it should be followed by a specific 

congressional funding request under Section or other programs to fund the execution of the 

new federal burden on lts citizens, industries and communltles. Because of the dearth of 

federzd funding for the recovery of !isted species, state agencies have been creative in 

developing new and innovative funding sources above and beyond the conservation funding 

contributed by sportsmen and sportswornen, Over the last few decades by stretching limited 

funding, state agencies have bui!t considerable and capacity ln response to the 

growing need to address at-risk and lmperHed species< Congress has provided a he!plng hand 

for these efforts by funding development of State Wildlife Action Plans through the State and 

Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. We are grateful for this recognition ol the value of state based 

conservation, but we are only able to scratch the surface with this !eve! of support and with thr 

growing llst of petitions and possible listings lt is a growing federal and fiscal burden on state 

agencies. 

AFWA recently convened Blue Ribbon Panel on SustJinlng America's Diverse Fish and WildlifE~ 

Resources co-chaired by Governor Dave Freudenthal and Bass Pro Shops founder and CEO John 

Morris and including executives from major corporations and leadership from the nation's 

leading non-governmental conservation orgcmizatlons, Th!s panet validated the serious need 
17 


26936.011

rnore complete funding model that enables state agencies to more fully deliver conservation 

actions for all fish and wildlife. While the Wildlife Restoration Program and the Sport Fish 

Restoration and Boating Trust Fund arc successful for providing reliable and dedicated funding 

to state agencies tor the conservation and management of species that are hunted and fished, 

respectively, there is no concomitJnt, dedicated funding source to state agencies for the 

conservation <:md management of species that are neither hunted nor fished, which today are 

many of the speclcs trending toward listing under the ESA State agencies need u d1::dicated 

funding source commensurate with their conservatlon challenges to restore, conserve and 

rnanage these at-risk species that compri~e state agencies' species of greatest conservation 

need. We are seeking a national funding solution to address a critical, nation-wide fish and 

wildlife conservation issue that is of national importance. To accomplish this goal, they 

recommended a sweeping initiative to dedicate $1.3 billion annually to the Wildlife 

Conservation Restoration Prograrn under the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program to 

state agencies to effectively lmplement State VVildllfe Action Plans. 1n response to this 

recommendation during the last Congress, RepresentatiV<'s Don Young (AK) and Debbie Dingell 

(MI) introduced the Recovering America's Wildlife Act (HR 5650) that would fully fund this 

initiative. Further, recognized need a!so is supported by section 1.4.1 Principles of the 

Environmental Protection policy position which was adopted by the National Governors 

Association ln February 2017, 

The Recovering America's Wildlife Act would provide crltlca! resources equipping state agencies 

to sustainably lead proactive, voluntary, Incentive~ based conservation efforts th.at would 

preclude the need to list species under the ESA. As an observation, the state agencies believe 

that addressing the llfe needs nnd habitat requirements of declining species before they reach 

the point where ESA application is required, is the more prudent, economically and blological!y 

sound approach to managing species trending toward listing. Through State \Nildllfe Action 

Plans, the state agencies have comprehensively identified spedes of greatest conservation 

need and outlined the key 21ctions needed to conserve them. 

Benefits of Leveraging full ESA Partnership with State Agencies 

ESA issues are not restricted to the west, as these Appendix graphs and maps of listed species 

by state illustrates. Following the 2.010 filing of the so coiled "mega-petition" and others that 

covered 404 aquatic species in the southeast, state agencies comprising the Southeastern 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWII) developed the Southeast At-Risk Species 

(SEARS) program in partnership with the USFWS Southeast Region Office. The purpose of this 

program ls to cooperate and coordinate among the 

at·rlsk species. 

to address the conservation needs of 
18 


26936.012

Implementation of thls program has resulted ln numerous beneflcial actlons to date. The state 

agencies categorized species into bins related to consGrvation and information needs 

associated with each species. This categorlzatlon approach later became the foundation of the 

system adopted by the USFWS for their own national work plan, The outcomes of this 

collaborative approach have been remarkable: a} 98 species do not require protection of the 

CSA because of existing conservatlon actions, updated surveys, and reevaluation of threats to 

their survivBI; b) five species have been ffupgraded" from endangered to threatened; c) four 

species have been delisted; and d) five species were listed as threatened instead of endangt::red 

because of the overall efforts. The volunt8ry conservation efforts developed for these species 

also provide bE.'neflts for many more species {both imperiled and corn man) on the landscape. 

State agencies worked across state boundaries rlnd cooperatively wlth the USFWS utilizing state 

agency funds and funding from ES!I Section 6 grants and State Wildlife Grants, 

The bottom line state agencies are effective at leveraging partnerships, relationships, 

expertise, capacity and fundlnfS to conserve fish and wi!d!ife, And while we may not be able to 

preclude the need to !ist every species, we can bring great value as full partner in ESA 

implementation ln many ways and could do much more with a more clarified and strengthened 

role through ESA modernization and additional resources. 

State agencies often do the greatest share of work managing federally listed species and 

dealing with associated challenges. We on the ground, ln the communities, 21nd on the front 

lines. Citizens, businesses and !and owner;; are more likely to reach out to state agencles for 

assistance with li.sted species than our federal partners, and we find ways to step up and help; 

often finding innovative ways to fund our efforts like specialty license plates and donations, 

Yet the way tht~ ESA is constructed and interpreted, state agencies can be involved in key 

decisions in the listing process only at the discretion of the federal agencies. ln many cases,, 

rather than being lln integra! part of the declsion·-making process, state agencies are releg.atcd 

to submitting comments along with all other stakeholders or members of the public who file 

comments. Even when we are invited to be more involved in the decision making process, there 

is a point where the federal curtain doses, and we are !eft outside as dedslons are fina!lzed and 

opproved, In my seven years working with the State+cdcral ES;; Joint Task Force, it has become 

dear to me that most state agencies would Jlke to have the option to be much more involved in 

ESA decisions and in some cases, exercise their concurrent authority for steps in the decisionmaking process because of impacts to .other state managed specles and conservation efforts. 

States Serve as Essential Partners in Cooperative Conservation Success Stories 

! want to tlnish by offering some conservation success stories where federal and state partners 

worked closely together to implement ESA the state agency played a key role by providing 
19 


26936.013

the majority of funding, staff resources, and key regulatory and enforcc:ment support, These 

conservation successes clearly dernonstr<lte the essential !eadershlp role state agencies have 

taken in spedes recovery and dearly validat£: the credibHity of state agencies to have standing 

ilS full and equal partners under a modernized ESA. 

Surveys of Florida manatees in recent years show the!r numbers at over 6,0001 up from 1,200 

bdck in 1991, and the highest numbers since the surveys began. Just !ast month, the USFWS 

reclassified the manatee a threatened 1 and no longer an endangered species. 

Florida hosts one of tho largest nesting aggregations of loggerhead sea turtles in the world, and 

has seen a 32 percent increase in nests since 1989, The number of green sea turtle nests on our 

beaches has increased from less than 500 in the early 1980s to a record number of over 37,000 

in 2015. 

Florida has one of the highest populations of breeding bald eagles in the lower 48 states, with 

1,499 active bald eagle nests in 2014, the official estimate. This compares to only 88 bald 

ewg!e nests in 1973, Nationally, acting through regional recovery teams for bald eagles, many 

state agencies established activity zones to protect nestlng bald eagles from activities that 

could be deleterious during the nesting and chick-rearing season, and some state .agencies 

enforced those restrictions through county zoning laws, Most landowners are very proud to 

have bJld eagles on their property and accommodate temporal restrictions on land 

management vctlvit\es such as agricufture or timber harvest to retain the use of thclr !and for 

bald eagles. Now, of course} the bdld eagle has beGn de!lsted but is still protected. 

further, the Florida panther, our state's official mammal, is another sign of progress. 

Numbering few 20 to 30 in the 1970s and 1980s, there are now an estimated 120 to 230 

adults. And thf' big news: Bin!ogists recently documented a female p<inther and kittens north of 

the Caloosahatchee Hiver, a natural barrier to panther habitat expansion. Just days later north 

of the river, trail cameras identified another female panther. This one engaged ln matlng 

behavior w!th a male panther. These are major mi!estom-:s on the road to recovery for the 

Florida panther, with the kittens presumed to be the offspring of tht: flrst wild female panther 

documented north of the Ca!oosahatchee River since 1973! 

Moving north along the East Coast, Delmarva Fox Squirrels in the Mid-Atlantic were recently 

de listed due to the great work of MD, VA and PA. They worked closely with federill, 

industry, academic and conservation p:artners 1 and most !mportuntly private landowners. ln this 

case, a listed species was recovered predominately on private lands without the use of a 

Habitat Conservation Plan or Safe H<Jrbor Agreements. In the '1980s in Maryland, incidental take 

for !andowners1 for example: accidentally running over a Delmarva Fox Squirrel with their 

tractor, was authorized by the Maryland Oepartrnent of N<Jtura! Hesources under the authority 

13 
20 


26936.014

of their section 6 cooperative agreement wlth the USFWS. That l:i testament to the trust and 

value of state agencies' relationships with fami!les and cornmunities when they work side-by~ 

side to rc~cover America's wildlife. 

Eastern Peregrine fa !cons recovered largely by state agencies and Corne!! University under 

permits from the USFWS. This subspecies was extirpated in the wild, but through intense 

recovery efforts, is now restored throughout Its historical range and beyond. Cornell University 

used a captive breeding program to breed several subspecies from around the world creating a 

hybrid Peregrine falcon wlth greater vigor and adaptabil!ty, State agencies located and 

constructed hacking boxes for the captive-bred fledglings and placed them on towers, 

mountain !edges, bridges and buildings where <1n adequate prey bose existed, They also placed 

nesting trays in these same places as the fledged birds rn:utured to breeding age, This included 

outside of historic EastNn subspecies range under the guidance the recovery team. 

The result is that our eastern United States citizens now enjoy a robust and healthy population 

of Peregrine falcons, Differentiation of the subspecies can only be determined by certain 

anatomical measurements requiring the bird ln hand, but in appearance, behavlor1 and hunting 

actlv!ty, 1t !s a Peregrine fakon. North American Peregrine Falcons are now delisted and can 

once again under permit be used ln falconry. 

The New England Cottontal! Regional lnltlative ls another exce!!ent example of how multiple 

ogencies worked together in partnership with USFWS, other federal agencies and NGO 

partners across state boundaries to recover imperiled species and preclude the need for ESA 

llstln[I. This was a heroic 10 year proactive conservation effort across six New England states. 

They coordlnated and orche:Strated implementation of habitat management regimes in 31 of 47 

Focal Areas with targets as fine as the parcel !eve!. More than $41.6 million was dedicated to 

conserving thl.s candidate species, and because of their conservation actions on the ground 

across tht:: of this species, the New England Cottonta1! Reglona! !nitlative was successful, 

and protections of the ESA were not y,'arranted. The New England Cottontail Regional !nitlatlve 

WZIS so successful that these conservation efforts are belng expanded by the state agencies to 

Jli young forest species. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the perspectives of Florida and the 49 other state fish 

and wl!d!lfe agencies. 

14 
21 


26936.015

Appendix 

ASSOCIATION of 

f!Stl 

AG£.NCUS 

General Principles for Improving Implementation of the Endangered Species Act 

Adopted March 18., 2016 

lli'lill;ill~!!i!!:illl~J:!ll' fmprove Endangered Species AcL imiJlement"tion to rnsmT' Jts future by 

more effective conservation for ftsh 

lctndo,Nn<ers, This improved and 

fish, wildlife, and natural rnsource professionals. 

more and consistent and protection of species, 

fish, wlidllfe and natural resource professionals mJ.kP Endangered Species Act 

decislon.s. 

and wildlife agency concurrent 

in Endangered Species Act implcmentathm as Congress originatly 

Recommendations fo:r hnprovt~ment: 

and improve 

decisions. Secure funding sources for these actions. 

IU:;te,yi!tJLtl!iLllilt~-~~LS!at~.PislurruLWlWlife Agen.<;i~r increase nn,nm·rm,i1io, and 

wildlife agendes to take<.\ formal and and 

Act imptementatiml 

15 
22 


26936.016

hilly considercJ. the listing determination whether such data are 

state agency expertise in the process of interpreting these data and 

or not; dnd include 

conclusions. 

exercise to designalc or not 

habitat, better define lhe scope, and basis tOr critical habitat designations 

include dear guidance on when such designations are needed or required. . 

IX. Provide Certainty and lnet~ntives ftlr JTivate l.andoJ.mprs: enhance clarity and 

cnnservation incentive options available; process for concluding thes-e conservatlon 

agrr-ements to enhance certainty to private lando·,vn,,rs. 

facilitate sun:essful 

to .stah·'S and federal 

Act~ 

1G 
23 


26936.017

legislative History of the 1973 ESA Bill On Passage: Excerpts 

Senate Consideration and Passage of 5.1983, With Amendments, from the 

Congressional Record, July 24, 1973, pages 341-425 

Sen. John Tunney {CA): 

"On the other hand, it was well established in the hcearing record that most of the States 

possess much greater wi!dllfe resources thon does the Federal government. 

Clearly any effort on the part of the Federal government to encourage the restoration of 

threatened or endangered species would fJ!! without the assistance of the state agencies. Th!s 

blll is designed to permit and encourage state endangered species programs that are ln concert 

with the purposes of this Art" 

'

1

Subject to the provlsions of this Act which provlde maximum protection for species on the 

brink of extinction, States with a.ct1ve endangered programs are given full discretion to 

manage threatened species whlch reside in their boundaries," 

Sen. Ted Stevens (AK): 

':Sections 6 and 16 provide for cooperation \rVlth the states, They provide the major backbone of 

the Act. Presently the states have an extensive network of endangered species legislation. 

Unfortunately, not a!! states have as yet lmp!errwnted such programs. Thls bll! wit! assist those 

states not yet involved to implement such programs and wlll 1 if the states do not 1 provide for 

rederal preemption," 

"As Dr. Ralph Mac Mullen, president of the lnternotional Association of Game, Fish_, and 

Conservation Commlssloners observed, state wild!lfc agencies employ over 5800 law 

enforcement officers across the Nation, Formal End;:mecred Specles programs are being 

implemented in over 30 states." 

"De Mac Mullen further observrd that lf the Federal government were to take away the right 

of the states to manage these species and to pre\0rnpt the states, Legislatures would not 

be wi!ilng to appropriate the necessary funds to protect e11dangered species:." 

House Committee Report 93.,412 (to accompany HR 

"The principal areas of discussion during the hearings and markup of legislation centered on the 

proper role of the state and Federal governments with regard to endangered species 

programs .. "" 
24 


26936.018

"Any bill which designed to deal with the complicated Involved In the protection of 

endangered species must do so in light of least two competing considerations: first, protection 

of endangered species ls not matter that can be handled in the of coherent national 

and international policies ... Second howt::ver,. the States are far better equipped to handle the 

problems of day to day management and enforct:ment of laws a.nd regulations than the 

rederal governrnenL." 

"Regulatory jurisdiction is given to the Federal government under this legislation and lf a 

cooperative Jgrcement is successfully negotiated rmd signed, to the states as welL" 

''\J\Ihere a cooperative agreement has been put ln effect the bill allows concurrent jurlsdlctlon 

over the species affected ln both the state and federal judlcla! systern. 1J 

"In other respects ... [than adherence to actions specifically permitted or prohibited by the 

F-ederal agencies],. the state law is not preempted but is merely subject to the "floor" of 

regulations under the Act" 

House Consideration and Passage of HR 37 with r'\mendments: 

Cong. James Grover (NY): 

uSecond,. we have Jdequately protected legitimate state interests~ power, and authorltles by 

providing for con-current Federal/State jurisdiction ... " 

{llt imperative to realize, as the Committee did, that the greater bu!k of the enforcement 

capabi!iUes concerning endangered .species He tn the hands of the state fish and game agencies 

and not the Federal governmenL !t ls on a state level that habitat areas wlll be located, and it 

on a state level where th!s new Federal law will be implemented, subject to overall Federal 

cr!tcrla and gulde1ines." 

House Conference Report 93-740 (to accompany 1983 as reported by the House-Senate 

Conference Committee) 

"As finally Zlpproved, the Act wlH have the eff0ct of givlng the states fundamental roles with 

respect to resldcnt species for a given period of time ... The conferees hope that thls device wlll 

!mpel the states to develop strong programs to avoid the alternative of federal preemption." 

should be noted that the successful development of an endangered species progr-am w!ll 

ultimately depend on <:1 good working arrangement between the fed era! agencies, which have 

til 
25 


26936.019

broad policy perspectives and authority, and the state agencies, whlch have the physical 

facilities and personnrl to see that state and federal endangered species po!kics are properly 

executed./i 

19 
26 


26936.020

Source: http:// ecowesLorg/biodivt:rsity/ endangered-species/ 

70 
27 


26936.021

Senate Environment and Pnblic Works Committee 

Hearing en tilled "Conservation, Consultation, and Capaci~v: State Views on the Need to 

1Uodernize the Enda11gered Species Act" 

May 10,2017 

Questions for Nick Wiley 

Chairman Barrasso: 

l. 

State fish and wildlife agencies (state agencies) should be given the to participate in 

aspects of the ESA to the extent that they have the authority and capacity to Section 6 

should be the instrument under which the state agency and the Secretary agree to the level of 

pmi.icipation (from in with the Secretary, to mutual agreement, to agreed to level 

the Secretary to the state agency) for ESA actions from 

recovery and While the Secretary retains the final decision-making a 

state agency should be given the opportunity to exercise its concurrent authority to the extent the 

state agency has the authority and capacity to do so. 

a statute to is needed. The Fish and 

by a new process We believe 

this approach has promise and should be validated by 

however will not fully resolve the issues with heavy wc)rkiOBLdsand meeting 

These issues will continue plague the listing process without legislative 

timelines required for review of petitions and decisions. We believe the federal agencies 

have learned much ahout ways to more efficiently resources and partner with state 

agencies to share the workload, but the current framework tor the review process in ESA 

includes barriers such unreasonable timelines that could be and should be addressed. 

Page 1 of 12 
28 


26936.022

Certainly not, and the state agencies successes, funded largely by funds from hunters, 

boaters and recreational shooters, at fish and wildlife conservation for the last !00 years 

refutes that inaccurate myth, The state support the ESA and its goals, but we assert 

there are different and better ways the ESA and by giving the state 

agency the to exercise authority as Congress intended, Tbe tools of the 

regulatory, which has its niche. But by 

be able to exercise its you bring in enhanced science, landscape 

plans that are already being implemented, relationships of state agencies with landowners, 

counties and local governments, and the expertise of other state And, polls 

substantiate that state fish and wildlife arc among the most trusted 

agencies when it comes to trusted sources of ini(mnation about fish and wildlife. 

Most decidedly, yes, State agencies have the expertise, capability, relationships with private 

landowners, and local governments, other state government agencies. and NGOs to 

deliver fish, and habitat conservation on the ln the three that you 

have provided to me and my state colleagues from WY, CO, AZ and to address your 

Committee, we have demonstrated the state agency successes in recovering listed species and 

addressing the life needs and habitat requirements of declining species before they reach the need 

be listed, The state agencies need more funds to succeed. and funds for the FWS to defend 

litigation, and flowing to litigants, can be much hetter spent on the ground in 

conservation your eiTorts Mr. Chairman, to begin to up the 

circumstances from which litigant attorneys receive costs Jl·om or 

unfounded lawsuits and find ways to redirect these !lscal resources to the conservation and 

restoration of species, 

Page 2 of 12 
29 


26936.023

FWC works with land managers and other state agencies on issues relating to many federally 

listed For Agency has one staff dedicated conservation and recovery of 

is used in this position. The position coordinates snail kite issues 

lake restoration and exotic species control activities. 

Additionally, F\VC funds the annual monitoring of all snail kite nesting in the n01thcm half of 

the range. The USFWS f()cus on regulatory aspects of snail kite recovery and the interactions 

with the Army Corp of Engineers and other state entities on the restoration of the Everglades. 

This is common scenario with most threatened and endangered species in Florida, 

where FWC handles coordination of management delivers management on the ground 

and conducts research to address state level management challenges and support recovery 

effbrts. 

Florida has an active red cockaded woodpecker safe harbor program, 

FWC staff enroll landowners and conduct site visits to ensure compliance 

goals. Similarly, FWC staff work closely with other state agencies, county and 

""'""'""';Pnt< on the development oflarge scale Habitat Conservation Plans. HCPs are 

process tor receiving an Incidental Take permit, and HCP planning grants tlow 

state agencies. Our the process of receiving and reviewing the grant applications; 

the USFWS makes final determinations on grant awards, however all grant funds are managed 

by the state agency as part of the Section 6 program. 

Florida has robust conservation programs for federally listed panthers, manatees and sea turtles 

with the majority oftl.mding stemming from the license plates. For Florida 

Panthers, FWC established its lead role in panther and management in the late I 970's 

and we continue that role today. We have contributed hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific 

publications on panther conservation and management. Currently, FWC devotes 5 fulltime positions to panther (2 management biologists, 2 research biologists and a panther 

veterinarian) and one half-time outreach specialist. The USFWS is for 

the FL Panther Additionally, USFWS Ecological Services 

Cle•vet,optne!llt projects to ensure habitat losses are mitigated. The majority of"boots on the 

ground'. efforts for managing panthers outside federal lands is done by FWC/state staff. 

Manatees have been a conservation success story in large measure because of state efforts, 

working with our federal FWC staff handle all efforts related to carcass recovery/cause 

of death determinations rescues in Florida. For population monitoring key are 

done by FWC or USGS and then we collaborate on other eff01ts such as modeling results of 

the data collected. Both FWC and FWS staff comment on water access permits but the state 

carries the share of the work on rules for boat speed zones, developing 

manatee protection plans, restoration projects and educational outreach 

the public. The state has 39 staff working on manatees tor research and 

management compared to the FWS who has 2-3 dedicated to manatee conservation. 

FWC sta1T conduct or oversee most turtle stranding efforts the state and the collection of 

nesting data lhr almost all the state's sandy beaches. The state manages a 

thousand volunteers who collect data essential for monitoring sea turtle 11 ~u''"''" 

State recommendations on tor structures proposed for and activities 

Page 3 of 12 
30 


26936.024

conducted on state beaches to maintain nesting tor turtles and reduce 

threats of take ti·om those activities. Both and FWS provide comments on port 

activities and beach nourishments to offset impacts to sea turtles and their habitat. FWC also 

works with oceanaria that hold and rehabilitate injured turtles for eventually release and to tlnd 

permanent locations for un-rcleasable turtles. FWC has 23 on marine turtles in 

research and management efforts. 

The state agencies will bring savings in time, money, improved science-informed decisions, 

enhanced delivery of conservation on the more species delisted, and improved 

landowner FWS listing under the ESA too otlcn do not give appropriate 

deference to state agency data and analyses. The species under 

consideration for listing are resident fish and wildlife for which the state agencies have 

the best and most recent data. State agency staff are credentialed and professional practitioners 

with great at landscape conservation on the ground through national 

Joint Ventures; National Fish Habitat Pminerships; Farm 

programs, etc. And once species are de listed, state agencies are prepared with both 

incentive and regulatory as recover species. For example. the 

to maintain I 00 wolves lD now boasts 100 wolf packs under state management. 

That is success under the authority ofthc stale agency. My testimony points to 

successes the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, Delmarva fox squirrel, and New England 

cottontail where successes were led by state Given the authority and adequate funding, 

those successes by the states repeatable 

If we fail to modernize ESA, we will continue to see conservation efforts and capacity 

down in \Ve will continue to see a process 

"u"uueu than necessary. We will continue to see the expertise and 

capacity of state Jlsh and agencies sit on the shelf while overburdened federal agencies 

to administer ESA. We will continue to see more species listed and less 

"'''v"'"""" and recovery. We will c:ontinue see more of a regulatory approach than 

\('"'""''!"'" approach where state and federal agencies are working as equal pa1iners with 

laruin>wrlers conservation organizations other stakeholders. 

More than 400 ofthc 550 species 

United States; many of these 

listing decisions arc tl1tmd the southeastern 

are on state endangered lists and included in State 

Page 4 of12 
31 


26936.025

Wildlife Action Plans. State agencies house much of the data and conservation information on 

these species. SEARS was developed to formalize the commitment of state agencies the 

southeast to work across state lines to help address the data and conservation needs f<x these 

species. One of the first actions of the program was to 'triage' the petitioned species by 

categorizing them based on conservation need and data available. This scheme 

was adopted by the USFWS as the 'binning' system that they are now using addressing the 

listing backlog (h!!mill~)C!Y,li'!iJJm!l.£nfiJ:llli:£r~'.!Y.!l!!!:.'Y;~[Qi]~iru~m.tlillllin: 

ru:]Qtiillct!!i!!!h!llil!ll). The binning system, as an outgrowth 

and increased collaboration between states and the USFWS. Once categorized 

by SEARS, data deficient species were targeted for additional collaborative studies. For 

example, a joint project between and Florida additional data on the Say's 

butterfly these data led to withdrawal from the petitioned list by the 

petitioners. Other frog, led to not warranted 

decisions during the a fish t(mnd in Georgia and 

North Carolina conservation across state lines and a Candidate Conservation Agreement 

led to a not warranted month finding. These are just a few of the success stories across the 

southeast, more than I 00 species within the backlog of at-risk species have been 

withdrawn by the petitioners or had not warranted The collaborative 

embodied by the SEARS program- between state and between states 

entities- has focus data sharing and conservation actions to prevent unwarranted listing, 

and allow conservation dollars to focus on more of the truly imperiled species. 

Yes, our state does have such laws. Rules related to endangered and threatened species are found 

in Chapter 68A-27 of the Florida Administrative Code. Federally listed are added to or 

removed fi·om the listing rule within this chapter based on federal listing m:c1s!urJs 

further assessment from the state. The process t(lr listing non-federal species, 

criteria for evaluating listing status, are included the rule. The listing rule 

management plan is developed for the state-listed species, and requires that a is set for 

the development of the management plan. Protections (prohibitions on take) and permitting 

standards are included. 

The State of Florida provides legal protections tor plants 

Agriculture and Consumer Services. This state agency 

and a conservation 

Page 5 of 12 
32 


26936.026

Yes, the prohibitions on take are clearly defined in state la\v for both federally listed and state 

listed species. 

State listed species prohibitions: 

:Vo person shall take, or sell any threatened species included in this subsection or ports 

thereof or their nests or eggs except authorized by Commission rule by the 

Commission when such conduct authorized in a management plan as this Chapter 

and approved by the Commission, or as authorized Commission-approved guidelines. 

Federally listed 

shalf endangered or included in this 

sul)secllon. or parts there(>lor their nests or eggs except allowed hy specific federal or stare 

permit or authorization 

lO. 

Yes our state laws do address habitats. Take detined in Chapter 68A-27 and very similar to 

the federal definition of take: this definition applies to state listed species. 'Harm' is included in 

the definition of take, and addresses significant habitat modification in the same manner as the 

federal dellnition. 

Take to harass, harm. hunt. shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect. or to allempt to 

term in the definition means an act which actually 

fish wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or 

it acrua/ly kills or by significantly impairing essential 

including The term "harass.. the definition 

oftake means an intentional I he to 

wild/ile 

which 

II 

In Florida, we already enjoy a very collaborative relationship with our federal partners regarding 

ESA the most collaborative relationship of any state. We could always 

administrative changes under current law will not be sufficient 

a full and equal in ESA implementation. Without spccilk 

legislative changes to ESA. in spite efforts by our federal partners, my agency 

and others across the nation will continue to be on the sidelines of ESA decisions except as the 

federal agencies see lit under their discretion involve us. This partnership with state agencies 

Page 5 of 12 
33 


26936.027

agencies across di!1erent 

clarified and stipulated in taw 

for the betterment of protecting and 

should not be !eft to the discretion ofsraffin federal 

This and shared authorities should be 

continuity in ESA implementation nationwide 

imperiled species. 

Yes. Florida's State Wildlife Action Plan is a statewide strategy aimed at 

''keeping common species common''. The plan on Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need (SGCN), which are primarily \.vith the intent of idcntilying species in decline or 

at the greatest risk of becoming the future. The agency has process for prioritizing 

information and management for SGCN, and Rlcnscs efforts on actions that ean 

address suites of species. State listed species arc a subset of the the state listing process is 

intended to identify and target species before the spl;)cics meet the criteria for federal 

listing. Stale Wildlife Grants and funds used to implement actions on the state's 

highest priority conservation issues. However, with more than 900 species on the SGCN list 

(including 59 state listed species), we do not have funding or resources to address a!! 

species' needs. Without sustainable and many states are unable to 

appropriately understand and implement management for species that face declining 

populations- thus many are on a ft1st track for listings at the federal level. 

This situation is a reason state tish and are seeking new funding 

solutions through such as the Recovering Wildlife Act (HR 5650) that was 

tiled during the ! Congress. 

The FWC agency budget for 16/17 was $378.738,269. 

\\ 

FWC employs approximately 3,018 employees. Ofthose, 2,118.5 are FTEs and about 900 are 

temporary. 

lt is difficult to comprehensively calculate our expenditures across the agency on imperiled nonspecies conservation because of the interrelated and integrated aspects of management in 

For example our Division of Law Enforcement enforces wide array of laws that protect 

and benefit imperiled species as of their routine duties. our habitat management 

on Wildlife Man~gement Areas general (such as prescribed and directed (such as Red 

cockaded woodpecker nest box work), benefit imperiled species, but for the purposes of this 

Page 1 of 12 
34 


26936.028

question we have only included specific programs and funding sources that are exclusively used 

for imperiled species. 

that method FWC spent $26,525,779 in FY 15-16, and we have II staff devoted to 

llnnPnk'<i non-game spedes conservation work. 

Federal funds accounted tor $8.334,660, or about 31% of the total 

The primary source tor state funds ($18, 191, I 19) comes from a 

the sale of specialty license plates, and fees. 

First, would not agree with the premise of this question. The reasons species is listed under 

ESA are and are not necessarily correlated with sufticiency of state management 

because state agencies are not engaged fully in listing decisions, species can 

listed even when state management programs are fully sufficient to maintain and protect a 

species' status. Moreover, neither state agencies nor federal have authorities or 

all habitats before listing is necessary less all species declines. 

a challenge important to all US citizens that state federal governments 

to address cooperatively. 

Hunters, recreational shooters and boaters n~main the greatest funding source to most 

states for and wildlife conservation, those species hunted and fished and associated 

habitats for those not hunted or not tlshed. and stamps requir~d lor hunting and 

federal excise taxes on shooting sports (guns, bmvs, 

etc) and equipment (rods, reels, etc), gasoline excise tax 

attributable outboard motors, to fund programs that llsh and wildlile conservation on 

the ground for their citizens. Some states benefit from funds from license plates and vehicle 

registration fees (FL), Lottery funds (AZ), constitutional dedication of a portion of state sales tax 

to conservation (MO, AR), or modest general funds in only a lew slates, hut by far it the 

hunter, angler, boater and shooter who provide the financial for conserving our 

Nation's !ish and wildlife resources via the state fish and wildlife agencies. We need broader 

support for natural resources conservation at the state and federal level. One to this 

is through supporting the Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) its 

Blue Ribbon Panel on sustaining America's Divers.: Fish and Wildlife which will tluiher 

address in question 8. 

Page 8 of 12 
35 


26936.029

Ill 

This is certainly important area for the attention Committee to focus on in addition to 

improving the ESA. We support a much more robust and thnding tor prevention of 

listing. and have proposals to more fund State Plans. This program is 

already working on a small scale but would provide much of the necessary prevention iffu!ly 

funded. 

In 2016, the AFWA convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish and 

Wildlife Resources to 

consider this very concern. One outcome from the recommendations issued by the Blue Ribbon 

Panel was the of Recovering America's Wildlife Act by Congressman Young and 

during the past Congress (HR 5650). We anticipate this Act will be 

again this Congress. It would provide t\mding to more th!!y and strategically 

implement State Wildlife Action Plans and provide the preventive measures needed to 

many species lrom declining to the listing would need to be considered. The Act 

direct annual, permanent fi.lnding to existing Wildlife Conservation Restoration 

nested within the WildliH~ Restoration Program to be to state fish and 

agencies for the purposes ofciTectively implementing state's State Wildlife Action Plan. 

We are not eont1dent many of our recommendations can be addressed administratively. The 

fairly significant discretion that Congress gave the Secretary in administering the ESA has been 

signitlcantly diminished by federal courts in response to litigation the environmental 

community; or by administrative action by the executive branch to minimize litigation 

risk by rules that in practice narrow the exercise of its own authority under the 

Act. court decisions often require legislative remedies. Administrative rules can be 

changed by the tederal agency following due examples which demonstrate the 

narrowing of discretion arc the one that I in my testimony where. in spite of the 

statutory fact that Congress created statntory categories of protection for a reason, the FWS in 

the 1980s promulgated a rule that the same section l 0 restrictions to threatened 

that the law imposes t(l!" species. Second, while Congress intended that a 

state agency operating under an approved section 6 agreement could issue incidental take 

authority, and several state did, the FWS relied on an Assistant Solicitor's opinion in 

1977 to declare that the had the authority to allow take. The most 

example of I'WS and not exercising the discretion provided hy Congress 

was to not utilize section 6 to fullest intended use to allow state agencies to exercise their 

authority as jurisdictional partners under ESA. of these issues require legislative 

remedies. 

Page 9 of 12 
36 


26936.030

Incentive options for private landowners include payments lor ecological services that reduce 

threats to species and contribute to efforts. services include habitat 

created and maintained in association with working Some for incentive payments 

are direct payments, reduced burdens, providing more certainty, and expedited 

ln addition, incentives market-based land uses such as habitat 

exchanges and habitat mitigation banks arc also viable options for landowners. 

We are glad to share these survey results. The report is attaclum:nt. 

The Association believes that the most effective and efficient way to address declining and 

listed species the application of preventative conservation to the need to list 

species. The Association's Blue Ribbon Initiative to I spoke in testimony, 

estimates the need f(n· $1,3 billion dollars annually to address this conservation need at the 

state level. lt is contemplated that some of these funds will be applied to listed 

because are the species in the greatest need of conservation as determined the state. 

We are to estimate costs required at the federal level. 

Florida we do have a "no daylight between us" approach with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. That does not mean we agree on every detail or that we cannot occasionally take a 

slightly different position a specific What it means is that we establish a relationship 

trust and transparency, through adherence to the 3 Cs: Communication, Coordination, 

Cooperation. 

Page 10 of 12 
37 


26936.031

There should be a clear context that provides for the 

agency and a level playing field for conservation 

population viability targets and requisite habitat targets. are needed to 

for requirements should be exolt,ctti'V 

the context conservation targets. These 

should be administered consistently. Moreover. mitigation requirements 

land use on private lands are developed in collaborative and transparent 

manner. There is a complex menu landowners could take in dealing with federally 

listed species. It good these and options exist, but each complicated and 

hard for landowners understand or trust. and federal agencies do not sufficient staff to 

handle the associated worklo<Jd. Landowners frequently express frustration and feel that they 

can only take advantage of these opportunities hire advocate or consultant. Many 

landowners do not have the resources to alford this and feel these options are out of 

reaeh. This is an area where more assistance and engagement fish and wildlife agencies 

would benefit implementation ofESA. 

\\ 

Yes. I would agree fully with this statement 

I) Working with partners to de!ist species that have met requirements of recovery plans 

2) and facilitating efforts with state agency partners 

3) petitions and listing decisions. 

Senator Booker: 

Page 11 of12 
38 


26936.032

l fully support this bill, my agency 

support the bill. 

for natural resource m"""""'''"'''t 

North America. However, '""'u""m'> 

the bill, and the Association ofFish and Wildlife 

systems for hunters and anglers that provide 

been a tremendous conservation success story for 

under state management jurisdiction that are not 

~mnn.or~hl" sustainable and dedicated funding 

is the the Panel's 

bill; to provide state fish wildlife agencies with sustainable 

state fish and wildlife directors along with the 

Assoc:!at1on of Fish and Agencies support legislative efforts to attain this funding and 

the l !5'h Congress version of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act (HR 5650 in the 114'11 

Congress). In Florida, additional tlmding would be used prevent and reduce species 

habitat, stabilizing populations, and decreasing and removing threats to non-game 

Page 12 of 12 

by 
39 


26936.033

*Questions marks with an *are required 

Our Contribution to Consei'Vation 

L What state/province do you represent?* 

l. How many total full time employees does your agency have? 

3. How many total part-time employees (part-time, cantract1 seasonal, limited, etc.) does your agency have? 

4. What percent of employees come from the following general areas? (Total should add to 100 percent) 

Wildlife, freshwater fisheries, or coastal fisheries 

Forestry 

Parks 

Watercraft and/or Off-Highway vehicles 

Shooting Ranges 

Other 

% 

% 

5. What percentage of your workforce lives in rural areas or smaH towns (<100,000 population)? 

6. 

7. How many commissioned fish & wildlife conservation officers does your state have that are housed in other agencies? 

NOTE; If differentf!Dm the prior question, NOTE: please 

count as portio! FTEs (e.g.: 3 wnomi,;sioned 

8. How many education/information/marketing/outreach employees dos your agency have? 

NOTE; if these responsibilities ore a portion of the employee's responsibilities, please count as partial FTEs 

9. biologists (B,A., B.S., B.Sc., etc} wi!d!lfe managers does your agency have? 

Giologists,. Fish culturist, Hatchery managers, Game & Fish assistance} 

Strategic wildlife planner, Wildlife area managers, Wifdlifr: specialists and supervisors, 

10. your agency, how many employees have advanced degrees? 

11. How many of those are terminal degrees? (PhD, JD, DVM, etc.} 
40 


26936.034

How many volunteers does your agency have? 

NOTE: Include form of volunteers 

13. What is your agency's total annual budget? 

l<'L What pertent of your budget comes from the following areas? 

Total should add to 100 percent, 

Wildlife Restoration (PR) 

Sportfish Restoration (DJ) 

Other USFWS grants (SWG, ESA, CVA, BIG, etc) 

State genera! fund 

Sales tax dedicated to state wildlife agency 

Non-general fund state dedicated revenue stream {Le, state lottery, tribal gaming) 

Other state grants 

Hunting/Fishing licenses 

Shooting range revenue 

Watercraft registration fees 

U.S. Coast Guard Boating Safety Grants 

Off-highway vehicle registration/fees 

Trust/Donation 

Endowments 

Entry or use fees {access to wildlife areas, launch ramps, etc) 

Retail sales (magazines, t~shlrts, etc.} 

Contracts (small grants and contracts with government, private or NGO 3rd parties) 

Other 

___ % 

, ___ % 

__ % 

% ____ % 

% 

__ % 

___ % 

___ % 

__ % 

___ % 

____ % 

____ % 

___ % 

15. What is the total quantity of land managed or administered"? (incfudingfee title_, lease~ ficense, conservation agreements, inter 

agency agreements, grazing allotments, right-of-ways, etc.) In acres 

16. What is the tota! quantity of water {!ak€:1 reservoirs, wetlands and riparian corridors) managed or administered? In acres 

17. Please estimate how much wlldllfe habitat has been improved due to private !and owner .1greernents. In acres 

18. In the following questions, we are interested in the capacity of conservation agencies. 

respond with "NA" 

available, r2spond with "!" 

Owned a fee title (in Acres) 

Owned a Fee Title (number) 

Managed (though partnership, 

agreement., etc} 

Fair Market Va!ue of those 

acquired/ completed in the past year 

Toted Estimated Fair Market Vlue {only if 

readily available} 

Total estimated visitors per year 

Land 

Shooting Other 

facilities Hatcheries Structures 11 

Habitat 
41 


26936.035

19. Vehicles- Fair Market Value of thos~ acquired in the past year· {include at! vehicles, including Heave Equipment, A TV, Boots, 

etc.) 

20. Total Vehides·· number of vehides (including Heavy Equipment~ ATV, Boats, etc.} 

21. Please estimate the direct economic value oft he commercial fisheries resources over which your agency has 

administered responsibilities. 

Respond "NA" 1! this question is not appficob!e to your state 

2L Partnerships- include the number of entities that have signatory authority with active, formal agreements (e.g. 

landowners, trusts, university, other state agencies, agencies from other states, etc.) 

23. Use the Area below to provide any comments about your state agency that may not be accurately reflected in the 

questions. 

24. What is the namer phone number, and email address of the person that might be ab!e to answerdarifying questions. 
42 


26936.036

ASSOCIATION of 

*Questions marks with an 1-· are required 

Our Contribution ro Conservation 

1. What state/province do you represent?* 

N {46). 47 state agencies replied representing 46 states (PA Fish & Boat Commission and PA Game Commission) 

2. How many toted fuH tlme 

N(46). Min (48) I Mean Adj Sum (34,516) 

3. How many tot a! part~time employees (part~t!me, contract, seasonal, limited, etc.) does your agency have? 

N (46). Min (0)1 Mean (211)1 Max (1,945) I Sum (12,754) I Adj Sum (13,840) 

4. What percent of employees come from the fo!iowlng genera! areas? (Total should add to 100 percent) 

Wildlife, freshwater fisheries, or coastal fisheries I Mean (60%) I Max (100%) 

Forestry I Max (20%) 

Parks I Max (100%) 

Watercraft and/or Off~Highway vehides .N l Max (44%) 

Shooting Ranges N (45) I Min (0%) I Mean I Max (9%) 

Other N (45)1 Min (0%)1 Mean (21%) I Max (69%) 

5. What percentage of your workforce !ives in rural a:reas or small towns (<100,000 population)? 

N(39) I Min( B) I Mean(13) I Max(lOO) I SumH I Adj Sum(-) 

6. How many fully certified law enforcement officers are 

N(45) I Min(O) Mean(164) I Max{B53) I Sum(7,550) 

7. How many commissioned fish & wildlife conservation officers does your state have that are housed in other agencies? 

N(42) I Min(O)I Mean(34) Max(281) I Sum(1,471) Adj Sum(1,752) 

8. How many educaHon/information/marketing/outrea-ch employees dos your agency have? 

N(44) I Min(O) I Mean(43) I Max(418ll Sum(1,951) I Adj Sum(2,211) 

9. How many degreed biologists (B.A., B.S., B . .Sc, etc) wildlife managers does your agency have? 

N(42) Min(O) I Mean(216) I Max(869) sum(9,270) I Adj Sum(10,995) 

how many employees have advanced degrees? 

I Mean(116) I Max(570} I Sum(4,287) Adj Sum(5,909) 
43 


26936.037

11. How mony of those are terminal degrees? {PhD, JD, DVM, etc.) 

111{37) I Min(O) I Mean{15) I Max{l25) I Sum{552) Adj Sum(741) 

12, How many volunteers does your :agency have? 

111{40) I Min{O) I Mean(3,714) I Max(41,260)I Sum{152,257) Adj Sum(l89,393) 

13. What is your agency's total annua! budget? 

N{46) Mln(ll.6M) Mean{110.3M) I Max{S20MJI Sum(5.185B) I Adj Sum{5.627B) 

14. What percent of your budget comes from the following areas? 

Total should add to 100 percent. 

Wildlife Restoration (PR) 

Sportfish Restoration (DJ) 

Other USFWS grant5 (SWG, ESA, CVA, BIG, etc) 

State genera! fund 

Sales tax dedicated to state wi!dllfe agency 

Non-general fund state dedicated revenue stream (i.e, state !ottery, 

Other state grants 

Hunting/Fishing licenses 

Shooting range revenue 

Watercraft registration fees 

US Coast Guard Boating Safety Grants 

registration/fees 

N(46) I Mln{O) I Mean(lS) Max(43j% 

N{46) Mln{O) I Mean{9) I Max{29)% 

N{46) Min(O) I Mean{4) I Max{30)% 

111{46) I I Mean!8ll Max(44)% 

N{46)1 I Mean(3) Max(61)% 

Mln{O)! Mean{6)j Max(SS)% 

I Min(O) I Mean(3) I Max{30)% 

I Mln{O) I Mean(35)1 Max(67)% 

N(46) I Min(O) I Mean(O) I Max(l)% 

N{46) Min(O) I Mean(Z) I Max{lZ)% 

Min(O) Mean(l) I Max(3)% 

Min{O) Mean(l) I Max(14)% 

N(45)j Min(O) I Mean(1) Max(ll)% 

Endowments N(45) I Min(O) I Mean(Oll Max(7)% 

Entry or use fees (access to wildlife areas, launch ramps, etc.) N{45) Min{O) I Mean{3) I Max(57)% 

Retail sales (magazines, !-shirts, etc.) N(45) I Min(O) I Mean(O)j Max(5)% 

Contracts (small grants and contracts with government, private or NGO 3'' parties) N(45) I Min(O)I Mean(3) Max(22)% 

Other N(46) I Min(O) I Meanl7) % 

15, What is the total quantity of land managed or administer-ed? 

N(46) l Mln{400)I Mean(9,l10,314) I Max{365,500,000) I Sum{4Z8,184,751) I Adj Sum{464,625,007) 

16. What is the total quantity of water {lake, reservoirs, wetlands and riparian corridors) managed or administered? fn acres 

N\38) I Min{195) I Mean(3,273,337) Max{28,800,000) Sum(127,560,153)1 Adj Sum{166,940,200) 

17. Please estimate how much wildlife habitat has been improved due to private land owner agreements, In acres 

N(30) MinH I M€an(1,112,133) I Max(29,400,000) I Sum(34,476,136) I Adj Sum(55,718,804) 

18. !n the following questions, we are interested in the capacity of conservation agencies. 

if the information is not oppficab/e, respond with "NA" 

If the information is not available, respond with 

What is your Agency's capacity for Owned in Fee Title(Acres) 

Land- N(39) 1 Min(34,750) I Mean(480,968) I Max(4,600,000) I Sum{1,923,8719.4) I Adj Sum(24,529,367) 

Shooting facilities- N(19) I Min(O) I Mean(401) I Max(5,587.1) I Sum(8,022.1) I 

Hatcheries- N(26) I Min( 3D) I Mean(606) I Max(l,SOOII Sum{16,358.3) I 

Otherstructures- N(S) I Min(lS) I Mean(1,077) I MaK(3,875) I Sum(6,459) I Habitat improvement- N(9) I Min(2,000) I Mean(163,075) I Max(4600,00) I Sum(1,630,750.41) I 

What is your Agency's tapadty for Owned in Fee Title(Numbers} 

Land- N(33} I Min{25) I Mean(355) I Max(3,926) I Sum(12,077) I Sum(18,116) 

Shooting facilities- N(34) I Min( D) I Mean(9) I Max(64) I Sum\313) Adj Sum(456) 

Hatcheries- N(39) I Min(2) I Mean(9) I Max(83) I Sum(374) I Adj Sum(477) 

Other structures- N(15) Min(3) I Mean(645) I I Sum(10,317) I 

Habitat improvement- I Min(12) I Mean(206) I I Sum(823) I ;\dj 
44 


26936.038

What is your Agency's capacity lor Managed(though partnership, agreement, etc) 

Land· N(31) I Min( D) I Mean(296,470) I Max(2,300,000) I Sum(9,487,027.99) I Adj Sum(l5,119,951) 

Shooting facilities· N(22) I Min(O) Mean(S) I Mex(20) I Sum(lll) I Adj 

Hatcheries· N(15) I Min(O) I I Max( B) I Sum( IS) I 

Other structures· N(6) I Min(O) I Mean(111) I Max(SOO) I Sum(777ll 

Hobltatimprovement-N(?) I Min(O) I Mean(40,892) I Max(2760,00) I Surn(327,138) I 

What is your Agency's capacity lor Fair Market Value lor those acquired in the past year 

Land- N(24) I Min(O) I Mean(6,117,299) I Max(44,415,000) I Sum(152,932,485) I 

Shooting facilities· N(lO) I Min(O) I Mean(87,7:17) IIV1ax(415,000) I Sum(965,000) I 

Hatcheries· N(9)1 Min(O)I Mean(227,553) I Max(2,275,525) I Sum(2,275,525)1 

Otherstructures- N\7) IMin(O) 1 Mean(1,781,250) I Max(8,500,000) I Smn(14,2SO,OOO) I 

Habitatimprovement- N(4) 1 Min(O)I Mean(4,140,000)I Max(l3,000,000) I Sum(20,700,000) I 

Estimated Fair Market Value 

I Min{22,313,233) I Mean(82l,413,245) I Max{3,683,000,000) I Sum\5,749,892,716) I 

Slwotingfacilities- N{3) I Min(39,000) I Mean{472,250) I Max(l,OOO,OOO) I Sum{1,889,000ll 

Hatcheries- N{2) I Min(S,OOO,OOO) ! Mean\12,166,667) I Max(25,000,000) I Sum(36,500,000) I -~di 

Otller structures· N(3) I Min(20,000,000) I Mean(33,696,510) I Max(50,000,000) I Sum(134, 786,041) I 

Habitatimprovement· N{2) I Min(O) I Mean(172,825,387) I Max(SOO,OOO,OOO) I Sum(S18,476,160) I 

What is your Agency's capacity for Total estimated visitors per year 

land- N(9) I Min(150,000) I Mean(3,454,935) I Max(lO,OOO,OOO) ! Sum(34,549,347) I 

Shooting facilities- N(l) I Min(l,OOO) I Mean(40,313) I Max{BO,OOOll Sum(322,500) I 

Hotcheries-N{6) I Min(200) I Mean(27,321)! Max(lOO,OOO) I Sum(191,250) I Adj _..,,., ...... , ... _., 

Otherstructures· N(l) I Min(175,000) I Mean(237,500) I Max(300,000) I Sum(475,000) I 

Habitatimprovement-N(1) I Min(lOO,OOO) I Mean(100,000) I Max{lOO,OOO) I Sum(lOO,OOO) I Adi 

19. Vehicles- Fair Market Value of those acquired in the past year 

N(41ll Min(O) I Mean(11,934,926) Max(394,868,116) I Sum(501,266,889,23) Adj Sum(608,681,223) 

20c Total Vehicles~ numl.}er of vehicles (Including Heavy Equipment~ A TV, Boats, 

N(42) Min(O) I Mean{1,012)j Max{6,800) Sum(43,515) I Adj Sum{51,61l) 

2L Please estimate the direct economic value of the commercia! fisheries resources over whic:h your agency has 

adrninistered responsibilities. 

N(ll) I Mln(O) I Mean(341,161,007) Max(2,094,000,000)I Sum(7,505,542,143) I 

22. Partnerships~ Include the number of :entities that have signatory authority with act!ve1 forma! E~greernents (e.g, 

other state agencies, agencies from other states, etc.) 

I Max(15,115) I Sum(34,Z20ll Adj Sum(52,885) 
45 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you so much for your thoughtful 

testimony. 

I would like to now turn to Mr. Larry Voyles, who is the Director 

of the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the former President of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Voyles. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY VOYLES, DIRECTOR, 

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

Mr. VOYLES. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper. I am Larry Voyles, and I am pleased to be here speaking to you today as Director of Arizona Game and Fish. 

My career has put me in a position that I believe enables me to 

shed light on some important aspects of the Endangered Species 

Act. I have gained the insights through a 42-year career with the 

Department, including 9 years as Director, and I served under 

three Governors from both sides of the aisles, both Republican and 

Democrat. 

I have also served as past President of the Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies. I am a charter member on the State and 

Federal Joint Task Force on ESA Administration. I serve a special 

detail to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I am a member 

of the Office Strategy Team that convened legal scholars to recommend enhancements to the ESA that would significantly improve conservation of imperiled species, and hopefully so dramatically that bipartisan support in Congress can be assured. 

Scholars first surveyed State directors, assessing their willingness to be more deeply involved in ESA administration, and in that 

survey more than 90 percent of directors surveyed overwhelmingly 

affirmed their willingness. ESA is an essential tool to conserve 

America’s imperiled wildlife. It is an Act, however, that shows its 

age. It is time to modernize the Act to take advantage of the unparalleled conservation capacity of most of today’s State fish and wildlife agencies. 

My experience with the ESA tells me that it is critically important that we strengthen the provisions in section 6 of the ESA. Section 6 states, ‘‘In carrying out the program authorized by this Act, 

the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable 

with the States.’’ Those are clear and straightforward words, but 

as you will note in my written testimony, not so simple in practice. 

Nearly 44 years after enactment, Federal agencies still have not 

promulgated rules to guide in administering these simple phrases. 

Now, what is it about that that I think makes it so important? 

It is important for us to foster cooperation intended by section 6 

because State fish and wildlife agencies bring a wealth of resources 

and authorities that enable us to conserve endangered species far 

more effectively when that cooperation can be optimized. 

For a moment, please consider what makes this true. Consider 

that the importance of the States to effectively care for our nation’s 

threatened and endangered species can be evaluated two ways: 

quantitatively and qualitatively. This may sound a little repetitive 

because the Chairman already visited these numbers, but quantitatively, the resources provided by States collectively are impresVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:21 Oct 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26936.TXT SONYA
46 

sive and factually eclipse that of their Federal partners, demonstrated by the following figures: 

State and wildlife agencies own, manage, or administer conservation on more than 464,000,000 acres of land and 167,000,000 acres 

of lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands; State and wildlife agencies employ nearly 50,000 people and leverage the efforts of 190,000 volunteers; States employ 11,000 wildlife biologists—that is nearly the 

entire work force of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—and 10,000 

wildlife enforcement officers; nearly 6,000 of our employees hold 

advanced degrees; and States’ collective budgets contributes $5.6 

billion toward wildlife conservation annually. 

Qualitatively, States have achieved unrivaled successes and are 

crucial to accurate decisionmaking in all phases of endangered species conservation. This can clearly be seen in one example from my 

State. The Arizona Game and Fish Department collected data and 

published peer reviewed papers on Sonoran Desert tortoises for 

nearly 30 years. Contrary to claims in listing petitions, our quality 

data and expertise established an accurate picture of Desert tortoise conservation needs while delivering conservation actions precluding the need for listing the species. This reduced regulatory impacts to much of Arizona’s landscape. 

Another prime example of the multitude of State led efforts is 

the lesser prairie-chicken conservation program in five western 

States administered by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Voluntary cooperation of States, landowners, land 

management agencies, and industry has conserved 16 cites, totaling 133,000 acres. The species populations are stabilizing and the 

endowed funding exceeds $50 million. 

My professional experience spending virtually the life of the ESA 

shapes my final thought. The ESA is an important tool for conserving America’s imperiled wildlife that has become stagnant and 

needs modernizing. Neither Federal nor State agencies alone can 

meet the conservation challenges we face. States must have the opportunity to elect participation in listing decisions, recovery planning and implementation, developing private landowner conservation incentive programs, and decisions to down-list or de-list species. Only our working together under an ESA that mandates effective cooperation with States delivers the capacity needed to conserve imperiled species into the future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Voyles follows:] 

47 


26936.039

AND 

TESTIMONY OF LARRY D. VOYLES 

DIRECTOR 

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

"Conservation, Consultation and Capacity; States Views the need to Modernize the 

Endangered Species Act" 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, am Larry Voyles, and appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today as Director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department \AZGFD) and as a Past 

President of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) to share my perspectives on 

improvements to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

) are members of AFWA. 

50 state fish and wildlife agencies (state agencies 

served as President of the AFWA from September 2014 to September 2015. have worked for the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department for over 42 years starting out as a District Wildlife Manager with 

responsibilities for wildlife management, wildlife biology, fisheries management, public affairs and law 

enforcement at a district level in 1974. After a decade the field as wildlife manager, rose through 

the ranks ultimately to the position of Director, a position I have held since 2008. During my tenure as 

director have served under three Governors, including one Democrat and 2 Republicans. have served 

on a variety of national boards including as member of the Board of Directors for the Council to Advance 

Hunting and the Shooting Sports, the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council, Co-Chair of the 

Agency/Industry Coalition, the US Sportsmen's Alliance Youth Program Advisory Council, and Chair ofthe 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Legal Committee. Perhaps most importantly, I currently 

sit on the Federal/State Joint Task forces for ESA Implementation, and for Federal Aid Administration. 

take great pride in AZGFD and the new entrepreneurial business models we have developed for the 

support of state-led conservation. This approach to conservation has charted innovative relationships 

with businesses and industries that either benefit directly from good conservation or benefit indirectly 

when successful conservation efforts reduce the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

The AZGFD has successfully simplified hunting and fishing license structures and reduced fees while at the 

same time increasing participation and total revenues for conservation. The Department is also currently 

pioneering efforts to develop customer relationship information technologies in order to better 

1 
48 


26936.040

understand and meet the needs of outdoor enthusiasts. These innovative approaches to conservation 

are the reason why I'm before you today. We can do better. 

keeping with the overarching themes of these hearings, my goal today is to share with you some 

thoughts, perspectives and recommendations on how the ESA can be Improved in the arena of 

"Conservation, Consultation, and Capacity" and my discussion be organized around these themes. A 

little background regarding how conservation is delivered in America help to highlight the relevancy 

of these themes. 

The amazing abundance of fish and wildlife that we enjoy today is a direct result of integrated systems of 

conservation delivery, conservation regulation and funding for conservation. When I delivered an address 

to the first Canadian Wildlife Congress on America's system of conservation in 2012, I described a 

metaphor for these integrated systems as "The Three Machines of Conservation." In essence I described 

the critical interrelationship of systems conservation delivery by the federal lands and resources 

management agencies, the state agencies, and private sector conservation by both non-profit and for 

profit organizations, corporations, and individuals, under the principles of the public trust doctrine. This 

doctrine holds that fish and wildlife is managed on behalf of the public. Although this doctrine has roots 

in Roman and English common law, its administration in America is a singular outgrowth of our system of 

democracy and the concept that government exists to serve the people. Our abundance of fish and 

wildlife can be attributed directly to the integrated resources, capacities and authorities that have been 

brought to bear helping to define our collective fish and wildlife reality. The amazing conservation 

success stories of the twentieth century have their roots in the integrating power of the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation and can serve to help inform how we can Improve upon our efforts to 

conserve and recover our most imperiled species of fish and wildlife. 

Similarly, any discussion of Improvements to the ESA must include analysis of how the power of these 

machines of conservation can be better integrated and brought to bear in the restoration of imperiled 

species, As an observation, we believe that the word "consultation" does not adequately characterize the 

desired state-federal relationship in ESA implementation, and we prefer the word "cooperation" which 

implies robustly working together to Implement the ESA. The state agencies appreciate the value of the 

ESA as a landmark federal law to protect and recover the imperiled species listed under the Act. The ESA 

was last amended and authorized in 1988. Enacted in 1973, over the almost 44 years of implementation, 

we have learned much about the conservation of listed species and their recovery needs, such as how to 

facilitate, not proscribe, private landowner involvement. The AFWA General Principles for Improving 

Implementation ofthe ESA, approved by the State Directors March 2016, are in the Appendix, but below 

is a brief description of some of them and why we want to improve our ability to recover species under 

the ESA. 

Key Principles 

First, increase opportunities for the state agencies to take a more formal and active role and fully 

participate in all aspects of ESA implementation intended by Congress, through the authority of Section 

6 Cooperative Agreements. legislative history of the 1973 ESA, excerpts from which are in the Appendix, 

2 
49 


26936.041

substantiate that Congress intended approved Section 5 agreements to avoid preemption of state law. 

State agencies have broad expertise, experience and often comprehensive data sets and analyses on listed 

species because before they were listed, the species were under state management jurisdiction. These 

data and the state agencies' interpretations should be more readily utilized by our federal partners 

throughout ESA processes. State agencies should be afforded the opportunity to participate in all 

implementation aspects of the ESA from listing decisions, to recovery plan development and conservation 

recovery efforts on the ground, to providing guidance to private landowners in the use offederal incentive 

programs that provide them more certainty, to decisions regarding down-listing and delisting of recovered 

species. The state agencies have the responsibility of the comprehensive nature of Section 6 as intended 

by Congress, but have not been able to exercise the authority under the ESA because of misunderstanding 

and misinterpretation by the federal executive branch agencies and courts. 

Second, restore the distinction between threatened and endangered species listed under ESA to reflect 

Congressional direction and provide greater to manage these categories differently. Congress 

intended that the state agencies have the opportunity to lead the management of threatened species, 

including the provision of "take" as means of conservation of the species, as substantiated in the 1973 

ESA Legislative history. Unfortunately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS} promulgated a default rule 

(SO CFR 17.31) in the mid-1980s that applies all Section 9 restrictions for endangered species also to 

threatened species unless the Secretary determines otherwise. This approach differs from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has not adopted this rule in its application of 

Section 9. This rule essentially eliminated the distinction between the two listing categories. 

Third, improve the listing process. This involves a consideration of adjusting the listing process decisions 

to a more realistic time frame in order to appropriately utilize the best available science. We appreciate 

recent efforts to improve the petition process, and we support a provision authorizing a prioritization 

process for species being considered for listing that focus resources and energy on the species most 

in need of immediate conservation. The process needs to ensure that state agencies' data are utilized 

and considered in decision-making, and giving greater weight to the those data and the states agencies' 

interpretation. In some cases, this may preclude the need to list a species under the ESA because of the 

quantity and quality of the state agency data supporting an appropriate science-based determination. 

However, state agency's data must be shared between state and federal partners in a way that upholds 

State privacy laws and respects private property rights. 

Fourth, require ESA recovery teams to develop science based recovery plans for listed species and provide 

appropriate opportunities for the state agencies to lead recovery planning and implementation. The state 

agency and the Secretary must agree on the size and composition of the recovery team, with the state 

agency director having exclusive decision-making over which state agency experts sit on the Recovery 

Team. Recovery can be expedited by supporting and continuing state level initiatives and conservation 

partnerships to recover listed species. Further, require that the Secretary must initiate the delisting 

process once an approved recovery plan's population and/or habitat objectives established by the 

Recovery Team are reached. 

3 
50 


26936.042

Fifth, directly associate critical habitat designation to recovery plan development while jointly providing 

more discretion to designate or not designate critical habitat based comprehensively on continued 

implementation of state agency conservation plans or initiatives, state lessons-learned, implications for 

communities, funding availability, and other aspects that directly impact the recovery of a species. The 

scope of critical habitat should be better defined and dear guidance given to when designations are 

needed or required. 

Additionally, create more specificity and the delisting process to alleviate lengthy and 

unnecessary burdens on local communities by allowing both the listing and delisting of a species through 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) designations of species and other applicable conservation approaches. 

Unfortunately, there are fewer statutory details provided forthe delisting process, and we deduce that 

Congress assumed that de listing, which is the objective of the ESA, would quickly follow the recovery of a 

species because protections ofthe ESA were no longer required. That has not been the case, and delisting 

can take decades and require overcoming many obstacles even after species recovery goals are met. 

Further, once a species is de listed, it should return to state agency jurisdiction for sustainable conservation 

as designed by the state agency, with a species status reportto the Secretary after S years. Improvements 

are also needed to Section lO{j), experimental populations, to improve recovery of these species often 

under unique conditions, with agreement by the state agency and the Secretary on geographic boundaries 

of lO(i) species reintroductions. 

lO(j) individuals are released. 

the Secretary shall comply with all required state permits before 

let me quickly describe the jurisdictional authorities for fish and wildlife in the state-federal relationship. 

Fish and wildlife conservation was one of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the 

Constitution ... [and thus] are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (10th Amendment). In 

the United States, fish and wildlife are owned by the public and managed as trust resources by the state 

agencies. The state agencies have primacy for managing fish and wildlife within their borders and have 

concurrent management authority with federal agencies on migratory birds, inter-jurisdictional fishes, 

and the topic of today's discussion threatened and endangered species. For added clarification, 

candidate species under the ESA are under the management authority of the state agencies, not the 

federal agencies. Only Congress can give a federal agency authority to preempt the state agency's 

authority for management of fish and wildlife, and then only for certain federal actions. The ESA is one 

example, but in doing this, Congress explicitly affirmed that the federal authority they gave the federal 

agency exists concurrent with the pre-existing authority of the state agency (defined the ESA as the 

state fish and wildlife agency) for listed fish and wildlife species. 

Section 6 of the ESA gives the Secretary explicit direction on how Congress expected the federal-state 

jurisdictional relationship to work. It starts with Sec. 6.(a) GENERAL~" In carrying out the program 

authorized by this Act, the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States." 

Section 6 goes on to describe agreements into which the Secretary may enter to allow a qualified state 

agency to implement the ESA. These cooperative agreements contemplated that the Secretary, upon the 

state agency's demonstration of the appropriate authority and adequate program design, would 

authorize an approved state agency to lead ESA activities by delegating his or her concurrent authority to 

4 
51 


26936.043

the state agency. The state agency would then be directing research and management of listed species, 

not just applying the Secretary's program for each species. 

Unfortunately, the Section 6 authorities available to the state agencies have never been fully realized by 

the state agencies. Admittedly in the first dozen or so years of the ESA, only a few state agencies had the 

capacity and political support to realize the authorities under Section 6. Hence, the Secretary through the 

FWS exercised through rule and policy, a very significant portion of the ESA authority. In general since 

the mid-1980s, the state agencies have enhanced their staff, expertise, habitat management techniques, 

science capability for listed species, relationships with private landowners and local communities, and 

political support that would therefore enable them to more fully exercise their authorities and roles in 

implementing the ESA as Congress originally intended as substantiated in the 1973 legislative history. 

The following outlines a brief summary of perspectives and recommendations on how the ESA can be 

improved in the arenas of "Conservation, Consultation, and Capacity". 

Conservation 

Due principally to litigation, additional court interpretation of federal rule and policy has led to a pathway 

of unraveling the ESA by eliminating the discretion to the Secretary to exercise his or her best professional 

judgment, as Congress originally intended. The ESA has become a regulatory tool for litigants to direct 

federal land management activities that meet their ideals, rather than to serve as an effective 

conservation machine. The way to improve this misguided condition is to tap into the capacity, 

conservation experience and expertise of the state agencies as a means to achieve desired conservation 

outcomes. Modernized delivery of ESA conservation through the state agencies is very different now 

the state agency model of conservation delivery compared to 1973 when the ESA was enacted. ESA 

modernization needs to include integration of effective conservation by the state agencies implemented 

far enough in advance to proactively preclude the need to list species, through effective management of 

a species' life needs and habitat requirements. 

One prominent example of state agencies providing proactive conservation of native species, occurring in 

our own Southwest, reflects the work of the Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council states of Arizona, 

Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming executing the three~spedes conservation agreement 

and strategy for Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta), Flannelmouth Sucker (Cotostomus iatipinnis), and 

Bluehead Sucker {Catostomus discobolus} in an effort to expedite conservation actions for the three 

species. The conservation measures and benefits outlined in this agreement and individual state agency 

strategies are designed to achieve the following benefits: 

Establish and/or maintain populations that contribute to conservation within their historic ranges; 

Identify, reduce, and/or ameliorate species threats through appropriately focused conservation 

efforts; 

Encourage participation of Federal and non··Federal partners into ongoing conservation efforts. 

5 
52 


26936.044

These efforts are intended to ameliorate threats {Le., those that would be articulated under the five listing 

factors of Section 4 of the ESA) affecting populations throughout their respective ranges, while achieving 

the "three R's" of species conservation through the following lenses: 

1) Resiliency- Establishing populations in high quality/suitable habitat having reduced or managed 

threats; 

2) Redundancy·- Expanding the range of populations within waters capable of supporting expanded 

populations; and, 

3) Representation- Ensuring preservation of genetic diversity through appropriate replication of 

populations within their natal watersheds. 

Over the first ten years of the agreement, the Council states and partners implemented significant 

conservation for the three species. These efforts resulted in implementation of 60% of the conservation 

objectives, through hundreds of projects throughout the species' ranges. On January 5'", 2017, the Council 

states reaffirmed their commitment to the agreement and its continued implementation, with no 

predetermined expiration date. The Council states have a renewed confidence in their capacity to 

continue protection and conservation of these unique fish species throughout their range. 

These successes are not limited to the western U.S. Throughout the nation, state agencies are leading 

and supporting many innovative and collaborative efforts to keep common species common, prevent 

declines of imperiled species, and recover listed threatened and endangered species. There are many 

groundbreaking state-led conservation partnerships across the nation that have yielded significant 

conservation outcomes, including: 

Historic, state-federal efforts to conserve habitatfor the iconic sage grouse and hundreds of other 

species that rely on sagebrush habitat; 

Delisting of the louisiana black bear; 

Range-wide collaborative conservation of the Gopher Tortoise; 

• Innovative Red-cockaded Woodpecker recovery efforts within the "Eastern North Carolina 

Sentinel landscape;" and 

• State-federal conservation efforts for lesser Prairie Chicken. 

• The National Fish Habitat Partnership efforts, established 20 partnerships across aliSO states, and 

focused restoration of fish habitat and ensuring clean water through state-led and communitybased voluntary conservation efforts. 

These efforts showcase the state agencies' capacity, expertise, experience, and relationships with private 

landowners to focus, coordinate, and integrate budget and staff resources to deliver effective 

conservation. Additional ongoing, practical applications ofthis conservation framework include: 

Realizing conservation benefits of including state agencies prioritizing recovery plans and 

appropriately integrating/considering state agency data and analysis for petitioned species; 

• Enhancing conservation effe\Ctiveness by sharing capacity and expertise among state agencies 

conservation, recovery and delisting species; 

Demonstrating and proving effectiveness of the state agencies' efforts that preclude the need to 

list and accurately reflect conservation of species trending towards listing; 

6 
53 


26936.045

Approaching species conservation through the state agencies preference and desire to manage 

at landscape scales, compared to the single species approach of ESA which can be inconsistent 

and run counter with the landscape approach; 

• Providing necessary incentives through management by the state agencies, and landowner 

conservation incentives that are focused on all species, not just those protected by the ESA. When 

the nation was in crisis during the dust bowl era In the 1930's, the ingenious act of creating the 

Farm Bill and incentivizing private landowners to conserve soils and the environment literally 

changed the future of farming and our nation. By comparison, for listed species, no incentive is 

offered to the landowner to keep common species common, or to de list recovered species; and, 

• Placing priority investment and focus of the ESA on conservation (vs. litigation), thus returning 

management of listed species to the professional state agency and federal practitioners, and away 

from the courts. 

Capacity 

More than 2,200 species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and more than 500 

additional species have been petitioned for listing. Using an average cost of recovery of a single species 

at greater than $125 million, think for just one minute what that may mean for the species at risk in the 

future. Our nation's conservation future your hands. The manner by which we respect and manage 

our natural resources for the next generation is the measure by which we all be judged. How does 

the public share and embrace the need for conservation at that cost? 

As reflected in excerpts from the ESA legislative history included in the Appendix, Congress repeatedly 

recognized that state agencies had far greater capacity biologists and law enforcement agents to carry 

out the on the ground provisions of the Act, than did the Federal government Congress intended the 

Federal government to establish a framework and policies for a national program that would be 

implemented through robust cooperation between the state agencies and FWS and NOAA-Fisheries. 

Collectively, the 50 state agencies own, manage, or administer fish and wildlife conservation on more 

than 464 million acres of land and 167 million acres of lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and riparian areas. 

These include properties under fee title ownership (24.5 million acres) as well as those leased or licensed 

in conservation agreements, grazing allotments or right-of-ways. For perspective, that land area is 

equivalent to about 4.7 times the landmass California or 16.3 times the size of Pennsylvania, and 167 

million acres is nearly 2.8 times the combined acreage of the Great Lakes. In addition, an estimated 56.7 

million acres have been improved for the benefit of wildlife through private landowner agreements with 

the state agencies. Further, state agencies own 192,000 water rights and foster 53,000 formal partnerships 

to carryout fish n d wildlife conservation. 

The state agencies employ almost 50,000 women and including 11,000 degreed wildlife biologists, 

about 6,000 staff with advanced degrees, and 10,100 law enforcement officers. Further, they leverage the 

efforts of nearly 190,000 volunteers. Annually, the state agencies contribute more than $5.6 billion to 

conservation through their collective annual budgets. Clearly, the contribution of the 50 state fish and 

wildlife agencies is enormous and integral to wildlife conservation in North America. 

7 
54 


26936.046

This capacity was exemplified in the case of the Sonoran Desert Tortoise, which was petitioned for listing 

in 200R Although the petitioners cited a litany of challenges that threatened the future of the tortoise, 

AZGFD staff and partners had amassed 30 years of data on biology and status of the species, and were 

able to successfully refute the petitioners' claims with scientifically credible data. Department data also 

proved critical to refuting erroneous information about tortoise habitat in the Phoenix metropolitan area, 

and demonstrated that economic development in that area was not a significant threat to the species. 

Further, the Department worked with partners to draft Candidate Conservation Agreement that 

articulated significant conservation actions being implemented by ten signatory agencies throughout the 

tortoise's Arizona distribution. Our unprecedented set of data, coupled with commitments described in 

the CCA, contributed to a not warranted decision by the FWS. 

State agencies often do the lion's share of work to manage federally listed species, and deal with 

associated conservation challenges. We are on the ground and on the front lines. Citizens, businesses and 

landowners are more likely to reach out to the state agency for assistance with listed species than to our 

federal partners, and state agencies are better positioned and experienced to find ways to provide 

necessary assistance and leadership. 

State agencies have the unique ability, and need, to work with local development and industry to help 

ensure economic growth while managing our diverse fish and wildlife resources, The Arizona Game and 

Fish Department developed HabiMap®, a geospatial planning tool that gives industry a front loaded view 

on all fish and wildlife resources that may be affected by a proposed project This web-based automated 

tool provides industry with Instant access to information and data to assist in initial risk assessment, thus 

providing significant cost-savings throughout project development. This landscape scale wildlife 

information decreases risk, and can help avoid unexpected costs. HabiMap~ also provides information, 

data, and analyses that otherwise would take hundreds of hours of AZGFD staff time each month. This 

provides a considerable cost savings to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the state, and to industry. 

These and similar tools developed or being developed other states provide capacity otherwise 

unavailable to FWS. 

The state agencies are proud of their successes in recovering listed species and in proactively restoring 

declining species to sustainable levels so that the provisions of the ESA are not necessary. However, that 

does not mean that the state agencies are adequately funded to do this work. general, under the 

American system of funding fish and wildlife conservation, over 75% of the budgets of state agencies 

come from fees voluntarily paid by hunters, recreational shooters, anglers and recreational boaters, in 

the form of hunting and fishing licenses and stamps, which are matched by federal excise tax revenues on 

hunting and shooting sports equipment and fishing tackle, and federal gasoline excise taxes attributed to 

boaters. Some state agencies rely exclusively on these funding sources. Others are fortunate to have 

additional funding mechanisms, such as state General Funds (MO), real estate transfer tax revenues {Fl), 

or a portion of state lottery funds (AZ) dedicated to conservation. 

The general public responds by saying that they pay federal and state taxes and therefore protect habitat 

on federal public lands, and fund federal management programs for species where both the state agencies 

and federal government have concurrent authority for ESA and Migratory Bird Treaty Act species. In fact, 

8 
55 


26936.047

hunters, anglers, shooters and boater> pay those same taxes, but in addition they voluntarily pay the fees 

and taxes described above to provide conservation dollars for the state agency programs which benefit 

all of our citizens. However, these funds are inadequate for the state agencies to fulfill their conservation 

obligations to their citizens to manage and sustain the extraordinary biological diversity for which they 

are statutorily responsible. 

North America's fish and wildlife conservation model and its conservation based delivery system is 

unparalleled. The fundamental tenets of this model and associated contributions of state agencies, 

combined with the collective efforts of diverse partners that state agencies continue to develop and 

maintain, are foundational and have contributed resoundingly to its effectiveness. 

Consultation 

For the purposes of this testimony we are defining consultation as shared authorities and robust 

cooperation, as originally intended by Congress under the ESA. As outlined earlier, state agencies have 

the conservation experience, expertise and capacity, and should have the opportunity to be full partners 

in the ESA decision-making process. Section 6 of the ESA gives the Secretary explicit direction on how 

Congress expected the federal-state jurisdictional relationship to work. As specifically noted in Sec. 6.(a) 

GENERAL-" In carrying out the program authorized by this Act, the Secretary shall cooperate to the 

maximum extent practicable with the States" The legislative history of the ESA demonstrates that 

Congress intended that state agencies with qualified endangered species programs lead in the 

conservation and recovery of threatened species (see Sen. John Tunney's 1973 floor remarks 

consideration of 5.1983, in the Appendix). Here provide a number of examples of ways in which that 

robust cooperation is lacking or unavailable, and where true collaboration and recognition of shared 

authorities could improve ESA processes and species recovery. 

Unfortunately, due to the litigation pathway of unraveling the ESA, the state agencies feel the ESA has 

become a regulatory tool rather than a conservation machine. The ESA currently mandates that ESA 

recovery planning and actions use the best available science and also provide for the development of 

measurable recovery goals. However when challenged through litigation, the arbiter of disagreement 

over what constitutes "best available science" or "scientifically defensible goals" is a judge who may have 

little or no training in the complexity of the scientific process. litigious groups capitalize on this "biology 

by Judge" to drive a lucrative business model. Amending the ESA to raise the bar for this kind of litigation 

designed to thrust the judiciary into the role of making decisions about science, would be appropriate. 

addition, eliminating later amendments to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) would fundamentally 

restore the original purpose of EAJA (i.e., assist and protect the rights of poor individuals litigating the 

government), and would eliminate the lucrative litigation-based NGO business model that has 

subsequently flourished. This propensity for litigation has alienated the state agencies and discouraged 

them from participating the decision process. Consequently, much of the "best available science," 

which is generated and owned by the state agencies is not being used. These changes would help ensure 

that the evaluation of what constitutes "best available science" would be done by state agency and 

Federal scientists and not by judges. 

9 
56 


26936.048

Better collaboration and joint decision making with state agencies will result better and more 

consistent application of consultations under Section 7 of ESA. In 1995, former President Clinton signed 

executive order 12962 regarding recreational fisheries, in which he stated, Federal agencies will 

aggressively work to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and their respective 

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("ESA") (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.). Within 6 

months of the date of this order, the [FWS] and the National Marine Fisheries Service will promote 

compatibility and reduce conflicts between the administration of the ESA and recreational fisheries by 

developing a joint agency policy that will: ensure consistency the administration of the ESA between 

and within the two agencies, (2) promote collaboration with other Federal, State, and Tribal fisheries 

managers, and (3) improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the requirements of the 

ESA." Nonetheless, inconsistent Section 7 recreational fisheries consultations continue as a direct result 

of excluding state agencies evaluations, which lead to take determinations that lack an appropriate 

science based decision. For example, the endangered Razorback Sucker occurs in the Colorado River, 

resulting numerous Section 7 evaluations with respect to Rainbow Trout stocking, and take 

determinations have varied considerably. Among the Colorado River states some have received "not likely 

to adversely affect" decisions based upon the following criteria: trout stocking would occur upstream of 

existing Razorback Sucker populations, and although spatial overlap may occur at times, the river's natural 

thermal regime and turbidity would segregate the two species; "take" was not reasonably certain to occur. 

In certain areas in Arizona, "take" was considered reasonably certain to occur despite the fact that the 

local thermal regime separate the species more effectively. 

Proactive conservation involving state agencies allows industry and development to continue while 

providing appropriate resources to offset impacts upfront. Unfortunately, ESA roadblocks have led to 

delays and bottlenecks. For private landowners, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances 

(CCAAs), Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs), and Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are to provide 

the landowner protection from Section 9 take issues in exchange for certain proactive management 

actions. However, implementation is inconsistent among FWS regions and often difficult to implement 

Although state agencies are encouraged to develop these agreements, the FWS has not made these 

efforts a priority. A specific example from Arizona involves a CCAA developed by AZGFD and submitted to 

FWS on April18, 2014. The agreement provided a framework to conserve an ESA candidate fish species, 

the Roumltail Chub, on over 9 million acres. To date, this agreement has yet to receive final approval by 

FWS and progress stalled as a result of lack of staff resources and inconsistencies regarding the 

conservation agreement review process, Thus) this comprehensive, proactive conservation project has 

come to an unfortunate halt 

Finally, delisting is often stalled, not for the lack of meeting recovery criteria, but instead, working through 

legal action after those criteria are met. The Northern Gray Wolf and the Greater Yellowstone population 

of Grizzly Bear both serve as excellent examples of this situation. In both cases, after recovery criteria had 

been met, the FWS changed the recovery objectives for the species. the Gray Wolf example, FWS 

further refused to finalize its July 16, 2013 proposed rule to delist the Gray Wolf in the continental United 

States even after acknowledging in the proposed rule that, 1) the original listing was not listable entity 

(species, subspecies, or Distinct Populotion Segment) and therefore violates the ESA, and the Gray Wolf 

species is viable and not likely to become endangered the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

10 
57 


26936.049

Transformation to a modem conservation machine 

As previously stated, I've had the unique opportunity to witness the changes that have occurred to state 

agencies over the entire lifespan of the ESA. This evolution has been extraordinary and transformed 

state agencies into modern conservation machines, The state agencies are among the preeminent and 

vested authority on fish and wildlife in the United States, Federal agencies, other state agencies, local 

governments, tribes, conservation groups, businesses even other countries look to state fish and 

wildlife agencies for accurate data and information on fish and wildlife species and habitats. These 

partners often need to know which species are most impo1tant, where their habitat is located, what 

habitat is needed to maintain movement across the landscape, and how species should be managed and 

conserved, This information is vital to help communities grow, develop, live and recreate in accord with 

our environment. 

To improve the state agencies' capability to provide this information to their many customers, and 

strengthen their leadership position on fish and wildlife matters, we have innovated and refined how we 

do business, 

When the Western Governors adopted their Wildlife Corridors Initiative Report in 2008, they created the 

Western Governors' Wildlife Council and tasked its members with developing policies and tools to identify 

and conserve crucial wildlife habitat and migration corridors across the region. In that report, the Wildlife 

Council provided direction on how to address these management needs by working across political and 

legal boundaries and collaborating with other managers and the public By putting these approaches into 

operation, the state agencies' important work to conserve the public's fish and wildlife resources be 

enhanced, while at the same time facilitating necessary economic development in the region. Now guided 

by Western Governors' policy resolution 13-04, the Wildlife Council soon be providing information on 

important fish and wildlife habitat that is compatible across the West and available to the public. 

The Wildlife Council first approached the Governors' directive by launching regional pilot projects in 2010 

with support from a grant from the Department of Energy, The year-long pilot projects allowed the 

Wildlife Council to test the framework outlined in 

In August 2011, the Wildlife Council established a plan to develop a West-wide tool with the goal of 

launching a public and regionally compatible crucial habitat GIS tool by 2013. All the while, the Wildlife 

Council has continued to support the development of state-specific CHATs in individual states, 

The Western Governors launched Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) December 2013 as the 

Western Governors' CHAT and managed it through 2014, April 2015, the Western Governors 

transferred full responsibility forCHATto the Western Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

and the tool was renamed the Western Association of fish and Wildlife Agencies CHAT, 

Arizona, California, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming have 

already developed state-specific information on priority species and habitat addition, the Southern 

Great Plains CHAT provided information specific to the lesser-prairie chicken, a species with habitat 

11 
58 


26936.050

ranging across five states. Other states are continuing to develop individual systems to provide additional 

state-specific information. 

The WAFWA represents 23 state agencies and Canadian provinces, spanning from Alaska to Texas and 

Saskatchewan to Hawaii ·an area covering nearly 3.7 million square miles of some of North America's 

most wild and scenic country, inhabited by over 1500 premier fish and wildlife species. 

WAFWA is a strong advocate of the rights of states and provinces to manage fish and wildlife within their 

borders. The AFWA and WAFWA have been a key organization in promoting the principles of sound 

resource management and the building of partnerships at the regional, national and international levels 

in order to enhance fish and wildlife conservation efforts and the protection of associated habitats in the 

public interest. 

In Arizona, HabiMap" has been used to assist identifying preferred routes for transmission lines such 

as SunZia and South Line, routing new highway development such as lnterstate-11, and informing land 

management decisions by the BLM, LISFS, and our Arizona State land Department. Beyond fish and 

wildlife, industry has been the biggest benefactor from the use of these CHAT tools. Predictable 

mitigations, avoidable conflicts, and anticipated costs have allowed industry to adopt and even champion 

these tools. 

Perhaps the most comprehensive example of this is our work on the lesser Prairie Chicken. On March 31, 

the WAFWA submitted to the FWS its third annual report detailing achievements under the lesser PrairieChicken Range-wide Conservation Plan. Among other highlights, WAFWA reported on the purchase of an 

ecologically significant piece of property in Kansas, which permanently protects nearly 30,000 acres of 

high-quality lesser prairie-chicken habitat 

The range-wide plan is a collaborative effort of the state fish and wildlife agencies ofTexas, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado and administered by WAfWA. It was developed to promote 

conservation by providing a blueprint for lesser prairie-chicken conservation through voluntary 

cooperation of landowners, land management agencies and industry participants. This plan allows 

participants to continue operations while restoring and maintaining habitat and reducing development 

impacts to the bird and its habitat. "As we close out our third year of implementation, we're really hitting 

our stride," said Alexa Sandoval, Director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and Chairman 

of the lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative CounciL "We are encouraged that despite an oil and gas industry 

downturn, support for this collaborative consetvation approach remains strong. We commend all of our 

partners for their participation in the range-wide plan." 

The plan was endorsed by the FWS in 2013, as part of the conservation effort, the state agencies 

agreed to report annually on the overall progress of the plan. Findings for 2016 include: 

land conservation efforts on private land increasing 

By the end of 2016, WAFWA was conserving 16 sites totaling 133,703 acres either through 

fee title ownership or long-term contractual agreements. Three of those sites, totaling 33,053 

12 
59 


26936.051

acres, are permanently conserved through perpetual conservation easements or fee title 

ownership. The other 13 sites were 10-year contracts with private landowners, covering 

100,650 acres across the range, three of which were executed during the past year. 

Most significantly, a 29,718-acre land acquisition by WAFWA was finalized in June 2016, 

permanently protecting high-quality habitat the sand sagebrush eco-region. The property 

was purchased from a willing seller and continue to be managed as a working cattle ranch 

using livestock as the primary tool to create optimum habitat for the bird. addition, 1, 781 

acres of privately owned native rangeland is now permanently protected in the mixed grass 

eco-region. WAFWA purchased perpetual easement on the property that protects the 

conservation values of the site. The easement is held by Pheasants Forever. 

lesser prairie-chicken population stable 

The annual lesser prairie-chicken aerial survey used to monitor populations was conducted 

from March through May 2016. The latest survey showed population trends have been stable 

after five years of data collection. An estimated breeding population of 25,261 birds was 

documented 2016, which scientists say not statistically different from the estimate of 

29,162 birds in 2015 given the variability associated with the survey methodology. Aerial 

surveys for 2017 are underway and 

July. 

run through mid-May. Results are anticipated in early 

• Industry projects generate mitigation credit, offset by conservation 

In 2016, 114 industry related projects were processed and mitigated. There continues to be a 

surplus of credits available with a range-wide positive value of 71,639 units. This reflects the 

continued low energy prices that have slowed industry development in the region. WAfWA 

has focused on committing enrollment and mitigation fees for conservation contracts to 

benefit the bird and to ensure companies have available mitigation credit to develop as 

energy prices rebound. In July 2016, WAFWA developed a process to address non-payment 

of enrollment fees that provides several options to help companies stay enrolled in the 

program. 

Technology enhances conservation decision-making 

During 2016, significant progress was made database development and accessibility. 

Highlights include the integration of impact and conservation sites into a relational database 

to ensure all habitat impacts are offset by an appropriate conservation site. In addition, 

custom website was developed that provides participating companies a way to submit and 

approve new projects as well as view past submissions. WAFWA and the FWS can also use the 

web interface to obtain site-specific summary statistics, habitat mitigation credit balances and 

raw data. 

• Cooperative efforts enhancing conservation 

A renewed cooperative effort between Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pheasants 

Forever and WAFWA enhance program promotion, monitoring activities, and 

conservation planning and delivery. There was also continued effort to work with state fish 

and wildlife agencies to identify and pursue research and management needs. Those activities 

13 
60 


26936.052

included lesser prairie-chicken translocation efforts that moved birds from the shortgrass to 

sand sagebrush eco-region. 

AZGFD has led in the development and application HabiMap® to realize the conservation of fish and 

wildlife habitat while meeting the objectives of development projects. The use of web-based, landscape 

scale geospatial wildlife information to instantly inform the earliest stages of lnterstate-11 planning is 

cutting edge and is revolutionizing approaches to identifying and minimizing impacts to Arizona's natural 

resources. This unprecedented capability allows up front risk assessment and promotes cost effective 

development. For example, the Interstate 11 has the potential to fragment wildlife habitat both during 

construction and after completion. The Department is working with the Arizona Department of 

Transportation's Intermountain West Corridor team to provide critical data regarding Arizona's diverse 

resources. This collaborative effort ensure that wildlife, habitat, connectivity, and wildlife safety 

issues are considered early in the design phase to avoid costly retrofitting later on. By designing 

connectivity features and habitat preservation efforts into the project as critical elements, there can be 

connectivity along the length Arizona's 1-11. corridor, maintaining healthy and sustainable wildlife 

populations and habitat for present and future generations. The Department's efforts result in cost 

savings, highway safety, sustainable wildlife resources, and efficiency improvements to the state. The 

state will save money as the Department evaluates and addresses habitat, connectivity and safety up 

front, reducing the need to redesign and retrofit. Planning safe passage options for wildlife along the 1 ..11 

corridor will greatly reduce the number of vehicle/wildlife collisions, while improved connectivity will help 

maintain healthy and sustainable wildlife populations for all Arizonans to enjoy. The Department's tools 

under development to provide critical data and analyses for the 1-11 corridor will also be used in future 

projects. Further, the state agencies are actively engaged discussions about how to take the HabiMap" 

tool and applications as well other similar state-led efforts and make them seamless across the country, 

even extending to our Canadian Provincial counterparts to improve management across the lifecycles and 

ranges of shared species like red knots and neotropcial songbirds, caribou and moose, wolverines and 

gray wolves, sage grouse, waterfowl, and more. 

1 have dedicated my life to conservation. believe that the content of these comments contain the 

essential components to revolutionizing conservation, both in the US and beyond. Our nation has already 

set the standard for conservation throughout the world. Today humbly ask this committee to recognize 

that changes must be made, if we continue to lead the world in our commitment to conservation. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share our perspectives and would be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

14 
61 


26936.053

Appendix 

ASSOCIATION~( 

AGENCIES 

General for Improving ImplE~m~mt:ation of the Endangered Species Act 

Adopted March .18, 2016 

.Q.IJ!kJI:tic~:ili!l&!ru:nt: Improve Endangered Species Act to ensure its future by 

for tlsh wildlife, and more acceptable to 

improved would be directed and managed by state and 

tlsh, wildlife, and natural resource professionals. 

1: more consistent conservation and protection of species. 

2: Ensures tlsh, wildlife and natural resource professionals make Endangered Species Act 

decisions. 

3: Facilitates the opportunity for robust utilization of state tlsh wildlife agency concurrent 

jurisdictional authorities Endangered Species Act implementation as Congress originally 

intended. 

4: Focuses on management actions that will to the point that provisions of the 

Endangered Act are no species can be delis ted or down-listed. 

5: The is apolitical and because it has bipartisan 

6: Better incentivizes private landowner participation application of the Species Act 

Recommendations for Improvement: 

to species 

re<:O!l:ni>m and integrate state-led conservation efforts, and improve 

decisions. Secure funding sources for these actions. 

H. l;:levate tbe Rol!l of State Fish and Wildli.fu.Ag~ increase opportunities for state tlsh and 

wildlife agencies to take a more formal and active and participate in Endangered Species 

Act implementation actions as intended by Congress under Section 6 Cooperative Agreements, 

""'-"-"'-"-'-"'-"'"'-'""""""'....,'-"'"""""""make the best decision a more realistic timeframe; 

and insure all state fish and wildlife data are utilized and 

15 
62 


26936.054

fully considered in the listing determination whether such data are 

state agency expertise in the process of interpreting these data 

or not; and include 

conclusions. 

recovery 

impl<,m<mtaHon, expedite recovery by supporting state initiatives and partnerships; and 

increase 11exibility and feasibility for recovery pian applicability. 

create more Secretary to exercise or not 

""·""'""·"critical habitat, better define the and basis for critical habitat designations 

include dear guidance on when such designations are needed or required. 

clarity and increase 

av;ammt,2: expedite the process for concluding these conservation 

landowners. 

X, Enbance ll!)~;;ies Act Funding; sufficient 

conservation outcomes, species recovery, and deli sting; enhance 

agencies for all aspects of Endangered Species Act implementation. 

states and federal 

processes and actions implemented under the Act. 

16 
63 


26936.055

legislative History of the 1913 ESA Bill On Passage: Excerpts 

Senate Consideration and Passage of 5.1983, With Amendments, from the 

Congressional Record, July 24, 1973, pages 342-425 

Sen. John Tunney (CA): 

"On the other hand, it was well established the hearing record that most of the States 

possess much greater wildlife management resources than does the Federal government. 

Clearly any effort on the part of the Federal government to encourage the restoration of 

threatened or endangered species would fail without the assistance of the state agencies. This 

bill is designed to permit and encourage state endangered species programs that are in concert 

with the purposes of this Act." 

"Subject to the provisions of this Act which provide maximum protection for species on the 

brink of extinction, States with active endangered species programs are given full discretion to 

manage threatened species which reside in their boundaries." 

Sen. Ted Stevens (AK): 

"Sections 6 and 16 provide for cooperation with the states. They provide the major backbone of 

the Act. Presently the states have an extensive network of endangered species legislation. 

Unfortunately, not all states have as yet implemented such programs. This will assist those 

states not yet involved to implement such programs and 

Federal preemption." 

the states do not, provide for 

"As Dr. Ralph Mac Mullen, president of the International Association of Game, Fish, and 

Conservation Commissioners observed, state wildlife agencies employ over 5800 law 

enforcement officers across the Nation. Formal Endangered Species programs are being 

implemented in over 30 states." 

"Dr. Mac Mullen further observed that if the Federal government were to take away the right 

of the states to manage these species and to preempt the states, State Legislatures would not 

be willing to appropriate the necessary funds to protect endangered species." 

House Committee Report 93-412 (to accompany HR 37) 

"The principal areas of discussion during the hearings and markup of legislation centered on the 

proper role of the state and Federal governments with regard to endangered species 

programs ... " 

17 
64 


26936.056

"Any bill which is designed to deal with the complicated issues involved in the protection of 

endangered species must do so in light of least two competing considerations: first, protection 

of endangered species is not a matter that can be handled in the absence of coherent national 

and international polkies, .. Second however, the States are far better equipped to handle the 

problems of day to day management and enforcement of laws and regulations than is the 

Federal government,," 

"Regulatory jurisdiction is given to the Federal government under this legislation and if a 

cooperative agreement is successfully negotiated and signed, to the states as welL" 

"Where a cooperative agreement has been put in effect the bill allows concurrent jurisdiction 

over the species affected in both the state and federal judicial system," 

"In all other respects ,., [than adherence to actions specifically permitted or prohibited by the 

Federal agencies].,. the state law is not preempted but merely subject to the "floor" of 

regulations under the Act:' 

House Consideration and Passage of HR 37 with Amendments: 

Cong. James Grover (NY): 

"Second, we have adequately protected legitimate state interests, power, and authorities by 

providing for concurrent Federal/State jurisdiction,.," 

"It is imperative to realize, as the Committee did, that the greater bulk of the enforcement 

capabilities concerning endangered species lie in the hands of the state fish and game agencies 

and not the Federal government. It is on a state level that habitat areas will be located, and it is 

on a state level where this new Federal law 

criteria and guidelines," 

be implemented, subject to overall Federal 

House Conference Report 93-740 (to accompany s, 1983 as reported by the House-Senate 

Conference Committee) 

"As finally approved, the Act have the effect of giving the states fundamental roles with 

respect to resident species for a given period of time."" The conferees hope that this device will 

impel the states to develop strong programs to avoid the alternative of federal preemption," 

"It should be noted that the successful development of an endangered species program will 

ultimately depend on a good working arrangement between the federal agencies, which have 

18 
65 


26936.057

broad policy perspectives and authority, and the state agencies, which have the physical 

facilities and personnel to see that state and federal endangered species policies are properly 

executed." 

19 
66 


26936.058

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Hearing entitled "Conservation, Consultation, and Capaci(v: State Views on the Need to 

Modemize the Hn,dangert•d 

May HI, 

Questions for Larry Voyles 

Responses Provided: June 15,21117 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking l\1cmbcr Carper response to a set 

after my testimony before your committee, my staff and have provided 

each posed. It apparent fi·om your that you believe certain etrvironme:nt,,! 

Of!santizcttic>ns oppose the efforts ofthe state agencies to modernize ESA. In our opinion, 

many of these organizations advocate for a different approach to conservation than that of the 

state \\'ildlilc Steadfastly, we have provided case studies, conservation success stories, 

and examples species recovery in state-led programs. Our is clear and unequivocal: 

bring the full of state wildlife agencies into partnerships with federal 

agencies to conservation and strengthen ESA. In contrast, many environmental 

organizations activism over science-based conservation. This view was 

expressed by one of the of the Center for Biological Diversity in an interview in High 

Country News (December 2009) where Kieran Suckling offered these thoughts: 

When asked were you hindered science degrees? He responded "No. It was the 

key to our success. ! think the of the environmental movement has injured it 

greatly. These kids degrees in environmental conservation and wildlife management and 

come looking for in the environmental movement They've 

management values and multiple use by the time they graduate. I'm more in hiring 

philosophers, linguists and The core talent of a successful environmental activist is not 

science and law. It instinct. That's not only not taught in the universities, it's 

discouraged." 

Congress has been clear in its intent for implementing actions in recovery of imperiled species 

using science and law as li.mndational ! urge you and committee members to 

consider the offer that the state wildlife are making; that to become li.ill partners in 

endangered species recovery and not to the bait. offered on philosophical principle alone. 

Chairman Barrasso: 

Director Voyles, at our hearing in February, former Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal 

testified that section 6 of the ESA, which requires cooperation with the states to the maximum 

extent practicable, he the most under-utilized provision of the ESA. When it comes to 

implementation of the Governor Freudenthal testified that ''ultimate authority rests with 

[the U.S, Fish and Wildlife and. absent statutory direction from Congress, shared 

information and decision making the states] remains the exception and not the rule," 

To what extent should states be consulted regarding the implementation of the ESA? 
67 


26936.059

Scn~tc Environment and Pub!ic \Yorks Committee 

Voyles Response to Fol!o\v-up Questions 

June 15.2017 

RESPONSE: State agencies have the local conservation experience. exptmise and capacity, and 

should have an increased to be full in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

decision-making therelim: need opportunity to perform a more active role 

in aspects of implementation to conservation with the combined 

of slate and Jederal conservation entities. level of coordination was originally 

intended by Congress as specifically noted in Section 6 ([a] GENERAL----·'ln carrying out the 

authorized by this Act, the Secretary cooperate to the maximum extent practicable 

the States''), wherein authorities provide the Secretary direction on how 

expected the federal-state jurisdictional relationship to through approved 

agr·ee;ments to avoid preemption of state law and otherwise the conservation capabilities 

the Act These cooperative agreements the Secretary, the state 

agency's demonstration of the appropriate would 

authorize the state agency to lead recovery actions delegating 

simply have a state agency be subservient federal agencies, 

From our view, Section 6 authorities available to the state agencies have never been 

realized. years following ESA enactment a few state agencies 

the capacity and to the authorities under 6 and, as result, the 

Secretary, and Wildlife Service (FWS), was lett to exercise 

portions of the ESA authority. More recently, however, our state wildlife 

enhanced their staff capacity, habitat management and overall science 

for listed species. In state have relationships with 

landowners and local communities, and support for recovery that enables 

to more fully exercise their authorities roles the ESA. As 

my written testimony, state wildlife agencies possess both human and financial 

resources that transcend those of the federal agencies, and tin'thcr provide significant 

conservation capacity expertise to implement provisions of the Act. Prior to ESA listing, 

state wildlife agencies have conservation strategies ali species 

as a result, accumulated broad 

""''"''n<iw data sets, analyses and research on these species. 

and human/financial resources, should be more fully 

of the ESA to optimize species conservation 

outcomes execute the bulk of work 

managing listed species and they 

implementation aspects of the ESA 

conservation recovery effm1s on the to 

industry and in analyzing decisions regarding down-listing and 

2. Director Voyles, Stakeholders the ESA could be modernized to more 

conserve species to avoid listing the place, and to recover species that are 

as endangered or threatened. 

How do you think the ESA could be modernized to better incentivizt' pre-listing and post-listing 

conservation and recovery by states, private landowners, other stakeholders? 
68 


26936.060

Senate Environment and Public Works 

Voyles Response in Fo!low~up Questions 

June 2017 

RESPONSE: State wildlite agencies have broad expertise, cxpcrierKce and often comprehensive 

data sets and analyses on listed because before were listed, these species were under 

the management and of the states. Our and scientific analyses should be 

utilized by our federal partners throughout a!! elements ESA implementation. 

listing decisions, recovery plan development and conservation recovery cl!ixts on 

the ground. providing guidance to private landowners in the use of federal incentive programs 

that provide them more and decisions regarding down-listing and dclisting of 

recovered species. State wildlife agencies have the responsibility of the comprehensive nature of 

Section 6 as intended by Congress. hut have not been able to exercise the authority under the 

ESA because of misunderstanding and misinterpretation by the federal executive branch 

agencies and courts. 

needs to include the integration eflective conservation by the state 

implemented far enough advance to proactively preclude the need to list 

effective manag~"!llent of a species' needs and habitat requirements. We 

could modemize the through language that requires increased 

opportunities state wildlife agencies to take a more forma! and active role and tl1lly 

nnrti<,in"'" in all aspects of ESA implementation as intended by Congress, through the authority 

6 Cooperative Agreements. 

this integration, the state wildlife agencies be able to provide better incentives to 

and landowners tor prclisting, post-listing, ofTsetting impacts. and mitigation. Examples 

of etTorts that have provided beller incentives include: 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlile Agencies (W AFWA) Lesser Prairie Chicken (LPC) 

Model: The W AFWA Mitigation Framework incentivizes avoidance and minimization of 

impacts to LPC habitat !rom development. The metrics system within this framework provides a 

pathway to mitigate for to habitat biologically-based that incorporates 

space, time and habitat impact units and otlset units. The 

mitigation also utilizes a 2: l mitigation to ensure that ot!scts are greater than 

impacts, in net conservation benefit for the 

TheW AFWA Mitigation Framework fimctions a plaHorm to balance impact and habitat offset 

units in that a portion of the offset units are allocated the sign-up based on current acreage and 

habitat quality. Additional otrset units are generated and the quantity reflects 

usable and habitat The landowner is to manage for 

because annual payment based on the acreage and evaluation score the enrolled 

If the participant does not follow the recommended plan for the property, 

units are reduced, as the annual payments to the na1rticimmt. 

. In Arizona, has been used to assist in preferred routes for 

transmission lines by project proponents such as SunZia and South routing new highway 

development such as Interstate and inf(lrming land decisions by the BLM. 

USFS, and our Arizona State Land Department. fish wildlife, industry has been the 

biggest benefactor from the use of these Crucial Assessment Tools (CHAT). Predictable 
69 


26936.061

Senate Environment and Public \V orks CPmrnitt~e 

Response Questions 

June !5.2017 4 

mitigations, avoidable conflicts, and anticipated costs have allowed industry to adopt and even 

champion these tools. 

3. Director Voyles. some claim that enhancing the role of state 

wildlife agt:ncies in managing endangered species would be tantamount to gutting 

and repealing the Endangered Species Act Do you agree? 

RESPONSE: Clearly. those claims are either made in ignorance of the role state wildlife 

play in threatened and species conservation or they are 

The recommendations testimony and the AFW A proposal 

not result in "gutting" the ESA or authority. rather, the proposals provide a 

pathway to capitalize on the and demonstrated track record of state wildlile 

agencies to successfully conserve It is my hope that Congress will realize that only 

stronger partnership between state and federal agencies will the intent of the ESA ever 

of some organizations undermines the very intent of 

impk:m<~nt·~d. This is evident from published statement of Kieran 

who founded for Biological Diversity: '"New injunctions, new 

listings and new bad press take a terrible toll on agency morale. When we stop the same 

sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out They feel like 

their careers are mocked and destroyed -and they are. So they become much more willing 

to play by our warfare a very aspect of environmental 

., This of AFWA and state agencies in seeking 

As it sits today. the ESA has been commandeered by litigious that are concerned that the 

combined conservation power of an effective state/federal would render ineffective 

the of third lawsuits the FWS to drive conservation via 

diminish had an increased capacity to inlluence 

entl~"'""·""" species. Rather than state efforts to 

to as many species as possible, 

the FWS. and diminishing management 

organizations' efforts in the comt room 

land use restri~tions, 11nancial commitments !rom 

allowed under the ESA. 

the Arizona Game and Fish Depmtmcnt manages, only 44 

less than 6%, are under the ESA. Although this number is higher than we would 

be, since 1983 Arizona has implemented nongame and endangered wildlife program and 

implemented conservation actions to promote population numbers to from being 

listed under the ESA. As an example, environmental litigants have an additional 

Arizona to be included under the ESA the last t!ve years. Deflecting unsubstantiated 

listing requires substantial efll:xt and financial resources by both FWS and the state. 

Arizona. nearly I 00% of the 

species implemented by the state 

agency alone annually spends over $4.5 

conservation 1\)r threatened and endangered 

agency, or under the authority of the state. 

million dollars directly on conserving nongame 
70 


26936.062

Senate Em·ironment and Puh!ic Works Committee 

Voyles Response Follow-up Questions 

Junc15,2017 

endangered wildlife; this includes listed species and species we are working hard to preclude 

from However, one of the state wildlife agency's most effective roles in nongame and 

species conservation is in communication and cooperation with federal, state, 

local, Native American and to implement conservation for these species, 

Our staff has local of areas and wildlife that occupies 

them, and an awareness and the values and needs of landowners and 

managers that essential to developing 

Some of our state wildlife agency's success stories derive from these partnerships, for 

the Arizona bald eagle has grown 600% since the species was listed 

and subsequently , The success of population is not solely due 

to the species being listed under Endangered Species Act, but because our pmtnerships 

generate nearly $250,000 annually for bald eagle conservation, and us to continue to 

implement proactive conservation measures protect breeding pairs the was 

removed from ESA protection, Jn spite success, litigious strive to 

re!ist desert-dwelling bald eagles rather than support or even recognize the effective conservation 

implemented by the professional biologists my agency, 

Director in Director Coifs written testimony, she noted that her department receives 

each year $17,500 ESA section 6 and $23,000 through ESA recovery fimding, lam 

stmck by the smallness amounts, In 2015, noted conservationist Lo\\·el! Baier wrote in 

his book, Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act, that when costs are considered, including 

free reimbursements and related personnel costs, federal taxpayers spend as much as $!3 7 

million per year environmental litigation relating to the Endangered Species Act alone, 

Do you agree that species would be better served if more of those taxpayer dollars flowed to 

state agencies like yours and Director to be on conservation and recovery activities, 

and ti:~wer flowed to lawsuits against the U.S, Fish Wildlife Service? 

RESPONSE: The ESA, as implemented today, has become a to direct 

federal wildlife and habitat management activities that meet their 

that in tum consumes funding allocated to the tedera! agencies for recovery, By 

funding from conservation to the federal effectiveness in 

the overarching conservation machine is reduced, leaving the state 

wild!ite agencies as the primary driver tor on the ground conservation, 

Many state wildlife agencies have modest budgets, as indicated by Director Coit in her 

testimony, yet it is striking to note that even with limited funding, those have 

demonstrated their ability to achieve success common 

and conserving and recovering species, This success outshines that demonstrated 

by the FWS especially given the comparatively few species over which it has exerted sole 

management authority, Overall, the collective capacity of state wildlife agencies is substantia! 

and such as the state-led prelisting and recovery programs for roundtail chub, 

bear, gopher tortoise, Apache trout, southwestern bald 

pronghorn demonstrate the ability of states more e!Tective!y direct achieve 

meaningful conservation on the ground, Further, landscape scale projects tor species 
71 


26936.063

Senate Environment and Publk \Vorb 

Voyles Response to Follow~up Questions 

June !5,2011 6 

benefit all species including listed species, For example, state-leu habitat restoration projects in 

grasslands haw not only increased habitat lor American pronghorn, but the trend for 

many bird species is also increasing as a result. multiple species 

benc!1t conservation efforts, and it is these grassroots effi:wts as 

recovt:rmt~ imperiled wildlife across the 

state wildlife agencies have been so successful in conservation 

cn'n'e:rv:clticm delivery ampliiied by comprehensive management all wildlife 

rather than single species management as practiced by the FWS. True, dedicated funding to 

states lor threatened and species meager. We receive only $460,000 of Section 6 

to recover 44 listed species in Arizona. A !1rst glance leaves the that 

benefit to ESA protected comes from dedicated threatened endangered 

species funding, which is woefully hut these funds are only part of the true picture, 

Under the comprehensive management approach practiced by state wildlife agencies. 

conservation tor game spedes and nongame species are integrated maximize benefit lor 

wildlife. 

and utilizes the capacity of state wildlife agencies to 

would redirect funding away from the "litigation sink'' that 

exists at the levd, and toward the effective conservation delivery machine provided by 

state wildlife agencies, Reallocation of funds from the courts to the states would not "'gut" 

the ESA as suggested by some, but would instead the em~ctivencss of the ESA to meeting 

its purpose as intended by congress, 

how do the number of biologists and conservation of!1cers that are 

state agencies compare to the number employed by federal land 

management agencies? 

RESPONSE: During FY20!6, state wildlife agencies employed almost 50,000 men and women, 

including 1,000 biologists, about 6,000 statf with advanced and I 0, l 00 

la..v enforcement , Further, our kveraged the efforts nearly J 90,000 

volunteers. Annually state wildlife contribute more than $5,6 billion dollars to 

conservation through our collective budgets. 

The 20!6 President's budget request for the FWS totaled $2.966 billion2

, The budget included 

$1.4 billion available under approprimions, most of which were to be 

directly to states for fish and restoration and conservation. The FWS 

1 Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies and Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2017). 

The conservation machine, DO!: !0.13140/RG.22.19l73, 19681. Reuieved from 

httns:/igoo.gli8g4F26. 6, 2017, 

2 USFWS. 2016. Budget Justi!1cations and Performance Information Fiscal Y car 2016. The 

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 
72 


26936.064

Senate Environment and Public Works 

Voyles Response to Follo\v~up Questions 

20!7 7 

at 8, 977 full time equivalents ( FTE) in 2016, While these do contribute to effective 

conservation, for moment how more this nation's conservation 

machine would be we could combine the etTor!s of the 50,000 state conservation employees 

with the tcdera! conservation workforce, 

6, Director how can the ESA be modernized to take advantage ofthc that 

and private owners can bring to bear on conservation restoration imperiled 

rather than being restrictive and punitive to stakeholders within those groups? 

RESPONSE: The simple answer to fully incorporate into Section 6 the state wildlife agencies' 

authorities for managing wildlife and funding those activities, This clearly was the intent when 

enacted Section 6, however, has had varied success, Currently, Section 

for dual management with the as long as the state submits management plan for 

threatened and endangered species, 

The Lesser Prairie Chicken Range-wide conservation Plan (R WI') great example of 

authority to the states for conservation efforts, The R WP describes a locally 

innovative for maintaining state authority to conserve the LPC The goal of the RWP 

to conserve LPC for future generations while facilitating continued and uninterrupted 

economic activity throughout the entire range which includes portion of TX, OK, CO, KS, and 

NM, The RWP identifies a strategy tor LPC conservation: (I) the coordinated 

of landowner programs and (2) the implementation of 

mitigation framework, which reduces threats and provides resources for otl~site 

conservation activities, 

the 41 million acres occupied 

avoided or an impact tee is for off-site 

been collected and placed in endowment, and 

impacts on 

cannot be 

To date, $623 million has 

fund has allowed the states to implement conservation 133,703 acres with 16 landowners, In 

addition, the 14 landowners with 10-ycar agreements will receive over $18 million iu payments 

to conserve LPC 

This conservation plan works because F\VS endorsed the plan's operation and then the 

state wildlife agencies !he authority to approve projects for companies enrolled in the In 

the first three years this translates into l ,000 that have received approval to 

continue, without concerns tor delays that have caused by concern for lesser 

chickc.n, This of and certainty of are key elements touted the 

companies 

7, Director Voyles, stakeholders have concerns that ''biology the result of 

litigation against U,S. Fish and Service implementation of the En.dang,ere:d Species Act 

Are you aware of this concern? If so, please share your views 
73 


26936.065

Scnatu Environment and Public Works Comn1ittee 

Voyles Response to Fo!low~up Questions 

June 15, 20!7 

RESPONSE: "Biology by judge'' is not just a cone em. but Jact that has materialized as a result 

of litigation species listed under ESA. For example, in recent years, federal judges 

reviewing litigated cases have ruled that both northern gray wolf and grizzly bear 

protected by the ESA in of the tact that both species had surpassed established 

goals hundreds or thousands (wolves) of animals. This obvious lack of 

restraint judges who have no biological training and are ;"",d0 ''""''Pl 

to evaluate and weigh technical merits of complex viability models, 

of the ESA that mandates the the best data and expertise available. 

These actions are undertaken noted conservation progress being achieved toward 

and and can only be construed actions to keep 

ESA. Alternatively. litigants ESA or supporting ESA 

have learned to focus efto1ts and resources at ESA decisions in court. rather 

said resources to spedes conservation efforts. Because of widespread abuses of the 

Access to Justice Act, a majority of these court activities are currently funded by the 

Government. ln so doing, have become successful in Federal agency 

resources to ESA litigation and species conservation actions, while attempting to 

gain a foothold toward adopted recovery collaborative agreements, and 

science to Ioree state and federal agencies to bend to desires through the judicial system. 

While most listed species have recovery goals/objectives and clear de-listing 

requirements of come the of eflectivc species 

conservation, judgements rulings, in the context of 

recovery decisions, serves to undermine and nm counter to Congressional 

sound science and collaborative conservation through the ESA. 

The ESA appropriately provides public contribution and evaluation of 

delisting processes. However, current application of the ESA has diverted the 

from and prolessionals trained and Pxme~~""n"'"' 

conservation and, toward an unintended outcome 

and consumed by ""w'''""'"l 

quote by Kieran Suckling referenced 

When ideology and science and the implementation of 

sound conservation are that wildlife resources are no longer 

in trust for our a whole. but instead are through the cowis for those 

and successful bent on the ESA as a to and control 

resource management As FWS's Litigation 

settlement, the FWS was f(Jrced to direct the bulk national resources and budgets toward 

administering ESA timelines and technicalities (such as meeting 90-day and !2-month finding 

requirements for petitioned species) related to order to avoid 

incurring even more costly court-awarded judgements. and legal 

context, successful challenges over ESA and procedure serve divert resources to 

addressing court related activity and away with states and other conservation 

partners work toward recovery of listed species, intended under the ESA. 

8. Director Voyles. you have recommended that l O(i) populations should only be used when the 

Secretary and state agency the boundaries within which those populations are to be 
74 


26936.066

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Voyles Response to Follow-up 

June 2017 9 

released, You have also recommended that the Secretary ''omply any state permits before 

1 00) individuals arc Please explain. 

RESPONSE: The use of "experimental populations" under Section of the ESA, when 

co!laborativcly has become an effective and driver for 

reintroductions, as by Congress in the development of the Act In state of 

alone, tor example, the application of I O(j) designations has successtul 

reintroductions of California condors (1996), wolf revised 20 15), blackfooted terrct (1996) and the expansion and near range of 

Sonoran in 20 I Arizona's record on projects is 

well with my agency continuing to dedicate personnel and associated resources to 

the ongoing management and long-term recovery of these species Arizona. 

Species management llexibility provided through 1 00) population designations generally 

promote improved cooperation among resource management agencies involved reintroduction 

and also serve to innovation addressing on-the-ground management challenges. The 

use of techniques utilizing captin: wolf to improve Mexican 

genetic diversity and population recruitment serves as an innovative 

of the llexibility experimental population provide species As 

Section 100), an experimental if(among other 10 provisions), 

" ... the Secretary determines such release the conservation of such species," and 

'',.before authorizing the release of any the Secretary shall by'"'"'!""'"' 

the population and determine, on the best available information, 

population is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or 

species." In order to make such detem1inations, it incumbent upon the Secretary to base such 

decisions on the best available science. to include knowledge and expertise to the 

m111u>•ca~"' and habitats in which experimental populations are proposed to be This 

is outlined Section 6 of the Act as state agencies serve an obvious role in providing 

and additionally possess well established networks among various 

be affected by IO(j) population designations. Futthermorc, given 

the framework of operating within state and federal statutory authorities, Hl(j) population 

designations require increased coordination to ensure compliance with 

processes and provide bi-directional of associated 

involvement in management of experimental 

and credibility they to successful we 

state wildlife agencies feel a that provides more robust coordination our 

agencies on the establishment of experimental designations, and that provides 

an•nrc11wiiate recognition of joint regulatory will result an improved framework for 

the succcssf'lil management of species having IO(j) designations, 

9. Director Voyles, the Arizona Game and Department developed HabiMap Arizona, which it 

describes as user-triendly, web-based data viewer make inJi1rmation contained within the 

Action Plan available to the public, planners, and our partners." The tool is used 

landscape-scale planning, to provide initial risk assessment for early 

and to gain a general understanding of Arizona's wildlife conservation 

on tool and your department's development of it Please elaborate on how it 
75 


26936.067

Senate and Public Works CmnmiUec 

V0yles Rcspzmse to Follow~up Questions 

2017 10 

can used to facilitate project 

project impacts on threatened 

generate cost savings, and enhance the mitigation of 

endangered species. 

RESPONSE: developed to be an integral component 

and analyze wildlife areas throughout the state. 

represents the first state-specitlc Assessment Tool (CHAT). In an unprecedented 

and bipartisan initiative, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) launched the west-wide 

CHAT 2013. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) assumed 

full administrative responsibility lor the long term maintenance, and of 

the CHAT. This state-based conservation tool the most 

wildlife data and analyses lor landscape-scale conservation 

across scales (including threatened and endangered 

wide scales) and identifies a for conserving. restoring, mitigating 

endangered and other sensitive species. 

Like , CHAT gives industry the ability to incorporate region-wide threatened and 

conservation priorities in the project planning resulting bettersiting and risk assessment. avoid project increased costs, and 

minute conflicts while avoiding and to threatened and 

CHAT also provides conservation partners 

mitio:>tic'n eflorts are most effectively implemented. 

The CHAT approach can be used to focus on 

conservation and industry in the rm,cl•ll<•nn 

by the W AFW A Lesser 

CIIA T. The LPC initiative is a successful partnership between states, 

landowners that has demonstrated locally controlled and innovative 

threatened and endangered species. Crucial Habitat Assessment Tools 

the west-wide W AFW A CHAT, and the Southern Great Plains CHAT 

of the expertise, and initiative the states possess to manage 

Ranking Member Carper: 

10. Does your state have a law that 

species, and if so, does that law cover 

to engage 

the ESA as 

endangered 

RESPONSE: Arizona state the duplicative act of co-listing additional 

listing beyond those Arizona 

Arizona Game and Fish De·uartn1errr 

of Greatest 

threatened or endangered under ESA The 

Wildlife Action Plan. 2012-2022 identities specitlc 

Need. their distribution, a list of stressors each 

faces climate change), and conservation actions needed to protect and conserve 

species and their habitats. As a result of this our focus on conservation is actually 

much broader than that focused on state listed because the SWAP provides conservation 
76 


26936.068

Senate Environment and Public \Vorb Committee 

Voyles Response to Fn!low-up Question:-; 

June 15,2017 II 

actions for broad suite of species, and hence more effective than state endangered species 

law in full-scale conservation, 

The Arizona Department of Agriculture administers and enforces the Arizona Native Plant Act 

(A.KS. §3-901 934). not be legally possessed, taken or 

transported from the Arizona Department of Agriculture, 

The Act protects the survival of which arc 

which are or significant of their 

plant species as threatened or under the ESA of Civil and 

criminal penalties are provided tor violations of the Arizona Native Plant Act (A.R.S. § 3-932-

934) . 

. Does your state law prohihit the killing or wounding of endangered or protected species, actions 

that are known as a "take?'" 

\Vildlifc in Arizona, both rcsidt,nt 

and migratory, and threatened or species, 

property ofthe state, and the take such wildlife unless by law (A,R.S, 

§§ 17-!02; 7-309; 17-3 4). "Take'' is deiined as shooting, hunting, fishing, 

killing, snaring or netting wildlife or the use any trap or device that 

the capture or of wildlife (A.KS, § 17-101 (20)). Criminal enforcement and 

are provided in Title I 7 for unlaw lui take ofwildlik 

A,R,S, § 17-3! 4 authorizes criminal prosecution and the of enhanced civil penalties 

for the unlawful taking, killing or possession federally-listed endangered 

species. The statute directs that minimum penalties by the Arizona Game and 

Commission be for not less than $8,000, and doubled or tripled for a second and third verdict or 

judgment 

AJ{,S. § 17-320 provides that in the event the (Felis onc:a) de!isted under the federal 

ESA. an unlawful killing, wounding or po;;se:;sKm of a jaguar in this state subject to criminal 

enforcement and the assessment of up to penalties. 

12. Docs that law define changes to habitat that adversely 

''take?" 

endangered or threatened species as 

RESPONSE: !t 

but 

them with a higher 

for important f(Jr habitat, the Arizona 

is focused on actions directed toward the wildlife. That there is a 

by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission that mandates mitigation for habitat at 

ratio for unavoidable impacts to hahitat for all species. Further, to note that within 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department there arc 17 full-time staff to the effective 

management of habitat to ensure that habitat quality maintained !br all wildlife species. 
77 


26936.069

Senate Environrncnt and Public Works Committee 

Response to Follow-up Questions 

June 1.1, 2017 12 

Habitat conservation is an important element of my Department's management program as 

evidenced by this high level of stafllng, 

it fair to say that first and foremost your state is seeking closer collaboration w·ith your federal 

in the and threatened species conservation process and more federal 

resources species conservation? Do you believe progress can made 

administratively under the current law') 

consideration with the modernization the ESA through 

administrative that much !ike chaff from wheat, which is blown in the wind without 

direction administrative is not always an enduring proposition. One of the 

testimonies to the effectiveness of the ESA that it has withstood the test of both time and 

courts and remains largely intact Such would not be so i r the sole remedy was an administrative 

fix. 

Does your state have a conservation plan or efforts underway to 

game species, from becoming threatened or endangered? If so, 

ftmding to successfully implement that plan? 

including nonyou have adequate 

RESPONSE: My and a Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Conservation Plan tor all nongame species conservation 

that are listed, or to preclude their listing under the ESA. ln 

each state agency, Arizona included. has created a State Wildlife Action 

for the implementation of conservation projects under the congressionally approved FWS State 

Wildlife Grant Funds. 

State wildlife agency-led investment strategies such as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act 

of 2000, and the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon on Sustaining America's Diverse 

Fish and Wildlife Resources of2016 demonstrate a history of state-initiated movements to fund 

and endangered species conservation. However, the success or failure of these 

rests entirely with Congress's ability to recognize the importance of investing in the 

conservation of nongame species. to the Government Accounting Otlice, once listed, 

the average cost of recovery of a single can exceed $125 million. However, state wildlife 

can proactive conservation measures to prevent listings for a fraction 

investment needs be made now, to recognize savings in the future. 

much docs your state spend on iill species management 

animals, including fish, game and non-game species)? 

conservation (all plants and 

RESPONSE: ln the past 2 fiscal years, agency allocated in excess of $95 million annually 

toward conservation, management and restoration for all 800+ Arizona wildlite species 

we manage, addition, my agency was awarded more than 139 external contracts support of 

wildlife conservation projects that resulted in an additional $! 7.2 million received annually for 

the benefit of wildlife, 

16. How many employees do you employ in your t!sh and wildlife/game agency? 
78 


26936.070

En\·ironment and Public Wor!cs Cormnittcc 

Voyles Response to FollO\\-up Questions 

June 15.2017 l3 

RESPONSE: A key pillar of our successful business model is maintaining a highly qualified and 

workforce passionate lbr wildlife. Arizona's state wildlife agency has one of the most 

entrepreneurial and educated worktbrccs in state government. Our Wild!ifeSeries 

(biologists) and most Law Enforcement rangers) require a minimum of a 

Currently, the Department's wnrk!orce consists of a of 623 employees 

and temporary workers. We also have large contingent of unpaid volunteers who meet 

and objectives. The Department considers these volunteers essential in 

Profile. As a demonstration of the importance of volunteers to the Arizona 

conservation machine, annually we 2,500 concerned volunteers that contribute about 

80,000 hours of on-the-ground enorts. 

The Arizona Game and Fish is the second largest statewide law enforcement agency 

Arizona. Our o!licers arc first responders to rural community emergency calls, 

boating and otT-highway vehicle acddents. To man~ge operations consistent with revenue, our 

'"'.""'"''"' workforce (part-time interns and volunteers) an impor1ant role in 

)eroarl~mocnl meet its and objectives. usc of lets us maintain a 

wcorKmr·N' without incurring additional costs involved with hiring full-time en'tlli•DY<Jes 

and allows us actively engage wiih our constituents. Recent examples of the we 

employed to expand our capacity given the constraints of cap on om workforce include 

partnerships with Quail Forever and lhe Mule Deer Foundation. In true government/private 

partnering my agency has worked with lhese two to fund and hire 

biologist positions that arc delivering on shared mission has allowed 

my agency to expand its to take advantage of new opportunities 

meet our public trust to manage wildlite species Arizona. 

17. How much do you spend lbr species conservation and what percentage 

that relative to the total amount in species conservation? How many employees are 

devoted to non-game species conservation work? 

RESPONSE: This number is difficult to 

North American Model where wildli!e 

as my agency operates under the tenants of the 

such, Department 

manages for wildlife as part of in excess of $95 

million annually on conservation for 

allocated directly for the sole 

includes listed This 

restoration, enhancements. and landowner 

benefit of both game and species. The 

well demonstrated by wildlife water 

nongame species by simultaneously creating habitat for imperiled native frogs, and a grassland 

restoration project to remove invasive woody for American pronghorn 

improved and expanded habitat for dogs lerrets. ln20J6-20!7 

Department spent an additional million on habitat $3.9 

million in partner flmding toward these habitat pr()jects, 
79 


26936.071

Senate Em ironment Public Works Commiuce 

Voyles Response Follow~up Questions 

15. 2017 14 

species to~ 13% of the total funding spent for management and conservation 

Arizona. 

The number of employees devoted to nongame and species conservation 

work is 26 FTE. However, this a gross underrcpresentation number of employees 

nongame and endangered duties. Many more employees' job duties require 

of and conservation activities, including those in our 

and Access and our Law Enforcement 

a costly that is essential to endangered 

species endangered species funding 

mentioned 

I 8. How much and what percentage of your non-game conservation comes !rom 

kdera! li.mds'' How much does the state invest? What the source of that 

agency allocated base budget of $4.5 million toward nongame 

""'"rrv;nHm in Fiscal Year 2017. amount, 34.6% (or $L55 million) comes from 

funds (State Wildlife Grant Section funding). The remaining $2.94 million (65.4%) 

r.nmr.ri<:tYl of non-federal funding (see sources listed below We've been 

an additional $! 2 million of federal and through other 

contracts and grants from federal, state, and non-governmental 

organizations to to meet mitigation and 

conservation These additional grants contracts provide additional 

conservation benefit to nongame wildlife (other grants and contracts are not part of $4.5 

million). addition to these funds. the maintains an active habitat acquisition fund 

through which habitat is acquired tor species conservation. There is a current fund 

balance of about $!0 million, and several properties are being considered for acquisition at this 

time. 

Non-federal Funding Sources ($4.5 million n.QllKame _bas.;jmdget};_ 

Heritage %of revenue from the Lottery) 

Fish and Wildlife Restoration (administered 

are solely for the state fish and wildlife 

budgets below, all PR and DJ dollars arc as state 

Wildlife Conservation Fund (a% of the revenue from Tribal 

• Game and Fish Fund (license and revenue) 

State Tax Nongame Check-off 

but by law these 

of describing om 

lt is important to note that the $4.5 million allocated for n(mgame management underrepresents the actual expenditure of hmds that benefit Because we approach 

wildlife conservation at landscape scales is an amplilled beneJicial etfect 

for nongame associated for other wildlife we manage. For example, the 

Department recently provided in state generated Heritage lhnding towards a 

$3,675,000 landscape level restored 15,230 acres of and provided year 

round water for grassland wildlifu species on over 400.()00 acres of habitat This project 
80 


26936.072

Senate Environment and Puh!ic Works Committee 

Voyles Response to Fol!ow~up Questions 

June 15. 2017 

benefits species as well as game species 

dogs, western burrowing and 

cnc.rrli•n~u•d llmding ti·om NRCS EQ!P ($1.275,000), \Vater 

Initiative ($930,000), EPA Impaired Waters f\.mding ($420,000) FWS Partners for 

15 

Program funding ($I 00,000), and the AZ of Open Spaces funding 

($800,000). For every dollar of state wildlife of other funding was leveraged 

toward habitat improvement projects that benefit wildlife in the project ar<>a. 

19. States have primary authority for species management and conservation until species arc 

imperiled; the Species Act intended to be a backstop against extinction. 

Species are typically alter state management has proven insuftlcknt to protect habitat and 

prevent species decline. If states have the capacity and resources to address conservation 

and recovery, why do you believe so many species arc imperiled, considering the 

ample notice that often that species are at risk? 

RESPONSE: The statement that ''Species typical/)! slate nu;rna.Q:CJ'IIe.ut 

insufjicieutlo protecr habitat and prevent decline" docs not fairly represent how 

arc currently managed within the slates capacity and resources. 

Prior to enactment of the the state wildlife agencies had accomplished amazing success at 

species management and repatriation. White-tailed deer were extirpated from much of their 

historical range, yet by active conservation this and occupies much of 

its former range. Wild turkeys are now thrilling and in most of North 

America. True, these are hunted and some mischaracterize this as nothing more than 

conservation to aid the hunter. rather than debate this statement let's look the broad 

picture in Arizona. Being fortunate to share clim~tcs Jrom and temperate zones. each 

with their unique wildlife communities, Arizona home to of wildlife species. !n 

fact, Arizona has more than 800 wildlife species, of which, 44 are listed. While this number is 

unfortunate and my Department and federal partners are working hard at recovery, the fact of 

the matter is that more than 750 species are common and abundant thanks to the species and 

habitat management provided the Arizona Game and Fish Department. State management 

successful and responsible tor keeping common species common; to characterize this 

otherwise is disingenuous. 

20. Do you believe this Committee should focus energy on proposals that seek to prevent species 

from being listed the first place? 

RESPONSE: Yes. Without question. the conservationists should be to avoid 

since listing is a sign that the concept "keeping common species common" has not 

Listing has seldom resulted in recovery to the point of delisting, so listing is a last resort 

believe that modernization of ESA, I and my trom other state wildlife agencies 

have identified as major needed steps. can help avoid speed recovery and dclisting and 

make a contribution to effective conservation. also believe your Committee should look 

for to other components of the ESA such as more cftective prelisting 

conservation, recovery dc!isting and post-delisting, Congress should seek to modernize 

the ESA through language that requires increased opportunities tor the state wildlife agencies to 
81 


26936.073

Environm~nt and Pub!k Works Committt.'C 

Voyles Response to 

June .::!017 

take a more !ormal active 

intended by Congress, through the 

Both your testimonies 

Principles for 

document reflect 

administratively? 

]6 

aspects of ESA implementation as 

6 Cooperative Agreements. 

Fish and Wildlife General 

of that 

inc·m,om·otF·d into ESA processes 

regulations and administrative new ideas on 

interpretations of ESA through Unfortunately, these 

have led to short liwd resolving issues and creating 

uwt<:au"'"'" process. An excellent how the F\VS, the recent 

ini·''"''t'''P process of a Species Status Assessment (SSA), makes decisions on species 

Dfl)te•:l!cm under whereby scientists from a wide variety 

entities relevant information work together to provide the FWS with the most accurate 

status assessment possible to aid the Service for species being 

evaluated. While sounding good on paper, the that there are no regulatory guidance in 

place that dictate the slate wildlife agencies share management with the Federal 

must be allowed to play an effective this process, cases, the state 

are the entity the of the data used the SSA. are not always 

••tt.ect:tv~lv involved in SSA. This has SSA process 

over the last lew years the nation. 

do contend that administrative alone insutllcient tL> modernize the ESA a that 

will deliver the conservation protection needed to benefit the it is intended to 

protect and recover. For the rules for "'"''"""o'' "'" 

modiJlcation in order to reduce the current ""''h"""''" 

outline states' roles and responsibilities in 

ESA components including pn~·l:tstlng 

post-delisting. 

22. These principles recommend increasing conservation 

Can you give some examples would be helpful? 

RESPONSE: 

to relva,•·ttln!l 

(Conservation Economics, in 

words especially hold true when 

ofthe land base in the States 

recovery planning, delisting and 

options for private landowners. 

Since the late 1890s the citizens the United Stales have established that the management of 

wildlife species an essential of government Incentive programs have long held 

essential role in the conservation of our Out of Jhr soil conservation, 
82 


26936.074

Senate Em, ironment anJ Pub!ic \Vorks. Cornmittcc 

Voyles Response t0 Fo!l~,_nv~up Questions 

June 20l7 !7 

following the dust bowl in the evolved the incentive-based Farm Bill we know today. In 

the 1960s and 70s, concern for imperiled wildlife and clean water generated the ESA and the 

Clean Water Act Unfortunately, the incentives based programs have never kept pace. As 

shared interest of a!! citizens, the Farm Bill programs have over the past 30 years to 

meet the public's expectations for clean air. water, and soils. Unfortunately, no 

equivalent incentive program has been established our imperiled species. 

Arguably, the management of endangered species and their associated habitats has received the 

same level of public support and are valued by the just highly as clean air and water. 

However, without adequate incentive programs, the burden to ensure quality habitats 

for endangered species has largely fallen to wildlife agencies the private landowner. 

Some attempts have been made federal for example the FWS's Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program, the Program administered by the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, and the Indemnity administered hy the Farm Service 

Agency. All of these programs are limited their for endangered species recovery 

due to funding, limitations in policy or m!e. These limitations impose an administrative 

hurdle, or the private landowner to give up much control over their prope1ty that 

participation private landowners is too low to positively affi:,ct endangered species 

populations. 

Programs dedicated to providing incentives to private landowners that arc specit!cal!y designed 

manage for endangered species with the appropriate level of tlmding are essentiaL One 

incentive option for landowners would be a presence" program included in the 

conservation title landowners to manage their farms or 

ranches in a way that promotes habitat for endangered or inccntivizes tolerance f(lf 

endangered species. For a controversial topic due to wolves 

turning to livestock as a resource. situation with conflict pitting private 

enterprise against the public trust recover endangered species. A program that 

incentives to ranchers to wolves to expand territories without harm or 

that a financial incentive payment that makes the rancher economically 

sustainable will the inherent conflict in wolf recovery and ensure rural economics are 

not hindered by endangered recovery. The most important aspect of any incentive 

for private landowners that participation in the program voluntary or the private 

laridC!WI1er choice or decision. 

This concept could be to any endangered species as long as the is 11exib!e 

enough to provide that work economical!y for the landowners 

trust responsibilities t(Jr endangered This program would also allow any 

such as state wildlife organizations, local communities, or other 

stakeholders to assist in endangered species recovery by providing the delivery 

mechanism for these programs. 

Another option would be assess the current programs designed for endangered species 

recovery on private lands, and to identify areas for legislative action, changes in rule or 

administration, increase or reallocated staff and linancial resources, and other opportunities for 

improvement Any assessment of the current programs should be transparent and at a minimum 
83 


26936.075

Scnall: Environment and Publk \Vorks 

Voyles Response to Follow~up Questions 

June 2017 

include input irom private landowner's themselves. non-profit organizations 

agricultural, wildlife, and recreation, state fish and wildlife agencies, and units 

!8 

government For example. the Working Lands f(lr Wildlife Program administered by NRCS a 

joint elf01i to preclude ESA listing or to recover listed species. This program originally identified 

eight target species that were chosen without widespread input lrom state wildlife agencies, local 

units of government, or other stakeholders. The has been successful in regards to the 

Sage Grouse Initiative, but has been limited in recovery of the seven remaining 

species. There are several reasons for the lack of progress related to those other 

aQI'icrtltull'al producers only. insufficient staffing and incentive 

private landowner's resistance to regulatory control placed 

through ESA if they to participate. Many of the limitations can be resolved 

through administrative changes, transparency, and appropriate resources. 

our country recognized that the citizens of the United States value wildlife and 

our nation's natural resources. Incentives Jbr private landowners will ensure that the public trust 

responsibility for managing endangered species will be met now and into the future. 

Both of your testimonies referenced a 20!4-20!5 Association of Fish and \Vildlife Agencies 

survey, conducted to better understand state agencies' individual and collective resources to 

manage fish wildlife within their borders. You shared some statistics 

Would you please share the survey results in their entirety for the 

Committee can review 

RESPONSE: Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. (20 17). The conservation machine. DOl: l 0. l3l40/RG.2.2.19l73.l9681. Retrieved 

lrom hJ:lJ:lsli'gQ<h,~26 6, 

In closing, want to thank Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper fbr the opportunity 

to respond to your thoughtful believe this bipartisan dialogue is an important step 

forward improving amazing systems of conservation. 

Larry D. Voyles 

Director 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 
84 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you so much for being with us 

today and for your testimony. 

I would like to next turn to Janet Coit, who is the Director of 

the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 

Thanks so much for being with us today. Welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET COIT, DIRECTOR, RHODE ISLAND 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. COIT. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso and members of 

the Committee. It is good to be here. My name is Janet Coit, and 

I am the Director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. We oversee the fish and wildlife agency and 

also have authority over all of the environmental protection and 

natural resource laws. I have worked under two Governors and 

been the Director for 6 years, and am proud to now work for Governor Gina Raimondo. 

Testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee today is really an honor and a little bit surreal. I 

worked as a professional staff member and the counsel for the 

Committee many, many years ago, leaving 20 years ago, right 

when this Committee was about to report out the KempthorneChafee-Baucus-Reid Endangered Species Recovery Act. And even 

though that was two decades ago, I just wanted to spend a few moments talking about that experience, and I think it does bear looking at that bill, S. 1180. 

That was reported by a bipartisan vote of 15 to 3 after a very 

extensive process. We had 3 years of negotiations and hearings. It 

was wonderful to work for Senator John Chafee, who was the fantastic Republican Chairman of this Committee who held conservation values very dear. He liked to quote Yogi Berra, and he would 

say ‘‘you can see a lot by looking,’’ and given that philosophy, we 

did many, many field hearings. 

And we went to Wyoming and talked to ranchers about blackfooted ferrets; we traveled with John Turner, who was the Director 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We went and met power companies and timber companies. We talked to farmers and ranchers 

and took a look at what was actually happening, and it was very, 

very clear then, and is now, that the Endangered Species Act has 

a very different impact and reputation in different regions of this 

country. 

So I am pleased to give you the Rhode Island perspective, and 

also my perspective, which is a different one; it is one of a policy 

staffer for the EPW Committee who now is overseeing a State 

agency with considerable budget constraints, a very important and 

critical mission, and really the need to have public engagement and 

buy in if we are going to be successful. 

So turning to some of the major points I want to make. The time 

is moving too fast here. So, first, strong Federal role, critical. Until 

the Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973, signed into law 

by Richard Nixon, we didn’t have a really strong set of legal authorities to protect threatened and endangered species, so that Act 

is really one of the finest conservation laws in the world and has 

had many, many successes. And it is critical to have that Federal 

85 

backstop to ensure that, whatever happens, we know we have authorities to protect threatened and imperiled species. 

So I just want to say that I know everyone here and my comments, too, are about making the Act more successful. More successful for conservation, more successful for State agencies. We are 

all geared toward doing that, and there is a tremendous workload, 

and it would be wonderful if you could have a bipartisan bill as you 

did 20 years ago. 

I think this Committee is known for working through intractable 

issues with respect, and I think that a lot of work will be needed 

in order to get a bipartisan Endangered Species Act modernization 

bill, but that it is possible if people are very thoughtful and take 

a look at how this Act touches down so that we don’t undermine 

some of the work that is needed in places like Rhode Island in the 

northeast while we listen to some of the experiences from the West. 

The next point I want to make is just to endorse the need for 

strong State agency engagement. We are the boots on the ground. 

Our biologists are foresters, and we are intermittently involved in 

the community, so we know both the conservation and the science, 

but also the industries and the companies, the landowners that we 

need to work with. So full participation and engagement of the 

State agency is critical in listing decisions, in recovery plans, in 

monitoring, in outreach, in collaboration. 

And I can say that in the northeast, with Region 5, we have a 

very close working relationship, and that gets me shortly to my 

point about the New England cottontail. But Wendi Weber, the 

head of Region 5, has been terrific at reaching out to the States to 

collaborate. 

Adequate resources. I won’t repeat what my colleagues have said, 

but the adequate resources for conserving species are critical to any 

reforms, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We 

all want to keep species from getting on the list. That is the success. And once on, getting them off. 

So I want to again mention the State wildlife action plans. We 

put a tremendous amount of working into those, working with 

stakeholders, and they are really serious science based documents 

with lists of critical species and with strategies, and they help us 

spend resources wisely. So the States have those plans. Unfortunately, at least in my State of Rhode Island, we don’t really have 

sufficient resources to carry them out. 

Let me just summarize one last point. The New England cottontail is a great example of how an imminent listing motivated people 

to get together really coordinated or kicked off by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, but then with the States as equal partners, the 

Wildlife Management Institute administered the process, and by 

doing that we were able to take a species that was about to be listed, that had lost 86 percent of its habitat, and prevent it from 

being listed so that Secretary Jewell was able to announce that 

listing was not warranted. 

And we have a whole cadre of private landowners, partners, and 

excited folks who are working together on conserving the New England cottontail, and we have captive breeding programs, and we 

are seeing that species, and the 65 other species that depend on 

86 

that young forest habitat, flourish because of the way we worked 

collaboratively across many States. 

Then I will just end by saying what you have so many times in 

this Committee, that one size does not fit all. We are very resource 

constrained. Fortunately, the sportsmen and women of this country 

have seen to it that we have funding for game species. It has been 

decades that we have been looking for an adequate source of funding for non-game species. 

In a State like mine, 80 to 85 percent of the funds we have are 

already restricted to game species. It is very difficult to find the resources to put toward our engagement with the Endangered Species Act or the whole host of non-game species that are under our 

authority and stewardship as a State agency. 

So thank you. I look forward to any questions, and thank you 

very much for having me. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Coit follows:] 

87 


26936.076

TESTIMONY OF .JANET COlT 

DIRECTOR, RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF l<:NVIRONMENTAL lH.ANAGEMENT 

Good 

see 

BEFORE nu: Sl~N.A~n: COMMITTEE l<:NVJRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

Regarding the Nee!l to Mo!lemizc the Endangered SJiedes Ad 

May 21H7 

Barrasso, Ranking lV[emhcr Carper, It good 

Janet and I am the Director ofthc Department of Environmental 

Ma:nag,oment (RlDEM). Th<l RIDEM over protection and natural resource 

Rhode Island. Resources Bureau encompasses a wide range of 

agt·wrl!lutrc, state parks, beaches campgrounds, 

M. Raimondo. 

be a professional staff member and later counsel to 

state's two major fishing potts. I 

am proud to work for Governor 

""~~'"'"'''"u Chainnan, the late· Senator John Twenty ago, T !eft that position to 

Rhode Island, just as Committee was ·wrapping up work on the brbdrurgered 

1997 the Kempthomc·Cha!ee·Bancus·Reid bilL That 

of !5-3. And, despite the of twenty years, a careful 

were: (l) to and 

issues that 
88 


26936.077

companies, fisherman, municipal leaders and others in the west. Those experiences made to 

that the Endangered Species Act has a ditierent reputation impact in ditierent regions of the nation. 

That remains true today. A.nd, I am honored offer testimony from the perspective of Rhode Island, and 

also from my perspective that of a former Committee-staffer who now oversees the fish and wildlife 

agency and other conservation and environmental programs Rhode Island, vvho across state 

in New England, and who confronts the management reality of competing priorities, limited funding, and 

a mission that reqnires public support and understanding order to achieve success. 

and nesting again our state, 

sm:ce:sstilltv on our beaches. We 

in the world on Block IslandVolunteers have rallied to with 

And, our fishermen ·-while sometimes frustrated 

morass of regulations 

whales and sea turtles 

must contend with day to interest in avoiding en,:!m:ogered 

protecting fhe species upon depend. 

The Endangered Spe.cies Act one of our strongest and most importaut environmental laws. And has 

had many successes even while fhe greatest success is keeping plants, fish and wildlife otT the All 

of my comments are aimed at increasing the success of our combined efforts to protect the ecosystems 

that support the diversity of life on onr planet. 

STRONG FEDERAL ROLE 

Until fhe enactment ofthe Endangered Species Act in 1973 signed into law by President Richard Nixon 

- the federal government did not have strong euough legal authority to list and conserve plants and 

member of the animal kingdom. The ESA has been tremendously important, and ultimate decision 

making for listing and conservation belongs with the federal government. 

Rhode Island is one of several states that lacks a state-level law to protect threatened and endangered 

species. Thus, we depend on the clear protections m1d enforcement mechanisms, 1md the consultations 

under the federal ESA as a foundation for our conservation work. 

The debate is really about the mechanisms and tools to perform conservation and how to 

states and our species the best chance to succeed. I applaud you for looking for common sense reforms, 

difficult task that requires a careful and tlwughtful approach and, more importantly, resources. No 

modernization effort will be successful without adequate resources at fhc federal, and especially the state 

to carry out the enonnous workload ahead. 

STRONG STATE AGENCY ENGAGEMENT 

not take the time to review the broad authorities that states have over the fish and wildlife 

fheir borders. The Committee well aware of that fact, and is reaffirmed in the Endangered Species 

Act. State fish and wildlife agencies are the key on-the-ground and in-the-water biologists, foresters and 

managers who work with partners and landovmers to conserve land, water and wildlife. 

The states should and do play centra! role in habitat conservation and fish and wildlife management 

Our state wildlife action plans provide comprehensive science-based strategies for habitat conservation 

and identify Species of Greatest Conservation Need. W11ile this list only catalogues the important species 

for the various states and regions, it provides n roadmap for research, and helps us spend our limited 

research dollars meaningful and impactful projects, and keeps us from spending both money and time 

on projects that will not benefit the greater good. 

2. 
89 


26936.078

Federal decisions will be improved and our recovery efforts hastened by full participation and 

engagement of our state fish and wildlife agencies in ESA implementation. Indeed, any successful effort 

to promote conservation would benefit from strengthening state engagement and opportunities to play a 

bigger role in: 

m Listing decisions- Data and input from state agencies are critical sources of scientific 

infonnation, and better commooication with the is needed. Ensuring broad scientific input 

is essential to confidence in listing decisions. 

101 Target Populations/Recovery plans to ensure adequate representation from the states 

developing and implementing recovery plans. 

Ill Monitoring··· States have the best capacity and knowledge, and are on the front lines for the 

management and monitoring of species. Resource constmiuts are limiting. 

Ill Outreach ~Coordinating messages, strategies and outreach with state agencies who have 

relationships and intimate knowledge of their communities essential to success. 

l!l Collaboration~ Working with the states to partner with locally impacted industries, nongovemmental organizations and communities on infom1ation and data gathering increases both 

resources being brought to bear a given issue, as well as increasing the buy in of that 

infonnation the decisions that stem from them. 

The states stand ready to work with the Committee on ESA rcfonn. By tapping onr collective 

experiences, working with the regulated community and with the environmental community, I believe a 

bi-partisan modernization can be developed to refom1 the ESA a manner that improves efficiency 

and effectiveness and maintains the Act's original intent Decisions ooder the are based on science, 

and improved through full engagement of multiple scientific sources. for many species, like the 

American Burying Beetle- with the only natural population of this endangered critter east of the 

Mississippi River in Block Island- our state biologists have the best data from which to set targets and 

make recovery decisions. Fortnnately, in Rhode Island the USFWS is in routine commtmication with 

RID EM on recovery plans. 

NEED FOR ADEQUATE RESOURCES 

have a strong track record of recovering wildlife 

sound science and sufficient financial resourc.es. 

because of the $! billion in annual funding that sp{Jrtsme:n 

in taxes the Pittman-Robertson and Dingeli-Jolmson 

state-::ev:e! conservation. However, for the more than 20,000 so-called ··n<on-:crnnn<>"' 

.. ~,"~'·"··~" receive less than $110 million annually (state/tribal 

most of the species of greatest conse.rvation risk are 

The best way to facilitate collaboration and non-regnlatory measures ensuring that there are 

suft1cient re~ources for the state agencies to imjplement measures before more 

adage An ounce of 

can make to save 

Endar1gered S peeios Act investing in the State 

which are currently through the $62 million State Wildlife 

Grants program. These Action Plans, developed collabomtively with local stakeholders, lay out the steps 

3 
90 


26936.079

save 

America's 

investing in their implem•mtati<)ll, 

Rihbon Panel on :Su:st!unmtg 

management 

and wildlife conservation, 

mzma,gernerrt r<lspon:sibihties, Ninety percent ofthe our DFW carries 

revenues) and only five percent of our federal is 

RID EM receives only $17,500 each year through ESA section 6 and $23,000 each year through 

recovery funding -which covers just a fraction of the obligations and initiatives we carry out relating to 

conservation of candidate, threatened and endangered While department would relish the 

opportunity to engage further, that would require additional staff and funding, Right now, in order to 

follow through on our commitments, we must and draw funds from non-ESA 

diminishes our species. our small 

fisheries staff is working on a complex section l 0 pennit to address conservation of the endangered 

Atlantic Sturg~'<)U to protect our tlsherman from violating the ESA- using limited state funds for 

purpose. This marine team is also involved in recovery plans for the sturgeon, whales, sea turtles and 

other species. We have dedicated funding for and it has a very significant impact on our 

state program. I know this to be !me in oilier states; so, for many states, increased state role would 

require additional federal funding. 

have capacity to deliver. an important 

on increased engagement have uneven in the fifty states. One size does 

fit More resources are needed at the state and federal level if we to succ,eed any ESA 

reforms. Investing conservation, wildlife and outdoors pays otf. The Outdoor Industry As:soc:.arlon 

just released The Outdoor Recreation Economy report month that outdoor 

recreation generates $887 consumer 

jobs and generates billion J:ederal tax revenue 

each year. Protecting and habitats makes economic sense and investing up front pays dividends 

in the future. 

COLLABORATION TOWARDS .A DEFINED GOAL- ENGLAND COTTONTAJL 

As with any e.ftort, working together requires attention to process, ground rules, and identit!cation of a 

defined goal up front Success usually depends on building tmst and understanding over time. I want to 

highlight an example lhat demonstrates the powerful value of engagement, cooperation and collahoration 

between the stntes and the lJSFWS. l believe that the Northeast Region of the USFWS, and the northeast 

directors, have especially working relationship fostered tluough open communication 

a commitment to solving problems together. especially important when dealing with range~wide 

that cover multiple states. ln the northeast, this is frequently the case, as it was with thtl New 

England Cottontail, which inspired the popular Adventures <?[Peter Cottontail by Thornton W, Burgess, 

The New England Cottontail 

tor ESA protection in 2006. 

species, a fonnal effort kicked 

the only rabbit native to England, was classified as candidate 

Rhode Island and other states had already been interested this 

2008 that had the right tean1 and approach commit to 

4 
91 


26936.080

cmlServa,tlorL That effort six states, tribes, federal agencies, non-profits like 

Management Institute, academia and others --was successf~li, culminating in the 2015 announcement by 

the Secretary of the Interior that listing under the ESA was no longer wananted. 

valuable to look at strategies that led to success. included: 

Ill Team approach. Everyone involved knew it could not be done alone. 

Til Commitment The executive team committed to a goal to "promote recovery, restoration and 

conservation of NEC so listing is not nec.essary." And they committed funds and staff, and 

agreed to through. 

111 Dedicated Resources: The States and regional office ofthe Service pooled resources to fimd 

habitat restoration efforts and facilitate collaboration among stakeholders. 

!111 Business model. The group developed by-laws, metrics, annual pe1fonnance reviews and made a 

commitment to adaptive management States signed conservation on the ground agreements with 

the usrws in support of the conservation plan. 

!II Private Landowner Engagement. From the start, partners worked on a Working Lands for 

Wildlife strategy where f=ers and timber companies agreed to reestablish young forests while 

continuing to farm or timber 1heir private propel1y. 

Ill Clear goals. Critical to the success was the collaboration around setting population targets and 

measurable objectives to address threats - specific goals like the number of acres in conservation. 

With this, the states and other team members had high level of certainty that the conservation 

effort would be effective 

In Rhode Island, with the USFWS, tl1e Natural Resources Conservation Service has been a critical 

partner in im:plem~mtiing the private lands strategy, while my department is creating hundreds of acres of 

early state lands. 

RIDEM has spent over $1.7 on the NEC effort, engaged with many partnerswith great messages abont the benefits to NEC and other species. We have funded: 

Iii University Rhode Island Regional Genetics Laboratory 

Iii Captive breeding program at Roger Williams Park 

Ill Establishment and monitoring of a newly established population on Prudence Island 

!II Redistribution of RI Captive Bred NECs and their progeny to populations in other states 

1!1 Creation of yoang forest habitats on state private properties 

"' Outreach and a volunteer program (supporting research on distribution and abundance) 

This was a significant partnership, with over 100 participants. And, in Rhode Island, there was no 

controversy or outcry, even when conservation maps encompassing major portions of the state were 

unveiled. That is because the messages were on target, and participants were able to explain the goals 

5 
92 


26936.081

and approach. People generally suppott when they tmderstand how it impacts ~hem and 

believe it is science-based and likely to succeed. ln cases where success avoids the restrictions under 

ESA, you have a motivated group of stakeholders. 

!he model intense and time-consuming, [ it can be replicated result other 

successful initiatives to avoid listings. We certainly are eager to continue this approach. Having said 

that, RJDEM could not sustain this level of llmding and participation across too many fronts. 

INCENTJVIZE EARLY ACTION 

lncentivizing early action with states and private landowners is upside. As mentioned earlier, 

a big focus of the approved by this committee !997. One way to incentivize early action 

described above with the l'rEC 

en.~mlra.ac conservation on 

mitigate and take, and 

being listed provide an area for further exr,loraticm 

CLI!\1A.TE CHANGE 

concerned about the 

increased carbon 

our lobstermen and "'"""·"'•"' 

observe that copepod abundance 

interactions as historical 

the measures 

successful if right are traveling and moving from 

more likely to encounter fixed gear. 

We 

marine environment 

waters, which changes dynamics 

science-based and conservative 

of triggering the ESA 

businesses nRI1nerinP 

umntende•d ru1d 

research 

being 

through "safe agreements, 

and opportunities to prevent species from 

and into areas where they were not before, we ourselves under-resoureed examine 

to design and implement the needed research in an effcnt to keep new species from 

6 
93 


26936.082

This further collaboration with the National Marine Fisheries 

COJinple]ritJ,;,s associate with climate 

ne.w thinking to protect resources from becoming listed. 

of tbe new opportunities as they arise. 

and to develop new tools and 

we want to take advantage 

In 1973, climate change was not on the minds of the sponsors of the ESA. Adaptive management was, 

however, and the need to look at cumulative impacts and protect critical habitat. Issues around critical 

habitat designation have been particularly challenging, and earlier legislation would have moved tbat to 

later in the process-- as part of the recovery plan. The federal agencies face tremendous backlog when 

it comes to listing decisions, consultations, habitat conservation and recovery plans, Improved 

implementation of the act will require exploration and use of flexible tools and approaches 

that improve efficiency and effectiveness -and this work becomes more urgent as we at the rate of 

change in our state. Portunate!y, the Act has many flexibilities now that can and should be expanded. 

In Rhodtl Island, we take preserving our natural heritage for future generations very seriously. We want 

to conserve the diversity of ecosystems upon which species depend~ and do in a way that increases 

understanding and buy in with a high likelihood of success. I close by once again, referring to former 

Chair Senator John ChaJee. He often said, "give nature a chance, and she will rebound but you must 

give nature that chance." I see the ESA as the critical federal backstop to ensure that we give nature a 

chance. appreciate the Committee Members interest and commitment to conservation. Thank you. 

7 
94 


26936.083

Senate Committee 011 Environment and .Public Works 

Responses to following the May 10, 2017 hearing entitled 

"Conservation, Consultation, and Capacity: State Views on the Need to 

Modernize the Emlange1·ed Species Act" 

Questions for .Janet Coit, 

Director, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 

Chairman Barrasso: 

Director Coit, in your written testimony, you noted that your depmtment receives each 

year only $17,500 through ESA section 6 and $23,000 through ESA recovery funding. 

am struck by the smallness of these amounts. ln 2015, noted conservationist Lowell Baier 

v.Tote in his book, Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act, that when all costs are 

considered, free reimbursements and related costs, federal taxpayers 

spend as much as $137 million per year on environmental litigation relating to the 

Endangered Species Act alone. 

Do you agree that species vmuld be better served if more of those taxpayer dollars flowed 

to state like yours to be spent on conservation and recovery activities, and fewer 

flowed to lawsuits against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 

Answer: I agree that more for state is needed to improve 

conservation and recovery activities. Also, spending money on conservation rather than 

makes sense. Improved collaboration and coordination between state agencies 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could result in redirection of funds and resources 

to investment in and habitat management And, a new or 

better strategy to resolve or settle multiple lawsuits would be welcome. 

Conservation efforts aimed at preventing species from becoming threatened or 

endangered are more effective than efforts to recover after has been listed. 

The New England cottontail (NEC) strategy an excellent example of that approach, and 

Candidate Conservation Agreements bring together at a time when states have 

more options. Increased funding for non-game species is needed tor conservation efforts 

to be successfuL Increasing the federal investment in the State Wildlife Action Plans, 

funded through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, would be smart and 

effective way to conservation successes. Also, please note that the Rhode Island 

Depattment of Environmental Management (RIDEM) invests signit1cantly more 

in protecting than what we receive in federal funding the 

ESA. Millions of dollars from State Wildlife Grants and Wildlife and Sp01t Fish 

Restoration have been spent on species recovery and animal protection, !m;mlm.tg 

plover and New England cottontail. 
95 


26936.084

2, Director Coit, some environmental groups claim that enhancing the role of state fish and 

wildlife agencies in threatened and endangered would be tantamount to 

and Act Do you agree? 

Answer: From the Rhode Island the Department of Environmental 

Management has been a pmt of effective regional collaborations by state agencies and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in the northeast 

for several including the New England cottontaiL This demonstrates that 

pa;rtlllcrship and resource produce positive results. State have 

valuable expertise, and state biologists have important data and intimate 

knowledge ofloca! natural resources, This knowledge and suppm1 the 

that state fish and wildlife agency should be to strategic dc<~isi.on-m:>kiJtHl 

for candidate and listed species, and that states should take a central role in developing 

science-based recovery plans. 

This type of collaborative an for all state and 

federal to make an impact in the recovery process and to avoid c.omplications 

related to That said, this to management for species of concern is still 

being tested and win take years until results are realized, The ESA has been an imi)Otl:ant 

mechanism and that brought and partners to the table 

in the northeast 

3. referenced Rhode Island's encouragement 

tec.!Ul(J!OJ~ic:al •r""'"~t.An to protect In March, Senators Carper, Inhofe, 

Booker, Boozman, Whitehouse, and l introduced the "Wildlife Innovation and 

Longevity Driver" Act, or "WILD Act". This legislation created five cash tor 

tec,hn<:llog!Cal innovation, including one to promote wildlife conservation and one for 

protecting endangered species. 

Can you expand on how Rhode Island's Department of Enviromnental Management is 

encouraging use of technology ~md innovation to prevent the need to list species in the 

first place under the Endangered Species Act? 

A11swer: In Rhode Island, with to wildlife, we have invested in work, 

conducted at the genetics laboratory at the University of Rhode Island (URI) focused on 

identifying New England cottontails based on genetic markers. New techniques and 

developJrnent of the to run samples from other New England states to support onthe-ground research for this species have been an part of the 

restoration process. This has been a collaboration with numerous partners within 

the state of Rhode Island, around N<\W England, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. the NEC restoration effort young forest habitat relied 

on by at least 65 other species. 

2 
96 


26936.085

With regard marine species, we have approached new from numerous 

angles. These include: improving harvest and discard information by participating in 

projects that use tablets and smart to record fishermen information; 

ou ~~'''"'·"e use of gear teclmologies to reduce bycatch; and 

management strategies that reduce bycatch (e.g., sector program, aggregate program). 

:Stn>te£ncs to reduce bycatch help keep marine from becoming imperiled. 

waters, acidit1cation and other issues associated with climate change are 

new challenges ar1d will call for innovative solutions. Cash have been effective in 

the past at promoting new to a recent national 

heard this same message f!·om the Honorable Matt Mead, Governor, State 

in the context of capturing carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. 

4. Director Co it, in an article in Eco-Rl (Rhode !sl<md) entitled "Trump's Win Creates 

Concems About Environment, "Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo stated that 

win "puts even greater burden on states to take action and be creative" with 

to the environment. You were, in the article stating: "Now we have to 

stop, regroup, and guess that the will have to come fi·om the state leveL ! 

guess we have to look at ourselves more." 

a. Can states like Rhode Island lead on environmental issues, such as 

species that need help? 

care of 

Answer: States can and do lead on many environmental issues, <md cross-state 

collaborations and of best are valuable budget 

constraints. As mentioned, Rhode Island does not have a state law that protects at-risk 

species. And, in the not1heast, many of the and listed 

and/or have ranges that cover multiple states (with varying 

provide an important consistency ar1d In addition, it is to ,.N,no·n"'" 

that states are not and may differ in their willingness and ability to 

eontribute to or lead on ESA matters. 

l a111 proud R!DEM has been a leader in taking proactive steps to conserve fish and 

wildlife, beyond \vhat is required under federal law. Areas where we have led include 

management whelk, menhaden, hetTing and sea ducks. Also, we have 

been willing to test progressive strategies, as regards marine fisheries. 

However, one state cannot effectively do alone or comprehensively. In order to 

succeed, we need a working partnership among states, the federal government, and other 

stakeholders. The cumulative impact of the e!Iorts of many partners within species 

range is needed to make progress in the recovery 

As mentioned above, species like the <md New England cottontail are 

examples of restoration work that the has supported patt of a large initiative 

with many partners. Rhode Island does not have sufficient staff to work independent of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on conservation ofthrcatened and endangered species. 
97 


26936.086

RIDElv! possess notable expertise in some areas of spedes f'VI·'""""'"''• 

e.g., American beetle ami sea ducks. Where and local data and 

""'"'n"''~'"" exist, there should be clear and a collaborative 

"f'IJ'"'''"' to evaluation for listing decisions and establishment for 

restoration, recovery and 

b. Are states capable of leading on issues? 

Answer: While states are on issues" and play a critical and 

historic role on management offish and wildlife, it would be a mistake to frame the ESA 

discussion as an "all or scenario for federal rule. Depending upon the 

and upon the state, there are for state JeadeJ.·sh1lp 

do not respect state boundaries and their ranges and life cycles may 

crc•ss .Jurtsd:ictionilllines. Further since many states lack a state-level law to protect 

threatened and it would be easy to envision a scenario 

where levels of habitat protection differ from state to state in ways that discourage 

recovery. Ultimate decision making for listing and recovery of threatened and 

endangered belongs with the federal government. 

Ranldng Member Carper: 

5. Does your state have a law that the prcJtC(i(lO>n and recovery of 

and if so, does that law cover both and animals? 

Answer: Rhode Island does not have a state law that 

recovery of threatened and , . .m.'"'"""' "" 

6. Does your state law prohibit the killing or wounding 

actions that are known as "take?" 

the 

Answe1·: Rhode Island does maintain separate state list of endangered 

to protect listed is limited to those 

Island Law§ 20-37-1 stales, "It 

state to contribute to the maintenance of a envirollment within the state 

and elsewhere for the benefit of the 

the importation, sale, 

nwm·.r·~hin or other possession or use 

the skin, other tissues, whether raw, manufactured, or nrc,se•·ve,1. 

any of animal or considered by the United States secretaries of the interior 

or commerce to be under of the Federal Act of 1973, 

16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. 

7. Does that law define changes to habitat that 

species as "take?" 

affect endangered or threatened 

4 
98 


26936.087

Answer: No, Rhode Island General r .aws do not define changes to habitat as "take" of a 

species. 

8. Is it fair to say that first and foremost, state seeking closer collaboration with your 

federal partners in the and threatened conservation process and more 

federal t!nancia! resources for species conservation? Do you believe progress can be 

made under the current 

Answer: Yes. That is a description of the Rhode Island The endangered and 

threatened species conservation process wi!l not be successful wiihout adequate 

resources, and more are needed at state and federal levels to carry out the tremendous 

workload, as relates to conservation of so-called Rhode 

Island would nQ1 be interested in obtaining sole , "''>""·'"'''·" 

and actions associated with recovery, 

Progress can be made administratively under the current law, and my testimony 

examples of how and collaboration under the ESA have worked in many 

instances in the northeast that are working include: State Conservation 

Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances), Safe 

Harbor Agreements, and Habitat Conservation Plans, standards for increased 

collaboration for states that want to engage further in ESA may be valuable to 

ensure consistent national standards, With sufficient financial resources, more progress 

can be made under the current law. There are many good examples ofnon-regulatmy 

approaches that have worked to conserve candidate species taking advantage of existing 

flexibility under the ESA 

9. state have a conservation plan or efforts to prevent 

non-game from threatened endangered? 

you have adequate that plan? 

Answe1·: Yes. RID EM, with assistance from The Nature Conservancy and the University 

of Rhode Island, was the i!rst state the nation to publish ten-year revision of our 

State Wildlife Action Plan (WAP). The 2015 Rl WAP is a comprehensive plan that 

provides direction to and coordination of wild lite conservation effmis over the coming 

decade. Rhode Island home to almost 900 veJ1ebrates and an estimated 20,000 

invertebrate wildlite species that range from the scenic coastline to upland and wetland 

forests. Included in this natural diversity are suite of mammals, birds, reptiles and 

amphibians, t!sh and invertebrates that the State has identified as species of greatest 

conservation need. 

No. Rhode Island does Iilll have adequate funding to successfully implement these 

for all threatened and endangered species. The RIDEM and our Division ofFish and 

Wildlife have been doVvnsized in the past ten years, And, the vast of our 

is restricted and not available for non-game conservation, five percent of our federal 

5 
99 


26936.088

funding is available for endangered species work. The constraints on our staff and 

resources make it to implement fully the Rl WAP. 

Some current examples where IUD EM resources are stretched thin include our work on 

Jonah crabs. This W8S unregulated marine and RID EM has adopted 

regulations to begin to get that fishery under control in order to keep it from becoming a 

stressed population. Addilionai!y, RID EM has developed a research 

with URI to procure some fundamental biological information on this which 

could be used for analytical assessments in the future (using State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grants funds). We are about to launch two new projects, one on Atlantic sturgeon and 

one on windo\\11ane flounder, the same concept, and stretching federal funds. We 

always try to be resourceful and seck out to partner with scientists, 

stakeholders, and slate and federal before they are unwtoillto'lL 

10. How much does your state spend on management and conservation (all 

and animals, including t1sh, game and non-gan1e 

Answer: The RID EM Division of Fish and Wildlife about $9.5 million annually 

on all management and conservation including freshwater, marine fisheries aud 

wildlife. This includes spending on habitat management, scientific research, outreach, 

monitoring, hatcheries and the administrative support staffto accomplish these projects. 

Not included are access projects like boat ramps, or access or 

shooting ranges. 

Answer: The IUD EM Divisions ofFish and Wildlife and Marine Fisheries have a total of 

4 7 full time staff, 13 contractual staff and 17 seasonal staff 

12. How much do you spend for non-gurne species conservation and what 

percentage is that relative to the total amount invested in all species conservation? How 

many employees are devoted to non-game species conservation work? 

Answer: The RJDEM Divisions ofFish and Wildlife and Marine Fisheries 

aPrJroldmately $600,000 annually, which 

conservation, the equivalent 

employee are devoted to non-game conservation for wildlife, 

freshwater and marine fisheries. Additionally, contractual agreements support American 

burying beetle habitat management and plover restoration 

13. How much and what 

from federal fimds? 

funding? 

6 

conservation comes 

What is the source of that 
100 


26936.089

Answer: Approximately $580,000 or 70% of the funding !or non-game 

conservation in Rhode Island derives from federal funds. This from the State 

and Tribal Wildlife Grant program funded through the USFWS Wildlife and Fish 

Restoration program; we receive small amount fi·om the ESA and for White-Nose 

Syndrome. Hunting and license receipts and state general fund dollars are used for 

match along with in-kind match by partners for that are conducted 

through contractual agreements. Partner like use inkind match. Match totals about $280,000 for all non-game projects. 

The match for State and Tribal Wildlife 

like the University of Rhode Island and The Nature to leverage their in-kind 

match (such as work by professors), well the time and expertise of staff and talented 

graduate students. 

14. States have primary for management and conservation until are 

imperiled; the Endangered Species Act is intended to be last backstop against 

extinction. Species are listed state management has proven insufficient to 

protect habitat and prevent species decline. lf states have the and resources to 

address species conservation and recovery, why do you believe so many 

imperiled, considering the ample notice that often exists that 

risk? 

Answer: As mentioned above, I do not believe that Rhode Island, nor many other states, 

have the resources or authority needed to address fully species conservation and 

recovery. Additional fimding for conservation needed at the state and federal levels. 

SUJ~g<~stiion that insuflicient state management is the main or reason 

OV!or-.<iimp!ifies the myriad threats that aftect healthy and sustainable 

f'C'f'"'""'vu.o. Wildlife diseases, invasive trade, habitat loss and 

climate change are examples to over which no single entity, neither 

fede.ral nor state, has control. In Rhode Island, our experience has been that success can 

be best achieved processes that rely on sound science and strong partnerships. 

The regional process and govemance that established to keep NEC from being listed 

is an excellent example of the type of collaboration that yielded positive results. 

the marine environment, .many threats are related to climate change, and many at-risk 

marine species transit in and o'ut and/or arc managed in federal 

jurisdictions where some have been subject to overfishing. Conservation and recovery 

efforts for marine species (which are often migratory) need be with 

fi·om stakeholders and good collaboration with states and the federal govemment. 

15. Do you believe this Committee should ft)cus energy on proposals that seek to prevent 

species tl·om being listed in the first place? 
101 


26936.090

Answer: Yes. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Focusing on proactive 

proposals that prevent from being listed makes sense and may be more successful 

and more economical in recovery, there is enough support for 

restoration work. Providing incentives to landowners for early action, enhancing nonregulatory and engaging states and partners before a is threatened or 

endangered are all beneficial. The ESA allows for "safe harbor" and other 

tools that could be used and expanded to prevent candidate species being listed. In 

these cases, the protections of the ESA often provide the that drives party to 

come together to cHective conservation str:ategws. 

16. If the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management could play a larger role in 

tl1reatened and endangered species management, would you have the 

Answer: The Rhode Isllmd Department of Environmental Management does not have the 

capacity to play larger without the infusion of additional staff and funding. There is 

significant expertise and knowledge within RJDEM, but not sufficient capacity. 

J 7. Do you believe Rhode Island would be able to manage threatened or ~n,im-"'",."tl 

fi:mnd in several states without federal intervention and collaboration? 

Answer: No. Rhode Island lacks the and the authority to drive conservation 

outcomes across several states; leadership from and collaboration with the federal 

government is necessary to be effective. Ultimate authority and decision making under 

the ESA belongs with the federal government. 

18. How difficult would it be for the State of Rhode Island to enter into voluntary 

conservation agreements with landowners states were not taking similar 

actions to reduce negative impacts on example, cottontails? 

Answer: It would be very difficult for the State of Rhode Island to encourage landowners 

to enter into voluntary conservation agreements if we were not part of a range-wide 

effort. For example, with a species .like NEC, without the larger efftJrt, our landowners 

may not see the value in a local be motivated to engage in a limited effort 

with little c!umce of success. 

19. You noted in your testimony that ''the of triggering the ESA is a powerful 

motivator to promote progressive management strategies. One issue you did not 

mention was the value of the deadlines set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1t 

seems deadlines played an role in decisions by the Service not to Jist as 

endangered several species that were subject to effective conservation agreements, 

including: the Artie Montana, the Dunes Lizard in New Mexico 

and Texas, the Bi-State and Greater Sage Grouse and of course, the New England 

Cottontail. Do you think a deadline is an driver? Do you think that 

helps keep partners and states motivated? 

8 
102 


26936.091

Answer: Deadlines under the ESA are useful in that they motivate conservation action to 

prevent listing decisions. The tor a candidate to be listed can sound the 

alarm and bring to the table in an effort to turn around. However, given 

funding constraints, evaluation of the reasonableness of the current deadline structure 

may be in order. 

20. How was the multi-state e!Iort for the conservation ofthe cottontail rabbit conceived and 

organized? 

Answer: USFWS Region 5 invited the relevant northeast states together for initial 

discussion and engaged the services of the Wildlife Management Institute to facilitate the 

discussion and process to meet the conservation NEC from 

being !isted. Partners inc! uded the process all had vested interest in the recovery of the 

species. States included were those that contain of the historie range for this 

species, and thus a clear· interest in recovery actions. Again, another benefit to this 

partnership is the of the more than 60 other that rely on the healthy 

yonng forest habitat protected, or created through this effort. 

My testimony outlines some of the key including clear private 

landovmer engagement, and dedicated resources from the USFWS and the states. Region 

5 has been a leader in using these strategies and partnering with state agencies. 

21. Would the process to manage the cottontail have been faster or slower if it had been 

managed by states alone? What about more or less expensive? 

Answer: Without the federal leadership, initiative and investment to manage the process, 

the NEC conservation effort would not have achieved success. 

22. Would the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management be able to sustain 

the level of investment that was to recover the New England Cottontail- time, 

expe1tise and funding -in several species conservation efforts simultaneously? 

Answer: No. The NEC work required a dedicated commitment from RID EM that could 

not be sustained if Rhode Island had to engage at that level on several species 

conservation efforts simultaneously. More funding and greater intema! would 

be necessary. Also, to be clear, the New England cottontail has, to date, not been 

recovered. The NEC conservation work involves a long process that has only just begun; 

so, the results will become clear in time. Having said that, there are plenty of reasons to 

believe that the eollaborative approach taken in the NEC effort is and will be effective in 

the recovery of this 

23. As a state environmental direetor, would you say the management 

is analogous to your air quality challenges as a downwind state? What options do you 

9 
103 


26936.092

have to convince other states to reduce their emissions of pollutants to protect your 

Are these options available in the context of managing species? 

Answer: In this respect, the to cross-state air pollution holds true: is 

impossible for Rhode Island on its own ensure the conservation or recovery 

where we are a small pari of a larger range host the critter only during part of its life 

eye! e. Rhode Island conservation work tits in a larger context, and tbr Atlantic sturgeon, 

sea tmiles, New cottontails, whales and many other 

Rhode Island habitats are a small of a larger mosaic of critical habitat Under the 

ESA, Rhode Island does not have strong tools to encourage or force other stales to take 

action; we count on the federal to that role. Thus, there is a need for strong 

federal laws, national and state processes based 

upon sound science to address environmental issues. 

24, In your testimony, you mentioned the Recovery Aei of 1997, which 

nm:"msHn proposal, hut ultimately did not become law. How long did the 

m::;Kvo.Hum••~ take in this Committee and what was involved in them? 

Answer: The ei1:0rt led by Senators John Chafee (R·RI), Dirk Ke1mt:Ythnme 

(R-ID), Max Baucus (D-MT) and Harry Reid (D-NV)- that resulted the Endangered 

Species Recovery Act of 1997 being repmied out of the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works (EPW) took years of concerted etfort. The Conm1ittce 

held and ideas to improve the ESA fbr more than one 

session. When Congress convened in 1995, then-Chahman John Chafee and then· 

Member Max Baucus made reauthorizing the ESA a high That year, the 

Subcommi!lee on Water, Fisheries and Wildlife held six three in the 

field (in Oregon, Idaho and where Committee members and staff examined 

local conflicts and visited landowners and businesses. that process, the Senators 

leading the effort identitled and agreed on key for reform. The states had a strong 

voice in this process, and ultimately the EPW leaders worked closely with the federal 

agencies to develop a package of reforms. 

25. You also mentioned that !997 was a very different time. What are the principles and 

circumstances you believe are necessary to engage in bipmiisan <.~onversation now? 

Answer: As the head of a state agency, I constantly work to understand and respect 

stakeholders and to develop and decisions and with the engagement of 

the Consensus comes process that allows different views to be heard 

and considered, and where the decisions and are grounded in and 

factual information. It intentions of the people who express 

<n<m>,cmf'no< personal. When l~tmsidering ESA, 

would make sense to miiculate set of common goals up front, and to base 

the conversations and to follow on the tools, and other means 

needed to achieve those believe it is for the EPW Committee members to 

engage in a \)Jr>ar1JsaJJ conservation now around conservation and the ESA. Even though 

10 
104 


26936.093

the times are different than they were twenty years ago, are not very different 

There is a lot of interest from wide variety across the country in collaborating 

around successf1!l efforts to conserve and habitat and meet the of the ESA. 

26. The Committee vote on the Endangered Recovery Act of !997 was 15-3, which 

is an impressive Can you tell us how you achieved that high 

level of bipartisan success? Do you believe that level collaboration is 

possible now in both the Senate and House? 

Answe1·: The (S. I 80) that was by the Senate Environment and 

1997 was the result of a lengthy, thoughtful and 

process. The Senators agreed to spend time, both D.C. and in field 

conflicts and exploring areas of common ground, I believe the high level 

support came t!·om the long hours and spent together exploring issues, visiting 

states, developing common goals, and negotiating in good faith on a 

compromise. Once a compromise package was agreed on the principle EPW leaders, 

agreed up front to stick and defend lheir compromise bill 

amendments fi·om all sides. Without such an upfront agreement, the would 

not have held together. 

27. Do you agree that the Species Act, in its current fonn, already 

substantial flexibility for improvements and administrative changes, 

especially for collaborating with states? If so, do you think it is reasonable to suggest that 

we should first try to adequately resource state and federal before making any 

substantive changes to the Act? 

Answer: Yes. The ESA includes substantial now, for eftective 

collaborations with the states. I believe it is reasonable and to increase 

resources as a first step towards improving conservation outcomes. However, some 

tm•nrr.v<ement< to the ESA may merit amendments to be lasting and effective. I would 

hope that any such effort would be bipartisan and coupled with a commitment to increase 

funding to the states and under the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. 

28. Given that we are now what many have termed a Sixth Extinction, do you 

agree that now more than ever it is important to maintain a strong national standard for 

species protection and management? 

Answer: Yes. Until the enactment of the ESA in 1973, the federal government did not 

have strong and suftlcient legal authority to protect threatened and endangered species. 

Given the complexity of this work, the need to collaborate, and the considerable tlu·eats to 

fish and wildlife and habitat, it is more important than ever to maintain strong national 

standards, and to take full advantage of the best science, the data and expertise 

of state to expand and new tools, and to work witl1 states, 

private landowners and other partners on conservation. 
105 


26936.094

Senator Booker: 

29 .. Ms. Co it, in your testimony you point out that States collectively receive less than $110 

million in funding each year for conservation of the more than 20,000 of wildlife 

that we do not hunt or fish, the t11ct that most of the at the greatest risk of 

decline are in this category. 

it would have in R11odc Island if there was 

~uu~'a"'""'Y more funding to States for conservation ofthese species, and 

would lead to need for less federal involvement under the ESA? 

Answer: As stated above, I believe that federal involvement will always be necessary to 

ensure ef'fective conservation. Increased to the states would improve on the 

ground and in the water actions that protect and restore habitat and lead to the recovery of 

imperiled This area of need and In my opinion, if 

Congress were to enact to increase dramatically funding for non-game 

you would move the ball further down the conservation field than any ESA refonn bill 

could ever achieve. 

If Rhode Island had more resources, RID EM would do more research on threats and more 

work to develop effective mitigation measures to species from being listed in the 

first place. We would hasten the pace and of our recovery effo11s. Additional 

resources to the states would allow stronger to be developed between the 

federal government and the state to better manage habitat and avoid contUcts. 

Given resource constraints, states are of1:cn not able to be in oUl' work on public 

lands, with private landowners and with tmiversities, NGOs and businesses. At present, 

federal involvement in listed species often manifests as mandates without sufficient 

interaction with the impacted local landowners, businesses and communities who may 

have good ideas for how to solve problems locally in a sustainable manner. The ability to 

tailor a conservation approach to fit our own communities is impo!iant to successful 

outcomes; with additional resources, we could do much more to ensure tangible, lasting 

outcomes for conservation, including implementation of our RI WAP. 

Senator .Duckworth: 

l am concerned by the Jack of scientific within the Trump Administration, which recently 

announced to disband an EPA scientific panel and favors massive cuts to science 

programs across the Federal Government. 

31. Ms. Coit, can you address why is that the best available science- and not 

continue to drive ESA decisions? 

12 
106 


26936.095

Answer: core principle of the ESA that the basis for listing decisions under the law 

be made based on the best available science. The reason for this is clear: that is the only 

way that decisions under the act will be sound. There is no for pmtisan ideology 

a determination; is a clinical, biological diagnosis. And, the purposes of the ESA 

cannot be achieved unless the decisions fundamental to the actions and considerations 

required under the Act are based on science. 

32. Do you believe State cutTently have the and capacity to generate that 

science without support from the Federal Government? 

Answer: No. Federal and investment are important to ensuring that 

the "best scientific and commercial data" are the basis listing decisions, and for 

assessing whether actions jeopardize listed species and developing recovery plm1s. 

However, it would be a mistake not to recognize that state agencies have considerable 

scientific expertise on species, and that expertise and science are also found 

within an aJTay of entities, such as and universities and non-goverrunent 

organizations, as well as within state federal agencies. When federal d"""'",.,.'"nk 

build '-'lith state agencies, local universities, and non-governmental 

organizations strengthen the scientific process and build confidence in 

decisions under the ESA. 

l3 
107 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you. We appreciate you being 

here. 

For my colleagues on the Committee, since the Democrats have 

brought into play the 2-hour rule, we are going to have to adjourn 

at 11:30, which gives each of us time for questioning. But to make 

sure each of you have the time, I will turn to Senator Inhofe first, 

and I will reserve my time. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

Let me remind you, Director Coit, that the experiences that you 

shared with us 20 years ago with John Chafee, that was my first 

year. He also came to Oklahoma, if you remember, and studied our 

system. So you are right, he had eyes on all the time. 

Director Voyles, you are the guy that brought up the lesser prairie-chicken. You know, we had the wide conservation plan, five 

States. Oklahoma, my State was one of those States. And we 

worked hard. We worked for a long period of time. We had meetings in all five of the States, and we came up with some conclusions as relates to the lesser prairie-chicken. And even though we 

went through all that work, in fact, we went through so much work 

that a Texas court came in and said that the fish and wildlife was 

violated because they didn’t consider properly the conservation 

plan that was put forward. So right now we are in the process of 

looking at this and seeing what we can do. 

But there doesn’t seem to be any incentives for people to really 

work with these conservation efforts. I would like to have you give 

us your opinion as to the seriousness of that particular conservation effort and why they are not incentivized in our system to participate. 

Mr. VOYLES. Senator Inhofe, Senator Barrasso, the lesser prairiechicken, I think, is the classic example of what States can do when 

they integrate together and work with partners both in the private 

sector as well as the public sector. It is plowing ground to the future, I think of the way conservation will be done. Fifty million dollars of investment, hundreds of thousands of acres of lands and 

road, and yet there was a finding by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service that the species needed to be listed. The courts disagreed 

with that. 

I would argue that the lack of a formal process for the States to 

be at the table in the decision process for listing leaves a hole, and 

I think there is a certain balance value in having the State wildlife 

agency being able to be a part of that discussion. 

Senator INHOFE. I think that Director Wiley suggested the same 

thing. I think that is well taken. 

Director Wiley, did you want to comment in terms of some of the 

ideas you have? It is not real clear in your written statement 

whether or not you had some type of a State intervention, a trigger 

point, where States would be involved and take over the function 

of the Federal Government. Is that accurate? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, in a couple different ways, yes, sir. And I agree 

fully that States don’t have enough of a formal role in the decisionmaking process. We do get involved early on and try to collaborate 

and partner, but then the curtain closes. And the way things are 

constructed, we kind of have to sit outside and wait for decisions. 

108 

We believe one idea is right now we have classification where 

you have threatened species and endangered species. We believe 

the original intent was for once a species is no longer warranted 

for listing as endangered, it is changed to a threatened status, that 

the States should then take the lead in managing that species. 

Senator INHOFE. Exactly. Which reminds me also in Oklahoma 

we have the American burying beetle, and it fits in the categories 

that should be. Fish and Wildlife seems to move the goalpost. They 

come out and say this is what we want to accomplish, and then, 

once you accomplish that, they move the goalpost, and that is one 

of the problems that we have. 

In the case of the American burying beetle, its listing was only 

known to be in eastern Oklahoma and Block Island, Rhode Island. 

So you are familiar with that also. 

Now, since the listing, science has used all these things. The 

problems have been pretty much resolved. Now, I think that shows 

that, since the inception of the Endangered Species, there have 

been 1,652 listings and only 40 de-listed in terms due to recovery. 

So, to me, it shows that that system is broken. 

And I think this hearing is really good. Already some really good 

recommendations have been made by this Committee. So we want 

to get through all of our questioners, but I really think, Mr. Chairman, this is going to be one of the real accomplishments of this 

coming year, something we have worked on for a long time, since 

I was there with John Chafee 20 years ago. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you, Senator Inhofe, for your ongoing leadership over the decades. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Let me ask you about private landowners. Private landowners working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

in partnership. Of course, our goal is to get all sides involved in 

working on ways in which we can accommodate private landowners 

and conserve species at the same time. 

Mr. Wiley, do you think the Endangered Species Act needs clarity on the ability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work in 

partnership with private landowners in order to use innovative 

measures such as Memorandums of Agreement that do not require 

Federal Register notice, but are negotiated directly with landowners? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. We feel like a lot 

of work could be done to clarify in the law the importance of private landowners and the importance of working with landowners 

to achieve conservation. The Fish and Wildlife Service does make 

an effort, and that should be applauded, but right now their hands 

are tied in many cases. Landowners view, in many cases, a listing 

as a very serious threat to how they use their land. We believe 

there is a lot better way forward if the States can be more engaged 

and more involved working on the ground, because we have those 

relationships and we feel like we can really be helpful. 

Senator WICKER. Well, as I understand it, there are landowners 

in Mississippi with more than 4 million acres who are seeking to 

do this. In what ways are their hands tied? 

109 

Mr. WILEY. Well, first, there’s a serious workload issue as far as 

just the time it takes when you have a willing coalition of landowners like these forestry landowners that want to sit down and 

say what can we do to take conservation measures and put in place 

now. There’s a time lag. It takes years, in many cases, to develop, 

even when the parties are agreeable. It just takes years to pull 

those things together just from a workload case; it’s a time consuming process. And beyond that, right now the administrative 

rules are kind of all over the board and are not very clear as far 

as what landowners can and can’t do, and how the right type of 

conservation programs that can be put in place. 

Senator WICKER. Is there some recommendation you would have 

to this Committee about streamlining the rules or making the process more efficient? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. We have actually a suite of recommendations we believe that would really be helpful, particularly moving 

from rules to actual overarching legislation and law. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Now, you mentioned a backlog in that regard. What about the backlog of species petitions awaiting review 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife? Do you think 12 months is enough 

time to craft a U.S. FWS approved voluntary conservation plan for 

interested stakeholders, for example? 

Mr. WILEY. With current capacity, it is not for the volume that 

we are having to deal with, the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

NOAA Fisheries. It is not enough time. 

Senator WICKER. What do you recommend? 

Mr. WILEY. We recommend applying a workplan approach, a 

prioritization approach. But also actually looking at the species 

that are being petitioned and the threats, and putting them in the 

proper order and priority. And some may take more time; some 

might be feasible to do more quickly. Right now it is just a shotgun, everything is coming all at once, and it is hard to handle it. 

And the Service has taken some steps in that regard, but we have 

some ideas on how to move that further along. 

Senator WICKER. How do you set a different time on an ad hoc 

basis, though? 

Mr. WILEY. I don’t think it would be on an ad hoc basis. I think 

you could set it up, frame it up for the law to have some flexibility 

so that when the experts look at a species as it comes in, they can 

then make decisions about where it would fit into that framework 

of timelines. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me just say that, after having had the opportunity 

to work as Governor in South Dakota for 8 years, I have a huge 

amount of respect for the individuals that work at the local level 

with regard to game and fish, recreational opportunities, management of those game species and no-game species. 

I look at the South Dakota Game Fish and Parks, and the 

amount of work that they have done and the amount of respect 

that they garner in the work that they do, and the cooperative way 

110 

in which they try to put together local agreements with landowners, trying in an affirmative way to create good relationships 

so that the recreational opportunities of our citizens are enhanced 

and the availability to access private lands and so forth. 

Along with that, they have that obligation and responsibility to 

work with the Federal Government and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to fulfill our responsibilities with regard to the Endangered 

Species Act, and I think they do a marvelous job of balancing those 

challenges. 

I am just curious. Director Voyles, you said in your testimony 

that you explain that the authority of section 6 cooperative agreements allows for States to have a greater or greater opportunities 

to participate in the implementation of the ESA. But you also mention that State agencies have not been able to exercise this authority due to misunderstandings and misinterpretation by the Federal 

executive branch agencies and courts. 

Could you elaborate on how executive agencies and courts have 

misinterpreted section 6 authority and how this has impacted the 

ability of States to participate effectively in ESA implementation? 

Mr. VOYLES. Thank you, Senator Rounds, Mr. Chairman. What 

we found in the administration of section 6 is the focus has primarily been, from the Federal agencies has primarily been on applying section 6 to a shared funding opportunity, but not the full 

suite of opportunities for the States to participate at the table in 

collaboration on ESA related decisions and processes. 

As an example, during the 90-day petition review process, where 

they take a look to determine if a species warrants a further analysis and a 100-day recommendation of other lists or not, State 

data, unless it is conveyed and in the files of the Federal agencies 

beforehand, the courts have ruled they cannot access that data and 

information from the States. Clearly, the intent of the ESA was 

that we would be working together collaboratively. Yet, we have a 

legal determination that we cannot. 

There is no hardwiring of the States in terms of our ability to 

participate on recovery teams and recovery planning. That is a decision at the will of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as to whether they include a representative from the State; and they will make 

the determination who that representative will be. That is not really the full relationship that was envisioned, I don’t believe. I believe section 6 was intended to be the balancing of the 10th amendment concerns and issues of the States, and it is not functioning 

that way. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, just in the interest of time, I will yield back the 

remaining part of my time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask one 

question here that I am interested in. 

I am interested in the topic is sort of the consistency with which 

the Fish and Wildlife enforce and makes specific actions. We all realize States are different, but in our State we have had some concerns from our State regulators that Fish and Wildlife has been inconsistent in its approach for requiring habitat protections in the 

111 

State, even compared with what they are doing in other States. 

And in particular, rather than going through the formal rulemaking to designate critical habitat, they have been establishing 

buffer zones. And these buffer zones are critical habitat in all but 

name, but they haven’t been through the subject of the formal rulemaking, public notice, or comment. 

As a result, it is unclear, the footprints are unclear. There has 

been no consideration for the economic impact and even has impacted some of our ability to do some reclamation activities. 

I am just wondering have either or all three of your States had 

that inconsistency, and have you had this issue with buffer zones 

being created instead of critical habitat? 

Ms. COIT. I will start and say, no, we haven’t had that experience. If I can harken back to the New England cottontail example, 

that was an example where up front there was an agreement on 

conservation on the ground and what we would all strive to do. 

And the NRCS is actually the Federal agency that is helping us 

work with private landowners and doing those agreements rather 

quickly, and I think that is because we set out in advance, working 

collaboratively equally with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 

what the goals would be. So I would say our experience in Rhode 

Island is a very collaborative experience with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and NMFS, as well. 

Senator CAPITO. And consistent? Either of the two? 

Yes, Mr. Voyles. 

Mr. VOYLES. In Arizona, we have not had the experience with 

buffers, but what we have had is we have had an application of 

principles applied to how we can manage or deal with a given species that varies and is sometimes diametrically opposed to what is 

allowed for another species. So species to species there are inconsistencies in the way the rules are applied. 

Also, we have had situations where the Colorado River is a major 

dividing line between regional offices for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services, so Region 2 is on the east side of the river and Region 

8 is on the west side of the river. And we have had opposing decisions on what we can do as far as stocking rainbow trout ruled by 

one office in the same water that is being ruled the other way by 

the other office. So there are geographic inconsistencies, but right 

up on the same river. 

Senator CAPITO. On the same river. 

Mr. Wiley. 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would say that we haven’t 

had that buffer experience, but we have seen how things are different in different parts of the country in different States. To me, 

one way to help is, because how well States collaborate with each 

other and we share information, I think having a seat at that table, 

being there when that decision was made to consider buffers versus 

critical habitat as a workaround, maybe, I think we would have 

called them on that, and we would have been there saying there 

is a better way. So that is why we are looking for more of an open 

door there. 

Senator CAPITO. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

112 

Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Voyles, in your testimony you spoke about the importance of 

State agency participation in the implementation of ESA, and over 

the years, despite their on the ground experience and expertise, 

States have not always had as much say in the process as they 

would have liked. From your time at the Game and Fish Department, can you provide an example of a time when both a species 

and stakeholders would have been better served had the Federal 

Government taken more State data or recommendations into account? 

Mr. VOYLES. Thank you, Senator Ernst, Mr. Chairman. I can 

think of several instances. One example would be a very politically 

divisive recovery effort, the Mexican wolf. There has been a 25-year 

effort to revise the recovery plan for Mexican wolf. The original recovery plan was developed in the 1980s, and it is outdated. 

It has been extremely politically divisive, and in the process, at 

one point in time, we had to fight for a seat at the table to be a 

part of the recovery plan process. And when we were fighting for 

that seat, the recovery team that was convened, the Science and 

Planning Subgroup, had no ungulate biologist on the team. There 

was nobody that understood population dynamics for the prey species that those wolves would have depended upon. That is what we 

do for a living; we had the expertise. And we ultimately got a seat, 

but we had to fight our way in. It was not easy. 

That should be a hardwired event. We shouldn’t have to try and 

fight a way in and bring political pressure to bear to be able to get 

a seat at that table. And it was important that we were there because some of the population dynamics they were pursuing would 

have failed. There simply wasn’t the prey base to be able to support 

the kind of wolf numbers that they were talking. So that is an example of having to kind of scratch and claw to get in, as opposed 

to being a full partner, as envisioned in section 6. 

Senator ERNST. So you think that just by having the State involved from the very beginning in those discussions, that a lot of 

conflict would have been avoided and perhaps a better plan would 

have been put in place? 

Mr. VOYLES. Absolutely. And we still don’t have a revised plan. 

Now, we do have a full seat at the table now; it has been reconstituted, and I think we have more powerful science coming to bear 

now. We have improved their modeling a great deal by bringing 

State scientists into the picture, and I think we have a lot, hopefully a better trajectory on the next route, on a final hope for a revision. I think that could have reduced this 25-year timeline by orders of magnitude. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I do think 

States should be involved, especially when they have the expertise 

actually in dealing with a certain species. 

Ms. Coit, in your testimony you also emphasize the importance 

of State fish and wildlife agency participation in ESA implementation. You noted that conservation efforts would be aided by increasing the utilization of data from State agencies. Are Federal partners ignoring or are they choosing not to use State data in favor 

of their own data? 

113 

Ms. COIT. We have recently had a very good experience. I think 

it has evolved and improved over time. So the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS is using State data, and we are sharing 

data. I think they are extremely open to that in Rhode Island, and 

we have had that experience, but it has gotten better over time, according to my staff. In some areas we have the capacity and expertise, and in other areas we don’t; it might be a university or another entity. So I think we are all wanting the absolute science to 

come into the process so the decisions can be made on science. 

Senator ERNST. So is there a lack of communication in those examples? 

Ms. COIT. I am bringing the Rhode Island experience. We have 

a very good working collaborative relationship with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and NMFS. A lot of our endangered species 

conflicts are in the marine environment. 

Senator ERNST. OK. Fantastic. 

I will yield back my 17 seconds, Mr. Chair. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Ernst. 

In the little time that is left, Director Wiley and Voyles, at our 

hearing in February, Gordon Myers, the Executive Director of the 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, who also served as 

President of the AFWA’s southeastern association, he testified that 

State governments have enhanced their capacity really over the 

past 30 years to make greater contributions to implementation of 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Do you agree with Director Myers that States are in a much better position today than they have ever been before to contribute to 

the conservation and recovery of the species under the Endangered 

Species Act? 

Mr. WILEY. Mr. Chairman, we absolutely do. There are States 

that are still working to get there. We are all working to do better, 

but if you look at the transition and transformation of State fish 

and wildlife agencies over the last 20, 30 years, it is amazing what 

we can do and what we are doing, and I really think now is the 

time to give some regard to that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks. 

And Mr. Voyles. 

Mr. VOYLES. Mr. Chairman, if you noted on my bio, I started in 

professional wildlife conservation the year after ESA was implemented, and at that time we had one biologist on staff that was 

what we called a non-game biologist. I have over 100 people now 

on staff that deal with conservation of non-hunted and non-fish 

species. Clearly, Arizona has grown exponentially in our ability to 

deal with ESA listed species, as well as species at risk. 

The other thing that I want to point out is State wildlife agencies 

are an incubator of innovation, and some of the innovative solutions that are taking place, and I think the lesser prairie-chicken 

example really highlights that, there is a $50 million endowment 

that has been built by partnerships with industry. 

Some of those States, if you were to ask what is your appropriation for endangered species, they might not look so spectacular, but 

they have generated an endowment through partnerships that enables them to be very effective. In our State, we have contracts operation where we are able to deal with species outside of our approVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:21 Oct 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26936.TXT SONYA
114 

priation methodology through contracts that range $7 million to 

$10 million a year of revenue streams for unique operations. 

So that kind of innovation is coming out of the States, and we 

are really, I think, at the cutting edge of public-private partnership 

in America. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, our time has expired. 

Ms. Coit, I had a question for you, but I am not going to go beyond the rules of the Senate. It has to do with how much money 

is available and the impact of the Equal Access to Justice Act, the 

book, Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act, where Lowell Baier 

talks about just how much money of Federal taxpayer dollars is 

spent per year on environmental litigation relating to the Endangered Species Act, and it sounds like how little money you get, and 

how we can best make sure that the money goes in the right direction. But I will submit that question to you in writing, consistent 

with the rules of the Senate. 

This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

115 


26936.096
116 


26936.097

Executive Lead: 

Technical lead: 

Product of the Association of Flsh & Wildlife Agendes and the Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Data collected September 2014- August 2015 

Published 2017 

ASSOCIATION ,f 

FISH & WILDLIFE 

AGENCIES 

Assistance 

Fred Harders~ Alabama 

Carol Petra borg- Alaska 

Loren Chase- Arizona 

Ricky Chastain- Arkansas 

Kevin Hunting- California 

Michael Regan- Colorado 

Mark Whitney- Georgia 

Daniel Quinn- Hawaii 

Mike Keckler- Idaho 

Mark Reiter- lnd!ana 

Kim Ras!er- Iowa 

Keith Sexson- Kansas 

Paul Pedltto ·Maryland 

Kristin Mccarthy· Massachusetts 

haron Schafer~ Michigan 

Kathy Don Carlos- Minnesota 

Tamara Jackson- Mississippi 

Dav!d Thorne- Missouri 

RDn Aasheim- Montana 

PJtr1ck Cole- Nebraska 

Glenn Normandeau- New Hampshire 

Paulette Nelson,. New Jersey 

David Rohrbach- New Mexico 

Patty Rlexlnger ~New York 

Carol Batker- North Carolina 

Scott Peterson- North Dakota 

KeHey Moseley- Oh!o 

Melinda Streich- Oklahoma 

Roger Fuhrman- Oregon 

Matt Hough- Pennsylvania 

Timothy Schaeffer- PermS'IIvarnia 

Catherine Sparks -

Emily Cope- South Carolina 

Tony Le!f- South Dakota 

Barry Sumners- Tennessee 

Jeannie Munoz- Texas 

Michal Fowlks .. Utah 

Mary Diego- Vermont 

Darln Moore- Virginia 

Jennifer Qu.an -Washington 

Curtis Taylor- West Virginia 

Joe Polasek- Wisconsin 

John Kennedy- Wyoming 
117 


26936.098

This manuscript presents the results of surveys of the 50 wt!d!lfe agencies to assess their collective 

contributions to the unique system of conservation that exists in America today. 

in total, the 50 state wl!dlife agencies own, or administer w!!d!ife conservation on more than 464 

mi!!Jon acres of !and and 167 m!!Hon of reservoirs, wetlands, and areas. State wildlife 

and leverage the efforts of 190,000 volunteers. Co!lecttve!y, stat-ebiologists, 10,100 and nearly 6,000 employees 

state wildlife agencies contribute more than bi!Hon to conservation 

and wildlife agencies !s enormous and integral to wildlife 

to solve all others." 

~President Theodore Roosevelt 
118 


26936.099

Understanding the 

logistical foundations 

of these conservation 

sectors and their 

contributions is 

essential to any 

discussion of the 

future of 

conservation in 

America ... 

Wild!ife conservation in America !s de!lvered through the 

combined efforts of state fish and agencies, federal !and 

and wildlife management agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, .and prlvate landowners {most notably farming, 

ranching, and private lands timber). The scope and scale, in terms 

of the capacity of each of these sectors, is essential to the 

of conservation in Amerlca today, yet there has been 

effort to quantify the roles of the non- federal sectors In 

a robust and complex system of conservation. 

Understanding the logistical foundations of these conservation 

sectors and their contributions essential to dlscusslon of the 

future of consEtvatkm in America, is an of the 

threats to these foundations. Discussions of 

conservation in America run the gamut, from debates over the 

value of hunter- and conservation systems and 

whether this has led to a that favors conserving only those 

for which peop!e hunt and fish, to debat-es over the role of 

-conservation on our natlon's health and 

debates over the appropriate relationship between 

regulatory laws and the economy. 

The of te!hng the story of the 

ro!e state fish and wildlife agencies in the 

fahrtc of America's conservation system was a 

part of Director Voyles pli:!tform for his 

2014-15 term as of the Association of 

Fish and Agencies. A dla!ogue was 

Initiated around the need for policy makers and 

academicians to understand the scope and scale 

of conservation delivery through the state 

wHdhfe conservation institutions, as well as the 

support mechanisms that enable those 

to deliver conservation at the scale 

and magnitude Americans have come to expect, 

Larry Voyles presenting at the Association of FL<;h & 

Wi!dfife Agencies Annual Meeting,. September 20.15 

"The importance of telling the story of state fish and wildlife agencies is 

critical to the fabric of America's conservation system. 

~Larry Voyles, Director of Arizona Fish and Game and President of the 

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 2014-15 
119 


26936.100

The Association and the Arizona Fish .and Game Department 

aggregated and began information on agencies' 

collective contributions to the of America's conservation 

tapestry by researching existing sources such National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife -Associated Recret:ltion and other 

economic, soc!ologka!, and human dimensions research. Much of the 

story of who we are, what we do and why we do already existed 

wlthln the body of literature, but lt had yet to be compiled and 

disti!!ed into a concise message. 

1. The state conservation land trust m lands and waters managed or 

controlled by state wildlife agencies.: 

2.. The state conservation intellectual talent the professional 

human capacity that performing wildlife conservation across thenation; 

3. The state financial investment conservation the wHective 

financial capacity of the state agencies. 

State agencies must 

improve the 

communication of 

basic information: 

Who we are 

What we do 

Why we do it 
120 


26936.101

This report is intended to help inform the nation a! dialogue on the future of wildlife conservation in Amerl<:a 

by quantifying the magnitude of the co!lecUve conservation effort put forth by state fish and wildlife 

agencies. lt is important that conservation are aware that state fish and wi!dHfe agencies shoulder 

·the preponder.:mce of wlldHfe conservation and have a fundamental responsibility well founded in 

common law. State conservation efforts have yielded breathtaking returns on investment, but because the 

future success of the state systems of conservation fCltes challenges, the actions and decisions we make 

today may well determine the future of America's wi!d!lfe legacy for tomorrow 

The elegant s!mp!1clty of wi!d!lfe conservation !n North America is 

that citizens of states own the wildlife, This concept, known us the 

pub!ic trust doctrine, underpins the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation, roots are ln cornmon !aw and it invests 

authority and trust respons!biHty for wHdHfe to the states, rather 

than to a national entity disconnected from loca! Issues. A 

byproduct of this dispersed decision-making and authority system 

is that the aggregate conservation efforts of a!! states arc not 

quantified !n a centra! location, so the magnitude of this coHective 

influence underappreciated and not commonly understood. 

To build awareness, researchers sent inquiries to the leadership of 

each of the SO state flsh and wlldhfe agencies. 

were instructed to reply or authorize executive 

behalf of the stat(!. With an inquiry of 

compaunded by the fact that each agency 

differently {e.g. some agencies include parks, some are divisions 

natural resource agencies, some split management ()f wildlife and 

fish into separate may apply differently to 

each state. As such, leaders were ln 

the best position to give the most accurate information because 

they t,mderstood the study intent and parameters 

Researchers electronlca!ly sent the 30-question inqu!ry to agency 

directors. Between September 2014 and August 2015, 46 states 

participated in the study. Contact information was co1!ected from 

each state's correspondent so researchers could get any needed 

dariflc:at!on, Where researchers produced c.entra!ity, 

summary, and data. ln some cases, summary data 

intended to reflect continental-scale contribution did not have 

data from aU 50 states. 1n these cases, mfsslng values from states 

were replaced with the mean of the remaining For 

example, 42 states reported havlng a total of 43,515 veh!des, 

an average of 1,037 vehicles per state. The remaining eight states 

were mu!tlpHed by the state average (8 >< 1,037) and then added 

to the reported total to estim.atl? the total as lf .all agencles had 

reported or had ready access to those data. Therefore, the report 

gives an estimate of 51,804 total vehicles used for conservation on 

a da!!y basis, the numbers belng slightly different due to rounding, 

... state fish and wildlife 

agencies shoulder the 

preponderance of 

wildlife conservation 

delivery and have a 

fundamental 

responsibility well 

founded in common law. 

The elegant simplicity 

of wildlife conservation 

in North America is 

that citizens of states 

own the wildlife. 
121 


26936.102

!akes, reservoirs, wetlands, and 

equivalent to 3.7 times the combined 

Great Salt lakes, State agencies have a stake \n enhandng wildlife 

habitat and therefore also have wild!ife habitat not own<;>d 

directly 

been improved the benefit of wildlife through private landowner 

agreements. Further, 

53,000 forma! 

To accomp!lsh this work, state wildlife agencies own nearly 52,000 

vehidBs, law enforcement trucks, ATVs, 

and The fair market value of that collective an 

estimated $609 m!ll!on dollars. 

State fish & wildlife 

agencies are 

responsible for 

managing 464,646,000 

acres of land ... 

... state agencies 

manage 166,940,000 

acres of water ... 

equivalent to 3.7 

times the combined 

acreage of the Great 

lakes ... 
122 


26936.103

The professional human capacity that is performing wildlife consef1!ation across the North 

American Continent 

State fish and wildlife agencies employ nearly 50,000 and highly·· motivated individuals. 

Agencies co!lectlve!y have 34,516 fulHlme employees and 13,840 part-time employees. About onefourth of agency employees, or 10,995 people, degreed bio!ogists, 5,909 of whom have advanced 

degrees and 741 terminal degrees {e.g. PhD, JD, DWM}. That represents an advanced education 

achievement 46 percent higher than the U.S. population aver.age. 1n addition, 8,371 fully certified law 

.enforcement officers and 1,752: law enforcement HE equivalents from state agencies 

for wHdlife conservotion a!so part the workforce \e.g., st<-~te troopers 

wildlife- based -activitk:s). 

[State fish and 

wildlife employees] 

represent an 

advanced education 

achievement 46 

percent higher than 

the U.S. population 

average. 

Personnel Allocation 

State wildlife agendes have 2,21'1 employees so!ely dedicated to educating and the public 

regarding wl!dl!fe and issues affect conservation. Nationwide, agencies coordinate efforts of 

189,393 volunteers who devote tht~ir time and energies to wildlife conservation, multip!yJng our fufl~time 

workforce by about .5.5 times 

5.49 

Volunteers Full Time 

Employee 
123 


26936.104

An estimated 58.8 percent comes 

fisfling'-reiiated activities, the sa!e of licenses, tags, and stamps, or 

exclse taxes on hunting, shooting, and angling equipment. These 

e)(penditures the assertion that hunters, recreational shooters, and 

conservation. However, 4L2 percent of state wildlife agency funding comes from areas other than 

and fishing, suggesting that agendes are diversifying their revenue sources 

Figwe 2~ con-w:nrotion is funded by dive0;e saurces 

CONSERVATION 

FUNDING 

SOURCE 
124 


26936.105

Modernizing forces are wildlife conservation in North 

America" lndustr!alizatlon, advancement 

technology, and the of hlgher education have 

brought a standard much different from, and 

unknown to, prior generations. An interesting side effect 

modernization !s that North Americans are becomlng more 

divorced from nature, a topic often discussed in conservation 

literature, 

This disconnect from nature is reflected in the stagnation of 

interest ln consumptive forms of wildlife and outdoor recre~tion, 

[There] a diversification 

of cultural heritages that 

brings ever-broadening 

perspectives, opinions, 

and knowledge regarding 

wildlife. 

including and angling. Some states have observed a decline In the raw number of people 

hunting and Many states' numbers have held steady, while a se!ect few have shown sHght 

Increases. Overall, population growth has outpaced the growth of hunting and angling partidpatlon to 

the point that per capita rates of hunters and are dechn!ng in nearly a!! states, gradually 

becoming Jess represented in AmerictJn society. the model of wildlife conservation 

funding, these dec!ines In consumptive activities result in waning wildlife conserv.atlon revenues. 

Concurrent with these shifts is a diversification of cu!tura! heritages that 

perspectives, opinions, and knowledge wildlife. Many 

backgrounds are settling in urban America disassociated 

dwe!lers are component contrlbutlng to system, many are 

unaware or misinformed regarding the consequences of human action toward the environment, As 

recently as two generations past, American society was largely agrarian, 

Although the topic of wildlife conservation may be immaterial for the cwerage North American, it 

remains relevant to everyone, The ecosystem services (the benefits society obtalns from nature} that 

are a consequence of wise wt!d!ife stewardship are at the foundation of the economic wealth, political 

stabllity, and cultural solidarity for all North Americans. Yet a major problem remains: most citizens do 

not know who 

has legal authority and 

responsibl!ity for wHdlife 

conservation. They do not 

understand the .success of 

wildlife management 

methods, nor do they 

understand the 

foundations that enBble 

successes Most importantly, 

they don't know why this is 

crucial to us a!L 
125 


26936.106

partia!ly caused by 

information that 

by state 

wildlife agencies toward conservation. The return on investment been 

substantial as agencies annually contribute $5.6 bHlion to conservation. State 

wildlife agencies nearly 50,000 highly- educated employees 

and leveraging the of 190,000 volunteers. Finally, fish and 

agencies manage or administer more than 464 mi!lion acres of land and 167 

mi!lion acres of lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and riparian areas. 

Much of the conservatlon and !and trust has been built and funded 

with hunters and anglers as primary benefactors. With the growing 

sepamtion from nature and the corresponding decline in hunting and fishing, 

agencies have come to realize that being relevant to hunters and <mglers 

critical but not sufficient for long-term susta\nability. 

To continue their impressive contribution to conservation, state 

need to shore up the !ogistica! and finandal underpinnings 

conservation system. Contemporary efforts to bolster current systems of 

funding by organizations such as the Council to Advan~;:e Hunting and the 

Shooting Sports and the Recreational Boating and Foundation, among 

many others, w!H be needed to secure future Exploring 

entrepreneurial models and new and services that C'ncourage al! 

citizens who benefit from conservation to contribute to 

conservation will be critical to broaden funding models. Being funded from a 

wider audience will result in broader societal support for wildlife 

conservation, which in turn wiH result in gre.ater financial and political 

res!llency of state fish and wildlife agencies, 

The need for new and broader funding is reflected ln both recent 

recommendations made by AFWA's Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining 

America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources, The first recommendation 

to sewre an addJtional $13 bi!Hon for the WJ!dHfe Conservation Restoration 

Program with revenue from the development of energy and minerJI 

The second is to establish a forum that would 

on the relevance of fish and wildlife 

conservation and make coco~moorio.<Oe•" on how to transform agencies to 

engage and serve broader cons.tituencles" The recommendation 

broadens participation in wildlife conservJtion funding. The second alms to 

attract a broader audience outside of our traditional customers. 

... most citizens do not 

know who has legal 

authority and 

responsibility for 

wildlife conservation. 

... agencies have 

come to realize that 

being relevant to 

hunters and anglers 

is critical but not 

sufficient for longterm sustainability 
126 


26936.107

These useful recommendations may take time to implement, as they can for !Jrge, sweeping changes within a 

network of institutions. Yet state agenc!es can begm this transformi'ltion by utilizing four steps: 

Tell our and tell often Ensure citizens know who 

dehve-rs conservation and associated products and 

services and where the financial resources come from to pay for 

it; 

z. Tell 

3. 

services customers want, then deliver the products and services 

using language and channels. the customers trust Jnd value; 

4. Tell the value of our story- Recognize products and services that 

have va!ue for our customers and monetize them, 

Many states have already begun to move down pathway. Spedf!caHy, F!or!da has seen an opportunity 

wherein a small percentage of rea! .estate proceeds go toward the conservation of wildlife. New Jersey 

dedicates .a portion of corporate business tax revEnues to the prBservation of open directly 

wi!d!lfe. Other states such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona have growing market 

wildlife viewing, each using different methods. Stl!! other agencies are entrBpreneurla! models by 

monetizing other products and services that state w!!dHfe agencies are deliverlng with or without 

compensation, 

*State survey questionnaire and responses are avoi!abfe upon request. 

0