U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 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

35-221 PDF 2007

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

IMPLEMENTATION: 

SCIENCE OR POLITICS?

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Serial No. 110-24

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Vacancy

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel 

Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 ............................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon ....................................................................................................... 4

The Wildlife Society Final TWS Position Statement on the 

Endangered Species Act submitted for the record .............................. 151

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

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 5

Letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted for the record . 116

Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of West Virginia ............................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Sali, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho ....... 3

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, Prepared statement of ............................................................ 140

Letter to DOI Secretary Kempthorne submitted for the record ............ 141

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska, 

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 142

Statement of Witnesses: 

Clark, Jamie Rappaport, Executive Vice President, Defenders of Wildlife . 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 18

DellaSala, Dominick A., Ph.D., Chief Scientist and Executive Director, 

National Center for Conservation Science & Policy ................................... 154

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 156

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 160

Grifo, Dr. Francesca T., Ph.D., Senior Scientist and Director of Scientific 

Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists .................................... 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Horn, William P., Attorney, Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot, on behalf 

of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance ................................................................. 179

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 181

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 183

Rodd, Judith Schoyer, Director, Friends of Blackwater ................................ 163

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 164

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 171

Ruch, Jeff, Executive Director, Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility (PEER) .................................................................................. 32

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 45

Scarlett, Hon. P. Lynn, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the 

Interior ........................................................................................................... 6

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

Young, John A., Biologist (Retired), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................. 173

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 176

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 178

Additional materials supplied: 

Hallock, Robert J., Statement and chronology submitted for the record ..... 143

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan Options, October 18, 2006, 

submitted for the record by The Honorable Jay Inslee ............................. 189

Olson, Gail S., Ph.D., Letter submitted for the record by The Honorable 

Jay Inslee ....................................................................................................... 187

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘ENDANGERED 

SPECIES ACT IMPLEMENTATION: SCIENCE 

OR POLITICS?’’

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building. Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rahall, Young, Christensen, 

Napolitano, Holt, Grijalva, Costa, Sarbanes, Miller, Markey, 

DeFazio, Kind, Capps, Inslee, Baca, Sandlin, Gilchrest, Pearce, 

Brown, Heller, Sali, and Lamborn. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK J. RAHALL, II, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST 

VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Natural Resources will come 

to order, please. 

Last week, Julie MacDonald resigned her position as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the Department 

of the Interior, ending what many staff felt was a reign of terror. 

Unfortunately, when she packed up she left behind a lot of baggage, including an agency that seems bent on abdicating its mandated responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act to protect 

God’s creatures for future generations. 

From changes in regulations to poorly developed legal reviews 

that have left the agency sorely vulnerable to attack in the courts, 

the evidence of a systematic effort to undermine the law and 

species protection is quite clear. This is an agency that seems focused on one goal—weakening the law by administrative fiat and 

it is doing much of that work in the shadows, shrouded from public 

view. 

For example, we know that the Department has been contemplating for some time a major rewrite of regulations to implement 

that law. We know this because a copy of draft regulations was 

leaked to the media. As Chairman of the Committee with oversight 

of this matter, I asked for copies of the same draft regulations, but 

received no response from the Department; that is, until Monday, 

two days before this hearing. 

2

That response from Director Dale Hall said, and I quote, ‘‘The 

Department has made no final decision on whether to propose any 

regulatory changes to the ESA.’’ Yet, the letter includes a chart 

prepared, ironically, by the Center for Biological Diversity with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s editorial notes describing their ‘‘current 

draft proposal.’’

While Fish and Wildlife has gone to extreme lengths to keep 

these documents away from the Committee, special interest groups 

challenging ESA decisions have found it easy enough to get their 

hands on a version of them. 

Just last week, on May 1, 2007, the American Forest Resource 

Council had to amend a complaint it filed in court on March 7, 

2007, citing a regulation that is not even on the books but is 

rumored to be under consideration—apparently, top secret consideration—at the Interior Department. Just how the timber industry 

was able to procure the draft regulation is a matter of much 

speculation. 

What is clear, however, is that the timber industry has better access to information from the Bush Administration than the People’s 

Representatives in the Congress of the United States. 

Proposed changes to the regulations are not the only way the administration seeks to undermine the law. While much attention in 

recent days has focused on Julie MacDonald, the Inspector General 

issued a report that shed light on problems that run far deeper 

than those she caused and those will be the focus of much of this 

hearing today. 

For all of its talk about faith and religious values, I find it impossible to reconcile that public persona with this administration’s 

flagrant lack of regard for the work of the Creator’s hand. As well, 

I do not find pushing policies that imperil God’s creatures and that 

place at greater risk of extinction plants that provide life-saving 

drugs to be in keeping with His grand design. 

For me to sit here and suggest that the Department is on a sad 

and irresponsible mission to undercut species recovery is an understatement. What we are seeing here—if we could actually see behind the cloak of secrecy surrounding the Interior Department—is 

a complete disregard for the very science that has equipped us to 

be responsible stewards of this earth with which we have been 

blessed. 

We must ask ourselves as a nation, how do we want this 

government to run the Endangered Species Program—entangled in 

politics, or enlightened by science? 

That concludes my opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources 

Last week, Julie MacDonald resigned her position as Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the Interior, ending what many 

staff felt was a reign of terror. Unfortunately, when she packed up she left behind 

a lot of baggage, including an agency that seems bent on abdicating its mandated 

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act to protect God’s creatures for future generations. 

From changes in regulations to poorly developed legal reviews that have left the 

agency sorely vulnerable to attack in the courts, the evidence of a systematic effort 

to undermine the law and species protection is quite clear. This is an agency that 

3

seems focused on one goal—weakening the law by Administrative fiat and it is 

doing much of that work in the shadows, shrouded from public view. 

For example, we know that the Department has been contemplating, for some 

time, a major rewrite of regulations to implement that law. We know this because 

a copy of draft regulations was leaked to the media. As Chairman of the Committee 

with oversight of this matter, I asked for copies of the same draft regulations, but 

received no response from the Department. That is, until Monday, two days before 

this hearing. 

That response from Director Dale Hall said, ‘‘The Department has made no final 

decision on whether to propose any regulatory changes to the ESA.’’ Yet, the letter 

includes a chart prepared, ironically, by the Center for Biological Diversity with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s editorial notes describing their ‘‘current draft proposal.’’

While Fish and Wildlife has gone to extreme lengths to keep these documents 

away from the Committee, special interest groups challenging ESA decisions have 

found it easy enough to get their hands on a version of them. 

Just last week, on May 1, 2007, the American Forest Resource Council had to 

amend a complaint it filed in court on March 7, 2007, citing a regulation that is 

not even on the books but is rumored to be under consideration—apparently, top 

secret consideration—at the Interior Department. Just how the timber industry was 

able to procure the draft regulation is a matter of much speculation. 

What is clear, however, is that the timber industry has better access to information from the Bush Administration than the People’s Representatives in Congress. 

Proposed changes to the regulations are not the only way the Administration 

seeks to undermine the law. While much attention in recent days has focused on 

Julie MacDonald, the Inspector General issued a report that shed light on problems 

that run far deeper than those that she caused and those will be the focus of much 

of this hearing today. 

For all of its talk about faith and religious values, I find it impossible to reconcile 

that public persona with this Administration’s flagrant lack of regard for the work 

of the Creator’s hand. As well, I do not find pushing policies that imperil God’s creatures and that place at greater risk of extinction plants that provide life-saving 

drugs to be in keeping with His grand design. 

For me to sit here and suggest that the Department is on a sad and irresponsible 

mission to undercut species recovery is an understatement. What we are seeing 

here—if we could actually see behind the cloak of secrecy surrounding the Interior 

Department—is a complete disregard for the very science that has equipped us to 

be responsible stewards of this Earth with which we have been blessed. 

We must ask ourselves as a Nation, how do we want this government to run the 

Endangered Species Program—entangled in politics, or enlightened by science? 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Sali. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL SALI, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As someone who has spent a good deal of time reviewing the impact of the Endangered Species Act, I can assure everyone within 

the sound of my voice that no one who originally voted for this legislation ever envisioned that this Act would be used to smash the 

dreams of millions of Americans. 

Our forefathers who sacrificed everything for our freedom would 

be shocked to learn that Americans are unable to fully utilize their 

property because of a blind salamander, ferry shrimp, fountain 

darters, ground beatles and kangaroo rats. In fact, there are 2,489 

domestic and foreign species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service has designed critical habitat for 

487 species, yet despite spending billions of dollars designating millions of acres for critical habitat and disturbing the lives of millions 

of property owners who must in some cases pay exorbitant fees to 

develop their land, only eight domestic species have ever been 

recovered in more than 30 years. 

4

There is no question that politics and not the Department of the 

Interior are running the Endangered Species Act, and it has been 

hijacked by misguided Federal judges and radical environmental 

organizations whose sole interest is not to recover species, but to 

gorge themselves on taxpayers’ money. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has not initiated a listing decision 

on its own since 1995. Instead of recovering species, the Service 

must spend its meager dollars preparing and defending itself 

against an endless barrage of lawsuits. It has gotten so bad that 

the Service has now hired a full-time attorney that does nothing 

except monitor the legal filings against the agency. 

This is not a new problem. It started with the Clinton Administration and has continued unabated in the Bush Administration. 

Organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity know that 

they can go to Federal court and sue the agency over a listing or 

critical habitat designation. They know they will win. They will be 

handsomely compensated for suing, and they can then hire more 

lawyers to file or threaten to file even more lawsuits. 

Meanwhile, species continue to languish under the Endangered 

Species Act with little, if any, hope of ever recovering. This Act has 

become a powerful weapon to stop or limit development in this 

country. 

Mr. Chairman, instead of criticizing political appointees within 

the Department of the Interior for doing their job, this institution 

would be better served by asking how we can improve the Endangered Species Act. There is no one who can objectively say that this 

program is working effectively with a less than 1 percent recovery 

rate because the only entities that are profiting from the Act are 

those groups who endlessly sue the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

In the past four years, millions of dollars have been paid to litigants in hundreds of court cases. Just imagine if these funds had 

been used for the original purpose of the Act, which was to recover 

and then remove species from the list, it is time to stop this madness. 

Federal policymakers have a right to question the conclusions of 

career biologists. These employees are hard-working, dedicated 

public servants, but they are not infallible. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and want to hear 

their perspectives on how we can restore the Endangered Species 

Act to its original intent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER A. DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling 

this hearing, particularly in light of recent revelations I believe this 

is very timely. I will be brief, but I recently gave a speech to the 

assembled timber industry in the Pacific Northwest, and I started 

with the quote, you know, ‘‘Those who forget history are doomed 

to repeat it.’’ And then I went on to talk about unintended consequences. 

Here we have an administration that has bent over backwards 

for industry, and some in industry think that this administration, 

5

by perverting science, by substituting political judgment for science 

is doing them a big favor. If you want to change the protections 

and the management of the land, you can’t go beyond the existing 

law, and this administration clearly is attempting to do that. 

If you want to have a fair and honest debate, as the gentleman 

on the other side of the aisle recommended about reauthorization 

of the Endangered Species Act, and updating the Act, and modifications to it, we should have that. We haven’t debated that issue 

since 1996, when Mr. Pombo and Mr. Young stopped short of a reasonable proposal from the other side of the aisle to update the Act 

with a mischievous proposal that was just so ridiculous that Newt 

Gingrich wouldn’t even bring it to the Floor of the House. 

So here we are today fast forward. This administration is basically repeating everything done by the Bush One Administration in 

an attempt to provide favors to industry, and instead of providing 

favors what they created was a train wreck, a train wreck in my 

region that ended up in the courts, and a temporary suspension of 

all Federal timber harvesting, and they are about to repeat that in 

my region by again ignoring scientific and biological advice, and 

substituting political opinion improperly and probably illegally. 

So I am hopeful that this will be a wake up call both to the industry and to the administration, and that they don’t do further 

damage and begin to comply with the law, and if we need to discuss and debate changes in the law, let us do that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I have no statement at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms. 

Christensen. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I have no statement either, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva. 

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to thank you for 

the hearing, and given the official distortion and manipulation that 

is now well chronicled that has happened to the Endangered 

Species Act, that has hampered recover, that has hampered a real 

look at what this Act should be and should be doing, I think this 

hearing is very timely and necessary. 

Hopefully, in the light of day and not in some back room, in a 

dark room, can we talk about the changes that need to occur in the 

Act, and the kinds of protections that need to be put in place with 

the bureaucracy so the distortion and manipulation that is well 

chronicled does not occur again, and toward that end, I thank you 

very much for this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will now proceed with today’s witnesses. The 

first panel is composed of the following individuals: The Honorable 

P. Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior; 

Ms. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President of Defenders 

of Wildlife; Dr. Francesca T. Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director of 

Scientific Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists; and 

Mr. Jeff Ruch, Executive Director, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

6

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I am in receipt of a statement from a 

deputy regional forester who apparently has taken issue with some 

statements that have been ascribed to him in the testimony of one 

of the witnesses that will be before us today. 

In light of that, Mr. Chairman, and given the high stakes potentially of this hearing that is being presented, I would ask that we 

swear in the witnesses that will appear before the Committee 

today. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to allow the individual in 

question to submit his testimony, and pursuant to Committee Rule 

4[f], the Chairman may, and I stress the word ‘‘may’’ administer 

oaths to any witness before the Committee, and it is a discretionary action and this particular Chairman has chosen not to 

swear witnesses in. 

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, then I would like to point out that 

under the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, witnesses 

should be aware that giving false testimony to Congress could result in penalties equal to that under the Federal perjury statute, 

five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. 

The CHAIRMAN. The witnesses may proceed. Deputy Secretary 

Scarlett, you may proceed. As with all witnesses, the Committee 

does have prepared testimony, and without objection it will be considered as read, and printed in the record, and witnesses are encouraged to keep their oral testimony five minutes in length. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE P. LYNN SCARLETT,

DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the 

Department of the Interior’s implementation of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Secretary Kempthorne, the Department, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service strongly embrace effective implementation of the 

ESA to fulfill its goals. As a life-long bird watcher, I am both professionally and personally committed to these goals. 

Secretary Kempthorne’s success in addressing complex issues 

springs from his bipartisan approach to solutions. While a United 

States Senator representing the State of Idaho, he worked cooperatively with then Secretary Babbitt on legislation, Senate Bill 1180, 

the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997, legislation that emphasized species recovery. It required that listing decisions be 

based in empirical field tested and peer reviewed scientific data. It 

provided incentives and opportunities for state, landowners, and 

the public to participate in decisionmaking. 

These goals remain the centerpiece of Secretary Kempthorne’s vision for implementing the Endangered Species Act. 

After Secretary Kempthorne’s confirmation in May 2006, he directed the Department, with other agencies, to seek idea son cooperative conservation. This effort culminated in 25 cooperative conservation listening sessions held throughout the country. Of the 

written comments we received, more than 80 percent touched on 

7

the Endangered Species Act. Several consistent themes on the ESA 

emerged from those sessions. 

First, the ESA should focus on ecosystem health and species recovery; second, states should have a greater role in species protection; third, ESA tools should enhance cooperative conservation opportunities; fourth, ESA decisions must be informed by science; 

fifth, the ESA is often burdensome for landowners without corresponding significant benefits to species; and finally, regulatory 

terms and implementation practices are unclear and inconsistent. 

To address these comments, Secretary Kempthorne asked Fish 

and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall, who is with me here today, 

to assemble a group of Fish and Wildlife Service employees with 

expertise in the ESA to develop draft ESA regulatory concepts for 

consideration. 

Recent administrations, Democratic and Republican, along with 

Governors, academics and conservationists, have identified aspects 

of the Endangered Species Act as currently implemented that limit 

efficiency, effectiveness, and conservation results. 

The Service’s work related to threatened and endangered species 

has been in large part driven by lawsuits. The Service’s most current estimate shows that it has 41 lawsuits involving listing decisions for seven species, a petition findings for almost 300 species, 

including a majority of the candidate species, critical habitat for six 

species, and five-year reviews for 89 species. 

We believe available resources would be better spent focusing on 

actions that directly benefit species, such as developing and implementing recovery plans and forming conservation partnerships. 

The Service has greatly improved the Endangered Species Act administration in protecting species. A host of cooperative conservation grant programs promote partnerships with states, landowners 

and others. The Service, I believe, employs rigorous procedure to 

ensure that the best available science supports ESA determinations. 

I want to underscore Secretary Kempthorne’s and my personal 

commitment to transparency, quality, and integrity of science used 

to inform ESA and other land management decisions. We do not 

promote, tolerate, or endorse suppression of scientific information. 

The Service continues its long record of vigorous implementation 

of the ESA. The Service intends to publish final listing determinations for 38 species and proposed critical habitat for 12 species in 

Fiscal Year 2008. The Service also focuses on recovery activity. 

There is no better institutional knowledge and expertise for making the ESA work on the ground than our Fish and Wildlife Service 

career employees, and their colleagues in NMFS with day-to-day 

responsibility for the ESA’s implementation. It is these experts who 

prepared a draft ESA document that is still undergoing refinement. 

It focuses on enhancing state involvement in all aspects of the ESA 

with continued oversight and final decisionmaking resting with the 

Service and NMFS. It creates for the first time regulations focused 

on the recovery process. This documents differs in significant ways 

from the draft of an earlier document circulated by Salon.com. 

The document does not, for example, change the definition of 

jeopardy in any way as it exists in current regulations. Greater emphasis is placed on cooperative partnerships to implement the ESA. 

8

The Department does not now have a complete proposal for improving the ESA regulations. No decision has been made as to whether 

to proceed with proposing changes to implementing regulations. 

Any proposed regulatory changes would, of course, be proposed 

in the Federal Register for full public review and comment. We believe that if the public has a full opportunity to review proposals 

with the concepts now under consideration, they will affirm that 

these concepts will enhance the effectiveness of the ESA and its 

implementation. 

The Department and Service are strongly committed to carrying 

out our statutory obligations with regard to species recovery, and 

to working with our partners and with the Congress toward that 

important goal. 

I appreciate the hearing, and thank you very much. I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]

Statement of P. Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary,

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the Department of the Interior’s implementation 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Secretary Kempthorne, the Department, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service strongly embrace effective implementation of the ESA to fulfill its goals. 

A Commitment to Recovery 

Secretary Kempthorne’s success in addressing complex issues springs from his bipartisan approach to solutions. While a United States Senator representing the 

State of Idaho, he worked cooperatively with then-Secretary Babbitt on legislation, 

S. 1180, the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997, legislation that emphasized 

species recovery. 

The legislation was successfully reported by the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee although it was ultimately not enacted. Secretary Kempthorne’s 

bill set strict requirements for prioritizing and developing recovery plans for listed 

species; required that listing decisions be based on empirical, field-tested, and peerreviewed scientific data; and provided incentives and opportunities for states, landowners, and the public to participate in decision-making. These goals remain the 

centerpiece of Secretary Kempthorne’s vision for implementation of the ESA. 

At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee last spring, then-Governor Kempthorne reiterated his strong desire to 

work collaboratively on ESA issues. He stated at that hearing, ‘‘I am intent upon 

saving species. I am not content with triage, where you simply say that they are 

endangered and then you move on to list the next species. I will always ask, ‘What 

are we doing to actually restore species, instead of just listing them?’’’ Throughout 

his career as a Senator and Governor, the Secretary has focused on species recovery. 

Background 

Some of the discussion today will no doubt focus on a draft of regulatory concepts 

obtained and published by an online magazine a little more than a month ago. That 

document was largely the product of discussions, in 2005, among agency officials of 

the Departments of the Interior and Commerce about ways to improve the ESA. 

It was a deliberative document that was not yet complete, nor had it been formally reviewed within the Department or by other relevant agencies, and not issued 

as a formal proposal. Many concepts at that time remained unresolved and under 

critical discussion. 

After Secretary Kempthorne’s confirmation in May 2006, he directed that the Department, with other agencies, seek ideas on Cooperative Conservation and a range 

of issues. This effort culminated in 25 Cooperative Conservation Listening Sessions, 

held throughout the country, where more than 30,000 people provided their input 

and ideas, through either written or spoken comments, on a range of issues, including the ESA. Of the written comments received, more than 80 percent commented 

on the ESA, with many commenting on what they perceived as impediments to cooperative conservation. 

Several consistent themes on the ESA emerged from the Listening Sessions: 

9

• The ESA should focus on ecosystem health and species recovery; • States should have a greater role in species protection; • ESA tools should enhance cooperative conservation opportunities; • ESA decisions must be informed by science; • The ESA is often burdensome for landowners without corresponding significant 

benefits to species; and • Regulatory terms and implementation practices are unclear and inconsistent. 

To address these comments, Secretary Kempthorne asked FWS Director Dale Hall 

to assemble a group of career FWS employees with expertise in the ESA to develop 

draft ESA regulatory changes for consideration. The resulting draft document differs 

in significant ways from an earlier document circulated by salon.com. 

In the 20 years since ESA regulations were originally promulgated, the Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have learned a great deal about 

how best to implement the provisions of the Act. Recent Administrations—

Democratic and Republican—along with governors, academics, and conservationists 

have identified aspects of the ESA as currently implemented that limit efficiency, 

effectiveness and conservation results. A collaborative group composed of diverse interests last year reported to the U.S. Senate that ‘‘All agree, at least in principle, 

that if new approaches could be identified that would both improve the effectiveness 

of habitat conservation efforts for species and reduce the burden upon landowners 

and other regulated interests, those new approaches should be embraced.’’ In 2005, 

the Administration reviewed the Service’s ESA program with the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and found that the program lacked adequate performance 

goals and was limited by strict deadlines and regulations. 

Chief among the needed improvements is a faster rate of recovering species. 

Roughly 1,300 domestic species of plants and animals are listed as either threatened 

or endangered. To date, just 20 of these species have recovered and no longer need 

the protections of the Act. Just one out of three listed species is considered stable 

or improving, compared to last year. 

Another opportunity for improvement is to fulfill the Act’s vision of robust partnerships with states, many of whom have significant expertise in wildlife and plant 

biology. 

Also, many landowners could be stronger conservation partners by maintaining 

habitat to attract at-risk species if we could clarify inconsistent practices and unclear terminology that are tangling us in litigation. 

Consider designation of critical habitat, which has received significant attention 

and critique in recent years. Former Secretary Bruce Babbitt wrote in a New York 

Times op-ed piece shortly after leaving office that, in its struggle to keep up with 

court orders, the Service had diverted its best scientists and much of its ESA budget 

away from more important tasks like evaluating candidates for listing and providing 

other protections for species on the brink of extinction. 

Protection of habitat is a key to sustaining and recovering endangered species. 

However, the critical habitat process as currently practiced under the Act is not an 

effective means of conserving habitat. The Service has characterized the designation 

of critical habitat as the most costly and least effective class of regulatory actions 

it undertakes. 

The Service’s work related to threatened and endangered species has been in 

large part driven by lawsuits. The Service’s most current estimate shows that it has 

41 lawsuits involving listing decisions for 7 species; petition findings for almost 300 

species, including a majority of the candidate species; critical habitat for 6 species; 

and 5-year reviews for 89 species. 

In sum, too much time is spent responding to litigation rather than putting in 

place on the ground actions to recover species. We believe available resources would 

be better spent focusing on actions that directly benefit species, such as improving 

the consultation process, developing and implementing recovery plans, and forming 

conservation partnerships with states, tribes, and private landowners. 

Improving Administration of the ESA 

The Department has greatly improved ESA administration and protecting species, 

yet effectiveness remains constrained under current rules. Under the banner of the 

Department’s Cooperative Conservation Initiative, a host of grant programs promote 

partnerships with states, landowners, and other citizen stewards to protect and enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species. These and related grant programs also help maintain, protect, and restore habitat in ways that help prevent 

the need to list species as endangered or threatened. 

For example, more than $67 million in grants was provided to 27 states in 2006 

to support conservation planning and acquisition of vital habitat for threatened and 

endangered fish, wildlife and plants. The grants, awarded through the Cooperative 

10

Endangered Species Conservation Fund, will benefit species ranging from orchids to 

bull trout that are found across the United States. Recovery Land Acquisition 

grants benefit 63 listed and 11 candidate species, including several Hawaii forest 

birds: the ’akepa, ’kiopo’au, and Hawaii honeycreeper. Habitat Conservation Planning grants will benefit 111 listed species and 13 candidate species, including 

Canada lynx, grizzly bears, bull trout, bald eagles, gray wolves, west-slope cutthroat 

trout and Columbia River redband trout. Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition grants benefit 40 listed species and 3 candidate species including, including several core populations of federally listed plants, such as San Jacinto Valley 

crownscale and slender-horned spineflower. 

The Department has also focused on other means of encouraging voluntary conservation. The Service uses such tools as Candidate Conservation Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, Safe Harbor Agreements, Habitat 

Conservation Plans and Conservation Banking, which provide for close cooperation 

with private landowners, state, tribal, and local governments, and other non-federal 

partners that are particularly important in our implementation of the ESA. 

Over the past few years, the Service has improved the Recovery Program, establishing a process whereby recovery needs of species can better be prioritized and addressed by Service Regions, and developing a new recovery implementation database for better tracking of recovery actions. The Service has streamlined Section 7 

consultation processes for several kinds of activities, such as hazardous fuels treatment projects, habitat restoration, and recreational activities in the Pacific Northwest, cutting completion time for consultations under the program while maintaining species protections. 

We have improved the science that underlies all of our decisions, including decisions made under the ESA. I want to underscore Secretary Kempthorne’s and my 

personal commitment to transparency, quality, and integrity of science used to inform ESA and other land management decisions. Science is the foundation of all of 

our conservation efforts. The Department, through the Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, has a long tradition of scientific excellence. 

The FWS works closely with the U.S. Geological Survey in a science partnership 

to enhance the administration of the ESA by the Service. Through a Science Support Partnership program, USGS addresses priority science needs of the FWS to inform their ESA decisions. The Service and the USGS together are developing the 

best scientific information available for the listing determination for the polar bear. 

Consistent with its long-standing policies on peer review and information standards under the ESA, the Service employs rigorous procedures to ensure that the 

best available science supports ESA determinations. The Department and the Service have established guidelines, following the direction of the Information Quality 

Act (section 515 of P.L. 106-554), to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of the information that we disseminate to the public. Service 

guidelines establish the policy and procedures for reviewing, substantiating, and 

correcting the quality of the information disseminated. 

Under no circumstance do we promote, tolerate, or endorse suppression of scientific information. Building upon the Service’s ESA peer review policy established 

in 1994, we also follow the guidelines for federal agencies delineated in the ‘‘Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ released by the Office of Management and Budget on December 16, 2004. 

In January 2005, the Service formed a Science Committee, to strengthen collaboration on science issues throughout the Service and to help identify needs and opportunities that cut across programs and regions. The Committee provides advice 

and recommendations to the Director concerning science needs, especially those related to meeting field needs for research, technical assistance, and scientific information and training. 

Committee members have been chosen for their distinguished service, with every 

attempt made to appoint those who represent a diverse array of Service programs, 

regions and scientific backgrounds. The Department’s goal in taking these actions 

is to ensure openness and transparency in the science that underlies and informs 

our decisions. 

We also continue to address critical habitat, listing, and recovery planning priorities under the ESA. Starting in Fiscal Year 2004, the Service saw an increase in 

petition litigation. In response, the Department approved a shift of critical habitat 

funds to listing funds in order to comply with our petition deadlines in 2005 and 

2006. The program expects continued litigation in Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. 

For Fiscal Year 2008, the Service currently anticipates making final listing determinations for 12 species and proposed listings for 8 species. In terms of critical habitat, the Service intends to publish final listing determinations for 38 species and 

proposed critical habitat for 12 species in Fiscal Year 2008. In Fiscal Year 2007, 

11

the Service currently anticipates publishing 17 final critical habitat rules, and 17 

proposed critical habitat rules. The Service finalized critical habitat for 29 species 

and completed listing actions for 15 species in Fiscal Year 2006. 

We are also rightly focused on recovery activities. For the past several years, the 

Service has increased the involvement of the public in recovery planning. Public involvement early on and throughout the planning process ensures recovery actions 

are feasible and establishes support for implementation of recovery actions following 

completion of a recovery plan. Scientific peer review and public review ensure plans 

are based on the best available science and information. 

The Service has developed recovery plans on approximately 87 percent of listed 

species. The development of high quality recovery plans is a priority for the Service’s Recovery Program. Recovery plans are essential to the effective and efficient 

implementation of recovery actions, not only by the Recovery Program, but by other 

Service programs, Departmental bureaus, other Federal agencies, and other partners. During Fiscal Year 2008, the Service expects to prepare recovery outlines for 

species added to the list in Fiscal Year 2007 and to complete final recovery plans 

for 10 species, resulting in 88 percent of species listed 2.5 years or more having approved recovery plans in Fiscal Year 2008. We estimate that, in Fiscal Year 2007, 

the Service will complete final recovery plans for 11 species. In Fiscal Year 2006, 

final recovery plans for 40 species were completed, including Atlantic salmon and 

20 California vernal pool species; revised final recovery plans were drafted for 19 

species; and draft plans for an additional 9 species were published. 

Endangered Species Act Success Stories 

We know that the measure of success under the ESA is recovery of listed species, 

and the cumulative years of ESA partnerships described above are achieving good 

results. In recent months, the Service announced the recovery of several species that 

have come to symbolize the promise of the ESA: grizzly bears, wolves, and bald 

eagles. 

Grizzly Bears. The Service announced at the end of March that the Yellowstone 

population of grizzly bears would be removed from its ‘‘threatened’’ status on the 

list of threatened and endangered species. Grizzly numbers in the Yellowstone ecosystem have increased from an estimated population of 136 to 312, when they were 

listed as threatened in 1975, to more than 500 bears today. 

The bears will now be managed under a comprehensive conservation strategy developed by state and federal scientists and managers that includes intensive monitoring of Yellowstone bears, their food, and their habitat. The conservation strategy 

incorporates the best available science and allows state and federal agencies to adjust management in response to new scientific information or environmental and 

bear population changes. State and federal managers will continue to work cooperatively under this framework to manage and maintain healthy grizzly bear populations throughout the Greater Yellowstone area. 

The grizzly bear’s remarkable comeback is the result of years of intensive cooperative recovery efforts between federal and state agencies, conservation groups, and 

individuals. Such cooperation is necessary, for these bears require a great deal of 

space. 

Gray Wolves. Recognizing the success of gray wolf efforts under the ESA and 

highlighting the cooperation and collaboration among states, tribes, conservation 

groups, federal agencies and citizens in affected areas, the Service announced in 

January 2007 that the western Great Lakes population of gray wolves was being 

removed from the list, and that it was proposing to remove the northern Rocky 

Mountain population of gray wolves from the list. 

When the wolf was first listed as endangered in the 1970s, only a few hundred 

wolves remained in Minnesota. Recovery criteria outlined in the Eastern Timber 

Wolf Recovery Plan include the assured survival of the gray wolf in Minnesota and 

a population of 100 or more wolves in Wisconsin/Michigan for a minimum of five 

consecutive years. The recovery plan identified 1,250 to 1,400 as a population goal 

for Minnesota. That State’s wolf population has been at or above that level since 

the late 1970s, and the Wisconsin/Michigan wolf population has been above 100 

since the winter of 1993-94, achieving the latter numerical goal in the recovery plan. 

Wolf numbers in the three states have exceeded the numerical recovery criteria established in the species’ recovery plan. 

The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is 30 

breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves for three consecutive years, a goal that was 

attained in 2002 and has been exceeded every year since. The Service believes that 

with approved state management plans in place in Montana and Idaho, threats to 

the wolf population will have been reduced or eliminated in those states. The northVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
12

ern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment includes all of Montana, Idaho 

and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part 

of north-central Utah. 

While the Service has approved wolf management plans in Montana and Idaho, 

it has determined that Wyoming’s state law and wolf management plan are not sufficient to conserve that State’s portion of a recovered northern Rocky Mountain wolf 

population. If Wyoming’s plan is not approved before the Service takes final action 

on this proposal, wolves would continue to be protected under the ESA in the significant portion of their range in northwest Wyoming, excluding the national parks, 

which have adequate regulatory mechanisms for wolf conservation. 

Bald Eagles. Finally, the Department continues efforts toward delisting the bald 

eagle, which has recovered in the lower 48 states from a population estimated at 

417 nesting pairs in 1963, to a current population estimated at over 7,000 breeding 

pairs. The threats to the species have been reduced; reproductive success has increased to a healthy level; and the population is growing and distributed across 47 

of the lower 48 states (Vermont does not currently have a nesting population of bald 

eagles). 

In February of this year, the Service announced that the final decision on whether 

to delist the bald eagle would be postponed to no later than June 29, 2007. The additional four months will give the Service time to complete additional analyses related to the final rule and put in place management guidelines and procedures that 

will make it easier for the public to understand ongoing Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act safeguards, ensuring that eagles continue to thrive once delisted. 

Listening Sessions and the ESA Regulations 

After 25 Listening Sessions on Cooperative Conservation, in which the ESA was 

mentioned more than any other issue, the Service assembled a group of career employees, including Assistant Regional Directors from across the country and employees in the Washington Office’s Endangered Species program, along with career professional staff from NMFS, to develop a draft of proposed regulations for consideration. There is no better institutional knowledge and expertise for making the ESA 

work on the ground than these career employees with day-to-day responsibility for 

the ESA’s implementation. To ensure that legal advice was readily obtainable, representatives from the Department’s Office of the Solicitor and the Department of 

Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of 

General Counsel were also available. 

The draft document prepared by this team and which is still undergoing refinement, focuses on enhancing state involvement in all aspects of the ESA, with continued oversight and final decision making by the Service and NMFS; creating, for the 

first time, regulations focused on the recovery process; providing more clear and effective tools to private landowners, municipalities, cities, states, tribes and others 

to conserve and recover listed species through more efficient permitting processes; 

creating a more efficient process for federal action agencies to consult with the Service and NMFS under Section 7, and emphasizing the role all federal agencies have 

in recovering listed species; and providing guidance for the species listing petition 

process, clarifying language used in the listing and critical habitat processes, and 

recognizing existing conservation efforts when making listing decisions. 

This document differs in significant ways from the draft of the earlier document 

circulated by Salon.com. The current draft document strongly emphasizes the recovery process, the definition of ‘‘jeopardy’’ as it exists in current regulations is unchanged; rather, greater emphasis is placed on cooperative partnerships to implement the ESA. The Department does not yet have a complete proposal for improving 

the ESA, and no decision has been made as to whether to proceed with proposing 

changes to the implementing regulations. Work continues on concepts and language 

that could become proposed rule changes. 

Our goal in this work is to greatly improve ESA implementation by strengthening 

its conservation purposes while also removing some disincentives that deter many 

from engaging in activities that would benefit species. Any regulatory changes 

would, of course, be proposed in the Federal Register for full public review and comment. We believe that, if the public has a full opportunity to review a proposal with 

the concepts now under development, they will affirm that these concepts will enhance the effectiveness of the ESA and its implementation. 

The Department and the Service are strongly committed to carrying out our statutory obligations with regard to species recovery and to working with our partners 

toward that important goal. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you and other members of the Subcommittee might have. 

13

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Clark. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK,

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee. 

I am Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President of Defenders of Wildlife. Prior to coming to Defenders, I worked for the 

Federal government for almost 20 years, for both the Department 

of Defense and the Department of the Interior. I served as Director 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service from 1997 to 2001. Thus, I have 

seen the Endangered Species Act from a variety of perspectives. 

I know the difficulties faced by the dedicated professionals in the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fishery Service, 

and other Federal agencies implementing this law, and bring no 

criticism against these committed professionals currently administrating the ESA. However, I cannot ignore the damage that has 

been done to endangered species conservation by political appointees in the current administration. 

Rather than enhancing recovery efforts to expand on existing 

successes, I firmly believe that this administration is actually 

harming species recovery. It has undermined the scientific integrity 

of its programs with political interference and has slowly starved 

the program of needed resources. I realize that these are serious 

charges, but let us look at the facts. 

Fewer listing of endangered and threatened species have occurred in this administration than in any previous one, and that 

is not because there is a lack of candidates in serious need of protection. The 57 species protected in the last six years is just one 

quarter of the number protected in the four years of the first President Bush’s administration. 

The top career professional position in charge of Federal endangered species efforts has been vacant for more than a year, and the 

position has yet to even be advertised for filling. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service programs involved in implementing the Endangered Species Act have lost at last 30 percent 

of the staff that they once contained. There has been a consistent 

and continuing failure by the administration to request adequate 

resources for endangered species conservation, and the budgets 

presented to Congress. The Fiscal Year 2008 request is at least 20 

percent below the minimum level needed. 

The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General has confirmed that former Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald 

was ‘‘heavily involved with editing, commenting on, and reshaping 

the endangered species program’s scientific reports from the field.’’

This went on for many years. The scope and magnitude of political interference revealed by IG interviews is unprecedented in my 

experience. More recently, as Dr. DellaSala details in his testimony, the administration appears to have interjected political considerations heavily and to recovery planning for the Northern Spotted Owl. 

I should say here that no one is arguing that science alone 

should dictate policy. Science is the foundation on which sound policy decisions depend, but when political interference tries to force 

14

the scientific process toward a particular answer, that foundation 

is undermined and ultimately you wind up making very bad policy 

choices. 

The problems are even broader than what I have described so 

far. Draft regulations dated as recently as two months ago proposed changes of such significance that they no doubt would seriously undermine the Endangered Species Act in numerous ways 

identified in my written statement. 

Defenders appreciates the opportunities provided by Deputy Secretary Scarlett to discuss the very broad outlines of ESA regulatory 

revisions. However, neither our two brief meetings nor our widely 

circulated two-page fact sheet have been particularly illuminating 

thus far. In fact, frankly, the discussions and the fact sheet have 

raised more questions and concerns than they have answered or allayed. 

Rather than to continue to work behind closed doors on a comprehensive rewrite of the Endangered Species Act regulations, we 

have asked the administration to work with a broad array of stakeholders to find common ground on ways to improve conservation of 

imperiled species before going forward with any proposal. 

Success in finding common ground hinges no openness and transparency. A key first step in that direction is for the administration 

to share the text of any changes in the Endangered Species Act 

regulations currently under consideration in a collaborative manner. In the absence of any inclusive process like this, however, it 

is only prudent for Congress and Defenders to focus on the changes 

we have either seen in draft or discuss with the administration, 

and the general theme in each case is a clear withdrawal of the 

services from their Federal responsibility to oversee implementation of the ESA. It is as though having starved the endangered 

species program and dismantled and demoralized its staff the administration now wants to wash its hands of carrying out the law 

all together by turning it over to states and other Federal agencies 

that, frankly, are ill equipped to take it on at this time. 

Mr. Chairman, the absence of meaningful congressional oversight 

of the administration’s implementation of the Endangered Species 

Act for the past six years has certainly contributed to each of the 

problems I have described today. I am pleased that under your 

leadership and as today’s hearing demonstrates, Congress is reasserting its rightful place in conducting oversight of this critically 

important law. 

I urge you to continue to make full use of this Committee’s oversight authority in the weeks and months ahead, to insist that the 

administration work cooperatively with the Congress and interested stakeholders to protect and recover endangered species rather than hurriedly pursuing unilateral regulatory amendments to 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you or other 

members of the Committee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clark follows:]

Statement of Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President,

Defenders of Wildlife 

Mister Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Jamie Rappaport Clark, 

Executive Vice President of Defenders of Wildlife. Founded in 1947, Defenders of 

15

Wildlife has over 500,000 supporters across the nation and is dedicated to the protection and restoration of wild animals and plants in their natural communities. 

As you know, prior to coming to Defenders of Wildlife, I worked for the federal 

government for almost 20 years, for both the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior. I served as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

from 1997 to 2001. Thus, I have seen the Endangered Species Act from different 

perspectives: that of an agency working to comply with the law; working for and 

then leading the agency charged, along with other federal agencies, states, and private landowners, with implementing the law; and now leading a conservation organization working to ensure that the law is fully implemented to conserve threatened 

and endangered plants and wildlife. 

The common lesson I have drawn from all of these experiences is that the Endangered Species Act is one of our most farsighted and important conservation laws. 

For more than 30 years, the Endangered Species Act has helped rescue hundreds 

of species from the catastrophic permanence of extinction. But the even greater 

achievement of the Endangered Species Act has been the efforts it has prompted 

to recover species to the point at which they no longer need its protections. 

Recovery is what the Endangered Species Act is all about. It is because of the act 

that we have wolves in Yellowstone, manatees in Florida, and sea otters in California. We can marvel at the sight of bald eagles in the lower 48 states and other 

magnificent creatures like the peregrine falcon, the American alligator, and California condors largely because of the act. 

Recovery Efforts Hamstrung by Lack of Support and Political Interference 

Mister Chairman, because I know the difficulties faced by the dedicated professionals in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

and other federal agencies implementing this law, I am reluctant to criticize those 

who are currently administering the Endangered Species Act. However, because I 

know how successful the act can be in recovering species and because of the deep 

regard I have for those dedicated professionals administering the act, I cannot ignore the damage that has been done to endangered species conservation under the 

current administration. Rather than enhancing recovery efforts to expand on existing successes, I firmly believe that this administration is actually hamstringing 

species recovery. It has undermined the scientific integrity of its Endangered 

Species Act programs with political interference and slowly starved the program of 

needed resources. 

Those are serious charges, but look at the facts: 

The top career professional position in charge of federal endangered species efforts 

has been vacant for more than a year, and the position has yet even to be advertised 

for filling. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service programs involved in implementing the Endangered 

Species Act have lost at least 30 percent of the staff they once contained. In some 

areas, that rate may be close to 50 percent. 

There has been a consistent and continuing failure by the administration to request adequate resources for endangered and threatened species conservation in the 

budgets presented to Congress. The Fiscal Year 2008 request is at least 20 percent 

($40 million) below the minimum level needed. 

Fewer listings of endangered and threatened species have occurred in this administration than in any previous one and 277 species remaining on the candidate 

species list still await initiation of the listing process. The 57 species brought under 

the protection of the Endangered Species Act in the last six years is just one quarter 

the number protected in the four years of the administration of President George 

Herbert Walker Bush. Listing is the crucial first step in catalyzing public and private recovery efforts. 

The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has confirmed that 

former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks 

Julie MacDonald was—heavily involved with editing, commenting on, and reshaping 

the Endangered Species Program’s scientific reports from the field.’’ The scope and 

magnitude of political interference revealed by OIG interviews is unprecedented in 

my experience. In one example cited by the OIG, a listing decision required by law 

to be rooted in science was instead ruled by the personal views of Deputy Assistant 

Secretary MacDonald, only later to be overturned by a court that refused to ignore 

the science. This and numerous other examples of political interference detailed in 

the OIG report have seriously compromised the integrity and credibility of the endangered species program. 

More recently, as Dr. DellaSala details in his testimony, the administration has 

interjected political considerations heavily into recovery planning for the northern 

spotted owl. A so-called ‘‘Washington oversight committee,’’ which initially consisted 

16

of Deputy Assistant Secretary MacDonald and other senior-level administration political appointees, instructed the spotted owl recovery team of scientists and other 

experts to stop work on development of their conservation approach and develop a 

second approach that would offer greater ‘‘flexibility.’’ The increased flexibility option would result in weakening owl habitat protections by (1) delegating authority 

to the Forest Service and BLM to decide where to place blocks of owl habitat without creating lines on a map, (2) providing no information on total habitat acreages 

to be managed for owls, and (3) no longer anchoring spotted owl recovery to the Late 

Successional Reserves established under the Northwest Forest Plan. Frankly, the 

extent of this political interference in recovery planning so far exceeds anything I 

have ever encountered that it is astonishing for its sheer audacity. 

An Administrative Rewrite of the Endangered Species Act Behind Closed 

Doors 

Finally, the issues raised by the potential revisions to the administrative rules 

that guide implementation of the Endangered Species Act, some of which are dated 

as recently as March, are a source of great concern. 

We appreciate the opportunities afforded some of us to discuss the very broad outlines of Endangered Species Act regulatory revisions with Deputy Secretary 

Scarlett, Director Hall, and Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries career 

staff. However, we have found neither our discussions nor the widely circulated, 

two-page fact sheet particularly illuminating. 

In fact, the discussions and fact sheet have raised more questions and concerns 

than they have answered or allayed. Moreover, in addition to the very general descriptions provided by the administration, we have draft regulations dated as recently as two months ago that propose changes of such significance that they would 

seriously undermine the ability of the Endangered Species Act to protect and recover imperiled species. 

Although the administration maintains that the leaked documents do not reflect 

its current intentions, the information they have provided so far contains scant information on which of these regulatory changes or portions of them remain on the 

table. Regardless, there are no guarantees that revisions off the table now will not 

find their way back to the table in any proposed or final rulemaking. 

As we noted in our meetings with Deputy Secretary Scarlett and Director Hall, 

we believe that the interests of endangered and threatened species recovery would 

best be served by working together openly on matters for which there is support 

among a wide variety of interests. In the absence of any inclusive process like this, 

however, it is only prudent that the Congress and organizations like Defenders of 

Wildlife focus on existing examples of specific administrative rule changes because 

we already have seen several iterations of them and we may see still more. These 

changes are of deep concern for at least four reasons. 

First, although early intervention to halt the decline of species is clearly advisable, the proposed changes would almost certainly have the effect of only allowing 

listing—and the conservation measures prompted by a listing—once species are in 

extreme peril. The effect of postponing corrective action will be to make recovery 

and eventual delisting of species even harder and more expensive than it already 

is and more unlikely to occur in any reasonable time frame. 

Second, over the years, the Section 7 consultation process between the Service and 

other federal agencies has been one of the act’s most successful provisions in reconciling species conservation needs with other objectives. For example, progress towards the conservation of species such as the grizzly bear and piping plover would 

have been virtually inconceivable without the beneficial influence of Section 7. Yet, 

the proposed changes and fact sheet descriptions appear to reduce the scope of Section 7, reduce the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service in its implementation, and 

weaken the substantive standards that apply to federal agency actions. The net effect of these changes, like those described above with respect to listing, will almost 

certainly be to make species recovery less likely rather than more likely. 

Third, the draft regulations would re-define the term ‘‘conservation’’ so that it no 

longer would be synonymous with recovery and remove the term ‘‘recovery’’ from 

many places in the regulations. Proposed rule changes, for example, would re-word 

the statutory language on recovery plan contents to remove statements that the goal 

of plan requirements is the conservation and survival of species and remove the 

term ‘‘recovery’’ and the language describing it as a goal from the reasons to delist 

a species. We find it difficult to reconcile these proposed changes with improving 

recovery of species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Fourth, the proposed regulatory revisions of March 2007 construe the Endangered 

Species Act mandate for federal-state cooperation to mean delegation of current federal responsibilities to the states. The proposed changes would give the Secretaries 

17

of the Interior and Commerce very broad discretion to grant states authority to assume responsibility for carrying out much of the endangered species program. The 

proposal would allow states to ‘‘request and be given the lead role in many aspects 

of the Act, including, but not limited to, Section 4, Section 7, and Section 10 of the 

Act.’’ The administration’s fact sheet on the regulation changes appears to describe 

a similar delegation of responsibility to the states, a fact acknowledged in meetings 

with the administration. 

As stewards of the plants and animals within their borders, states are important 

partners in the conservation of threatened and endangered species. The Endangered 

Species Act gives states wide opportunities to create their own programs for protection and recovery, and to contribute to federal efforts as well. By increasing the 

legal protections given to imperiled plants and animals within their borders, state 

endangered species laws can complement the federal law, supplementing protection 

of species already listed so that recovery can be achieved. Strong state laws and 

state Wildlife Action Plans also can protect species not listed under the federal act, 

thereby lessening the need for federal listing. 

As of 2005, however, most of the existing 45 state endangered species acts merely 

provide a mechanism for listing and prohibit the direct killing of listed species. The 

scope of state prohibitions on take generally is narrower than the ESA’s take prohibition. For instance, only nine states make it illegal to harm listed species. Massachusetts is the lone state to bar the ‘‘disruption of nesting, breeding, feeding or migratory activity.’’ Georgia is the only state to explicitly include destruction of habitat 

in its take prohibitions, and it doesn’t apply to private lands. No mechanisms exist 

in 32 state endangered species laws for recovery, consultation, or critical habitat 

designation. Just five states require recovery plans. And five states have no endangered species law at all, simply relying on the federal act or nongame programs. 

In response to a nationwide survey conducted by Defenders of Wildlife and the 

Center for Wildlife Law on state endangered species protection in 1998, state agency 

staff identified a number of constraints to assumption of a greater role in conservation of endangered species. These included a general lack of funding and staff and 

a reluctance or lack of preparation to take on more responsibilities under the federal 

law. 

Most significantly, however, state agency staff pointed to the difficulties created 

by a patchwork of inconsistent and sometimes ineffective state laws in protecting 

and recovering species that occur in multiple states. This situation remains unchanged in 2007. The administration’s draft regulations propose to resolve this dilemma by requiring that a state ‘‘provide for coordination with all other States within the current range of the species affected by such granted authority or delegated 

activities.’’ But this approach fails to address the concerns identified by state fish 

and wildlife agency staff. It also appears to place little value on the broad, interstate 

view and coordination that can be provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service or 

NOAA-Fisheries for species having multi-state distributions. 

The administration’s proposed delegation of Endangered Species Act authority to 

the states is a change to the law of such significance that it should be brought to 

Congress for its consideration, not put in place by means of administrative fiat. 

There is no evidence in three decades of Endangered Species Act legislative history 

that Members of Congress or administration officials were sufficiently unhappy with 

the relative federal and state roles to even raise it as an issue on the six occasions 

in which Endangered Species Act amendments were discussed and adopted between 

1976 and 1988. 

A More Constructive Approach to Improving Conservation of Imperiled 

Species 

The general theme of all the administrative rule changes we have seen from, or 

discussed with, the administration is a withdrawal of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and NOAA-Fisheries from implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Having 

hamstrung the endangered species program by starving it of resources and injecting 

political considerations into its science, the administration’s rewrite of the ESA 

rules now would have the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries shed the 

responsibility entrusted to them by Congress on the basis that the agencies lack sufficient resources and expertise. 

Defenders of Wildlife is committed to improving protection and recovery of endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and we have 

worked with you, Mr. Chairman, and others toward that end. But all indications 

ranging from leaked documents to discussions with administration officials are that 

the administration is considering policy changes of such scope and magnitude that 

they should be brought to Congress for its consideration as amendments to the Endangered Species Act. 

18

Major changes to the Endangered Species Act are on a fast track behind closed 

doors. A spokesperson for the Interior Department was quoted in an April 26 Washington Times article as saying, ‘‘When we put out proposed regulations, we will hold 

a press conference and tell everyone what we are doing.’’

We have asked the administration to adopt a different, more constructive approach. We have asked that they work with a broad array of stakeholders to find 

common ground on ways to improve conservation of imperiled species prior to going 

forward with any proposal. The success of the common endeavor we seek hinges on 

openness and transparency. A key first step in that direction is for the administration to share the text of any changes in the Endangered Species Act regulations currently are under consideration in a collaborative manner, not by holding a press 

conference and publishing proposed regulations. 

Mister Chairman, the absence of meaningful congressional oversight of the Administration’s implementation of the Endangered Species Act for the past six years 

has contributed to each of the problems I have described today. As you are well 

aware, under previous leadership of this Committee, hearings were devoted more to 

undermining the Endangered Species Act, rather than making sure that those 

charged with implementing the law were doing so in a manner that would achieve 

successful conservation of endangered species. I am pleased that, under your leadership Mister Chairman, and as today’s hearing demonstrates, Congress is reasserting 

its rightful place in conducting oversight. 

I urge you to continue to make full use of this Committee’s oversight authority 

in the weeks and months ahead to insist that the administration work cooperatively 

with Congress and stakeholders rather than hurriedly pursuing unilateral amendments to the Endangered Species Act via administrative rulemaking. Preventing the 

extinction of important plants and wildlife is of such critical importance that close 

oversight is essential to assure the appropriate protection of our natural resources 

and responsible stewardship by this administration. 

Thank you for considering my testimony. I’ll be happy to answer questions. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Jamie Clark 

Questions from the Republican Members 

(1) During your four years as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, did you always accept without question or modification the 

scientific recommendations of our [sic] agency’s wildlife biologists? 

I sought to make sure I understood the scientific findings of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s biologists as well as the limitations and level of uncertainty associated with those findings. I did not edit, comment on, or reshape scientific findings 

from those biologists. 

(2) What is the role of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks in terms of reviewing listing petitions, five year species reviews and designations of critical habitat designation? Are they [sic] 

legally obligated to accept at face value the scientific recommendations for listing, five year reviews and critical habitat designations? 

In my experience, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks did 

not personally review listing petitions or five-year species reviews. On occasion, individuals in this position were briefed to ensure that they were aware of such decisions and to assist them in understanding the scientific basis of the decision, and 

any potential ramifications that it might have. As I recall, designations of critical 

habitat required the approval of the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks. Under the Endangered Species Act, designation of critical habitat involves 

both scientific and economic recommendations. During my tenure, the Assistant Secretary did not seek to modify or influence the science underlying critical habitat designations, but may have chosen to address concerns about economic impacts in a 

manner consistent with the science but different than the approach recommended 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(3) As you know and have testified, the Act requires that once a species 

is listed a critical habitat designation is required. Did you designate 

critical habitat for every species listed during your tenure as 

Director? Why not? 

No. In 1995 Congress imposed a moratorium on all Endangered Species Act listing activities in a rider to a defense supplemental appropriations bill. That moratorium was in place for an entire year. No funding could be spent on any activities 

funded through the listing account, which included both actual species listings as 

19

well as critical habitat designation, with the result that an extensive backlog developed of more than 400 species in need of listing. Once the moratorium was lifted 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service could again spend funding on activities under the 

listing account, the Service found that it was ‘‘not prudent’’ to use limited listing 

account dollars on critical habitat designation before more of the backlogged species 

could be given at least the basic protections of the Act. Thus, the overriding priority 

was getting species onto the list, getting them under the Act’s protection rather 

than designating critical habitat which, while important, was overshadowed by the 

need to provide the Act’s protection to species in great need. 

(4) In terms of staff time and resources, how big of an issue were lawsuits 

filed against the Fish and Wildlife Service over listing and designation 

of critical habitat? Was this a big deal, an annoyance or a non-factor? 

Given the extensive backlog of more than 400 species in need of listing that resulted from the 1995 moratorium imposed by Congress on all Endangered Species 

Act listing activities, I believed then, and I believe now, that the litigation to compel 

critical habitat designation, while important, detracted from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s more pressing and important efforts to get imperiled species onto the list 

and under the Act’s protection. 

(5) Ms. Clark, you testified previously before this Committee that as Director you tried to improve the Act’s effectiveness, increase the role 

of states, tribes and landowners, have less regulation and more incentives for property owners. In fact, you stated that: ‘‘We are constantly 

evaluating implementation of the Endangered Species Act to ensure 

its implementation in as fair, flexible manner as we can make possible’’. Was that a political decision you or the Secretary made? In the 

final analysis, isn’t that exactly what the current leadership of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to accomplish? 

Under my leadership and that of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, the only 

changes to the Endangered Species Act regulations were ones to provide support for 

conservation on private lands under section 10 of the law. These limited changes 

were proposed after extensive consultation with representatives of conservation and 

regulated community interests. In contrast, what has been leaked from this administration and provided in fact sheets and discussions indicates that major changes 

to nearly every aspect of Endangered Species Act implementation are actively under 

consideration. Changes have been drafted or described with respect to listing determinations, critical habitat designation, state involvement, section 7 consultation, 

and private lands conservation. In sum, these changes appear to exceed in scope and 

magnitude almost anything Congress has ever done in amending the law during the 

last 30 years. There has been no meaningful consultation to find common ground 

with conservation interests prior to formally proposing changes in how the Endangered Species Act is carried out. From the outside, it appears as though a wholesale 

re-write of the law is taking place in an effort to accomplish administratively that 

which former Representative Pombo could not accomplish legislatively. 

(6) What is the value of critical habitat designation without a recovery 

plan for the affected species? 

The value of critical habitat designation and every other conservation provision 

under the Endangered Species Act is enhanced by the completion of a recovery plan. 

(7) When you were the Director of the Fish Wildlife Service did the President’s budget reflect the needs of the ESA programs? 

In general, yes. The lack of support by some in Congress to adequately fund listing and critical habitat designation, as evidenced by the 1995 moratorium and subsequent appropriation acts, adversely affected budget requests and funding for those 

activities. 

(8) When you were the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service how 

many ESA lawsuits were there? 

I have no records of this statistic. This information likely can be supplied by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(9) Do you think lawsuits effect [sic] the way the agency can do its job to 

protect species? 

Yes. Lawsuits can both positively and negatively affect the way an agency does 

its job to protect species. 

20

(10) How many lawsuits has your organization, the Defenders of Wildlife, 

filed against the FWS under the ESA to date? Would you say that these 

lawsuits drive the implementation of the Law? Do these lawsuits follow science or do they circumvent science in the same way your organization is claiming the Bush Administration is with their implementation policies? 

We do not tally the lawsuits filed by Defenders of Wildlife according to the statute 

being challenged. Most lawsuits involved challenges under multiple statutes in any 

case. Lawsuits by Defenders of Wildlife do not drive implementation of the ESA. 

Rather, these lawsuits seek to compel compliance with the Endangered Species Act 

in a manner that is in accord with the best available scientific information. 

(11) In your testimony, you state that you know how successful the Act can 

be in recovering species. To my knowledge only 1 percent of the 

species have been recovered and removed from the list. Fifteen of 

those removed were due to data errors. How is 1 percent a success? 

What is your definition of recovery? 

Bringing grizzly bears, brown pelicans, peregrine falcons, and soon the bald eagle 

back to a point at which the protection of the Endangered Species Act is no longer 

necessary is my definition of recovery. Recent scholarly work by Scott et al. (2005) 

estimated that the Endangered Species Act had prevented the extinction of 227 

species and found a positive correlation between the number of years a species is 

listed and improvements in its status. As I said in my testimony, these successes 

amply demonstrate how successful the Act can be in recovering species. In my view 

they ought to be celebrated, not denigrated. 

(12) You speak highly of career scientists and their ability to do their jobs. 

The FWS has convened career scientists and managers to develop 

these proposed changes to the ESA regulations. If you support career 

individuals, why wouldn’t you support the Bush Administration’s 

ground-up efforts utilizing career individuals to develop regulations to 

improve the implementation of the Act? If you are concerned about 

public involvement, won’t the Service need to go through a public 

NEPA review process prior to implementing any changes? Why isn’t 

that sufficient? 

I do not believe that the comprehensive re-write of the Endangered Species Act 

regulations that is now underway came at the request or initiative of career Fish 

and Wildlife Service scientists and managers. I believe these career individuals are 

faithfully trying to provide the least damaging responses to policy directions given 

by political appointees that clearly are intended to largely remove the Service from 

its federal responsibility to oversee implementation of the Endangered Species Act. 

It’s as though having starved the endangered species program budget and dismantled and demoralized its staff, the administration now wants to wash its hands of 

carrying out the law altogether by turning it over to states and other federal agencies that are ill-equipped to take it on. 

With respect to public involvement, in the long run it will be far more productive 

for the administration to work openly with stakeholders and Congress on those matters for which there exists broad support. There potentially are a number of such 

areas of agreement. Defenders of Wildlife and six other major conservation organizations have asked Secretaries Kempthorne and Gutierrez to work with us and other 

stakeholders to find common ground in conservation of imperiled species prior to 

going forward with any proposal. The success of the common endeavor we seek 

hinges on openness and transparency. A key first step in that direction is for the 

administration to share the text of any changes in the Endangered Species Act regulations currently are under consideration in a collaborative manner, not by holding 

a press conference and publishing proposed regulations. In any case, I welcome the 

support indicated in the question for subjecting any forthcoming proposal to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. From everything I have seen 

so far, there is no question that the proposal under development by the administration will be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. 

(13) During your tenure at Interior, is it your contention that the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary or other officials never edited, commented or reshaped ESA scientific reports? 

Yes. 

21

(14) Did the OIG find that Julie MacDonald had broken any laws? 

According to the Report of Investigation concerning Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

the Interior MacDonald, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General, ‘‘confirmed that MacDonald has been heavily involved with editing, commenting on, and reshaping the Endangered Species Program’s scientific reports from 

the field’’ and ‘‘determined that MacDonald disclosed nonpublic information to private sector sources, including the California Farm Bureau Federation and the Pacific Legal Foundation.’’ The Report states further that ‘‘the OIG Office of General 

Counsel’s review of this investigation indicates that MacDonald’s conduct violated 

the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) under 5 C.F.R. 9 2635.703 Use of Nonpublic Information and 5 C.F.R. 5 2635.101 Basic Obligation of Public Service, Appearance of Preferential Treatment.’’

(15) Do you or do any of the officers or full-time employees of Defenders 

serve on any FACA Committees for Dol or Commerce? 

Yes, as of May 20, 2007, the following: 

• Michael Leahy, Department of Commerce Industry Trade Advisory Committee 

on Forest Products (ITAC 7) 

(16) How many lawsuits does Defenders currently have against either Dol 

or Commerce? How many have they filed since you joined them? How 

many had they filed in the 4 years prior to you joining? 

The following is a list of cases on which we are currently a party against the Departments of the Interior or Commerce: • Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, No 05-2191 (right whale) • Butte Environmental Council v. Kempthorne, No 05-629 (vernal pools) • Stevens County v. DOI, No 06-156 (Little Pend Oreille - grazing) • Defenders of Wildlife v. Kempthorne, No 06-180 (Fl black bear) • American Bird Conservancy v. Kempthorne, No 06-02631 (red knot emergency 

listing) • Cary v. Hall, No 05-4363 (African antelope) • Communities for a Greater Northwest v. DOI, No 1:06-01842 (grizzly intervention) • State of Wyoming v. DOI, No 06-0245J (Wyoming wolf intervention) • Defenders of Wildlife v. Kempthorne, No 04-1230 (lynx) • Conservation Northwest v. Kempthorne, No 04-1331 (Cascades grizzly) • Defenders of Wildlife v. Kempthorne, No 05-99 (wolverine) • Tucson Herpetological Society v. Kempthorne, No 04-75 (flat-tailed horned lizard) • The Wilderness Society v. Kempthorne, No 98-2395 (National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska) 

We do not keep records of lawsuits filed in relation to the tenure of the Executive 

Vice President. 

(17) Why is litigation so necessary to protect species? Doesn’t that imply 

that the law needs revision? 

Failing all else, litigation may be necessary to protect species in those unfortunate 

circumstances in which agencies fail to follow the law. 

(18) You mention the Southern sea otter as a success of the ESA. Congress 

enacted specific legislation detailing how DOI was supposed to deal 

with an experimental population of translocated animals. Yet, during 

your tenure at FWS, the provisions of the law were not adhered to. In 

addition, your agency did not request funding for the provisions in 

that law. Because of FWS lack of adhering to the law, commercial fishermen, those who were supposed to be protected from the effects of 

the translocated sea otters were put out of business. Do you see this 

as a success? Do you see this as a precedent that will make it more 

difficult to get private landowners to support reintroduction efforts of 

listed species in the future? Are you aware that FWS has now decided 

to declare the translocation program a failure and walk away from 

their obligations under the law? 

The southern sea otter is an example of how, when the Endangered Species Act 

is applied properly and vigorously, significant progress can be achieved toward recovery. Although this species remains at risk and faces a number of significant 

threats, under the ESA significant strides have been made. Following the fur trade 

of the 1800s, the southern sea otter was believed to be extinct throughout its range. 

In the late 1930s, a small remnant population was discovered along the Big Sur 

coast. Although that population received protection under California law, it was not 

22

until enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 and the Endangered 

Species Act in 1973 that federal law ushered in an era of increased protection and 

gradual population growth and range expansion. Especially notable in this regard 

was the use of the take prohibitions of these two laws in the mid-1980s to reduce 

high levels of mortality that were occurring as a result of incidental capture and 

drowning in fishing nets and the cooperative management approaches made possible 

with the State of California to impose fishery closures and gear restrictions to reduce take to comply with federal law. The Endangered Species Act also helped reduce the risk of oil spills by application of the section 7 consultation process to impose various standards regarding vessel traffic and oil spill response along the sea 

otter range, as well as to address the threat of spills caused by offshore oil exploration and development. In addition, the ESA has been critically important in promoting a wide range of recovery actions under section 4, including the recovery plan 

issued in 2003. As a result of these actions, the southern sea otter population has 

increased from approximately 1,200 in the early 1980’s to approximately 2,750 animals today. The species’ range has expanded from Point Purisma (in the south) to 

Point Conception (in the south). The northern end of the range has stayed at around 

Half Moon Bay. 

At the time legislation was enacted to provide for translocation of southern sea 

otters, there were hopes that a population of southern sea otters at San Nicolas Island would grow to somewhere between 150 and 500 individuals. That population 

size was never realized and current numbers approximate only 40 animals. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service used a team of experts, the Southern Sea Otter Recovery 

Team, to help them evaluate the efficacy of this program. The Service did not walk 

away from anything or fail to adhere to the law, rather they used the best available 

science and advice from scientific experts, which indicated that the future existence 

of southern sea otters would benefit from natural range expansion to the south, 

rather than impeding population growth through a ‘‘no-otter’’ or management zone. 

The Service’s biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act found that ‘‘continuing the containment program and restricting the southern sea otter to the area 

north of Point Conception (which marks the current legal boundary between the 

parent range and the management zone, with the exception of the translocation 

zone at San Nicolas Island) is likely to jeopardize its continued existence.’’ Thus, the 

provisions of the translocation law were fully adhered to by the Service because continuing enforcement of the so-called ‘‘no otter’’ or ‘‘management’’ zone would have 

resulted in a violation of the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition on jeopardy. In 

fact, the commercial fishing industry filed a lawsuit in 2000 in an effort to force the 

Service to capture and remove sea otters from the sea otter enforce to the management zone. When the Service and environmental group interveners opposed this 

lawsuit, the commercial fishing group plaintiffs withdrew their case. 

In addition to the likelihood of jeopardy, enforcement of the management zone 

would have conflicted with the essential premise of the translocation law. As it was 

enacted in 1986, the understanding of the law was that the management zone would 

be enforced in exchange for the establishment of a successful experimental population at San Nicolas Island. That has not occurred, even to this day. Although the 

Service has published a draft EIS to evaluate what should be done about the 

translocation, the agency has not yet ‘‘decided to declare the translocation program 

a failure’’, although such a conclusion does appear to be justified by the lack of success with the experimental population. I assume that, if the Service reaches such 

a conclusion, it would not ‘‘walk away from its obligations under the law’’ but would 

instead follow applicable legal requirements and procedures in reaching a final decision and carrying out the necessary conservation and management actions. 

With regard to funding, the Service and other agencies typically do not seek specific earmarks for money for individual actions, such as those referred to in the 

question. In any event, the Service would not be allowed to seek funding to undertake an action that would violate section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. 

No commercial fishing interests have been ‘‘put out of business’’ because of the 

translocation law. To the extent commercial fishing interests are experiencing financial difficulties, their problems are the result primarily of years of unsustainable 

harvesting practices and the effects of coastal pollution and habitat degradation. Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental groups have been exploring with commercial fishing groups various ways to address the common concern over coastal 

pollution and habitat degradation, which are problems that pose a serious threat to 

marine wildlife and the livelihood of fishing businesses. 

The experience with the sea otter translocation law has had no effect on the interest of private parties to support Endangered Species Act conservation programs. As 

the record of the Endangered Species Act implementation demonstrates, the private 

sector has responded well to species conservation efforts when appropriate reguVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
23

latory and other incentives are available. Such voluntary participation post-dates 

the southern sea otter translocation program. 

Today, the southern sea otter continues to face a number of serious threats. These 

include, as identified in the Recovery Plan: habitat degradation (oil spills ans other 

environmental contaminants which lead to infectious disease) and human take (including shooting, entanglement in fishing gear, and harassment) and food resource 

limitations. Just as the Endangered Species Act helped bring the sea otter to the 

point of its current population size and expanded distribution, it is continuing to 

play a critically important role in moving forward with actions to hopefully achieve 

full recovery. Foremost among these is the implementation of the recovery plan, 

which is being carried out by a recovery implementation team representing all affected stakeholders. In addition, important research is underway, as directed by 

that plan in an effort to identify and halt the current threats to species recovery. 

(19) How many species currently listed under the ESA are species that are 

not found in the United States? Why is it necessary to list species 

under the ESA that are not found in the United States? If the concern 

is about trade in those species, doesn’t CITES provide the necessary 

[sic] 

As of May 12, 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies 567 species found 

in other countries that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. One favorable 

conservation consequence of listing these species under the Endangered Species Act 

is that federal agencies are required under section 7 to ensure that they do not authorize, fund, or carry out actions in other nations that would be likely to jeopardize 

these species’ continued existence. Also, by listing foreign species under U.S. law, 

it can provide the necessary impetus for the parties to CITES to add a species to 

an appendix under the treaty and regulate international trade in that species. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Dr. Grifo. 

STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCESCA T. GRIFO, SENIOR SCIENTIST 

AND DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY PROGRAM, 

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Ms. GRIFO. Good morning. My name is Francesca Grifo, and I am 

a Senior Scientist and Director of the Scientific Integrity Program 

at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. I am 

also a biologist. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sali, and Members 

of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak to you about the 

problem of political interference in the work of Federal scientists. 

In March 2006, almost 6,000 biologists wrote a letter asking Congress to protect the integrity of science in the implementation of 

the Endangered Species Act. One of the act’s great strengths is its 

foundation in sound scientific principles, and its reliance on the 

best available science. The biologists urged that objective scientific 

information and methods be used in listing species; that the habitat needs of endangered species are scientifically well informed; 

and that the Endangered Species Act standard of best available 

science must rely on impartial scientific experts. 

Losing species means losing the potential to solve some of humanity’s most intractable problems, including hunger and disease. 

The Endangered Species Act is more than just a law—it is the ultimate safety net in our life support system. 

Unfortunately, time and again science has conflicted with political goals. Americans lose and politics wins. At the Fish and Wildlife Service science itself appears to be endangered. More than 

12,000 scientists, including 52 Noble Laureates, have signed a scientist statement condemning political interference in science. UCS 

24

has compiled over 70 examples of the misuse of science in its A to 

Z Guide to Political Interference in Science. 

In 2005, in an attempt to assess the state of science at the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, UCS and public employees from Environmental Responsibility surveyed more than 1,400 Fish and Wildlife 

scientists. The scientists reported that pressure to alter scientific 

reports for political reasons has become pervasive. At field offices 

around the country, Fish and Wildlife scientists tell of being asked 

to change scientific information, remove scientific facts, or come to 

conclusions that are not supported by the science. 

More than half of all our respondents, and that is 233 scientists, 

knew of cases where commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention, and more than two out of three 

staff scientists—again that was 303 scientists—and nearly nine out 

of ten scientist managers—knew of cases where U.S. Department 

of the Interior political appointees have injected themselves into ecological service’s determinations. 

More than four out of five, that is 351 scientists, said that funding to implement the Endangered Species Act is inadequate. All 

those numbers should be zero. 

One scientist noted that, ‘‘I have been through the reversal of 

two listing decisions due to political pressure. Science was ignored, 

and worse, manipulated to build a bogus rationale for reversal of 

listing decisions.’’

Another remarked that, ‘‘Department of the Interior officials 

have forced changes in Service documents, and worse, they have 

forced upper level managers to say things that are incorrect.’’

While a third scientist wondered, ‘‘Why can’t we be honest when 

science points in one direction but political reality results in making a decision to do otherwise? Morale and credibility will improve 

if we are honest, rather than trying to twist the science to make 

politicians happy.’’

These survey results illustrate an alarming disregard for scientific facts among the political appointees entrusted to protect 

threatened and endangered species. There is evidence of politics 

trumping science in the listing of the Greater Sage Grouse, the 

Gunnison Sage Grouse, Gunnison’s Prairie Dog, Roundtail Chub, 

Tabernaemontana Rotensis, Trumpeter Swan, and the White-tailed 

Prairie Dog. Politics won in the critical habitat designation of the 

Bull Trout, the Florida Panther, the Marbled Murrelet, the Pallid 

Sturgeon, Piping Plover, Interior Least Tern, Red Frog, and Salmon and Steel Head, and these lists are illustrative, not exhaustive. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists urges this Committee to enact 

reforms. To ensure the work of Federal scientists will not be subject to political manipulation, the Department of the Interior 

should increase transparency in the decisionmaking process to expose the manipulation of science, and make other political appointees think twice before altering or distorting documents. 

Open communication among scientists is one of the pillars of the 

scientific method. Department of the Interior scientists should be 

free to disseminate their research results. Interior should adopt 

media and communication policies that ensure taxpayer-funded sciVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
25

1Michael J. Bean, ‘‘Endangered species, endangered act?’’ Environment, 1 Jan. 1999. 

2 ‘‘Letter from Biologists to the U.S. Senate Concerning Science in the Endangered Species 

Act.’’ March 2007. Available online: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientificlintegrity/restoring/sciencein-the-endangered.html. 

entific research is accessible to Congress, the media, and the public. Scientists should be proactively made aware of these rights. 

I want to thank the House for approving the Whistle Blower Protection Enhancement Act. It is now time for the Senate to act on 

this important piece of legislation. 

Finally, there are three immediate actions: Secretary Kempthorne should send a clear message to all political appointees that 

substituting opinions for science is unacceptable. In light of the 

demonstrated pervasiveness of political interference in the Endangered Species Act decisions during the past years, Interior should 

engage in a systematic review of all Bush Administration decisions 

to ensure that the science was not altered or distorted. At the very 

least, Secretary Kempthorne should require an immediate re-evaluation of decisions where political interference has been exposed. 

Given the number of recent attempts to undermine the Endangered Species Act science by Members of Congress and political appointees, congressional committees of jurisdiction must act to safeguard the role of science in protecting highly imperiled species. 

We look forward to working with the 110th Congress on bipartisan legislation, and other reforms to address this issue. Thank 

you very much. I will be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Grifo follows:]

Statement of Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with the

Union of Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity Program 

This testimony is presented by Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist with the 

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a leading science-based nonprofit working for 

a healthy environment and a better world. The full testimony is submitted for the 

record. Dr. Grifo will summarize her statement for the Committee on the problem of 

political interference in the work of federal government scientists. This written testimony contains an overview of the problem of political interference in science, a summary of the UCS survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) scientists, a summary of documented abuses of science in Endangered Species Act decisions, and recommended government reforms needed to restore scientific integrity to the federal policy making process. 

Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young, and Members of the Committee, the 

Union of Concerned Scientists appreciates the opportunity to testify today on an extremely important issue—the federal government’s implementation of the Endangered Species Act and whether the science used to enforce the law has been compromised. 

In 1972, President Richard Nixon asked Congress to pass ‘‘a stronger law to protect endangered species of wildlife.’’ 1 But over the years, the law’s lofty goals have 

been compromised. Indeed, in March 2006, 5,738 biologists wrote a letter asking 

Congress to protect the integrity of science in the implementation of the Endangered 

Species Act. 2 ‘‘One of the great strengths of the Endangered Species Act is its foundation in sound scientific principles and its reliance on the best available science,’’ 

their letter states. The biologists urged that ‘‘objective scientific information and 

methods’’ should be used in listing species, that the habitat needs of endangered 

species are ‘‘scientifically well-informed’’ and that the Endangered Species Act 

standard of ‘‘best available science’’ must rely on ‘‘impartial scientific experts.’’

‘‘Losing species means losing the potential to solve some of humanity’s most intractable problems, including hunger and disease,’’ the biologists concluded. ‘‘The 

Endangered Species Act is more than just a law—it is the ultimate safety net in 

our life support system.’’

Unfortunately, time and time again, when scientific knowledge has seemed to be 

in conflict with its political goals, the current administration has manipulated the 

process through which science enters into its decisions. At many federal agencies 

26

3 Available Online: http://www.ucsusa.org/atoz.html. 

4Dr. David Graham, Testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, 18 November 2004. 

5 Russell E. Train, ‘‘The Environmental Protection Agency just isn’t like it was in the good 

old (Nixon) days.’’ www.girstmagazine.com, September 22, 2003. 6 Available Online: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientificlintegrity/interference/scientists-signonstatement.html. 

and departments, including the Department of the Interior, this has been accomplished by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who or who have 

clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by 

censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists, and by actually omitting or distorting scientific data. 

Scientific Integrity 

Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have 

made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens 

increasingly prosperous and healthy. 

Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, scientific input should always be weighted from an objective and impartial perspective. Presidents and administrations of both parties have long adhered to this principle in forming and implementing policies. Recent actions, however, threaten to undermine this legacy by preventing the best available science 

from informing policy decisions. UCS has compiled over seventy examples in its A 

to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science. 3

The misuse of science has occurred across a broad range of issues such as childhood lead poisoning, toxic mercury emissions, climate change, reproductive health, 

and nuclear weapons. Experts at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) charged 

with ensuring the safety of our food and drug supply, report being pressured to alter 

their scientific conclusions. Scientists nominated to serve on scientific advisory 

boards report being asked about their political leanings. And scientists studying climate change have been effectively barred from communicating their findings to the 

news media and the public. 

Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can 

have serious consequences. For example, the FDA had pronounced the pain medication Vioxx safe, but as many as 55,000 Americans died before it was withdrawn 

from the market. 4

This misuse of science has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe: ‘‘How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health 

and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White 

House and driven primarily by political considerations.’’ 5

On February 18, 2004, 62 preeminent scientists articulated these concerns in a 

statement titled ‘‘Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.’’ 6 In this statement, the scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented ‘‘manipulation in the process through which science enters into its decisions.’’

In the years since the statement was released, more than 12,000 scientists have 

signed on to the scientists’ statement. Signers include 52 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 195 members of the National Academy of 

Sciences. A number of these scientists have served in multiple administrations, both 

Democratic and Republican, underscoring the unprecedented nature of the current 

level of political interference in science. Individual scientists have been joined by 

several major scientific associations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Public Health Association, the American Geophysical Union, and the Ecological Society of America, which have addressed the 

problem at society wide meetings and have begun to investigate how to defend 

science from political interference. 

Voices of Fish and Wildlife Service Scientists 

Political interference has been pronounced in those federal agencies tasked with 

implementing the Endangered Species Act. 

In 2005, UCS and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) distributed a 42-question survey to more than 1,400 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

biologists, ecologists, botanists and other science professionals working in Ecological 

Services field offices across the country to obtain their perceptions of scientific integrity within the FWS, as well as political interference, resources and morale. Nearly 

30 percent of the scientists returned completed surveys, despite agency directives 

not to reply—even on personal time. 

The scientists reported that pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons 

has become pervasive at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. At field offices around 

27

the country, Fish and Wildlife scientists tell of being asked to change scientific information, remove scientific facts or come to conclusions that are not supported by 

the science. 

I. Political Interference with Scientific Determinations 

Large numbers of agency scientists reported political interference in scientific determinations. 

• Nearly half of all respondents whose work is related to endangered species scientific findings (44 percent) reported that they ‘‘have been directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making jeopardy or other findings that are protective of species.’’ One in five agency scientists revealed they have been instructed to compromise their scientific integrity—reporting that they have been 

‘‘directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a FWS 

scientific document,’’ such as a biological opinion; 

• More than half of all respondents (56 percent) knew of cases where ‘‘commercial 

interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific 

conclusions or decisions through political intervention;’’ and 

• More than two out of three staff scientists (70 percent) and nearly nine out of 

10 scientist managers (89 percent) knew of cases ‘‘where U.S. Department of the 

Interior political appointees have injected themselves into Ecological Services 

determinations.’’ A majority of respondents also cited interventions by Members 

of Congress and local officeholders. 

II. Negative Effect on Wildlife Protection 

While a majority of the scientists indicated that agency ‘‘scientific documents generally reflect technically rigorous evaluations of impacts to listed species and associated habitats,’’ there is evidence that political intrusion has undermined the FWS’s 

ability to fulfill its mission of protecting wildlife from extinction. 

• Three out of four staff scientists and even higher proportions of scientist managers (78 percent) felt that the FWS is not ‘‘acting effectively to maintain or 

enhance species and their habitats, so as to avoid possible listings under the 

Endangered Species Act;’’

• For those species already listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, 

more than two out of three scientists (69 percent) did not regard the FWS as 

effective in its efforts toward recovery of those listed species; 

• Nearly two out of three scientists (64 percent) did not feel the agency ‘‘is moving 

in the right direction;’’ and 

• More than two-thirds of staff scientists (71 percent) and more than half of scientist managers (51 percent) did not ‘‘trust FWS decision makers to make decisions that will protect species and habitats.’’

III. Chilling Effect on Scientific Candor 

Agency scientists reported being afraid to speak frankly about issues and felt constrained in their roles as scientists. 

• More than a third (42 percent) said they could not openly express ‘‘concerns 

about the biological needs of species and habitats without fear of retaliation’’ 

in public while nearly a third (30 percent) did not feel they could do so even 

inside the confines of the agency; 

• Almost a third (32 percent) felt they are not allowed to do their jobs as scientists; A significant minority (19 percent) reported having ‘‘been directed by 

FWS decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public, media or elected officials;’’ however, 

• Scientific collaboration among FWS scientists, academia and other federal agency scientists appears to be relatively untainted by this chilling effect, with a 

strong majority (83percent) reporting they felt free to collaborate with their colleagues on species and habitat issues. 

IV. Resources and Morale 

While we cannot ascribe low staff morale to any one cause, the tenor of staff responses and their level of concern about a misuse of science are cause for concern. 

• Half of all scientific staff reported that morale is poor to extremely poor and 

only 0.5 percent rated morale as excellent; 

• More than nine out of ten (92 percent) did not feel that the agency ‘‘has sufficient resources to adequately perform its environmental mission;’’ and 

• More than four out of five (85 percent) said that funding to implement the Endangered Species Act is inadequate. 

28

7Supporting documentation detailing these examples of political interference in science is 

available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/atoz.html. 

In Their Own Words 

As part of the survey, the scientists were also asked how best to improve the integrity of scientific work at Fish & Wildlife—two-thirds of respondents provided 

written responses. By far the concern mentioned most often was political interference. The scientists’ words paint a vivid picture of political misuse of science. 

One scientist noted that ‘‘I have been through the reversal of two listing decisions 

due to political pressure. Science was ignored...and worse manipulated to build a 

bogus set of rationale for reversal of these listing decisions.’’

Another remarked that ‘‘[r]ecently, DOI officials have forced changes in Service 

documents, and worse, they have forced upper-level managers to say things that are 

incorrect...,’’ while a third explained that ‘‘As it stands, [fish and wildlife] regional 

headquarters, [the Interior Department] and White House leadership are so hostile 

to our mission that they will subvert, spin or even illegitimize our findings.’’

One biologist wondered ‘‘Why can’t we be honest when science points in one direction but political reality results in [the agency] making a decision to do otherwise? 

Morale and credibility will improve if we are honest rather than trying to twist 

science to make politicians happy.’’

These survey results illustrate an alarming disregard for scientific facts among 

the political appointees entrusted to protect threatened and endangered species. The 

ESA requires the best available science be used as the basis for listing and recovery 

decisions. 

Abuse of Endangered Species Science 

In our A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science, the Union of Concerned 

Scientists has documented specific instances where endangered species data has 

been compromised. 7 The following examples address two fundamental facets of the 

ESA: decisions to list a species as endangered or threatened; and designation of critical habitat. 

Listing Decisions 

Greater Sage Grouse 

Julie MacDonald, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks at DOI, also interfered with the science behind the proposed listing of the 

Greater sage grouse, a highly threatened ground bird in the American west. A partial copy of Ms. MacDonald’s edits and commentary on a scientific review by agency 

biologists of the state of scientific knowledge of the bird and its habitat was obtained by the New York Times. Many of her comments challenged specific statements made by biologists, questioned the methodology behind studies, and dismissed conclusions without providing a scientific basis for her criticism. Her baseless interference cast enough doubt on the status of the greater sage grouse that 

an expert panel recommended against listing the bird for protection. 

Gunnison Sage Grouse 

Gunnison Sage grouse have experienced significant declines from historic numbers; only 4,000 breeding individuals remain in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah. FWS biologists and field staff were prepared to list the Gunnison sage 

grouse as endangered and designate a critical habitat, when the ESA listing for this 

distinct species was abruptly delayed and eventually reversed by Julie MacDonald 

and other Department of the Interior officials. These officials greatly edited the scientific reports of the scientists, reducing the substantial listing proposal to a mere 

outline of information, and finally concluded on a ‘‘not warranted’’ listing for this 

imperiled bird. 

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog 

The Gunnison’s prairie dog, a distinct species from the white-tailed prairie dog, 

had 90% of its historical range in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado, reduced by the combined pressures of oil and gas drilling, urban sprawl, sylvatic 

plague, and continued shooting and poisoning. Preliminary studies by FWS scientists showed that the Gunnison’s prairie dog was a candidate for ESA listing until 

explicit orders from Julie MacDonald reversed their decision and precluded further 

study. 

Roundtail Chub 

The Roundtail Chub of the lower Colorado River Basin was concluded to be a distinct population segment by the FWS scientists studying the fish from the field 

29

office of Arizona, but the pending decision was reversed by FWS officials. The extinction of this population segment, which is imperiled by a combination of non-native fish introductions and degradation of its stream and river habitat, would result 

in the species being eliminated from roughly a third of its range. 

Tabernaemontana rotensis, a rare island tree 

Approximate thirty plants remain of the species Tabernaemontana rotensis, a medium-sized tree with white flowers and orange-red fruit that grows in the Northern Mariana Islands. In 2000, the FWS published a rule recognizing T. rotensis as 

a species and proposing to list it as an endangered species, but this decision was 

reversed by the Department of the Interior in April 2004. Documents show that DOI 

decision was influenced by comments from the Air Force, which manages the lands 

upon which T. rotensis is primarily found. This decision runs counter to the recommendations of the Pacific Islands office of FWS, the primary scientists that work 

on the species, and the peer reviewers of the proposed rule, who all supported listing, and to virtually all of the published literature. 

Trumpeter Swan 

According to documents released through the Freedom of Information Act, as well 

as testimony from consulting scientists, then FWS director Steve Williams based decisions concerning the status of rare trumpeter swans on a scientifically flawed report that lacked outside peer review and seriously misrepresented another study. 

The attempt to list the imperiled trumpeter swans in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho 

as a distinct population segment from the plentiful tundra swans of the same region 

would have forced the FWS to halt the popular swan hunting season in Utah. A 

formal complaint from PEER prompted director Steve Williams to convene a scientific panel to review the matter; the panel concluded that the FWS documentation 

was inadequate for use in a species determination. Williams overruled the panel’s 

decision and continued to refuse protection to the trumpeter swan. 

White-Tailed Prairie Dog 

The white-tailed prairie dog is suffering severe declines, having vanished from 92 

percent of its historical habitat in higher-elevation grasslands across the western 

half of Wyoming, western Colorado, eastern Utah, and southern Montana. Documents show that then Assistant Secretary MacDonald directly tampered with a scientific determination by FWS biologists that the white-tailed prairie dog could warrant Endangered Species Act protection, and further, prevented the agency from 

fully reviewing the animal’s status. Specifically, she changed scientific conclusions, 

and added erroneous scientific information, and ordered the finding to be changed 

from positive to negative. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

Bull Trout 

Officials at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service deleted chapters detailing the economic benefits of protecting the bull trout, a threatened species in the Pacific Northwest, from an independent and peer-reviewed cost analysis of establishing a critical 

habitat for the species. The final published report included no material on the estimated $215 million in economic benefits, and exaggerated the $230 to $300 million 

in costs estimated by the researchers. These costs would primarily fall on hydropower, logging, and highway construction. White House officials claimed that the 

methodology of including benefits with costs in a financial analysis was discouraged, 

despite having used the same methodology themselves to justify administration-supported policies. 

Florida Panther 

According to FWS biologist Andrew Eller, Jr., FWS officials have knowingly used 

flawed science in the agency’s assessment of the endangered Florida panther’s habitat and viability in order to facilitate proposed development in southwest Florida. 

Eller says agency officials knowingly inflated data about panther population viability by erroneously assuming that all known panthers are breeding adults, discounting juvenile, aged, and ill animals. They have also minimized assessments of 

the panthers’ habitat needs by equating daytime habitat use patterns (when the 

panther is at rest) with nighttime habitat use patterns (when the panther is most 

active). An independent scientific review team has confirmed that the information 

disseminated by the FWS about the Florida Panther contains serious errors. 

Marbled Murrelet 

The Bush administration overruled the opinions of its own government scientists 

in deciding that the marbled murrelet in California, Oregon, and Washington was 

30

8 ‘‘The Meaning of ‘‘In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of its 

Range,’’ Memo to Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Department of the Interior, 16 Mar. 2007. 9Letter to Secretary Dirk Kempthorne regarding proposed changes to the Endangered Species 

Act, 30 Apr. 2007. 

not genetically or ecologically distinct from bird populations in Canada and Alaska. 

These birds were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1992, 

as they were disappearing rapidly from the three northwestern states as their coastal forest habitat came under pressure from human development and logging. In a 

review of the bird’s status, prompted by the trade group American Forest Resource 

Council, the regional offices of the FWS argued that the murrelet of the Pacific 

Northwest was ecologically distinct from its cousins in Canada. However, the federal 

FWS ignored these scientists and moved to reduce its protected habitat by 95% and 

eventually initiated plans to delist the bird. 

Pallid Sturgeon, Piping Plover and Interior Least Tern 

In late 2000, a group of scientists that that been studying the flow of the Missouri 

river concluded a ten year, independently reviewed study recommending a river 

management system mimicking natural seasonal fluctuations. The scientists contended that such a river plan would comply with the Endangered Species Act by 

helping to protect two species of birds (the threatened piping plover and the endangered interior least tern) and one species of fish (the endangered pallid sturgeon). 

However, the Bush administration intervened by creating a new team of scientists 

who worked under incredibly short deadlines, contained only two of the original 15-

member river review team, and eventually released an ‘‘amendment’’ to the original 

document which was not subject to peer-review. The conclusion of the new team 

greatly softened the recommendation for river flow, and also insisted that the 

changes in water level would only affect the sturgeon. 

Red Frog 

In April 2006, the FWS finalized plans to reduce by nearly 90 percent the critical 

habitat set aside for the protection of a rare species of California frog. According 

to FWS, a new analysis had shown that the cost of maintaining the original critical 

habitat for the red-legged frog was too high and would unfairly burden homeowners 

and ranchers. But the analysts who made the cost estimates argued that the numbers were skewed, since they were not permitted to factor in any monetary benefits 

of protecting the land. 

Salmon 

A panel of scientific experts found that there was a strong scientific basis for excluding hatchery-raised fish when measuring the size of wild salmon populations in 

the Pacific Northwest. Such population counts are central to determining protection 

status and habitat needs under the Endangered Species Act. This central recommendation was deleted from the final report of the advisory committee. As the 

panel’s lead scientist, Robert Paine, put it, ‘‘The members of the panel were told to 

either strip out our recommendations or see our report end up in a drawer.’’ The 

Bush administration subsequently released new determinations which combine 

hatchery and wild fish, thus inflating the population counts of several endangered 

or threatened naturally spawning fish. The removal of the extensive, up-to-date scientific record compiled by the advisory committee leaves these populations open to 

legal challenges calling for their delisting. 

Strategies To Weaken The ESA 

Just this year, the Administration has attempted to weaken the ESA in ways that 

undermined the original intent of the ESA as passed by Congress. In March 2007, 

for example, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Solicitor sent out a memo 

responding to questions raised by the FWS about the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’—an issue that had been raised in a 2001 federal appellate court decision. 

The troubling memo concludes that when considering whether a species is endangered, government officials only have to consider its jeopardy in the current habitat 

it occupies, not its historical range. 8

Thirty-eight biologists were so concerned about the potential impact of this memo 

that they sent a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and warned that the 

memo’s conclusions ‘‘will have real and profoundly detrimental impacts on the conservation of many species and the habitat on which they depend.’’ The letter states, 

‘‘Congressional intent about the act is clear: The Endangered Species Act is intended to allow species to be restored throughout large portions of their former 

range.’’ 9

31

Systemic Problems Require Systemic Solutions 

The problem of political interference in science will not be solved by a new Administration or the resignation of additional political appointees. There will always be 

pressure on elected officials from special interests to weaken environmental laws. 

For that reason the Union of Concerned Scientists urges this committee to enact 

systemic reforms: 

Transparency in Scientific Decisions 

Scientists at the FWS recommended more transparency in the decisions making 

process. Said one FWS biologist, ‘‘Plac[e] much more scrutiny on the decision-making process between the draft scientific document and the final decision. The work 

is great until it hits the supervisory chain, and then things are dropped, changed, 

altered (usually without written record) and then finalized with dismissive responses to concerns.’’

To ensure the work of federal scientists will not be subject to political manipulation, the Department of the Interior should increase transparency in the decisionmaking process to expose manipulation of science and make other political appointees think twice before altering or distorting scientific documents. We make the 

following recommendations: 

• The DOI should publish a statement explaining the scientific rationale for each 

listing decision and recovery plan. The statement should justify and defend how 

FWS staff reconcile scientific and economic data to make the final decision. The 

statement must include the scientific documentation that went into the decision 

and the names of the FWS employees and officers involved in the process. 

• If FWS scientists have significant concerns with or criticisms of the decision, 

they must also be able to submit a statement explaining their disagreement. 

This would provide them with an opportunity to make their concerns public and 

provide FWS with an opportunity to explain how they have addressed the concerns or why they are not significant. 

• DOI should establish a formal and independent scientific review board for agency policies and decisions. 

Scientific Freedoms 

Scientists should be allowed basic freedoms to carry out their work and keep up 

with advances in their field. One FWS scientist recommended, ‘‘Encourag[ing] scientists to keep abreast of scientific information (e.g., Membership in professional societies, pay for them to attend prof[essional] meetings) and allowing scientists to do 

their job-make sure they can focus on getting the science right before they are 

bombarded with the social, political and economic angles that come with each issue.’’

• DOI scientists should be free to publish their tax-payer funded research in peerreviewed journals and other scientific publications and be able to make oral 

presentations at professional society meetings. The only exception should be if 

the publication or presentation of the research is subject to Federal export control, national security, or is proprietary information. 

Scientific Communication 

Open communication among scientists is one of the pillars of the scientific method. For society to fully reap the benefits of scientific advances, information must 

also flow freely among scientists, policy makers, and the general public. The federal 

government must respect the constitutional right of scientists to speak about any 

subject, including policy-related matters and those outside their area of expertise, 

so long as the scientists make it clear that they do so in their private capacity, and 

such communications do not unreasonably take from agency time and resources. Scientists should be proactively made aware of these rights and ensure they are exercised at their agencies. 

• DOI should adopt media and communication policies that ensure tax-payer 

funded scientific research is open and accessible to Congress, the media, and 

the public. The policy should: 

Æ Affirm that scientists and other staff have the fundamental right to express 

their personal views, provided they specify that they are not speaking on 

behalf of, or as a representative of, the agency but rather in their private 

capacity. 

Æ Create an internal disclosure system to allow for the confidential reporting 

and meaningful resolution of inappropriate alterations, conduct, or conflicts 

of interest that arise with regard to media communications. 

Æ Include provisions to actively train staff and post employee rights to scientific 

freedom in all workplaces and public areas. 

32

Whistleblower Rights 

In the past, scientists who have attempted to disclose political interference with 

science have been found ineligible for whistleblower protection. Under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, H.R. 985, which recently passed in House of 

Representatives, these disclosures are protected. Whistleblower protections for scientists who report abuse of science would help ensure that basic scientific freedoms 

of federal scientists are respected. • Congress should pass the Whistleblower Enhancement Act, which would give 

federal scientists the right to expose political interference in their research 

without fear of retribution. The House has approved this measure, and it’s time 

for the Senate to act. • DOI scientists who provide information or assist in an investigation regarding 

manipulation or suppression of scientific research should be given adequate protection from retaliation. • DOI should fully investigate any retaliatory actions against a scientist who expresses their concerns within or outside of the agency. 

Immediate Actions 

There are several immediate actions that the Interior Department and Congress 

should take to prevent political interference in science and reinforce the scientific 

foundation of the Endangered Species Act: 

• Interior Department Secretary Dirk Kempthorne should send a clear message 

to all political appointees that substituting opinions for science is unacceptable. 

• In light of the demonstrated pervasiveness of political interference in Endangered Species Act decisions during the past several years, the Interior Department should engage in a systematic review of all Bush administration decisions 

to ensure that the science behind those decisions was not altered or distorted. 

At the very least, Secretary Kempthorne should require an immediate reevaluation of decisions where political interference has been exposed. 

• Given the number of recent attempts to undermine the scientific underpinnings 

of the Endangered Species Act by Members of Congress and political appointees, congressional committees of jurisdiction must act to safeguard the role 

of science in protecting highly imperiled species. 

Restoring Scientific Integrity Throughout Government 

In the 109th Congress, the Union of Concerned Scientists strongly supported comprehensive legislation to protect fact-based information from distortion in order to 

give policymakers the best data on which to make decisions that affect each and 

every American. 

The ‘‘Restore Scientific Integrity to Federal Research and Policymaking Act,’’ 

sponsored in the House by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bart Gordon 

(D-TN) drew 80 sponsors. The prime sponsor of its Senate companion was Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL). 

We look forward to working with the 110th Congress on comprehensive bipartisan 

legislation and other reforms to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Ruch. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JEFF RUCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY 

Mr. RUCH. Mr. Chairman and Members, my name is Jeff Ruch, 

and I am the Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, otherwise known as PEER. We are a service 

organization for scientists, law enforcement officers, land managers, attorneys, who face crises on environmental issues, and as 

such, we act as sort of a giant shelter for battered staff, and in this 

context we see the underside of many of these conflicts. 

In doing this work, we have interviewed scores of scientists work 

on the ESA where we have surveyed hundreds of them. We have 

deposed managers under oath in litigation, and we have sparked 

and monitored official investigations, and our conclusions are these: 

One, is that political manipulation is now thoroughly corrupting 

Endangered Species Act science. It has become widespread and it 

33

has become routine, to the point where even field biologists in remote stations can get a call from a deputy assistant secretary and 

be told to change a number. It is extraordinary. 

Second, that this political interference, particularly under former 

Secretary Gail Norton and her leadership team, Craig Manson, 

Paul Hoffman, Julie MacDonald, none of them had scientific backgrounds, was directed from the top, and included and was enforced 

by kind of a dissemble to succeed policy in which the perpetrators 

of fraud were promoted, and scientists who persisted in disclosing 

inconvenient facts were ostracized, marginalized, or in extreme 

cases, fired. 

Finally, that these problems are not limited to the Department 

of the Interior. The surveys and other work we have done in 

NOAA, NOAA Fisheries, finds just as extensive, if not more, intense political interference with the work that they are doing. 

Now, to me, I was somewhat surprised when I read Ms. 

Scarlett’s testimony that she did not mention Julie MacDonald, and 

the Department itself has been silent with respect to that particular affair, and it is unclear whether Interior’s posture is whether Ms. MacDonald did anything wrong, or whether it was unfortunate that she was caught doing what she was doing. 

But the approach of ignoring the elephant in the front row of this 

hearing room itself sends a very strong message to people who 

work for the Department of the Interior, and that is that political 

interference will continue to be tolerated and woe to those that 

interfere. 

Moreover, it is significant that the Department has announced 

no steps to correct the errors that were identified by its own Inspector General. 

I would like to comment for just a second about litigation. The 

reason that environmental groups can bring in and win these lawsuits is that they are relying upon the science generated by the 

agency’s own specialists. The burden that these groups have to 

show, the burden is on the plaintiff. They have to show that the 

agency action, they have to show that the Federal government is 

acting in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. They must demonstrate that the Federal government’s action has no rational 

basis. That is one of the heaviest burdens in jurisprudence. 

But the reason these groups consistently win these suits is because the agency’s own information has been manipulated and it 

is difficult to defend before a Federal judge of any political persuasion. 

Because it is clear that the Department of the Interior has apparently no intention of acting in regard to these matters, we 

would urge the Congress to step in, and we would ask that the 

Congress take acts to improve accountability, transparency, and integrity. 

In terms of accountability, we would urge that the Committee 

focus not only on removing managers that perpetrate these kind of 

actions, but also pay some attention to the scientific, political prisoners of conscience whose careers have been jeopardized because 

they have proceeded with information that is correct but politically 

inconvenient. 

34

One of the cases we want to draw your attention to is Rex Wahl, 

a Bureau of Reclamation biologist who has been sitting at home at 

taxpayers’ expense for nine months for the crime of committing 

candor in disclosing information about pending Reclamation 

projects. 

The second thing we would urge is transparency. We would echo 

the comments made by Dr. Grifo from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and add one more. NOAA and the Department of Commerce are about to adopt a far-ranging, unprecedented gag order 

that prevents its personnel from making any kind of statement 

that is of official interest, even on their own time, at a scientific 

conference, at any place without prior review and approval. We 

would think that the Congress should step in and ban these sort 

of non-disclosure policies because they are the antithesis of transparency. 

Finally, with respect to integrity, we would echo that whistle 

blower protection is sorely needed as these scientists have almost 

no legal protection when they are just trying to do their jobs. We 

would also urge that the Committee legitimize involvement by scientists and professional societies so that efforts to promote integrity of science is no longer considered a conflict of interest as it is 

under current policy. 

Finally, we would urge that the Congress enforce the laws that 

allow members of the Civil Service to directly communicate with 

the committees without fear of appraisal. We hope that the Congress takes acts to ensure that taxpayer funds are no longer used 

to perpetrate fraud. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruch follows:]

Statement of Jeff Ruch, Executive Director,

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

Good morning. My name is Jeff Ruch and I am the Executive Director of Public 

Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). 

PEER is a service organization dedicated to protecting those who protect our environment. PEER provides legal defense to federal, state, local and tribal employees 

dedicated to ecologically responsible management against the sometimes onerous repercussions of merely doing their jobs. In addition, PEER serves as a safe, collective 

and credible voice for expressing the viewpoints otherwise cloistered within the cubicles. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., PEER has a network of ten state and regional offices. Most of our staff and board members are themselves former public 

employees. 

On a daily basis, public employees in crisis contact PEER. In our D.C. office alone, 

we average five ‘‘intakes’’ per day. A typical intake involves a scientist or other specialist who is asked to shade or distort the truth in order to reach a pre-determined 

result, such as a favorable recommendation on a project. It is in this context that 

PEER hears from scientists working within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (FWS), 

as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). My remarks reflect the 

input we have received from these scientists who feel unable to openly voice their 

concerns. 

In this morning’s testimony, I will 1) describe how official manipulation and distortion of Endangered Species Act (ESA) science has become pervasive; 2) explain 

how scientists are often caught in the political crosshairs of their own agency management with little recourse; and 3) suggest how Congress can ameliorate this state 

of affairs. 

I. Official Manipulation and Distortion of ESA Science Is Pervasive 

I do not mean to suggest that the type of political interference described in this 

testimony originated with the present administration. The ESA has been plagued 

by politics since its inception. 

35

In December 1997 PEER published a white paper entitled War of Attrition: Sabotage of the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Department of the Interior. In that 

white paper we detailed political intervention by then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and his top aides to reverse the findings of agency scientists in eight highprofile ESA cases. In each case, environmental groups successfully sued Interior and 

forced the listing or other action the political intervention was intended to prevent. 

The principal difference in the intervening decade is that what was an occasional 

event during the Clinton administration is now a daily occurrence. The handful of 

cases PEER cited during the Clinton years is dwarfed by the scores of such cases 

being reported under the current Bush administration. The cases under Clinton 

where politics trumped science appear to have been triggered by complaints from 

state governors or other high-profile dynamics. By contrast, under the current Administration, political intervention has become a matter of routine. 

One of the unique aspects of the ESA is the status it accords to the role ‘‘the best 

scientific and commercial data available’’ as either the sole or principal guide for the 

Secretary to make determinations relative to the Act [ see, for example, 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1533 (b) (1) (A) and 16 U.S.C. § 1536]. 

From the earliest days of the current Administration, however, there has been a 

profound tension between the facts reported to it by civil servants and its political 

goals. For example, after promising during her confirmation hearings to faithfully 

report the scientific findings of agency specialists, five months later, on July 11, 

2001, then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton provided the Congress with a letter that 

substantially altered biological findings from FWS concerning effects of oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All 17 of the major changes made in 

the FWS evaluation by the Secretary or her immediate staff (as no other member 

of her leadership team had yet been confirmed) pointed in one direction—to minimize the biological impacts of oil drilling. When questioned about the changes Ms. 

Norton ascribed them to typographical errors. 

This willingness to rewrite scientific and technical findings to serve political aims 

has continued unabated and, by some measures, has accelerated. In 2002, following 

a PowerPoint presentation by presidential counselor Karl Rove to Interior political 

staff, the scientific determination of water levels needed to support threatened coho 

salmon in the Klamath River was suddenly cut in half without any biological analysis, in violation of the ESA. At the behest of Bureau of Reclamation officials, the 

conclusion of a draft biological opinion prepared by a NMFS team was altered to 

lower the minimal in-stream flow levels below what the fisheries scientists believed 

necessary for the survival of coho salmon in the Klamath River. Late that summer, 

the Klamath experienced the largest fish kill in the history of the Pacific Northwest. 

In the ensuing years, the political rewrite of ESA scientific documents has become 

a routine practice. Last fall, for example, the conclusion of a scientific assessment 

on whether the Gunnison’s prairie dog should be listed under the ESA was changed 

under orders by a political appointee—Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie 

MacDonald, an engineer by training, who has been quite energetic in rewriting biological opinions. In this case, a draft opinion which found listing of the Gunnison’s 

prairie dog to be scientifically warranted sparked this terse e-mailed directive: 

‘‘Per Julie please make pd finding negative. Thanks’’

In other words, all of the scientific analysis would remain unchanged, only the 

conclusion (the positive recommendation) would change. This suggests a blatant, almost casual, approach to political interference with ESA science. 

At the same time, PEER has received scores of complaints from FWS and NMFS 

scientists about similar acts of manipulation. To find out how widespread this experience was, in 2005, PEER in partnership with the Union of Concerned Scientists 

(UCS) surveyed more than 1,400 FWS biologists, ecologists and botanists working 

in field offices across the country to obtain their perceptions of scientific integrity 

within the agency. The survey had a 30% rate of return and produced some of the 

following results: 

• Nearly half of all respondents whose work is related to endangered species scientific findings (44%) reported that they ‘‘have been directed, for non-scientific 

reasons, to refrain from making jeopardy or other findings that are protective 

of species.’’ One in five agency scientists said they have been ‘‘directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a FWS scientific document’’; 

• More than half of all respondents (56%) cited cases where ‘‘commercial interests 

have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention’’; and 

• More than a third (42%) said they could not openly express ‘‘concerns about the 

biological needs of species and habitats without fear of retaliation’’ in public 

while nearly a third (30%) felt they could not do so even inside the confines of 

36

the agency. Almost a third (32%) felt they are not allowed to do their jobs as 

scientists. 

In essays submitted on the topic of how to improve integrity at FWS, many biologists cited Julie MacDonald by name. Most essays, however, were couched in more 

general terms: 

• ‘‘We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to rubber 

stamp everything. I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is the worst 

it has ever been.’’

• ‘‘I have never seen so many findings and recommendations by the field be 

turned around at the regional and Washington level. All we can do at the field 

level is ensure that our administration record is complete and hope we get sued 

by an environmental or conservation organization.’’

• ‘‘Recently, [Interior] officials have forced changes in Service documents, and 

worse, they have forced upper-level managers to say things that are incorrect...It’s one thing for the Department to dismiss our recommendations, it’s 

quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something 

that is counter our best professional judgment.’’

Later that year, the two groups surveyed 460 NMFS scientists charged with administering the ESA. More than a quarter (27%) of the scientists returned the surveys with even more disturbing results: 

• An even stronger majority (58%) knew of cases in which high-level Commerce 

Department appointees or managers ‘‘have inappropriately altered [NMFS] determinations;’’

• More than one third (37%) have ‘‘been directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making findings that are protective’’ of marine life; and 

• Nearly one in four (24%) of those conducting such work reported being ‘‘directed 

to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a...scientific document.’’

In essays submitted on the topic of how to improve the integrity of scientific work 

at the agency, the predominant concern raised by the NMFS scientists was political 

interference: 

• ‘‘It seems that we are encouraged to think too much about the consequences and 

how to get around them, rather than just basing our recommendations on the 

best available data.’’

• ‘‘[I]t is not uncommon to be directed to not communicate debates in writing. I 

have also seen written documents that include internal discussions/debate purposefully omitted from administrative records with no valid reasoning.’’

• ‘‘Removing the implication that an ESA Section 7 Jeopardy determination is 

never or almost never justified—this view is frequently held and expressed by 

managers. A huge problem is that a Sec. 7 consultation for ESA, whether the 

science is good or bad, that does not cause problems for an action agency is not 

heartily scrutinized. But a determination that results in more protection for the 

species and restricts an agency action or lengthens their timeline is always 

scrutinized and pressure may be applied to change the determination even if 

valid.’’

Not every manipulation of ESA science is blatant. Some are subtle, involving reinterpretations or technical guidance that on their face appear neutral but are, in 

fact, designed to skew scientific results. For example, in January 2005, Dale Hall, 

the then-FWS Southwest Regional Director, issued a new policy forbidding biologists 

from using wildlife genetics to protect or aid recovery of endangered and threatened 

species. As a result, agency biologists are prohibited from even considering unique 

genetic lineages in protecting or recovering wildlife in danger of extinction. 

By prohibiting consideration of individual or unique populations, Hall’s policy allows FWS to declare wildlife species secure based on the status of any single population (even a population in captivity, such as within a zoo). This means the agency 

could pronounce species recovered even if a majority of populations were on the 

brink of extinction or permit approval of development projects that extirpate whole 

populations. 

While seemingly neutral on its face, the policy was timed to block the ESA listing 

of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken, as well as to water down the recovery plans for the 

Mexican Spotted Owl and the Southwest Willow Flycatcher as well as a number of 

desert fish species, among other species. 

This policy even provoked a rare, though fruitless, internal protest. Then-Mountain-Prairie Regional Director Ralph Morgenweck, attacked the new policy, citing 

several examples where genetic diversity has been critical to species’ survival because it allows wildlife to adapt to emerging threats, diseases and changing conditions. In his memo of protest, Morgenweck stated: 

37

‘‘I have concerns that the policy could run counter to the purpose of the Endangered Species Act to recover the ecosystems upon which endangered and 

threatened species depend. It also may contradict our direction to use the 

best available science in endangered species decisions in some cases.’’

Mr. Morgenweck’s protest was ignored. Shortly thereafter, the author of the policy, Dale Hall, was nominated and confirmed as the Director of the FWS. 

Lastly in this regard, one important measure of the pervasiveness of official scientific fraud and distortion is the high success rate by conservation groups in winning ESA lawsuits against the government. In order for these non-profit groups to 

prevail in court, they must show that the federal government acted in an arbitrary 

and capricious manner. This is one of the heaviest burdens in civil jurisprudence 

in that the plaintiffs must show that the government agency had no rational basis 

for its decision. 

The way in which these, often small, groups prevail is by showing that the Secretary of Interior or Commerce ignored their own scientists. In other words, ESA 

lawsuits against Interior or Commerce are powered almost exclusively by the research generated (and then suppressed or rewritten) by the agency itself. 

II. Scientists Are Caught in the Political Crosshairs with Little Recourse 

In our experience, biologists in FWS and NMFS typically have little interest in 

politics; their passion is the resource. It often comes as quite a shock when they find 

themselves caught up in the political winds blowing out of Washington, DC. In those 

instances, these specialists are like deer caught in the headlights, not knowing 

where to run, as a truck barrels down threatening to flatten their careers. 

Compounding the risks is the relative delicacy of scientific careers, which may be 

derailed by agency actions that would not trouble other professionals. In some scientific disciplines (particularly those within FWS and NMFS), the ‘‘publish or 

perish’’ dynamic means that if an agency prevents the submission of manuscripts 

to peer reviewed journals the scientist is put at a (sometimes fatal) competitive disadvantage. Being denied permission to attend a professional conference or present 

a paper at such a conference can cause grievous career harm. When administered 

as punishments these tactics can be quite devastating, but they do not rise to the 

legal standard of a ‘‘personnel action’’ within federal civil service law and thus are 

very difficult to challenge or review. 

On the other hand, some agency tactics for punishing scientists who disclose inconvenient truths are far from nuanced: 

• One Bureau of Reclamation biologist represented by PEER has been home on 

paid administrative leave for nine months. His supposed offense was sending 

e-mails to federal agencies and an environmental group pointing out problems 

in Bureau filings and reports. The biologist, Charles (Rex) Wahl., was also the 

agency NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) coordinator whose job it is 

to keep stakeholders informed. Originally, Reclamation proposed to fire Wahl 

for being ‘‘subversive’’ and revealing ‘‘administratively controlled information.’’ 

This January, the Bureau withdrew those charges and instead proposed dismissal on the grounds of causing ‘‘embarrassment’’ for putting the agency in a 

‘‘negative light.’’ For good measure, the Bureau also dismissed his wife, Cherie, 

from her temporary clerk-typist position. Meanwhile, Rex Wahl sits at home 

and collects his pay; 

• A FWS biologist who protested diversion of critical habitat found her e-mail 

privileges ‘‘suspended’’ until the end of the fiscal year; and 

• A biologist who raised concerns about growing damage cause by off-road vehicles was abruptly removed from that program and re-assigned to a position with 

no duties in an office that has no phone or computer. 

Unfortunately, wronged federal scientists who seek vindication face steep challenges. 

A. Federal Scientists Have Scant Legal Protection 

This Congress is currently reviewing legislation to strengthen the distressingly 

weak Whistleblower Protection Act. I will not reiterate the arguments in that debate 

except to note that scientists who raise concerns about the quality of studies or the 

validity of findings often have no legal protection at all. 

In the federal civil service, scientists risk their jobs and their careers if they are 

courageous enough to deliver accurate but politically inconvenient findings. For 

openers, the practice of ‘‘good science’’ is not recognized as protected activity under 

the federal Whistleblower Protection Act, unless 1) the scientist is reporting a falsification or other distortion that violates a law or regulation; or 2) the scientific manipulation creates an imminent danger to public health or safety. 

38

Absent those unusual circumstances, a disclosure of a skewed methodology, suppression of key data or the alteration of a data-driven recommendation is treated 

as if it were a policy dispute, for which the disclosing scientist has no legal protection or standing. 

In 2003, nearly half of the federal civilian workforce (in the Departments of 

Homeland Security and Defense) lost traditional civil service protections. In these 

agencies, the emerging management regime resembles a private sector, at-will employment system. Scientists in these agencies can easily be fired, de-funded, transferred or otherwise redirected simply because the results of their scientific work 

cause political displeasure. 

On, May 30, 2006, Justice Samuel Alito cast his first deciding vote in Garcetti 

v. Ceballos (126 S. Ct. 1951) which held that public servants have no First Amendment rights in their role as government employees. The central premise of this ruling is public employees per se have no free speech status because their speech is 

owned by the government. 

The court held that civil servants enjoy First Amendment rights only when they 

act outside their work role and go public. Thus, under the Supreme Court’s formulation, telling an inconvenient truth at work allows no constitutional defense against 

on-the-job retaliation. 

The only protection the Court identified for public servants is whistleblower legislation. Unfortunately, the federal Whistleblower Protection Act has been interpreted 

to exclude disclosures made within the scope of duty. Thus, internal agency communications often lack any legal protection whatsoever—constitutional or statutory. 

The only body of law that protects government scientists is the handful of environmental statutes, such as the federal Clean Air Act, that protect disclosures made 

by any employee, public or private sector, that further the implementation of those 

acts. The ESA, however, has no such whistleblower provision. Moreover, the Bush 

administration has recently ruled that all but two of the six environmental laws 

with such whistleblower provisions are off-limits to federal employees under the doctrine of sovereign immunity—based on the old English common law maxim that 

‘‘The King Can Do No Wrong.’’

B. Agencies Reward Scientific Fraud 

Compounding this daunting legal climate is the tendency by the agencies to promote or reward the very officials who perpetrate the distortions of scientific work. 

The reason behind this perverse dynamic seems evident—managers who dissemble 

to achieve a pre-determined result are simply doing the bidding of the agency’s top 

political appointees. In another context, then-Department of Justice Chief-of-Staff 

Kyle Sampson expressed the concept when he testified that the distinction between 

politics and performance was ‘‘artificial.’’

To convey just how widespread this ‘‘lie to succeed’’ culture has become in federal 

service, consider two recent examples: 

• In 2005, a Commerce Office of Inspector General report found that a key NMFS 

biological opinion on the effects of diverting Sacramento River water from the 

San Francisco Bay Delta to thirsty Southern California had been improperly altered to find no adverse effects. The responsible party identified by the Inspector General was one James Lecky, a regional official. Shortly thereafter Mr. 

Lecky was promoted to become the agency’s Director of Protected Resources, in 

which position he oversees production of all the biological opinions on threatened and endangered species; and 

• One of the rare instances in which FWS has admitted that it committed scientific fraud involves use of skewed biology in assessing the habitat needs and 

population of the endangered Florida panther (discussed in the following section). The central figure in this episode was Jay Slack, the Field Supervisor of 

the FWS South Florida Field Office in Vero Beach. Mr. Slack fired the FWS 

biologist, Andrew Eller, who had challenged the fraud. Following a whistleblower complaint waged by PEER, Mr. Eller was restored to FWS in a courthouse steps settlement. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Slack received a Meritorious 

Service Award. Six months later in February 2006, Slack was promoted to serve 

as Deputy Regional Director of the FWS Mountain-Prairie Region, responsible 

for the eight-state area of Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas. 

C. Profiles in Biological Courage 

From reports that PEER has received there are regions where political pressure 

to change scientific findings is particularly acute. This is not meant to suggest that 

other regions do not have these problems, only that further congressional investigation into this topic would likely find fertile ground in these suppression ‘‘hot spots.’’ 

39

These hot spots coincide with swelling populations pushing against shrinking wildlife habitats: 

Southwest Florida: The challenges facing federal biologists in South Florida are 

almost beyond description. Attached to my testimony is a letter by Ann Hauck on 

behalf of the Council of Civic Associations [Attachment I] which conveys how deepseated the difficulties in that fast-growing region are. 

In that region, FWS biologists are forbidden from issuing ESA ‘‘jeopardy letters’’—

no matter how destructive the development project. As these new developments 

sprawl across the tattered habitat of the endangered Florida panther, avoiding a 

finding of jeopardy remains quite a challenge for FWS. The agency had to resort 

to using scientific fictions to inflate panther population and inaccurately minimize 

habitat needs. Here are some of the fictions which FWS admitted that it employed, 

in response to a Data Quality Act challenge filed by PEER and FWS biologist Andy 

Eller: 

• Relying on daytime habitat use patterns (when the panther is at rest) while ignoring nighttime habitat use patterns (when the panther is active); 

• Assuming that all known panthers are breeding adults, discounting juvenile, 

aged and ill animals; and 

• Using population estimates, reproductive rates, and kitten survival rates not 

supported by field data. 

Then-FWS Director Steven Williams, who made the formal admission of error in 

response to the PEER/Eller challenge, resigned the day before it was announced. As 

it was announced, the FWS Southeastern Regional Office held a press conference 

in which it declared that not one single decision or biological review would change 

as a result of the decision. 

Pacific Northwest: Fishery biologists in both NMFS and FWS working on issues 

involving dams and their management, especially within the Federal Columbia 

River Power System, are being subjected to a severe form of cognitive dissonance. 

These scientists are being asked to ignore evidence as to the negative effect these 

structures are having on listed fish populations and to overestimate the salutary effect of various mitigation measures. 

One FWS biologist has described an impending ‘‘biological train wreck’’ on the Columbia River, pitting survival of endangered fish populations against rising power 

rates and threats of artificially manipulated floods, in describing a concerted effort 

by agency officials to obstruct implementation of the ESA. 

Southwest: Booming population growth in the arid Southwest is pushing many 

species toward extinction but federal recovery plans are tangled in inter-agency and 

political conflict. For example, FWS scientists find endangered and threatened fish 

of the Gila River basin in Southern Arizona and Western New Mexico continue to 

decline because key steps in approved recovery plans are not implemented by their 

own agency, particularly control of nonnative game fish managed by the state wildlife agencies which are supposed to be assisting in federal recovery plan implementation. 

A recovery plan is a basic provision of the Endangered Species Act. It outlines 

the steps needed to prevent possible extinction of a federally-listed species and to 

restore a healthy self-sustaining species. The recovery plans are sound but there is 

no consistent follow-through. The conflicting mandate of the FWS to protect native 

fish versus the state wildlife agencies’ promotion of sport fishing has stalemated effective actions in addressing root causes of the continuing deterioration in the status 

of the native species. 

In all of the above-described settings, scores of federal scientists are struggling 

mightily to respect their professional ethics while maintaining a career in federal 

service. 

III. Congress Can Restore Scientific Integrity 

Congress has the ability to address the deterioration in the integrity of official 

ESA science. PEER would offer the following recommendations: 

A. Insist on Accountability for Political Appointees and Managers 

Any progress in this area will be problematic unless those political appointees and 

managers who perpetrate scientific fraud or manipulation suffer negative career 

consequences. For example, the Interior Department has yet to condemn the conduct 

of the recently-resigned Julie MacDonald. The continued silence from Secretary Dirk 

Kempthorne sends a strong signal that misrepresenting agency scientific research 

is a practice is endorsed by Interior leadership. The posture of Interior appears to 

be that unless the interference is publicly exposed in an embarrassing fashion rewriting scientific documents for non-scientific reasons is a ‘‘no-harm-no-foul’’ 

infraction. 

40

Significantly, the only recent instance in which Interior Department leadership 

embraced the concept of scientific integrity has been as a tool to punish what it perceived to be scientists with an agenda. In 2002, 

The Washington Times cooked up a scandalous hoax in which the central allegation was that several FWS, U.S. Forest Service and Washington State scientists had 

hatched a plot to close large sections of Western public lands by planting phony 

samples of fur from the threatened Canada lynx. The Washington Times then attempted to sell ad space to PEER and other environmental groups so that the ‘‘other 

side’’ of this story would be printed in their pages. 

Despite repeated internal and external investigations that debunked this hoax 

(the scientists had sent in outside samples to test the private DNA laboratory but 

these samples were never part of the lynx habitat survey), Members of Congress, 

abetted by top Interior officials, decried how ESA science had ‘‘gotten out of control.’’

When the furor died down and the scientists were vindicated, a somewhat sheepish Interior Department published a Code of Scientific Ethics, as a face-saving step 

to show that it had done something to ensure that its scientists would never again 

go out of control. Although Interior issued a press release with the Code attached, 

the Code never appeared within any Interior manuals. There remains broad confusion as to its status, meaning and application. 

This semi-official Interior Code of Scientific Conduct has among its provisions the 

following: 

• ‘‘I will act in the interest of the advancement of science and contribute the best, 

highest quality scientific information.’’

• ‘‘I will neither hinder the scientific and information gathering activities of others nor engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or other scientific, research or professional misconduct.’’

• ‘‘I will place quality and objectivity of scientific activities and information ahead 

of personal gain or allegiance to individuals or organizations.’’

Interior’s Code of Scientific Conduct [the full text can be seen in Attachment II] 

should be formally promulgated and made explicitly binding on its political appointees and managers. 

B. Transparency Will Deter Distortions 

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said ‘‘Sunshine is the best disinfectant,’’ and his prescription has application here. 

Congress should require that internal alterations of scientific reports become part 

of the public record, so that the evolution of official findings can be traced. In particular, alterations by political appointees of FWS and NMFS scientific documents 

should be reported to the Congress with a mandatory written explanation for the 

basis of the alteration. 

If these changes to scientific conclusions must be explained in the clear light of 

day, it should deter some of the grosser distortions. Conversely, if Interior or Commerce Department leaders argue that the changes their political appointees make 

are appropriate, they should not mind sharing that justification with the rest of us. 

Retrospectively, the Interior Department has yet to correct the scientific misrepresentations made my Ms. MacDonald that were identified by the Inspector General. 

The Interior Department should affirmatively correct these errors now, rather than 

waiting for them to be invalidated one-by-one through court orders produced by ESA 

challenges. 

Moreover, Ms. MacDonald was not acting as a lone rogue. Her actions fit into a 

pattern of scientific misrepresentations perpetrated by her former colleagues, including Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman and former Assistant Secretary Craig 

Manson. If Interior is not willing to go back and correct the errors mad by these 

political appointees, then the Congress should step in and order an independent review of the revisions made by Interior appointees since 2002. This congressionallychartered scientific ‘‘Truth Commission’’ would identify the errors that need to be 

corrected. Correcting the ESA scientific record now would prevent much future litigation, and render several existing lawsuits moot. 

C. Stop Suppression of Science by Prohibiting Agency Gag Orders 

One of the most disturbing findings of the PEER/UCS surveys was that federal 

scientists were unsure about what they could or could not say or write to colleagues 

in academia or other agencies. As a result, the natural give-and-take of scientific 

development is stunted by politically-inspired public communication policies that require all communications be officially vetted. 

PEER believes that the confusion among scientists is the direct result of deliberately vague policies that generally restrain agency scientists from interacting with 

outsiders. For example, the FWS on May 5, 2004 held an all-staff ‘‘Town Meeting’’ 

41

to tout its ‘‘scientific excellence.’’ That afternoon, all employees were supposed to 

take part in an ‘‘interactive discussion’’ via telephone conference, Internet connection or satellite download with then-Director Steve Williams. 

At that meeting, Mr. Williams announced that FWS would begin concerted interaction with professional societies. He was then asked by a participant whether he 

would address the Interior ethics guidelines which still discourage agency scientists 

from more than passing involvement with associations dedicated to raising and protecting scientific standards. The ethics guidelines classify these professional societies as the sources of potential conflict of interest. Ironically, agency lawyers are 

free to participate in state bar or legal association activities but scientists have no 

comparable freedom. 

In other instances, agency constraints on scientists are not as subtle. For example, on March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative 

order on ‘‘Public Communications’’ requiring that agency climate, weather and marine scientists obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, 

concerning any scientific topic deemed ‘‘of official interest.’’

This new order, which becomes effective this month, would repeal a more liberal 

‘‘open science’’ policy adopted by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration on February 14, 2006. The agency also rejected a more open policy adopted last 

year by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This new policy also 

was rushed to print despite an ongoing Commerce Office of Inspector General review of communication policies that was undertaken at congressional request. 

Although couched in rhetoric about the need for ‘‘broad and open dissemination 

of research results [and] open exchange of scientific ideas,’’ the new order forbids 

agency scientists from communicating any relevant information, even if prepared 

and delivered on their own time as private citizens, which has not been approved 

by the official chain-of-command: 

• Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks ‘‘advance notice’’ of any written, oral or audiovisual presentation prepared on their own time 

if it ‘‘is a matter of official interest to the Department because it relates to Department programs, policies or operations.’’

• Any ‘‘fundamental research communication’’ must ‘‘before the communication 

occurs’’ be submitted to and approved by the designated ‘‘head of the operating 

unit.’’ While the directive states that approval may not be withheld ‘‘based on 

policy, budget, or management implications of the research,’’ it does not define 

these terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce; and 

• It is so all-encompassing that the only exception is for National Weather Service 

employees who may ‘‘as part of their routine responsibilities to communicate information about the weather to the public.’’

While claiming to provide clarity, the new Commerce order gives conflicting directives, on one hand telling scientists that if unsure whether a conclusion has been 

officially approved ‘‘then the researcher must make clear that he or she is representing his or her individual conclusion.’’ Yet, another part of the order states 

non-official communications ‘‘may not take place or be prepared during working 

hours.’’ This conflict means that every scientist who answers an unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by giving an honest answer. 

The rights of non-national security agency scientists should not vary from agency 

to agency. Congress should ban the Commerce Department and other similar gag 

orders and allow federal scientists to freely communicate and argue about science. 

D. Strengthen Whistleblower Protections and Extend Them to Scientists 

The House of Representatives (H.R. 985) recently passed legislation that extends 

civil service whistleblower protection to federal scientists who report data manipulation or suppression. Enactment of that legislation would help address many of the 

problems discussed at this hearing. 

In addition to strengthening the scope and application of federal whistleblower 

statutes, PEER suggests three specific steps that directly address ESA and related 

science: 

1. Enact a Whistleblower Provision for ESA. As noted earlier, ESA lacks the type 

of whistleblower protection that exists in several other environmental statutes. 

Applying this sort of whistleblower protection to ESA (PEER would also urge 

application to the National Environmental Policy Act) will mean that federal 

scientists working on these issues would be able to do their jobs free from the 

prospect of reprisal for doing their jobs too well on a controversial or politicallycharged issue. 

2. Clarify Laws So That Federal Scientists Are Not Barred by Sovereign Immunity. Most would agree that federal agencies should not be above the law, but 

executive branch agencies are doing just that with respect to environmental 

42

whistleblower laws. The re-emergence of the sovereign immunity doctrine is 

rooted in the argument that Congress did not explicitly indicate its intent to 

waive sovereign immunity. Thus, Congress could put this legal shibboleth to 

flight by affirmatively declaring that these laws apply to the federal government in the same manner as they apply to the private sector. 

3. Legalize Federal Scientist Participation in Professional Societies. Anything 

that increases the transparency of agency scientific decision-making, particularly by involving knowledgeable, credible and disinterested outside specialists 

contributes to the factors safeguarding scientific integrity. Congress should 

make it explicitly clear that federal employee involvement with professional organizations dedicated to improving the quality of science is not a real or apparent conflict of interest but is just the opposite—an activity which furthers the 

agency mission. Congress should revive the stillborn 2005 FWS initiative on 

professional openness by a) directing agency ethics offices to encourage rather 

than discourage staff involvement in professional societies; and b) promoting, 

through resolution, appropriation language or other mechanism, federal participation and partnerships with outside scientific bodies. 

E. Put Some Teeth into the Right to Communicate with Congress 

Congress itself can also play a direct role in strengthening the scientific integrity 

within federal service. The threat of disclosure to Congress can deter or reverse informational distortions. 

Unfortunately, the ability of federal employees to communicate with Congress is 

tenuous. 

During the past few years there have been many instances where scientists and 

technical specialists have been constrained from communicating findings directly to 

Congress. Probably the most prominent example involved Richard Foster, the actuary for the Medicare program, who was prevented from informing Congress the 

pending prescription drug bill that was ultimately enacted would cost approximately 

$150 billion or more than had been previously estimated. 

In its examination of that case, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) opined 

that the restraints placed on Mr. Foster forbidding him from revealing the ‘‘true’’ 

cost estimates violated prohibitions (the ‘‘Lloyd Lafollette Acts’’) against interference 

with communications between a federal employee and a Member of Congress. Notwithstanding that finding, CRS was silent as to what could or should be done either 

in that case or to prevent future violations. A review of those prohibitions shows 

that Congress envisioned the denial of appropriated funds to support such violations 

but Congress failed to provide a means for invoking that sanction. Without a way 

to enforce it, the law becomes merely a rhetorical prop. 

PEER would suggest that Congress put some teeth in laws that safeguard its 

right to receive information from federal employees. Authorizing citizen suits to recover appropriated funds misused in restricting communication directly from the 

salaries paid to officials who violate this law would allow Members of Congress to 

directly enforce these laws. This somewhat personal yet public benefit remedy would 

allow individual suppressors of information to be judged in the bright light of day. 

Conclusion 

On the issue of political interference with ESA science, 1) the Science Advisor to 

the President; 2) the Chief Science Advisor to NMFS) and 3) and the Science Advisor to the Interior Secretary have all been conspicuously silent. Presumably, it is 

their jobs to take the lead in identifying and rooting out misuse of science but, in 

actuality, these positions function as cheerleaders and apologists. 

It is precisely because political interference has become so ingrained in these two 

agencies, Interior and Commerce, charged with implementing ESA that a dramatic 

reversal will be required to purge the political content from ESA scientific findings. 

The first step toward pursuing this improvement is admitting the problem. 

If, however, the current administration does not concede that its political intrusions have obstructed ESA, it is unlikely to seek any remedies—and that job will 

fall to Congress and the courts. 

43

ATTACHMENT I 

The Council of Civic Associations, Inc.

24910 Goldcrest Drive

Bonita Springs, Florida, 34134

(608) 238 0539

May 9, 2007

To The House Committee on Natural Resources:

The attached report has been prepared by the Council of Civic Associations, Inc., 

a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. We are affiliated with over 70 civic 

organizations, government liaisons and community leaders in South Florida. Our 

goal is to make government at all levels accountable for enforcing the laws for which 

they are responsible. We believe laws enacted for the benefit of all citizens are being 

ignored in order to benefit specific special interest groups. 

The following contains excerpts from a report submitted by the Council of Civic 

Associations, Inc., (CCA) to the House Committee on Natural Resources on March 

8, 2007. This 28-page report and attachments document the disregard for the enforcement of existing laws that has become commonplace among governmental bodies at the federal, state and local levels. It further documents the proactive 

marginalizing or outright silencing of governmental employees who conscientiously 

attempt to live up to the responsibilities of their positions. 

Although the House Committee on Natural Resources May 9th hearing will focus 

on the implementation of the ESA, the Committee should take note that the Clean 

Water Act is a vital component to protecting endangered species in Florida, where 

there are seven endangered, species, seven threatened species and 21 species of special concern that are wetland-dependent. 

At the same time, the public agencies which are charged with protecting resources 

are missing in action. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) office in 

SW Florida has been closed and the West Palm Beach office has been stripped of 

its former authority with key staff reassigned to report to Atlanta. The Southwest 

Florida U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) ecological field office responsible for 

area permit review, including biological opinions has also been closed. Mr. Bubba 

Wade, a Sr. Vice President of U.S. Sugar, is a governing board member of the South 

Florida Water Management District and represents sugar interests on the Board. 

As you conduct your committee’s oversight activities, we would ask you to direct 

attention to: 

1. The absence of any meaningful cumulative analysis of the scores of new developments covering thousands of acres taking place in the midst of what is universally 

known as some of the most sensitive wildlife habitat in the U.S., including Picayune 

Strand State Forest, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Ten Thousand Island NWR, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, J.N. Ding Darling NWR, Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve and public 

lands purchased with federal funding, e.g., Southern Golden Gate Estates and 

Fakahatchee Strand. 

The slash pine forests, including hydric pine flatwoods, which are rare outside of 

SW Florida, have been identified as an imperiled ecosystem due to a loss of 88 percent from 1900 to 1989 (Source: Noss and Peters, 1995). Hydric pine flatwoods support 31 mammal, 139 bird, 40 reptile, 17 amphibian and 22 fish species, including 

100 federally listed species, 274 migratory bird species occur in SW Florida; 175 of 

these are found in aquatic habitats. Of the 992 plants species found in hydric pine 

flatwoods, 98 species are state listed (Source: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission [Wood, 1994]). 

As a FWS spokesperson stated: 

‘‘The panther represents what is left of the eco-system, a symbol of everything else that is going to disappear unless habitat is set aside.’’

2. The decision of the USFWS to stop issuing jeopardy biological opinions (JBOs) 

for any of the myriad of proposed developments destroying the tattered shreds of 

endangered species habitat in this region. The question your committee should answer is—what good is the ESA if the principal federal enforcement agency is scared 

to death to use it? Even the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jacksonville 

District Chief Regulatory Office, Dr. John Hall (RET.), claimed in an e-mail that 

‘‘the political pressure on FWS is evident to anyone who reads the records of their 

BO’s on the panther.’’ ‘‘In my opinion, they play politics themselves.’’

Some examples include—

44

• A FWS field biologist was told to re-write the biological opinion for Winding Cypress [permit proposal], which is located in the middle of a swamp at the headwaters of Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve. He was told to write the 

opinion with a ‘‘positive spin,’’ and when he refused, it was re-written for him. 

The developer—a major political donor—complained to his superiors. ‘‘I was told 

to back off under threat of insubordination.’’ According to the biologist, ‘‘the 

compensation proposed was less than the formula used at that time projected.’’ 

In a personal e-mail, the biologist commented ‘‘A lobbyist for Van Ness Feldman, and a good friend of Jay’s (former FWS Vero Beach Ecological Services 

director)’’ intervened during the deliberations on panther habitat compensation 

for Winding Cypress. The FWS scientist was reassigned to another state. 

• The FWS issued 58 recommendations of denial within the 1998-2001 time frame 

and 15 incidental taking comments. Since 2000, the FWS has issued 20 biological opinions that have permitted major destruction of panther habitat. About 

16,000 acres were destroyed or degraded in 11 of these projects. 

• Facing pressure from developers and Collier County leaders, FWS shrank the 

panther focus area last December by nearly 900,000 acres, an area roughly the 

size of Rhode Island. Land is vitally important for a species that requires up 

to 200 square miles of territory per creature. Yet, the FWS has never issued 

a ‘‘jeopardy biological opinion’’ that would halt a development in panther habitat. There have been 40 Florida panther deaths since 2000 and 11 died last year 

on Florida roads. This represents arguably more than 10 percent of the panther 

population.’’ (Source: Naples Daily News). 

• The FWS is now allowing developers to partially write their own biological opinions to—speed things up—on whether their project would doom the Florida panther to extinction (St. Petersburg Press). 

• Naples Reserve, adjacent to the east boundary of Winding Cypress is the single 

project that FWS elevated to the Corps for permit denial. The Service request 

for denial went all the way to DC but was rejected by the Corps and the permit 

was issued. 

• The FWS is not the lone recipient of political interference on the Winding Cypress project. The CCA was informed by a reliable source that Mr. Bob Szabo 

of the lobbying firm, Van Ness Feldman was brought in specifically to talk to 

Mr. Jimmy Palmer, regional administrator, USEPA, Atlanta, regarding the 

project. An e-mail, from Palmer to the West Palm Beach office, dated 9/17/2002, 

states: ‘‘Cool your jets and focus on the status of the matter. Bob Szabo (Van 

Ness Feldman—Wash. D.C.) is a friend of mine who is wired tightly into some 

VERY high places. He (and others) are (sic) voicing concerns about how Bruce 

[Boler] conducts his business.’’ (Note: Boler was an USEPA biologist who 

claimed it was permitted even though it did not meet water quality criteria at 

the time). Boler moved to another federal agency. He claims the developers 

were the ones most anxious to get rid of him because he objected to the development funded report that said wetlands create pollution. 

3. A plethora of biological, hydrological or other technical objections to development projects having been reversed, suppressed, diluted or otherwise obviated for 

reasons completely apart from technical merits of those objections. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: The following is a list of recommendations compiled by 

regional, state and federal regulatory sources to address some of the serious deterioration of natural resource protections in Florida: 

1. Congress should request a report by an independent source, e.g., the National 

Academies of Science, to determine how the Nation’s only national estuary program 

established for preservation, the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (NEP) 

area, had its resources so thoroughly degraded by federal actions in the ten years 

since it was established that it now needs a complete restoration program. EPA establishes NEPs yet during the worst of the destruction the EPA leadership remained silent. The EPA Office of Inspector General (IG) should investigate corruption at the top and how science-based information is not reported under the current 

leadership structure. The IG should report on the degradation that occurred since 

the designation of the NEP and what management reforms at the federal level are 

needed to ensure a restoration plan can be initiated and successfully carried out. 

2. The federal government should investigate questionable land deals for Everglades Restoration, e.g., Palm Beach Aggregates and the South Florida Water District (Source: Palm Beach Post). 

3. Congress must authorize the formation of an independent oversight committee 

to review USACE projects (McCain/Feingold legislation). 

45

4. Congress should form an independent authority to carry out the 404 wetlands 

program and, in so doing, reduce the USACE role to that of a commenting agency. 

At the heart of the problem is a conflict of culture: the agency’s role to find engineering solutions—weirs, canals, ditches, reservoirs—to accommodate the needs and 

impacts of growth while purporting to protect naturally functioning wetlands. 

5. Congress must authorize the EPA to withdraw Florida’s authority to issue 

NPDES discharge permits under Clean Water Act (CWA). In a press release dated 

August, 2003, Senator Joseph Lieberman states: ‘‘The Florida Department of Environmental Protection/South Florida Water Management Department permit and 

certification programs are not meeting CWA standards.’’

6. Congress must amend the Clean Water Act to add clarity and certainty. At the 

same time, Congress must develop independent oversight to remove political and 

special interest influence. 

7. Congress must require that there is better, more streamlined communication 

between the agencies, whether they are federal or state. There is a long, unnecessary history of one agency not knowing (and not caring) what the other agency is 

doing. The result is that developers are able to play one agency against the other 

to the detriment of the environment. 

8. Fundamentally, the CWA will only be effective if the regulatory agencies decide 

to embark upon meaningful enforcement of the ESA and CWA. This means that 

both civic and criminal enforcement must be allowed. 

Attachment II 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

THE CODE OF SCIENTIFIC CONDUCT 

To the best of my ability: 

> I will act in the interest of the advancement of science and contribute the best, 

highest quality scientific information for the Department of the Interior. 

> I will conduct, manage, judge, report, and communicate scientific activities and 

information honestly, thoroughly and without conflict of interest. 

> I will be responsible for the resources entrusted to me, including equipment, 

employees’ time, and funds. I will be accountable for the prompt and accurate collection, use, and reporting of all financial resources and transactions under my control. 

> I will disclose the research methods to the local communities, Indian tribes, and 

other individuals whose interest and resource uses are studied; and respect the confidential and proprietary information provided by those individuals to the fullest extent permitted by law. 

> I will neither hinder the scientific and information gathering activities of others 

nor engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or other scientific, research or professional misconduct. 

> I will welcome constructive criticism of my scientific activities and information, 

participate in appropriate peer reviews, and critique others’ work in a respectful 

manner amid objective scientific review. 

> I will be diligent in the creation, use, preservation, and maintenance of collections and data records; adhere to established quality assurance and quality control 

programs; follow the records retention policies of the Department; and comply with 

Federal law and established agreements related to the use, security, and release of 

confidential and proprietary data. 

> I will know, understand and adhere to standards of public information dissemination and the formal publication of scientific information and respect the intellectual property rights of others. 

> I will be responsible in all scientific activities for both the collection and interpretation of data I collect and the integrity of conclusions I present. 

> I will place quality and objectivity of scientific activities and information ahead 

of personal gain or allegiance to individuals or organizations. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Jeff Ruch 

Questions from Republican Members 

(1) Would you agree that if you phrase a question a certain way in a survey 

you can get the response you are looking for? 

Phrasing of survey questions affects both response rate and response pattern. 

If the Republican Members are interested in ensuring that a dispassionate survey 

of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) scientists has been conducted, PEER stands 

ready to assist you in conducting your own survey of that cohort. 

46

The PEER/UCS survey questions were vetted by a committee on current and 

former FWS employees so that each statement on the survey form reflected the precise concern being voiced by their colleagues. 

Attached are that full survey and the results. Should the Republican Members 

have problems with the phrasing of any particular item in the survey, please do not 

hesitate to share it. 

The essay question offered FWS employees a free form venue to vent on the issue 

of scientific integrity in any manner they chose. I would request that the Republican 

Members read the essays written by the scientists and hear the concerns directly 

from the horse’s mouth. 

(2) What do you think of Mr. Horn’s testimony where he describes making 

policy decisions after receiving differing scientific recommendations? 

Do you agree that in those cases it is necessary for a policy person to 

make decisions that not all scientists would agree with? 

I found Mr. Horn’s testimony to be disjointed and contradictory. Mr. Horn is not 

a scientist but is a lobbyist for the recreational vehicle industry. 

On one hand, he appeared to be saying that all ESA decisions are not based on 

pure science but are judgment calls and then proceeds to attack the decision to consider listing the polar bear as a ‘‘triumph of politics over science.’’ Go figure. 

As explained at the hearing, the ESA lays out a distinct role for what have been 

labeled ‘‘policy considerations.’’ Otherwise, the ESA decisions are, by law, required 

to reflect the best available science. 

An untrained ‘‘policy person’’ (i.e., political appointee) has no business acting as 

a scientific referee or peer review committee of one. 

(3) Would you agree that science is never clear cut, that two scientists 

could research an issue and come up with different results or opinions? 

I am not a scientist. 

From my experience as a lawyer I believe that, on many issues, scientific consensus is possible and that courts frequently assess scientific evidence for purposes 

of determining whether a legal threshold has been met. 

Conversely, there are instances where scientists interpret the same facts differently. That is precisely why proposed Administration policies restricting the 

speech and publication of research by federal scientists are inimical to the promotion of scientific integrity. 

47


35221.013.eps
48


35221.014.eps
49


35221.015.eps
50


35221.016.eps
51


35221.017.eps
52


35221.018.eps
53


35221.019.eps
54


35221.020.eps
55


35221.021.eps
56


35221.022.eps
57


35221.023.eps
58


35221.024.eps
59


35221.025.eps
60


35221.026.eps
61


35221.027.eps
62


35221.028.eps
63


35221.029.eps
64


35221.030.eps
65


35221.031.eps
66


35221.032.eps
67


35221.033.eps
68


35221.034.eps
69


35221.035.eps
70

Results of 2005 USFWS Ecological Services Survey 

Below are essay responses to the following survey question: 

42. The integrity of the scientific work produced by USFWS Ecological Services could 

best be improved by: 

This is a sample of some of the most compelling or representative answers from 

each region. The essay responses are sorted according to region, Region 1 through 

Region 7, ending with responses for which the region is unknown (due to missing 

postal stamp on return envelope). Within each region the responses are displayed 

according to one of eleven popular topics or miscellaneous (category twelve). Each 

response is preceded by a code indicating several things about that particular respondent. The code is: survey number assigned by PEER—region—state—manager 

(M) or staff (S). 

Please let me know if you have any questions about this information. 

REGION 1 (Pacific: CA, NV, ID, OR, WA, HI) 

I: Removing politics/political influence over scientific decisions 

414-R1-OR-M 


35221.036.eps
71

Removal of Julie McDonald from Dept of Interior. I have never before seen the 

boldness of intimidation demonstrated by a single political appointee. She has modified the behavior of the entire agency. 

I believe there should be a through investigation of her abuse of discretionary authority and modification of science information provided in FWS documents. 

407-R1-CA-S 

The biological determinations of the field offices should not be ignored and overridden by non-biologists in the Interior. If they must override field office biological 

determinations they should do so early in the process rather than at the last 

minute. 

405-R1-NV-S 

Exposing interference at the department level (Julie MacDonald) 

004-R1-CA-S 

Staying true to biological analyses regardless of the political climate. 

013-R1-ID-S 

Reducing the influence of employees in the assistant secretary of Interiors office 

on field office decisions. 

014-R1-ID-S 

I do not know if improvement is possible in this political climate. I have been 

through the reversal of two listing decisions due to political pressure. Science was 

ignored—and worse manipulated to build a bogus set of rationale for reversal of 

these listing decisions. I have very little hope for any improvement—and I fear that 

the current trend of political meddling will only worsen in the next four years. 

019-R1-NV-S 

I have never seen so many findings and recommendations by the field be turned 

around at the regional and Washington level. All we can do at the field level is ensure that our administration record is complete and hope we get sued by an environmental or conservation organization. 

028-R1-HI-S 

It is wrong that non-scientists take our work and use only the parts of it they 

like and cut out the rest. 

036-R1-ID-S 

Removing the politics from supposed ‘‘Scientifically-based’’ decisions. At least tell 

the public the decisions are based on policy and don’t try to hide behind science. 

038-R1-CA-S 

There needs to be a fire wall between political appointees in the Dept of the Interior and FWS so that we can produce rules and reports without political interference 

040-R1-HI-S 

Remove politics from the process. Everyone is afraid to make any decisions or conduct any action that would be views as controversial. Biologists on the bottom just 

try to keep their heads down and stay out of trouble. They have absolutely no 

power. All they can do is write memos to the files defending their positions that only 

come to light if the files get FOIA’d. The process really is broken, but not in the 

ways discussed by politicians and the press. 

042-R1-WA-S 

Dept of Interior is making substantial changes to the Ecological Services related 

decision with no scientific analysis or basis. 

045-R1-CA-S 

Figuring out a way to reduce political influence on decisions, Interference from 

politicians and commercial interests undermine successful implementations of the 

Act. Those people with power defiantly get more advantageous BOs and receive priority in processing. 

056-R1-WA-S 

The Dept. of the Interior should be using the scientific information generated by 

FWS ecological services staff and making decisions based on science and not on political agendas of the current administration. 

057-R1-WA-S 

Only do those things if we are committed to making science-based rather than political-based decisions. No sense in making science more credible if we have no intention of using science in the decision-making process. 

060-R1-OR-S 

Keeping politics out of our staff work and working from a collaborative and objective point. 

061-R1-WA-S 

Separating scientific findings from management decisions that are not based solely in science. 

066-R1-WA-S 

72

Allowing USFWS scientists to make decisions, rather than having them dictated 

by the DOI. 

075-R1-OR-M 

If the DOI would allow FWS to determine or resolve issues using scientific and 

other information, without interference during the development of studies and documents. There are a number of cases in Region 1 where DOI managers such as Manson have called biologists in the field offices or even at home to question work, thus 

[averting] the entire FWS structure and process. 

079-R1-CA-M 

Reducing or eliminating interference from DOI political appointees (Craig Manson, etc.) and their special assistants (especially Julie MacDonald). 

084-R1-WA-M 

Removing political appointees from USFWS science determinations, 

098-R1-OR-S 

Taking politics out of the decision making process. 

100-R1-ID-S 

Less direct involvement by DOI, minimize DOI changes to FWS Federal Register 

publications. 

102-R1-NV-S 

Do not mix politics with biology. 

104-R1-ID-S 

Making decisions based on the best current science. 

107-R1-OR-S 

Doing work based on science rather than political commercial interests and direction. We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to rubber 

stamp everything. I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is the worst 

it has ever been. 

108-R1-NV-S 

Relieving managers and supervisors from the pressures of political influence. 

111-R1-CA-S 

Stop letting the BIA lawyer Julie MacDonald rewrite USFWS documents with no 

factual support. 

112-R1-WA-S 

USFWS is getting quite a bit of pressure from the DOI these days and most bios 

I know expect that pressure level to increase over the next four years. The Biologists 

I know who deal with controversial ESA issues are striving to maintain a good administrative record pf the recommendations that are brought forth to management. 

So that they can provide that documentation if needed. It appears that at the DOI 

level, politics comes into place and sometimes trumps science. 

113-R1-HI-S 

Removal of political influence at higher levels. 

116-R1-OR-S 

Support for conservation plans that allow time to actually go into effect rather 

than changing or doing away with them as a result of politics. In general, let science 

and not politics dictate decisions more. 

118-R1-CA-S 

Not allowing political influence to drive the decision making process. 

126-R1-HI-M 

Biologists being able to write their documents with our changes because of politics 

and concern about upsetting some group. Just let us do our jobs and don’t tell us 

we don’t know how to write valid scientific documents because we do. That’s what 

we were hired to do in the first place. 

129-R1-CA-S 

Not allowing DOI to override a scientifically sound federal register rule-making 

decision. 

132-R1-WA-S 

Science not politics. 

137-R1-CA-S 

Keeping politics out of biological decision making. 

II: Increasing funding or resources 

004-R1-CA-S 

Provide technical staff with sufficient resources (bucks, bodies and brains) to get 

the best possible product out. 

040-R1-HI-S 

Dramatically increase funding and permanent staff. 

032-R1-CA-S 

73

Allowing for more staff to complete the mission of the FWS. More staffing would 

improve the turnaround time on projects and allow staff to address litigious workload. Increase turnaround time would improve the public perception of FWS. 

020-R1-CA-M 

Several important projects have and are under funded. Good science takes time. 

More time requires more funding. Additional staff can improve time deadlines-more 

staff requires more funding. The balance between a well done project and making 

a deadline is funding. 

028-R1-HI-S 

We are also terribly under funded by the Bush Administration. We are putting 

out fires and have no funds to do the real work of recovery, implementing recovery 

actions or doing proactive conservation. 

045-R1-CA-S 

Finding needs to be increased drastically; not cute. And you can’t recover species 

we don’t invest some serious dollars into recovery and reduce some of the threats. 

046-R1-WA-S 

A budget increase to fund more technical staff and distribute large workload. 

053-R1-WA-S 

More resources and staff, we are overworked which leads to poor morale and poor 

work performance. The resources are suffering because ES can’t do the job adequately. 

101-R1-CA 

Appropriations that meet work-load demands. 

111-R1-CA-S 

Hire more biologists to do all the work we are swamped with. We cannot turn 

out good documents in the time allotted with current staff levels. 

113-R1-HI-S 

Substantially increase funding. 

118-R1-CA-S 

Fully funding ecological services in order to proactively deal with issues, instead 

of constantly reacting 

127-R1-ID-M 

Improved funding for research specific to the work of ecological services. Sufficient 

staffs to thoroughly manage interpret and integrate scientific information. 

III: Devoting more attention to professional development, such as access to 

scientific literature and time to review it. 

062-R1-WA-S 

Financial support for staff to participate in professional societies and training. 

114-R1-WA-S 

More time to do research and more time to attend scientific meetings. More time 

to publish; now I can’t do anything but crank out biological opinions. 

118-R1-CA-S 

Allowing scientists to fully keep abreast of the most recent science literature. 

122-R1-HI-S 

Allowing biologists time to keep up with the scientific advances in the field and 

time to use scientific techniques in conducting their work. Also providing them with 

real opportunities for career advancement based on scientific expertise, not supervisory. 

124-R1-WA-S 

Having the financial resources to keep up with scientific developments (i.e., modeling, quantitative process) that we could incorporate into our analysis. 

132-R1-WA-S 

Increased training and professional development 

138-R1-OR-S 

Assuring that ES staff are given opportunities to receive appropriate training, attend scientific conventions and participate in or conduct science research. 

IV: Improving the quality of FWS management. 

410-R1-OR-S 

I think the service is being set up for a hall that is now being directed from within. Reduced funding for ‘‘white hot’’ programs (Partners, Jobs in the Woods), management changes to proposed recovering plans to make ESA look like a terrible program, and agreement by new appointees that ‘‘ESA should be changed’’. 

012-R1-ID-S 

Empowerment of staff biologists with funds to be directed to the projects they are 

working on. The model for this is the Partners Program and Candidate Species Program. 

74

041-R1-WA-S 

Hiring properly trained supervisors who have a background in species conservation as well as business administration and supervision. 

082-R1-ID-M 

Hiring management that has experience and interests in conservation. Don’t know 

how this can be accomplished as much of our management in the last four years 

has been appointed or removed outside the normal hiring practices. 

094-R1-CA-S 

Careful consideration of filling vacancies and promotions to place competent, 

qualified people as supervisors and mid-level management. There is way too much 

cronyism and nepotism placing ‘‘friends’’ in higher grade positions that could have 

been filled by new blood off the list. 

099-R1-OR-S 

More financial resources to have enough staff time to adequately research, review 

and assess impacts to our trust resources. 

104-R1-ID-S 

Supervisors managing biologists should have a biology background. 

115-R1-WA-S 

Making sure supervisors and coordinators who review ESA and section 7 consultations actually know the law and our handbook for implementing it (send them 

to mandatory training). 

Foster an atmosphere where supervisors and coordinators don’t seem to flourish 

by keeping a low profile instead encourage risk taking (when reasonable) and confidence and don’t be afraid to make politically unpopular decisions 

125-R1-HI-S 

Providing strong leadership in the USFWS from the top down. The message we 

are receiving from the current administration is that our agency is not important. 

132-R1-WA-S 

Continued development of meaningful partnerships 

137-R1-CA-S 

You need to recognize that what goes on in field offices can often approach the 

ideal of what FWS mission is-but as it goes up the chain getting closer to DOI, this 

ideal becomes lost in career/ego protection for those in executive service. 

V: Restoring the research arm to FWS (now with USGS) 

057-R1-WA-S 

Give us back out research branch. Improve and encourage training and peer conferences. 

084-R1-WA-M 

Return of Biological Research Branch to the USFWS (away from the USGS). 

124-R1-WA-S 

Recombining with USGS biological Resources Division. 

133-R1-OR-M 

Bring back our research agency. 

VI: Restoring the conservation ethic to FWS. 

411-R1-WA-S 

I am discouraged that no matter what the project, somehow we will ok it. We 

have to. We cannot stop a project. 

409-R1-WASlowing advancements past GS-12 without supervising, based on proven scientific 

publishing’s in peer-reviews journals. 

002-R1-CA-S 

FWS could actually follow the law and implement regulations. Stop making excuses to the public, developers and politicians for doing their job. 

017-R1-OR-S 

Emphasizing habitat needs for fish and wildlife above partnering or political agenda. The USFWS can be proud of its history and those leaders who shaped the high 

standards on refuges, migratory protection and development of the ESA. The service 

needs to proudly defend the existing FWS institutions and Acts and continue to recover habitat. 

019-R1-NV-S 

It is the unwillingness of decisions makers to do the right thing for the resource. 

At the field level, my supervisor is faithful to the resources but is frequently told 

to back off from the regional office and DC. 

025-R1-ID-S 

By Balancing development concerns (short term) with long term sustainability. 

041-R1-WA-S 

75

Giving nationwide guidance and policy on section 7 procedures that emphasize 

and explain the portion of the regulations giving ‘‘the benefit of the doubt to the 

species.’’ Giving standardized trainings on section 7 procedures so all will implement 

it correctly. 

043-R1-CA-S 

Reducing retaliatory reprisals from management for doing complete assessments. 

044-R1-WA-S 

Full support by immediate supervisors and management to ‘‘err on the side of the 

resources’’ rather than with the project proposals. 

069-R1-WA-S 

Things can be improved by having an administration in Washington, D.C. that 

supports what we do. 

080-R1-CA-S 

Upper management seems to have no backbone when it comes to upholding the 

ESA. 

117-R1-WA-S 

An administration that values conservation that supports environmental laws enacted by congress that balances issues of public vs. commercial interests. 

122-R1-HI-S 

USFWS appears to value science rigor, but does not reward their staff for their 

scientific expertise. I personally feel I have very little opportunity for career advancement within FWS beyond my current level (GS-12), despite carrying out extensive research on my own time and publishing numerous scientific papers. I have 

reached the end of the line and am wondering if I mistakenly gave up my scientific 

career. 

129-R1-CA-S 

Focusing more attention on relationship with other state and public agencies, 

groups and offices. 

137-R1-CA-S 

Recognizing that we are beyond ‘‘striking a balance’’ because we are dealing with 

threatened and endangered species—already out of balance. To balance need to lean 

more on the side of conservation. 

V1I: Increasing the transparency of scientific decisions, through, for example, peer review. 

018-R1-WA-S 

Allowing the science basis for decisions to be clear and available to the public 

027-R1-CA-S 

Please look closely at what is happening to the Recovery Implementation money. 

In our office about one tenth of the money makes it to the Recovery Branch and 

about one quarter of that makes it to recovery implementation—in spite of the fact 

that contracts are lined up for spending the money on recovery. Where does the rest 

of the money go? Is this happening in other offices? 

029-R1-HI-S 

For conservation to be effective, we need society to better understand the negative 

ramifications of global habitat destruction and degradations. We know enough 

Now to know we need to reverse these trends but society ignores it. 

062-R1-WA-S 

More active role in conservation of non-listed species-> FWCA 

067-R1-CA-S 

We are also often at the mercy of peer-reviewed academic science, which generally 

sucks. 

084-R1-WA-M 

Improved use of external peer review. 

088-R1-NV-S 

Increased coordination between USFWS Fisheries and the USFWS Ecological 

Services. 

090-R1-ID-S 

Internal steps to increase peer review and transparency in general. 

091-R1-ID-S 

Greater transparency in justification for making biological decisions. More public 

awareness of the decision making process. 

101-R1-CA 

Getting rid of critical habitat would be big help. It is too big of a drain on resources fro real little value. 

117-R1-WA-S 

76

What I have seen in the last 4 years is an increase in bureaucratic red tape, 

mindless administrative tasks, overturning of science-based decisions with our really making those decisions transparent to the public. 

VIII: Decreasing control of contractors and client agencies over scientific 

conclusions. 

411-R1-WA-S 

Working with most (not all) tribes is a problem. They know that if they grumble 

long enough-that political pressure will ease restrictions. 

408-R1-CA-M 

We’re becoming a third world country in that our resources can be bought by commercial interest, no mater what the law. 

013-R1-ID-S 

I feel some of the change toward involving public and stake holders has improved 

the quality of our recovery planning documents. 

074-R1-OR-S 

Producing scientific work. Not by using other agencies’ scientific research. 

135-R1-CA-S 

By having our entire budget come directly to the Service and not through another 

agency such as BOR. When parts of our budget come through BOR (Bureau of Reclamation) the only items that receive attention are those of interest to BOR and 

their political friends. 

136-R1-CA-S 

Focusing on conservation strategies first and deadline second. 

X: Settling or changing the role of lawsuits. 

008-R1-OR-S 

If the environmental groups stopped suing us and imposing ridiculous timeframes 

to make listing and critical habitat determinations. We are not given enough time 

or funding to evaluate and make scientific decisions because of court determined 

deadlines which, is counter productive to the environmentalist goals of protecting 

species. 

060-R1-OR-S 

Getting back to the spirit of the ESA rather than being paralyzed by the process 

of ESA. (For example, the recovery work is insignificant compared to the amount 

of time and money used to defend lawsuits. 

110-R1-CA-S 

Ensure Recovery money is spent appropriately. 

136-R1-CA-S 

Focusing more one settling lawsuits than fighting against them. We need to get 

the funds to take care of our listing critical habitat backlog so we’re now in perpetual crisis mode. 

XI: Creating a career ladder for agency scientists. 

120-R1-HI-M 

Develop a two track structure at FWS: 

One track is management and administration. 

One track is science analysis. 

The scientific track analyzes the environmental and biological issues and stays 

current with the science literature and perspectives. The admin track deals with 

policy. Both tracks would write independent final analyses that are part of the 

admin record. 

133-R1-OR-M 

Create an advancement path based on scientific research. 

XII: Miscellaneous. 

006-R1-CA-S 

Ecological Services doesn’t produce scientific work. Opinions are not based on 

science/data. Millions of dollars are wasted yearly on well-intentions but poorly designed/implemented/analyzed projects that don’t get us information or recover 

species. Supervisors need to know they are tasking staff with things they can’t do. 

This also leads to poorly conducted contract work. Because staff are simply not 

trained in experimental design and estimation of techniques. 

REGION 2 (Southwest: AZ, NM, TX, OK) 

I: Removing politics/political influence over scientific decisions 

143-R2-OK-S 

77

Reduce politically-based interference with agency scientists and scientific decisions by requiring challenges to be made through formal channels and to be based 

on science or other applicable grounds, not mere greed. 

148-R2-TX-M 

Decreasing political influence including the pressure and willingness of upper and 

mid-level managers to respond to it. 

151-R2-AZ-S 

Keeping it scientific and biological when the decisions require it. Biological opinions are supposed to be based on biology, not political expediency or [cowering] to 

some user group. 

160-R2-OK-S 

Less influence by political staff 

163-R2-AZ-M 

Biological, not politically based decisions. Being able and encouraged to implement the real intent of laws, ESA, CWA, NEPA etc. not implementation based on 

needs of industry. 

164-R2-AZ-M 

Getting rid of Julie McDonald. 

167-R2-AZ-S 

Providing rigorous documentation of scientific decisions is already required. I wish 

managers would provide similar documentation, (phone records, and memos to file) 

of those when marching orders are given by a member of congress, an appointee, 

an RD etc. In other words, it should be documented when a scientific process is 

usurped by political considerations 

170-R2-NM-S 

Allowing biologists to make biological assessments before the injections of politics. 

171-R2-NM-M 

Allowing scientific rather than political decisions. 

II: Increasing funding and resources. 

143-R2-OK-S 

Increase funding for all ES activities, but especially those less popular with special interests, including ESA, see 404 CWA and Environmental Contaminants. 

394-R2-NM-M 

Having adequate staff and providing adequate funding for all FWS program mandates. 

159-R2-OK-M 

Provisions of more adequate staff and funding levels. 

178-R2-TX-M 

Better funding, filling vacancies, money to obtain peer review. 

III: Devoting more attention to professional development, such as access to 

scientific literature and time to review it. 

151-R2-OK-S 

Greater staffing levels would allow more training, more time to keep up with literature and more time spent producing quality products. I have a stack of literature 

18’’ high that needs to be logged, read and filed! 

152-R2-TX 

Stay up to date. 

169-R2-AZ-S 

Allowing and paying for scientists to remain current in their specialty field. 

IV: Improving the quality of management. 

140-R2-TX-S 

Removing fat at the top of the bureaucratic food chain, which increases distortions 

of goals or objectives both up and down the chain. 

158-R2-TX-S 

The Texas state Admin is commonly referred to by the staff as Dr. Evil; his underling is Minnie Me: No integrity or leadership. 

170-R2-NM-S 

In region 2, the regional director is more a tuned with the Cattle Growers Association than his own ES biologists. 

173-R2-NM-M 

After 4 years they have selected managers who will parrot their beliefs as a result 

with few exceptions the entire echelon of FWS are not advocates for the fish and 

wildlife. 

VI: Restoring the conservation ethic to FWS. 

163-R2-AZ-M 

78

We need to get back to being advocates for the fish and wildlife resources, not 

advocates of development and big industry. 

II: Increasing the transparency of scientific decisions, through, for example, peer review. 

158-R2-TX-S 

Quit giving lip service to peer review and working with others—start doing it. 

IX: Expanding use of partnerships. 

175-R2-OK-S 

Most importantly, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program is the only way to 

affect listed and declining species on private lands. This program is severely under 

funded and still too focused on waterfowl and wetlands. This program is the only 

way to ‘‘shelter’’ recovery money from litigious HCP suits, etc. 

REGION 3 (Great Lakes: MN, IA, IL, IN, WI, MI, OH, MO) 

I: Removing politics/political influence over scientific decisions 

181-R3-MN-S 

Re-instating ecological services field office oversights on restoration grant programs. More money is now funneled into programs such as private stewardship 

grants which are administered by non-biologist bureaucrats in the regional office 

who give out the money without sufficient scientific oversight or accountability to 

project effectiveness. 

182-R3-WI-S 

Political influence has been moving downward ever since and it is a corrosive, 

negative force on environmental agencies. 

II: Increasing funding or resources. 

181-R3-MN-S 

Filling positions vacated in the past four years. The work load is the same or 

greater, but there are fewer people due to budget cuts 

III: Devoting more attention to professional development, such as access to 

scientific literature and time to review it. 

179-R3-WI-S 

Encouraging scientists to keep abreast of scientific information (e.g., Membership 

in professional societies, pay for them to attend prof meetings.) and allowing scientists to do their job-make sure they can focus on getting the science right before 

they are bombarded with the social, political and economic angles that come with 

each issue. 

181-R3-MN-S 

Encouraging participation actively in professional societies (we currently have no 

resources for this and must do it at our own time and expense). Reinstating our 

training budget, this is now laughably small. We are priced out of most technical 

training, unless we do it at our own time/ expense, providing access to current scientific journals (hard to do now unless there is a large university in town. 

185-R3-MI-M 

Here in ES field station we are under pressure to respond to issues on a timely 

basis and have to prioritize issues. This type of environment is not conducive to research (which requires large blocks of uninterrupted time and access to facilities 

and technicians. 

V: Restoring the research arm of FWS (now with USGS). 

182-R3-WI-S 

Restoring research as a function of USFWS—loss of Region 8 crippled us. 

185-R3-MI-M 

Give us back our research arm! USGS-BRD should be part of USFWS so that we 

can better integrate applied needs in the field with the research expertise of scientists who do research full-time. 

VIII: Decreasing control of contractors and client agencies over scientific 

conclusions. 

180-R3-WI-S 

Allowing ES staffs to more directly participate in development and implementation if surveys and studies related to the End Spp etc. rather than farm everything 

out to DNR and contractors. 

184-R3-IN-S 

79

Professionalism is downplayed at ES in favor of cooperation and diplomacy. Washington prefers to look at the big pictures but in my opinion it’s the wrong big picture. 

REGION 4 (Southeast: GA, AL, AR, FL, KY, LA, MS, TN, NC, SC, PR) 

I: Removing politics/political influence over scientific decisions 

191-R4-FL-S 

Too many managers (gs-13) are too political (easily swayed by calls from regional 

offices and or politicians.) to make the correct decisions based on science. 

192-R4-AR-S 

Have politicians keep their noses out of things they don’t know anything about. 

Have them stop meddling with changes to the endangered species act for political 

or monetary gain. 

195-R4-TN-S 

Field offices have highly qualified biologists who can make decisions and findings 

about species and habitats based on sound science. These findings are based on biological and ecological needs of the species and are but one facet to be considered 

in making a final decision. Wildlife laws have provisions and procedures for considering non-biological issues. Bottom line: Let ES biologists do their jobs; then incorporate their findings in the decision-making process as provided for in federal laws. 

Don’t short cut around established procedures. 

198-R4-FL-S 

Making decisions based upon actual science and true effects to listed species after 

a full, complete and rigorous analysis of project impacts. Findings need to be based 

upon biology and ecology, not what is politically acceptable or tolerable to the applicants, politicians, developers and public. 

213-R4-FL-S 

Taking the politics out of the scientific decision making process; taking the fear 

and career intimidation off the backs of the biologists; promoting professionalism 

and integrity among the scientists. 

218-R4-FL-S 

Better support from Field Supervisors, Regional Office Line Supervisors and 

Washington Staff for Field Biologists instead of allowing politics or their career aspirations to override resources decisions. 

222-R4-FL-S 

Isolating FWS from politics. 

226-R4-LA-S 

Not watering down decisions made by staff by caving into political pressure!!! 

236-R4-FL-S 

Better separation of political appointees from decision making within FWS. 

254-R4-NC-S 

Removing politics and economics from the equation. 

II: Increasing funding or resources. 

194-R4-AL-M 

As budgets fall and salaries benefits, solicitor cost is almost everyone becomes 

desk jockey. 

203-R4-KY-S 

Providing adequate staff, funding and support for the biologists to do our job. 

204-R4-FL-S 

Additional personnel and more appropriate/better use of experienced staff on critical issues. 

218-R4-FL-S 

Additional Staff to allow more in depth study on individual projects consultations. 

Workload is so heavy that decisions must be made without complete review of information. 

225-R4-MS-S 

Increase staffing levels. Instead of two people covering 32 counties, at least double 

that so four folks could cover 8 counties. More staff = more proactive work at county 

level before more land clearing starts. 

239-R4-NC-S 

Improved funding. 

236-R4-FL-S 

Adequate funding from congress and the administration. 

242-R4-MS-S 

Adequately funding the programs involved. 

262-R4-FL-S 

More staff resources to tackle the heavy work-load. 

80

III: Devoting more attention to professional development, such as access to 

scientific literature and time to review it. 

187-R4-FL-S 

More support from agency staff to participate and interact with professionals, organizations, agency researchers, and university researchers. Also funding to attend 

organize and influence professional society workshops. 

259-R4-GA-S 

Scientific and policy documents cannot keep pace with the barrage of impacts. 

Therefore, biologists spend almost all of their time fulfilling permit applications and 

have no time to monitor whether or not recommendations or requirements are implemented. This disparity means that true impacts to species are not fully understood by biologists 

260-R4-FL-S 

Each biologist is over-worked, not allowing for quality work and more time is 

spent on administration paper work every year. 

225-R4-FL-M 

Our office doesn’t really do research. We could benefit by subscribing to a citation 

database soft ware or having annual scientific needs assessments and improve cooperation from the USGS. 

201-R4-FL-S 

Better communication and information sharing, providing journal articles to staff. 

211-R4-NC-S 

Enhancing access to peer reviewed literature via internet ( the inter library loan 

is often unavailable or too slow to meet timelines for projects). Increasing funds to 

direct applied research targeting project ‘‘review issues (especially to thresholds of 

environmental change and resulting impacts to listed species.) Evaluation of standards within the Agency, including better support/backing of scientific staff and recognition of time to collect, synthesize and interpret best available info. 

243-R4-MS-S 

Increase collaborative studies with university and state fish and wild life agencies 

and other federal agencies. This would ensure that study resultions would be more 

accepted by the scientific community. 

IV: Improving the quality of management. 

401-R4-GA-S 

I feel that much of my time is spent on clerical type duties because management 

doesn’t have the time to analyze efficiency of our operation. 

199-R4-FL-M 

Reducing rather than penalizing integrity. 

248-R4-FL-S 

I believe that the real problem with the agency lies with upper level management. 

Most of the time the fundamental science used to formulate biological opinions is 

sound and the lead biologist submit a quality product to the supervisor. Upper level 

management then buckles under political pressure and the recommendations/biological opinion initially submitted is revised and watered down to all the permit to 

be granted. 

201-R4-FL-S 

Removal of ‘‘air of fear’’ that staff experience just from asking questions of top 

management-even those non-scientific questions. I was once told after a staff meeting that it is not in my best interest to put the Field Supervisor ‘‘on the spot’’ with 

questions. In the 2 years following I have not asked any more questions even though 

I am unsure about issues in my office—for fear of reprisals 

253-R4-FL-S 

Remove [Vero Beach Field Supervisor Jay] Slack. 

215-R4-FL-MS 

Could be best improved by managers at all levels who are willing to listen; set 

aside political influences for ‘‘a moment’’, consistently interact with staff, remove biases toward researchers, empower staff, etc. 

240-R4-MS-S 

Reduce the RO supervisory staff and increase the technical staff. 

241-R4-MS-S 

Favoritism when hiring should be eliminated (climbers are bad scientists). 

VI: Restoring the conservation ethic to FWS. 

206-R4-FL-S 

Starting at the executive office and working downwards electing/ appointing decision makers with a commitment to conservation ethic and support for endangered 

species recovery. 

81

225-R4-MS-S 

Reward management for making tough decisions on the side of the species not on 

the political side that favors development. 

228-R4-GA-S 

Promoting the priority of getting out into the field to learn the ecosystems 

239-R4-NC-S 

More backbone and less dog and pony show-more on the ground action. 

VII: Increasing the transparency of scientific decisions, through, for 

example, peer review. 

209-R4-AR-S 

Providing more regulatory authority and law enforcement capabilities in other 

programs such as CWA, MBTA and ESA. 

248-R4-FL-S 

Better peer-review. 

X: Settling or changing the role of lawsuits. 

258-R4-FL-S 

Not having the workload be directed by litigations. 

XI: Creating a career ladder for agency scientists. 

234-R4-FL-S 

Developing employees instead of losing them. 

XII: Miscellaneous. 

194-R4-AL-M 

More LE and ESA, fills, contaminants, water quality issues. Greater cooperation 

by the EPA and state environmental quality division. The EPA is totally uncooperative in CWA; state division is probably the worst in the nation. 

234-R4-FL-S 

Consistent and accountable application of funds. 

239-R4-NC-S 

Stopping the USFWS from raising and stocking exotic species, particularly fish. 

246-R4-FL-M 

Undergrad and Grad schools need to offer Ethics courses. 

REGION 5 (Northeast: ME, DE, RI, NY, MD, NJ, WV, PA, VA, NH, MA, VT) 

I: Removing politics/political influence over scientific decisions 

264-R5-NH-S 

Getting the political appointees off our backs and let us do our jobs. 

275-R5-ME-S 

Keeping science and politics totally separate. Why can’t we be honest when 

science points in one direction but political reality results in USFWS making a decision to do otherwise? Morale and credibility will improve if we are honest rather 

than trying to twist science to make politicians happy. 

293-R5-MD-S 

A top-down emphasis put on quality science (and the willingness to listen to it!). 

As it stands, FWS regional HQ, DOI and White House leadership are so hostile to 

our mission that they will subvert, spin or even illegitimize our findings. Without 

changing the leadership, having this discussion is probably futile. 

276-R5-PA-M 

Having regional office and Washington office staff who have the courage and integrity to stand up to political pressure and commercial/business interests. It is at 

this level that scientific/biological determinations by field staff are not supported or 

are over-turned. 

Contrary to what the administration says—the issue is not peer review or failure 

to use ‘‘good science.’’ The ‘‘goodness’’ of our science is only questioned when it yields 

an answer that is in conflict with a commercial or political interest. 

278-R5-VA-M 

Incorporate commercial/economic and political concerns in making final recommendations and decisions, but don’t manipulate the science to minimize or erase 

competing environmental concerns. (emphasis in original) 

281-R5-VA-S 

That the FWS scientific findings drive regulation and action for species and habitat rather than be altered due to political influence from within DOI. 

II: Increasing funding or resources. 

398-R5-MD-S 

82

If ecological service offices were given actual project money, we could spend more 

time doing projects rather than time spent trying to find ways to pay for staff/

projects. 

263-R5-NH-M 

More discretionary funding to contract for targeted or focused scientific studies. 

The money is needed early, when the issue concern is first identified, not later when 

it has reached crisis stage or we are facing litigation. 

266-R5-PA-S 

Adequate funding base programs so biologists have necessary time to perform the 

job they have been trained to do (as opposed to chasing soft dollars to keep program 

alive) 

270-R5-VA-S 

Increase the number of field biologists and decrease the number of upper management. Too many highly paid supervisors that don’t work directly on species conservation or work in the field. In R5 we lost field staff in 2004 while gaining several 

upper level positions. In my office they are applying for raises for all supervisors. 

287-R5-NJ-S 

Increasing staffing and funding to allow appropriate time and attention to the 

issues related to project review, recovery, and candidate assessment. 

282-R5-ME-M 

Providing adequate funding and staffing levels. 

Continued budget cuts affect the long-term mission of the Service to adequately 

protection wildlife and habitat. 

283-R5-DE-S 

More funding—offices are chronically under-staffed; we’re expected to do more 

with less; the best, most dedicated biologists are over-worked and vulnerable to 

burn-out; when you’re over-worked, quality of work tends to suffer. 

III: Devoting more attention to professional development, such as access to 

scientific literature and time to review it. 

398-R5-MD-S 

Promoting more participation in professional societies. 

267-R5-PA-S 

Sufficient funding and authorization for scientists to attend at least one professional meeting per year. 

394-R5-MD-M 

Providing more technical courses at NCTC instead of a slew of touchy-feely ones. 

284-R5-ME-S 

Better access to and collaboration with USGS biologists. Better relationships with 

universities and the Coop Program. 

IV: Improving quality of management. 

271-R5-NJ 

ES program has been hurt by too many regional office appointees with lack of experience and no field office work. 

273-R5-VA-S 

Holding management accountable and implement consequences to them for poor 

performance. 

279-R5-VA-M 

Better leadership. The Service creates excellent staff biologists, but we do not 

groom leaders. Good biologists are hired for supervisory positions with little regard 

for supervisory skills. 

V: Restoring the research arm of FWS (now with USGS). 

399-R5-ME-S 

Restoring research and scientific investigation capabilities to the service. 

394-R5-MD-M 

Giving back our research program from USGS. 

287-R5-NJ-S 

Returning our research arm which was transferred to USGS decreasing coordination with research scientists. 

VI: Restoring the conservation ethic to FWS. 

265-R5-NY-S 

Using the precautionary principle as the norm rather than having the burden of 

proof lie with the resource agency. 

288-R5-ME-S 

Political decisions should be made at the HQ level, not at the regional or field 

level. 

83

286-R5-NJ-S 

Improving support of an [sic] field offices by the Regional Office. 

285-R5-PA-M 

By learning that at some point, it may be necessary to say ‘‘no’’ (i.e., not everything is ‘‘win-win’’). 

VII: Increasing the transparency of scientific decisions, through, for 

example, peer review. 

284-R5-ME-S 

State/regional peer review teams to review Service programs. 

281-R5-VA-S 

Allowing the science to speak for itself and be available to the public. 

VIII: Decreasing control of contractors and client agencies over scientific 

conclusions. 

267-R5-PA-S 

Support from politically appointed administrators on issues involving other federal agencies as well as state agencies. 

XI: Creating a career ladder for agency scientists. 

293-R5-MD-S 

Inclusion of scientist-only positions within [Ecological Services]. 

REGION 6 (Rocky Mountain Plains: CO, MT, KS, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY) 

I: Removing politics/political influence over scientific decisions 

302-R6-WY-S 

Allowing us to do our jobs without political influence. 

304-R6-NE-S 

Conclusions drawn by Field Office; scientifically sound and based on best scientific 

data available; must be supported by [Regional Office] and [Washington Office], not 

patently dismissed due to inconvenience and inconsistency with current political 

whims. 

305-R6-WY-S 

Eliminate the control that DOI political appointees have over the scientific decision making process. Decisions have to be allowed to be made based on the best 

science available—there is far too much influence by DOI political appointees, state 

and local government elected officials and commercial interests. 

308-R6-NE-M 

Prevent political appointees from re-writing agency policies/guidances that weaken our ability to properly administer federal environmental laws. 

311-R6-CO-S 

Keeping politics out of the scientific investigations. 

315-R6-UT-M 

Non-interference with political appointees, from our national directorate to DOI 

and CEQ. Our agency does an excellent and scientific and protective job to the best 

of its ability given political intervention and public indifference. 

316-R6-UT-S 

Removing politics from the process. 

325-R6-WY-S 

Having the best scientific data speak for itself. Too often, the scientific data and 

the recommendations of field employees are dismissed by higher-ups and by those 

not wanting to make waves or go against the wishes of the current administration. 

327-R6-MT-M 

Reducing the direct intervention by Department of the Interior political Appointees who often overturn the findings of scientific documents and replace them 

with political determinations. 

332-R6-ND-M 

For appointed positions, appointing agency career professionals, rather than politically-connected lawyers, judges and industry lobbyists whose principle agenda is 

the dismantling of legitimate agency missions, budgets and workforce. 

333-R6-NE-M 

The current Administration is having a profound negative impact on the ability 

of the USFWS to do its job through political influence and budget reductions to Ecological Services Program areas. 

II: Increasing funding or resources. 

302-R6-WY-S 

Adequate funding!!! (emphasis in original) 

305-R6-WY-S 

84

Provide adequate funding and resources. 

310-R6-CO-S 

Provide sufficient funding to deal with the mandates as directed by Congress. 

312-R6-WY-S 

Funding at an appropriate level to handled the current workload with sound scientific survey methods for gathering information on listed and sensitive species. 

324-R6-MT-S 

More staff, so we’d have more time to devote to writing our documents. 

III: Devoting more attention to professional development, such as access to 

scientific literature and time to review it. 

311-R6-CO-S 

Providing funds to keep staff up to date on current scientific findings and training. 

318-R6-WY-S 

More funding to hire more biologists which would allow biologists to undertake 

more scientific work and devote more time to this part of the position. 

319-R6-MT-S 

A lot of our ‘‘best available science’’ is quickly becoming outdated—funding is 

needed to help support new research. 

IV: Improving quality of management. 

300-R6-SD-S 

Elimination of Regional Offices—they provide minimal value to field offices while 

consuming huge resources for high graded—often inexperienced or incapable employees. 

317-R6-KS-S 

Reduce layers of management. We could trim one-fourth to one-third of the Washington and Regional office staffs and have absolutely no negative effect on the biological work of the agency. Management used to exist to serve the filed staff, but 

this has reversed in the past 5-10 years. They take the money, we do the work, they 

make decisions regardless of what our data show. 

396-R6-MT-M 

Stronger leadership qualities in Field Supervisors, and other supervisors, in holding field bios to use of best science, and correct interpretation of scientific research 

results. Too many field bios are poorly trained and get emotionally attached to 

species and/or conservation issues. Those bios use ‘‘err on side of species’’ to justify 

ludicrous rationales, requirements and they waste precious resource dollars. Damage credibility of USFWS biologists. 

More training for biologists and managers in ES law, regulation and POLICY. 

Many field biologists don’t have a clue as to what these cover or what or how or 

where they evolved. 

V: Restoring the research arm of FWS (now with USGS). 

316-R6-UT-S 

Giving us back our research arm—BRD. 

VI: Restoring the conservation ethic to FWS. 

315-R6-UT-M 

We need to raise public awareness of the purpose of the laws we are charged to 

uphold (NOT just ESA) and garner their support against the saboteurs currently in 

power! Public resources are being sacrificed for private gain—irreversible losses. 

Hard to keep protecting the public’s interests in public’s resources when they don’t 

care or are misinformed!! (emphasis in original) 

334-R6-CO-S 

Instill an organizational climate that encourages non-SES employees to aggressively engage SES and political appointees in the application and interpretation of 

scientific principles, without fear of either short term or long term (career) retribution. 

413-R6-NE-M 

Removing the political oversight at the Departmental level that has rendered the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to a position that is no longer effective in protecting 

fish and wildlife resources. 

VII: Increasing the transparency of scientific decisions, through, for 

example, peer review. 

303-R6-NE-S 

FOIA, FOIA, FOIA! Keep our agency honest through whatever means available. 

334-R6-CO-S 

85

Demonstrate to the public that the approaches/principles used by FWS to assess 

risk to declining species are similar to those used by other disciplines (e.g., bankers 

and farmers) to assess future risk and conserve their trust resources. 

XI: Creating a career ladder for agency scientists. 

330-R6-NE-S 

Currently, hiring and promotions are based on one’s knowledge in law and policy. 

Little consideration is given to level of education or publication history. This is evident as Bachelor of Science graduates fill high ranking positions. This failure is occurring at the Directorate level where one Regional Director does not have a scientific background and it is evident in her lack of support for her agency’s mission. 

XII: Miscellaneous 

303-R6-NE-S 

Get us real whistleblower protection through Congress. 

334-R6-CO-S 

Require annual training of staff level biologists on ‘‘scientific principle.’’ Now, 

training is ‘‘optional’’ and most ES training courses emphasize process. 

336-R6-MT-M 

Hiring younger biologists who have more advanced degree and more modern 

skills. 

REGION 7 (Alaska) 

I: Removing politics/political influence over scientific decisions 

357-R7-Fairbanks-S 

Keeping the politics out of science. Allowing biologists to do their jobs. 

351-R7-Anchorage-S 

Remove DOI political appointees from the review and approval process. 

349-R7-Fairbanks-M 

I have been and continue to be proud of the job the USFW does with respect to 

conserving fish and wildlife. The clear problem is with this Administration’s political 

appointees. Recently, DOI officials have forced changes in Service documents, and 

worse, they have forced upper-level mangers to say things that re incorrect and not 

reflective of the agency’s view on an issue. This, I believe, goes too far. It’s one thing 

for the Department to dismiss our recommendations, it’s quite another to be forced 

(under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter our best professional judgment. 

344-R7-Anchorage-S 

Biologists at lower levels are prevented from releasing information that might 

hurt the pro-development interests. 

340-R7-Fairbanks-S 

Removing the influence of DOI political appointees in producing scientific documents. 

339-R7-Juneau-M 

Use science/biology, not politics. 

403-R7-Juneau-M 

Removing oversight of political appointees, such as the DOI Alaska Issues appointees, who review our draft letters and change them before career employees can 

sign them. 

402-R7-Anchorage-M 

Allowing us to do our jobs without political interference. 

II: Increasing funding or resources. 

361-R7-Anchorage-S 

Staff resources are dwindling in Alaska—everyone is overworked and burned 

out!!! 

346-R7-Juneau-S 

Steady funding streams (more than 1 year budget cycle) to develop meaningful 

trend analysis. 

337-R7-Fairbanks-S 

Resources to use modern tools for managing and retrieving/analyzing information—GIS, databases, computer-assisted modeling of populations. 

IV: Improving quality of management. 

361-R7-Anchorage-S 

Having a Regional Directorate willing to stand up to the ACOE by approving 404 

denials recommended by ES staff. We have been told to run any potential ‘‘denials’’ 

through the Assistant RO for ‘‘pre-approval’’—which are then not granted for release—we have to rewrite the letters. 

86

352-R7-Anchorage-M 

Having the Director be a career position not a political appointee. 

VI: Restoring the conservation ethic to FWS. 

344-R7-Anchorage-S 

There is a culture of fear of retaliation in mid-level management. If the manager 

were to speak out for resources, they fear loss of jobs or funding for their programs. 

(So they go into ‘‘duck&cover’’ mode and wait for the politics to change.) 

VIII: Decreasing control of contractors and client agencies over scientific 

conclusions. 

357-R7-Fairbanks-S 

Not vetting comment letters (drafts) before the state, private industry, other agencies—asking for their input and then changing our letter to suit their needs. 

XII: Miscellaneous 

343-R7-Anchorage-S 

For endangered species program: Making designation of critical habitat optional 

(not mandatory) thus decreasing multitudinous lawsuits. 

337-R7-Fairbanks-S 

Training in decision-making processes that recognize scientific uncertainty. Biologists trained to evaluate discrete issues using standard statistical approaches are 

ill-equipped to deal with complex issues for which too little information is available. 

REGION UNKNOWN 

I: Removing politics/political influence over scientific decisions 

383-RU-S 

Leaving politics out of ESA decisions. 

374-RU-S 

Less intervention from political appointees—of course that would require a revamp of the system and greater level of integrity (willingness to suffer professionally) at mid-level management levels. 

365-RU-S 

Excluding political powerbrokers from intimidating Service scientists. 

II: Increasing funding or resources. 

393-RU-S 

Receiving support required, including funding. 

386-RU-S 

Adequate funding to assess resources to make good evaluations. 

366-RU-S 

Increasing the number of staff biologist to handle an ever increasing workload. 

IV: Improving quality of management. 

378-RU-S 

Having a Director willing and able to stand up to Interior would help spread back 

bone to the Regional Directorates. Right now our Direction is so worthless none of 

our management can expect support. 

V: Restoring the research arm of FWS (now with USGS). 

363-RU-S 

Long-term research and population monitoring is almost non-existent in the nongovernmental scientific sphere, and has become rare with government scientists. Ecological Services does not have adequate staff to do this work and funding and personnel has dropped severely—especially after Region 8 became USGS-BRD. Bring 

back the scientific staff and dedicate them to long-term management related research. 

VI: Restoring the conservation ethic to FWS. 

387-RU-S 

Focusing in a more comprehensive manner on the needs of all rare species and 

their stressors. 

386-RU-S 

Movement away from GPRA based acres as the only method of evaluation. We 

are neglecting the animals. 

VII: Increasing the transparency of scientific decisions, through, for 

example, peer review. 

367-RU-S 

87

Placing much more scrutiny on the decision-making process between the draft scientific document and the final decision. The work is great until it hits the supervisory chain, then things are dropped, changed, altered (usually without written 

record) and then finalized with dismissive responses to concerns. 

VIII: Decreasing control of contractors and client agencies over scientific 

conclusions. 

386-RU-S 

Careful scrutiny of programs that seek outside funding to perform work that 

should be done by consulting firms. Due to underfunding and poor management of 

existing funds, we are becoming a consulting firm. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. 

Let me ask my first question to Deputy Secretary Scarlett in regard to the IG report. In his testimony, Mr. Ruch just now, the 

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, points out that 

the Interior Department has ‘‘yet to condemn the conduct of the recently resigned Julie MacDonald.’’

Mr. Ruch also says that the Interior Department should correct 

Ms. MacDonald’s scientific misrepresentations that have been identified by the Inspector General. 

My question is, has the Department submitted a formal response 

to the Inspector General? 

Ms. SCARLETT. There has been a verbal response to the IG, and 

the IG provides us with a form. I believe that form was being submitted to him yesterday or today. But I could go beyond that. I will 

say that——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. My question is, do you expect to clear the 

air on this matter? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Ms. MacDonald has now resigned. We went 

through a lengthy process. I personally received the IG report, gave 

it to the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, who reviewed it thoroughly, did fact checking and follow up, and subsequently provided to a board that Secretary Kempthorne has created, an accountability board, to further review those findings. 

Upon the completion of that effort, Ms. MacDonald did resign. 

We view the details of Ms. MacDonald’s matter as a personnel 

matter. However, I will say from a matter of policy that Secretary 

Kempthorne is strongly, strongly supportive of accountability. He 

has gone to the Government Ethics Office and asked for a list of 

best practices. We are methodically going through the Department 

to implement all of those at 100 percent level. So from a policy 

standpoint, yes, we expect an accountable, professional staff that at 

all times is respectful and utilizes science with integrity. 

The CHAIRMAN. So do you expect to take corrective action to repair the damage created by Ms. MacDonald to the Interior Department itself? 

Ms. SCARLETT. This is the first time I had heard that particular 

suggestion with respect to reviewing the science. Let me say again 

that several steps have already been taken to further ensure that 

the Department is, one, that is accountable and operates with 

integrity. 

By the way, I want to reenforce that I believe that the Department is generally with both career and non-career employees one 

of the highest professional standards, but we have created an accountability board to further ensure that all actions—that people 

88

are held accountable for actions. We have, as I said, created an ethics process whereby we are putting in place 80 ethics best practices. Many of them we already had underway, but we are making 

sure that we have all 80 of those best practices. 

With respect to the science itself, working with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service we continue to strive to ensure that the best 

science is undertaken to inform the decisions that we take. Many 

of those decisions are ongoing, and we will continue to review 

them, review the science, and ensure that that science is brought 

to bear in those decisions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask the rest of the panel to respond to 

the Deputy Secretary’s response just now, beginning with you, Mr. 

Ruch. 

Mr. RUCH. This is the first we had heard that there was an accountability board identifying 80 best practices, and we are curious 

as to whether or not they are sort of bigger than a bread box. 

We noted in our testimony that the Department of the Interior 

had already adopted a Code of Scientific Ethics but never bothered 

to incorporate it into its manuals. We are not sure who it applies 

to, but it appeared it doesn’t apply to political appointees. 

We are not at all clear, based upon those statements, that the 

Department of the Interior is distancing itself from the conduct of 

Ms. MacDonald or is prepared to offer any assurances to its professional staff that such interference will not be tolerated in the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Grifo. 

Ms. GRIFO. Thank you. Given the context of the political interference that we are documenting across agencies, across departments, it is hard for us to take this seriously until we see what this 

really looks like. If there is this accountability board, could we have 

them on the web so that we can see who they are? Could we have 

perhaps, you know, nonprofits and other groups represented on 

this accountability board? 

These 80 best practices, you know, could we have comment and 

review of those from beyond the agency or the Department? 

I mean, I think these are important first steps, but the proof will 

be in the pudding. I mean, when we see the details, we will be able 

to make a final judgment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Jamie. 

Ms. CLARK. Well, at a top level, it is interesting that the Department is forming an accountability board, and that they, you know, 

are very concerned about the manipulation of science, and concerned about Julie MacDonald. But what I still find very troubling 

is that if they don’t count suppression or manipulation of science, 

and frankly, why did they leave Julie MacDonald in place for so 

long. Her legacy, if you will, goes back over many species that you 

heard both Mr. Ruch and Dr. Grifo lay out. 

And so whether it is the Code of Science Ethics, which I have 

read, and I agree with, but there is a glaring omission, as I understand it in talking to career folks, in that political appointees were 

specifically excluded from that. So if you create this wall for career 

employees to be have one way and political appointees to behave 

another, then it is ripe for problems that we are seeing now. 

89

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Chair does have further questions, but noting my time has expired and noting that there are 14 

Democrats here and four Republicans, I do want to yield at this 

time to the Ranking Minority Member for his questions. 

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Clark, you would agree with me that the goal of the Endangered Species Act is to have zero species become extinct? 

Ms. CLARK. I would agree with you that the goal of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened or endangered species 

and protect the habitat they depend on, and as an ultimate goal, 

you are right. As a country, we should not allow and condone the 

extinction of species. 

Mr. SALI. Ms. Grifo, you would agree with that as well? 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, I would. 

Mr. SALI. OK. In terms of science, leaving apart the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, what is the acceptable rate 

of extinction of species, Ms. Clark? 

Ms. CLARK. I think that that is a bit of red herring. I don’t think 

that there is an acceptable ‘‘level’’ of risk for species. I think that 

we deal with these issues one at a time, and I don’t think any scientist or policy person would agree that there is a ‘‘right’’ number 

for losing creatures on this earth. 

Mr. SALI. So you believe that the scientific goal should be zero, 

the same as it is under the legal standard of the Endangered 

Species Act. Is that correct? 

Ms. CLARK. Well, again, I didn’t agree with you straight out. The 

way that you represented the goal of the Endangered Species Act 

is ‘‘zero’’ extinction. I represented it differently in that the goal, the 

purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to provide for the conservation of species on the brink and to protect their habitat. That 

is different than the way that you characterized it. 

Mr. SALI. Well, Ms. Grifo, I guess I would ask you. What is your 

view in terms of science? Is there an acceptable rate of extinction 

of species? 

Ms. GRIFO. Well, I would say that what I am sure we can all 

agree on is the fact that we are at a one-year anniversary of the 

last time any species was listed. That is certainly not the way to 

get at the——

Mr. SALI. OK, but that is not my question. My question is, in 

terms of science, is there a rate at which we would say, yes, species 

ought to become extinct at this rate throughout time? 

Ms. GRIFO. No. 

Mr. SALI. There is no——

Ms. GRIFO. It is a much more complicated question than that. 

The question of extinction, yes, there are background rates of extinction, but those are on geological time scales. What we are seeing right now in this country is not on that time scale. It is not 

a part of any sort of natural extinction process. 

Mr. SALI. OK. How can we determine what is natural and what 

is unnatural? 

Ms. GRIFO. There are gray areas in all of these issues. There are 

areas of uncertainty, but I think it is very clear that what we are 

seeing in this country is not about that. It is not a rate that is happening. Storms and other things that are non-human oriented are 

90

not causing these extinctions. It is very clear to us that invasive 

species that—habitat degradation that, you know, we can go 

through the litany of causes are what are causing these extinctions, 

and it is fairly clear to make the link from those threats back to 

us, and that is why we have the responsibility to work with the Endangered Species Act to prevent that. 

Mr. SALI. Well, as we look at the fossil records, it is fairly clear 

that there have been a huge number of species that have become 

extinct, and so I am trying to reconcile how do we look at that series that happened before there was an ESA, before there was even 

a Federal government in this country, before there was even a 

country here, how do we reconcile that huge number of species that 

have become extinct with the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act, which is essentially, as I look at it, a goal of zero, Ms. 

Grifo? 

Ms. GRIFO. I would say that I would welcome the opportunity to 

come with a group of my colleagues and have this very interesting 

intellectual conversation with you, but the topic of today’s hearing 

is really about the political interference in science, and the fact 

that the Act as it stands is not functioning. 

Mr. SALI. Well, if I were to suggest to you that I think probably 

everyone around this series of seats up here agrees that there is 

politics involved in this, and that it just depends on which political 

side you happen to be on whether you think it is good or bad in 

terms of any particular result. Would you agree with that comment? 

Ms. GRIFO. No. What I would agree with is that the Endangered 

Species Act has parts of it where, for example, listing. We are looking at best available science and commercial data. That is the basis 

of the Act, and the basis of those listing decisions. There are others 

where after we have——

Mr. SALI. So are you suggesting that there——

Ms. GRIFO. Could I finish? 

Mr. SALI.—is no politics in this? 

Ms. GRIFO. I am about to get to that part. 

Mr. SALI. OK. 

Ms. GRIFO. There are other parts of the Act, such as, you know, 

critical habitat designation, where we take the best available 

science, and then pull that together with economic and other concerns, and that is the place where we have an open debate in the 

light of day where everyone can see it and participate about how 

we weigh those things. 

I am not here to tell you that science is the basis of every policy 

decision. That is not what this is about. What this is about is the 

fact that outside of the realm of public discourse, outside of our democracy——

Mr. SALI. So you would agree that there is politics in these decisions no matter what? 

Ms. GRIFO. I agree that there is a point in these decisions where 

we do take into account economic and other considerations, and we 

do that with the best available science, not a manipulated or 

changed science. 

The CHAIRMAN. And by other considerations, you would include 

politics? 

91

Ms. GRIFO. I would include economic considerations. 

Mr. SALI. Well, you said economic and other considerations. By 

other considerations, you would agree that that includes politics, 

correct? 

Ms. GRIFO. I would agree that economics often gets political. 

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. DeFazio was here first. OK, Dale, do you 

have any questions? Let me recognize you. I am sorry. I am sorry. 

Mr. KILDEE. I will be very brief. I was a little late. But you know, 

I think there is a difference between reviewing and weighing 

science, and to force changes in a scientific report, and I think that 

is what it is really all about, that we find evidence that there has 

been changes forced into scientific report, which is really dangerous. 

I served on the Budget Committee for six years, and we expected 

our budget experts to add up for us and say that 2 billion plus 2 

billion was 4 billion. We didn’t go back and say, no, make it 2 billion plus 2 billion is 3 billion because that fits our needs more, and 

I think it is extremely important that we can review and weigh the 

science with the other factors, but just to force changes in the 

sciences is dishonest, I think, and certainly dangerous, and that is 

all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dale. The gentleman from Maryland, 

Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I would like to make a comment first before I have four 

just short questions. In the Endangered Species Act, the big picture 

is simply that human activity very often is not compatible with nature’s design. Even though the science is some understanding of 

what parking lots do to the ecology, what sprawl does to the ecology, what a whole range of air pollutants do to the ecology, and it 

is all integrated together. So unless we tease out what we are 

doing to cause species not to be sustainable, the ultimate end to 

that is that human beings are not sustainable because we depend 

on the resources that we are trying to protect. So it is a closed loop. 

And to manipulate science by any means is doing a huge disservice to the public. To take politics into consideration while you 

are understanding the basics of that science is always acceptable, 

but for politics to manipulate and change that science so that 2 billion plus 2 billion equals 3 billion is not acceptable. So I hope the 

Ranking Member and Ms.—I can’t see your name. 

Ms. GRIFO. Grifo. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Grifo. Can get together really. I sincerely think 

that some of us on this side of the aisle should sit down and go 

through the process of understanding the science behind the ecology. That would be very beneficial. 

The questions I have is just very quickly. Mr.—is it Ruch? 

Mr. RUCH. Ruch. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Ruch, Mr. Ruch. The situation with Rex 

Wahl——

Mr. RUCH. Yes. 

Mr. GILCHREST.—and the Bureau of Reclamation? 

Mr. RUCH. Yes. 

92

Mr. GILCHREST. A Reclamation project. What is the status of that 

right now? 

Mr. RUCH. He is still awaiting a decision. He has been at home 

on paid administrative leave for nine months, going on 10. 

Mr. GILCHREST. And he is on administrative leave because? 

Mr. RUCH. He was originally charged with subversive activities 

in e-mailing information to the Army Corps and other groups. That 

was withdrawn. He is now charged with causing embarrassment, 

which we didn’t know was an offense, and we are awaiting a decision by the agency. 

Mr. GILCHREST. This is the Department of the Interior? 

Mr. RUCH. This is the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Mr. GILCHREST. The NOAA gag order, can you make a further 

comment on that, on scientists, that they can’t make statements 

unless—we have heard about this one—they can’t make statements 

unless those statements to the Rotary Club or to another agency 

is vetted through the——

Mr. RUCH. Correct. 

Mr. GILCHREST.—political appointee? 

Mr. RUCH. This policy is about to become final next week according to the schedule laid out by the Department of Commerce, and 

what it says is—there is two parts. One has to do with on-duty 

statements, and those are subject to approval, but I think the more 

controversial one is all off-duty statements that are—deemed of official interest is the term they use—are also subject to review and 

approval. 

So for a scientist attending a conference, if he is asked a question 

and is unsure what the departmental policy is, he is not allowed 

to depart from the policy, so as we understand the policy, he is supposed to say ‘‘No comment.’’

Mr. GILCHREST. Interesting. 

Mr. RUCH. And the point of all this was that the scientific process involves collaboration, interaction with colleagues, but the way 

these rules are increasingly being interpreted, Federal scientists 

are, in essence, being kept more and more in kind of an intellectual 

monastery where they are not allowed to talk or interact or share 

information. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Ms. Scarlett, you may not have anything to do 

with that, but if you do, can you give us some kind of comment. 

If you don’t, fairly you don’t. 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am unaware of NOAA’s policies. 

Mr. GILCHREST. You don’t have anything like that in Interior? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am not aware that we have anything like that. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So in the Interior Department, you wouldn’t 

have anything to limit an employee from making comments to the 

Rotary Club or to the Corps of Engineers about an issue? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am not aware that we have any policy. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Are you aware of Rex Wahl’s situation? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am not. I heard about it for the first time in the 

testimony this morning. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Can you give us some idea of what this draft 

document is all about that was on Salon Magazine, and what the 

status of that is now? 

93

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Congressman. Going back a year and a half 

or two years, understanding that there have been decades now of 

implementation of the ESA, and increasingly, including in the last 

administration, issues raised about limitations on its effectiveness, 

partly through lack of clear terminology that has promoted some 

litigation, the disincentives for citizen stewardship created in some 

of the ways that the Act is implemented, a process began within 

the Department to put a number of concepts on the table for possible regulatory changes. 

That process was not completed. It was, if you will, a putting of 

everything but the kitchen sink on the table from a variety of 

people. When Secretary Kempthorne arrived and was confirmed at 

the end of May of last year, he asked that that effort completely 

stop; that we put essentially that effort on the back shelf, and that 

we hold 25 cooperative conservation listening sessions around the 

country on a variety of issues, not simply ESA, to hear what it is 

people had to say about conservation. 

In that process, some 80 percent of written comments that came 

in actually mentioned ESA, and in particular, said that some of the 

provisions of the way we implement ESA stood in the way of cooperative conservation and citizen stewardship. There were many 

comments on the growing abilities of states, their own biological expertise, particularly for species in those states, and that they could 

play a better role as envisioned in Section 6 of the Act when it was 

originally passed. 

So we went out after those listening sessions and reviewed those 

comments. Those are posted, by the way, on a website, 

Cooperativeconservation.gov. It is very transparent. 

Secretary Kempthorne then asked Dale Hall, who is here with 

me today, and his team of Endangered Species Act experts, that is, 

his associate regional directors in charge of implementing ESA in 

each of the regions, as well as his headquarters’ experts, including 

Bryan Arroya, who heads up the ESA program here, and he is also 

with me today, to sit down with NMFS, and look at those comments from the cooperative conservation listening session and 

themselves write what they thought would be the best way to move 

forward in improving the way we implement the act. 

We have a document that is underway. It is not complete. It continues to be revised, reviewed, and refined. It has been wholly and 

100 percent written by those experts without the hand of the political appointees of the Department, excepting Dale Hall himself, of 

course, as head of the Fish and Wildlife Service has been engaged. 

That is what that process is, and it differs significantly this product from that which ended up on Salon.com. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman for Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Scarlett, is there ongoing work within the Department to 

systematically review decisions that Ms. MacDonald may have improperly influenced? Yes or no. 

Ms. SCARLETT. There are a number of decisions that were made 

over time, some of which are completed decisions, if you will, some 

of which are ongoing. What we are doing and in fact really with 

94

the leadership of Dale Hall, dating back a year or so ago, we created a process, a process for reviewing these status of each and 

every ESA decision, whether it is critical habitat, recovery or otherwise, making sure that we are staying apace with legal requirements, but also ensuring that Dale had the full latitude to apply 

the science expertise of those within his department. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But that is avoiding the question. She was very influential on a number of decisions, particularly as pertained to critical habitat on the Sage Grouse, the Bull Trout, and perhaps the 

Spotted Owl. 

Are you reviewing what influence she might have had? For instance, in the IG report on page 8, it says, ‘‘Agents note in a number of e-mails and comments on the Bull Trout CHD’’—critical 

habitat decision—‘‘MacDonald forced, forced a reduction in critical 

habitat in the Klamath River from 296 to 42 miles.’’

Ms. SCARLETT. I am not aware of a current action underway with 

respect to Bull Trout. With respect to the Northern Spotted Owl, 

which you mentioned, that 

The process is ongoing, and Dale Hall’s folks and the recovery 

team, which includes numerous scientists, are actively involved in 

addressing that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, let us turn to the Spotted Owl. We had a plan 

submitted by scientists in the region September 2006. That plan 

was rejected by something called the Washington Oversight Team. 

Was Ms. MacDonald a member of that team? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Ms. MacDonald might have been a part of that 

team. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, she might have been. Who was part of that 

team? Were you a part of the team? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I chair that team or I should say——

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Now, could you tell me your credentials in the 

area of biology and science, your professional credentials? Do you 

have any? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am not a scientist, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You are a political scientist, is that correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Recover planning, as was noted earlier, is——

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, that is fine. Ma’am, just answer the questions, 

please. 

So you are a member of the team. You are not sure whether Ms. 

MacDonald—you were the Chair but you don’t know whether Ms. 

MacDonald was a member or not. Now, that is kind of odd for a 

Chair, isn’t it? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No, because——

Mr. DEFAZIO. If you were the Chair, you must have known who 

came to your meetings. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Well, it was precisely because it was in flux. This 

was a team that included Dale Hall. It included his recovery team 

people from the Northwest. It included people from the Bureau of 

Land Management, from the Forest Service and others, and this is 

because this recovery planning effort actually involves several different documents—the recovery plan. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Critical habitat. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. True. 

95

Ms. SCARLETT. As well as BLM and Forest Service Resource 

Management Plan. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am familiar with the process. Thank you. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Therefore, they all took part. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. On the list I have says that she was a member of 

the oversight team, so she may have been. 

Ms. SCARLETT. The reason that I used that terminology is that 

the membership has been in flux and it has been some months 

since she has not participated. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So we don’t know whether or not she was really a member of the team or whether or not she may have had 

undue influence, but we know there was a particular focus on critical habitat. 

October 17th, with the rejecting by this Washington Oversight 

Team, which she may or may not have been a number of, that you 

are the Chair of, so certainly familiar with this, you rejected the 

plan proposed by the scientists in the Northwest, and you ask for 

a rewrite, and you ask for an additional option, an option two, is 

that correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Let me clarify, and I am going to read to you—

I am going to read to you a letter——

Mr. DEFAZIO. We have documents that——

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO.—substantiate that, ma’am. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Let me read to you a letter that I have received 

because it pertains to testimony today. ‘‘Dear Dominick, it is with 

both surprise and displeasure that I have become aware of a statement in your testimony to the——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Ma’am, I am not—you may——

Ms. SCARLETT. ‘‘I categorically deny making such a statement.’’

Mr. DEFAZIO. Excuse me. I am asking about factual things. I am 

not asking you about the opinion or the testimony of a future panelist here. 

Ms. SCARLETT. All right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So we don’t need to reject his testimony right now. 

I am asking about factually documented e-mails, so it was rejected 

on October 17th, is that correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No. No. Factually——

Mr. DEFAZIO. It wasn’t? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And you didn’t ask for a rewrite? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Factually——

Mr. DEFAZIO. You didn’t ask for a rewrite and the addition of an 

option two? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, would you like me to answer? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, I am asking, yes or no. It wasn’t rejected? 

Ms. SCARLETT. The document——

Mr. DEFAZIO. You just sent it back. 

Ms. SCARLETT. The document was not rejected. It was a draft, 

and as a draft, we always expect further improvements. What we 

asked were three things: 

Number one, I commended the group for having written a very 

outstanding document but suggested that its organization would 

merit some reorganization for better readability. 

96

Number two, the document identified in it the Bard Owl as a significant threat to the Northern Spotted Owl, and yet when you 

read the recovery planning proposals there was nothing in there to 

address the Bard Owl. We asked whether there was any scientific 

or other information that could help us try to address the threat 

of the Bard Owl in the recovery plan. 

Number three, we asked whether, given the large landscape 

scale, using the exact same science and the exact same recovery 

goals, there might be a way to utilize an adaptive management approach and ask that they retain the existing management approach 

they were proposing, but could they consider and propose an adaptive management approach alongside that. So those were the three 

requests——

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So that would be where the option two came 

from. It said, ‘‘The less defined second option was requested by Interior Department political appointees and other high-level officials 

in Washington, D.C.’’ said Dave Wesley. Not Dominick DellaSala. 

And he was the leader of the agency’s Spotted Owl recovery team. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Again, if I could just——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Ms. SCARLETT. If I could simply repeat. What we had—you know, 

a recovery plan is a management plan, and what we were trying 

to do is to get the best possible management plan. The document 

that we received was an outstanding document. I commended the 

Service for it. But we were asking whether, because of the large 

landscape scale, it might be possible to create performance measures and an adaptive management approach as an option for the 

public to consider. 

The idea is to have a recovery plan that put out two options. Let 

us consider them, one, an option that was adaptive management, 

the other a more traditional one with lines on a map that said 

these are the conservation areas. That is what we did. 

The science remains absolutely identical in both of those options. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So then it isn’t true that you focused on just option 

two. You didn’t require them to just submit option two so that——

Ms. SCARLETT. Absolutely not. We wanted multiple options. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So at no point you restricted them to option 

two? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And you are basing that on—I am running out 

of time here? OK, sorry. 

Yes, Don. Well, we are trying to get in a few facts here, and we 

are going to end up—Mr. Former Chairman, if you could, please, 

it is my time. I am not yielding, and I will end now, but let me 

just say we are going to be back in the courts, and we are going 

to have another mess because of the perversion that has gone on 

here, and I will come back for a second round, and continue the 

line of questioning. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair appreciates the gentleman from Oregon, the Ranking Minority Member has just arrived. The Chair 

will recognize him. 

Mr. YOUNG. I have already been recognized, but thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

97

Mr. MILLER. In a dark night with no flashlight. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. That is the greatest compliment I have ever had, 

Mr. Miller. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Secretary, were there any regulatory 

changes in the Endangered Species Act during the Clinton Administration? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I believe in the Clinton Administration there were 

several regulatory—ESA regulatory proposals made. I do not believe that they were finally implemented, but perhaps Jamie Clark 

would be best positioned to answer that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Clark? 

Ms. CLARK. During the Clinton Administration, there were administrative updates, if you will, to the Endangered Species Act. 

They were done through open public notice and comments, things 

like peer review, enhancing the role of states. 

Mr. YOUNG. Not much difference to what has occurred here? 

Much of the same thing. 

Ms. CLARK. Well——

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Secretary, what was the goal of those policy 

changes? Do you have any idea what the goal was? Anybody? 

Ms. SCARLETT. You are asking me about the——

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Ms. SCARLETT.—Clinton Administration goals? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Ms. SCARLETT. When I look at those goals, they were very much 

the same as the goals that we have: enhancing partnerships, the 

role of states, enhancing and clarifying the requirements for 

science and documents, and improving the opportunity for conservation partnerships, et cetera, and a focus on recovery. 

Mr. YOUNG. Do you recall whether a Republican Congress ever 

enacted legislation or a rider to an appropriations bill that would 

prevent or prohibit these changes from occurring? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am not aware of any such rider being enacted. 

Mr. YOUNG. It has not, in fact. 

What is the goal of the current potential regulatory changes of 

the Endangered Species Act? What is your goal? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Our fundamental and central goal is to enhance 

recovery and to do so by enhancing the opportunity for cooperative 

conservation partnership, partnerships with states and so on. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, there is not much difference from that than 

what Secretary Babbitt tried the same thing, I believe, under the 

Clinton Administration, same proposal. 

Ms. SCARLETT. These kinds of concepts have been in play in academia among the western Governors, as well as among administrations, both Democratic and Republican. That is the focus on recovery, better opportunity for states, and better opportunity for citizens and landowners to participate in conservation. 

Mr. YOUNG. And if I can, Mr. Chairman, my concern here is, and 

of course, I am probably the only person on this Committee that 

has ever voted for the Act itself, and it is probably the worst vote 

I made because we were misled at that time in what the Act was 

supposed to do, and the Act has been implemented and used by 

98

groups to try not to preserve species, but to impede any type of development or growth, and that is the unfortunate thing. 

We have two cases in Alaska right now, which very, very concerns me in this Act. One is the Polar Bear. Oh, boy, we are going 

to save the Polar Bear. There is no shortage of Polar Bears, no 

science was ever studied. Yet it is possibly being put on the Endangered Species Act which will affect any type of fossil fuel development in the United States. 

We have another—without any science again—another beginning 

of the Beluga Whale. No science, no study, but the species is declining in Cook Inlet, which also is my largest port, and if they are put 

on the Endangered Species Act without any type of cooperation 

with the state, it shuts down the port and the main entry for any 

goods coming in the State of Alaska. 

So we have to, as this Committee, Mr. Chairman, and I think the 

members of the Committee, instead of just pointing the finger at 

the administration, come up with some alternatives. We must save 

the species if that is what we are seeking to do, but let us not forget that we have the human factor involved also, and it is ironic 

to me, and I will speak to my good Chairman, that most of this Act 

has been really forcibly put upon the western states, and I don’t 

consider California too western anymore. It has been infested by 

those liberal elements that I am not sure what they are, but Oregon is getting there, and Washington is right behind it, and I am 

afraid Alaska may be next. 

But it seems to me that this Act has been used——

The CHAIRMAN. What about West Virginia? 

Mr. YOUNG.—over and over again. 

The CHAIRMAN. What about West Virginia? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, no, no, that is what I am saying. It has not—

when was the last time West Virginia——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Where are we getting done? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Where is Oregon getting? 

Mr. YOUNG. Close to California, not quite yet, you are getting 

there. 

Mr. Chairman, I have to ask you, and what I am leading up to, 

it seems to me like a lot of this Act is not used in the eastern states 

to a great degree. 

The Flying Squirrel? 

The CHAIRMAN. We have someone on the next panel. 

Mr. YOUNG. The Flying Squirrel? 1985, the Flying Squirrel, 

which is 1985, 1995, that is 22 years ago, and I am just saying if 

we want to protect the species, then I think we ought to rewrite 

this Act because what I think the administration is trying to do is 

discouraging those landholders private entirety of protecting the 

species. 

Now, I want to go through the story, and I will be quiet. My dad 

died and he left a ranch to my brothers and myself, but he left 21 

acres in the middle of that ranch that you cannot touch. It is probably the only place, Mr. Miller, in California you have yet you can 

see everything as it was many, many, many years ago. 

Now, every place around that ranch they farmed it right up to 

the quick. We call it the quick. No more fence rules, no more nothVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
99

ing. And low and behold, the Golden Garter Snake was going to be 

put on the endangered species list, and low and behold, guess 

where most of those garter snakes were located—in those 21 acres. 

Now here comes Fish and Wildlife and says Endangered Species 

Act, you have to have a buffer zone around the 21 acres, which 

would have taken in the whole ranch. Instead of patting him on the 

back and giving him ‘‘Good job, Russ, you did great, you saved the 

Golden Garter Snake for us, here is something you can have, a 

plaque to put up on your wall, continue that good work,’’ they want 

to put a buffer zone, or did, they are not going to do it now, a buffer zone around there, and what you call ‘‘Shoot, shut up, and 

shovel,’’ and this is what this Act is doing. 

So we better listen to the administration, and come up with some 

new ideas, and how we can make this thing work better. If not, we 

have failed. Never was the intent of that. I am saying I am the 

only one on this Committee ever voted for the dumb act, and 1 percent recovery rate of the whole thing—1 percent. Yet the imposition 

upon every landholder private has been untold and taken away 

from those peoples, and taken without compensation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Since the gentleman from California has been 

honored by the vicious attack by the gentleman from Alaska, I will 

recognize him to defend himself. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER. Well, I would rather get back to the subject of the 

hearing. I have been on this Committee for 33 years, so Mr. Young 

and I have been back and forth at one another for a long time. 

Ms. Scarlett, according to court documents that I have looked at 

show that Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald allowed the 

California Farm Bureau’s lobbyist to make copies of internal Interior document deliberations in an attempt to really damage or undermine the review process of the threatened Delta Smelt. That 

was in 2004. Are you aware of that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am aware of that. I have read the same things 

you have read. 

Mr. MILLER. What actions were taken in response to that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. First, let me say Ms. MacDonald has resigned and 

is no longer with the Department. 

Mr. MILLER. Everybody in this government is resigning. I want 

to know what happened in the Department. 

Ms. SCARLETT. OK. Well, let me go through sequentially. 

Second, working with Dale Hall about 12-15 months ago we 

worked out a process so that Dale would work directly with his 

Fish and Wildlife Service people on the science and information 

and generation of packages, and that the Washington office, including——

Mr. MILLER. That was in response to what? 

Ms. SCARLETT. That the Washington office and Ms. MacDonald 

would appropriately apply their role of overseeing and looking at 

quality control, but that the documents themselves would be developed in the field by the Fish and Wildlife Service people, and that 

was out of concern that we wanted a process in which that——

Mr. MILLER. But there were other scientific documents that Ms. 

MacDonald edited and reviewed and changed, is that not correct? 

100

Ms. SCARLETT. Ms. MacDonald, fulfilling her role as a deputy assistant secretary——

Mr. MILLER. Not as a scientist. 

Ms. SCARLETT. That is correct, but as her role of fulfilling the 

role of overseeing and reviewing documents certainly did edit documents appropriately. Remember the documents come in and they 

are not simply about science. Oftentimes there is quality control 

issues, issues that pertain to whether the document actually has 

substantiated claims made, or whether it is coherent and consistently written. 

Mr. MILLER. Have you reviewed her actions on the Smelt decision, on the vernal pools and Tiger Salamander and the Split Tail? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I have not reviewed her decisions on those specific 

issues. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, let me tell you something. You know, this is 

a very, very serious matter because, you know, as the courts—the 

state courts made a determination that the California may have to 

shut down its pumps because it is out of compliance to pump water 

from the north to the south, which is obviously a very important 

event in the California economic and social life. 

They are now telling us that they believe that they have equivalency permits based upon the work done at the Federal agency. We 

now learn that the Federal agency work may very well have been 

undermined and changed, and in a scientific fashion, not just editing what she knew something about, but editing the scientific findings and determinations and suggestions of scientists. 

So now our state people are suggesting—I don’t think I agree 

with them, but they are suggesting that somehow they have an 

equivalency permit based upon a series of processes and findings 

here that may in fact be fraudulent. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, I am not familiar with the equivalency permit 

as to what——

Mr. MILLER. OK. Let us just talk about what you are responsible 

for, and each one of these determinations, which is absolutely critical to operation of the California water programs, the Federal and 

state water programs, we now have this woman wandering around 

here changing the content and the findings of these determinations. 

Ms. SCARLETT. What I can say is that on the Delta Smelt, Steve 

Thompson, who heads up the California and Oregon office out 

there, or California and Nevada office, is the individual in charge 

with overseeing the process and decisionmaking on Delta Smelt, 

and all my interaction on that issue has been with him and with 

him only. 

Mr. MILLER. So your testimony would be that you believe that 

the exiting protections for the Delta Smelt are sufficient for recovery? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I can’t speak to that. I would have to defer to 

Steve Thompson and the Fish and Wildlife Service and their judgment on that as scientists. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, my concern is that Mr. Thompson’s and others’ determinations may be built upon these actions by Julie MacDonald. 

101

Ms. SCARLETT. Certainly the Fish and Wildlife Service, I believe, 

on an ongoing basis continues to examine the science and the foundations of the decisions that it is rendering, and that is the case 

with the Delta Smelt. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, it is interesting that, you know, a number of 

your career biologists and other scientists have made it clear that 

this doesn’t represent their work. In fact, she took their names off 

some of the reports, so we don’t know what it represents now. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Congressman, as we go forward with all of these 

endangered species issues, we are striving to uphold the greatest 

integrity in our science and——

Mr. MILLER. That is my concern. That is my exact concern. 

Ms. SCARLETT.—we will continue to do that 

Mr. MILLER. That we know how difficult and we know the splits 

in Congress and in society and everywhere else around the Endangered Species Act, and the theory is that at the end of the day we 

rely on good science, and sometimes you like the decisions and 

sometimes you don’t, but when you have a person like this wandering around with reported conflict of interests in terms of her 

own land ownership she and her husband has in the Sacramento 

Valley, you start to get very concerned about what happens here. 

Do you understand the level of concern? We are talking about the 

economy of the State of California, and decisions that have been 

made one way or the other—forget whether I agree or disagree 

with them—but now we find out that we have this individual wandering around making determinations based upon her beliefs. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Let me state again, Ms. MacDonald has resigned 

from the Department. We are striving to ensure the highest integrity of science——

Mr. MILLER. In 2004, in 2004, she——

Ms. SCARLETT.—and will continue to do that. 

Mr. MILLER.—is letting people come into the office to take emails to undermine the government’s case. 2004. This is 2007. She 

has resigned. That is no gift to the country. She has been wandering around there for three more years. This is a serious, serious 

ethical and legal problem for the Department, and it is a serious 

problem in terms of what we now can rely on or not rely on on at 

least two species, maybe three species that are absolutely critical 

to determining how we provide for the health of San Francisco Bay 

and the San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta. Absolutely critical in terms 

of the future planning of this state. 

What are you going to do? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Congressman, we are striving—I can move from 

this moment forward, and we have been over these last months assuring what I believe is a process of integrity. Our Fish and Wildlife Service head of the Endangered Species Act Program and his 

counterparts in the regions are striving to utilize the best science 

and do so in a transparent way properly. Documents that are presented to the Department are reviewed to ensure that they have 

legal sufficiency, that they are coherent and clearly stated, and 

that is the policy of this Secretary, and that is what I am striving 

to do. 

On an ongoing basis, on an ongoing basis for——

102

Mr. MILLER. The process broke down in this instance? Did the 

policy break down? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I believe it is extraordinarily important, as everyone——

Mr. MILLER. No, no, no. Did the policy break down? 

Ms. SCARLETT. As everyone around this table has said, it is imperative that science proceed with the utmost——

Mr. MILLER. And I am asking you, everybody agrees to that, we 

all agree to that. In this instance, did the policy break down with 

the involvement of Julie MacDonald in these decisions? 

You are striving for something but you have a person wandering 

around exerting exactly opposite energy of what you say you are 

striving for. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, we created a process so that there would not 

be the sort of direct engagement in the field, but rather the appropriate departmental review process. 

Mr. MILLER. So let me ask you. You created this policy——

Ms. SCARLETT. Which we think is the appropriate way to 

proceed. 

Mr. MILLER. Did you create this policy knowing of her activities, 

so you worked around her, and she resigned now? Is that what you 

are telling us? You and——

Ms. SCARLETT. No. 

Mr. MILLER.—the regional office are working around her involvement? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No. As the ESA decisionmaking has unfolded over 

many years, including most recent years, Julie MacDonald strived 

to do what she thought was her duty to ensure quality product. 

Mr. MILLER. Oh, give me a break. Give me a break on this, OK? 

Ms. SCARLETT. As we——

Mr. MILLER. My time has run out. If you believe that, if you believe that, then we are in very serious trouble here, and the 

underpinnings of the integrity of this Department are in very serious trouble. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir. 

Mr. MILLER. And the ripples——

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, let me——

Mr. MILLER.—of her activities are a real consequence. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, let me complete the sentence. As we became 

aware that there might have been some direct engagement with 

scientists in the field, we thought that that was not the appropriate 

way to proceed, and consequently we made assurances that that 

would not be how the decision process would unfold. 

Mr. MILLER. But in a number of cases, that is how it unfolded 

at the end of the day, with all due respect. That is how it unfolded 

over the last three years. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. MILLER. It has expired. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make 

a request. I think at some point it is very important that the Committee staff have the ability to interview people from the Department, and former people from the Department under oath to make 

a determination. The has huge ramifications for the State of California, and I would like to discuss that with you later. I am not 

103

asking you to make a decision now, but I would like very much to 

discuss that with you later. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands. 

We will recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would join with the 

gentleman who just spoke. The wolf issue is a very major issue in 

New Mexico, and the current program managers can’t tell us one 

thing about how many wolves are running loose outside the tract 

area, and I would like to under oath talk to the people who are implementing the wolf program in New Mexico because it does, it eats 

away at the very economic basis of our Western way of life because 

the grazing permits are being taken away from people whose livestock are being killed by the wolves, and all the people who are 

going to make sure that New Mexico has got all the wolves it need. 

By the way, when the wolves kill too many animals in Arizona, 

they bring them to New Mexico to release them, and I would like 

to get that under oath. So I would share the gentleman’s request 

for a panel where we talk to people under oath. 

Ms. Scarlett, we had testimony from one of the witnesses that 

the Bush Administration is choking off the funding. Yet when I 

look at the funding I see in comparative years, if we take today and 

move back four years, take the end of the Clinton Administration, 

move back four years, see conservation, 3.8 under Clinton, 9.7 

under Bush; listing, 4.4 million under Clinton, 12 million under 

Bush; consultation, 16 million under Clinton, 47 million under 

Bush; recovery, 36 versus 67. That doesn’t feel like we are choking 

funding off. 

Are we choking funding off? Can you make some sort of an assessment about the choking of funding? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, we have taken extraordinarily seriously our 

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, and I believe 

the budget numbers that you just described reflect that. I will add 

to that, that under the President’s vision of cooperative conservation we have also increased cooperative conservation grants by 

some 50 percent. Those grants being precisely the vehicle through 

which we work with landowners to get on-the-ground recovery, and 

that to the tune of some 320 million in our proposed 2008 budget. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, the starving of funding is a curious statement. 

Are you familiar with any of the scientists? We have been hearing a lot about science. Are you familiar with any scientists in the 

agencies who have misused facts? 

I would direct your attention to the lynxes. 

Ms. SCARLETT. I was going to say, sir, there was an instance several years ago in which some lynx’s hair samples were——

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, there were three Forest Service employees, 

there were two Fish and Wildlife employees, and there were two 

State of Washington Department employees who basically falsified 

information so that in one article it said the culture inside the 

agencies is one that approves of lying and cheating on the part of 

the scientists involved. 

So when I hear about science, I realize we also need to balance 

it out by the internal agencies’ willingness to achieve its agenda no 

matter what methods of science are used. 

104

Whatever happened to those people? We see Ms. MacDonald has 

resigned, and we see her—we are going to get her in here under 

oath or get you here under oath. Whatever happened to these Fish 

and Wildlife Service employees for lying and cheating? This is according to the newspaper that they did that. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, it has been about four years. I don’t recall 

what actually occurred with them. What I do know is that it was 

that instance that actually resulted in our beginning to craft a 

Code of Scientific Conduct to try and create procedures whereby we 

could better assure that that would not happen, and that there 

would be accountability should it happen. 

Mr. PEARCE. I was up about two or three years ago flying over 

a central Arizona project, and they were pointing out one down, 

that they would empty out, and then some environmental group 

brought suit so that they couldn’t put the water back in. So the 

ended up getting $25 million, this environmental group got $25 

million in order to allow them to put the water back in. That seems 

and feels like extortion. 

You have 111 suits right now that agencies and NGO’s have 

brought against you—environmental groups. Do any of those 

groups ever make money off those lawsuits? Do they ever get settlements from the agency or someone? 

Ms. SCARLETT. There are instances where there are settlements. 

There are also instances where their attorney’s fees are paid. 

Mr. PEARCE. Fees that are paid. 

Ms. SCARLETT. That is correct. I do not have the tally though of 

what that would be. 

Mr. PEARCE. So Defenders of Wildlife has four suits on this block 

of stuff. Defenders of Wildlife could actually draw revenue. They 

could draw cash payments for the outcome of that suit. Is that 

more or less correct, Mr. Scarlett? 

Ms. SCARLETT. In the disposition of lawsuits, it is possible that 

organizations receive either attorney fees and/or settlement. 

Mr. PEARCE. So the Defenders of Wildlife, when I get the word 

that the Defenders of Wildlife actually has received cash settlements, that would be somewhat accurate? It could be accurate? 

Ms. SCARLETT. It could be accurate that there are cash settlements and attorney’s fees paid. 

Mr. PEARCE. As far as the wolf involved in western New Mexico—by the way, it is now—I will use this point to say that we have 

had spottings as far away as maybe 200 miles away in New Mexico. People are getting concerned. The last things the wolves did 

was go into a corral, they were chasing the horse. It ran back to 

its house, felt like it could get sanctuary. They attacked and killed 

the horse inside the corral there right behind the house. They have 

killed pets. 

What is the agency doing to see that no human life is taken because we had testimony in this Committee last year that the most 

provocative thing to a wolf is a baby crying or laughing? That was 

testimony that came from a scientist, a specialist. So I worry about 

my constituents when the wolves in my district actually come up 

and take a horse right out of its pen, and I mean they strip it down 

to where it is a skeleton left, it looked like piranhas had been associated with it. It was not a very pretty thing, and in fact then the 

105

next week they killed another horse right in the same area. Meanwhile the agency is trapped by people who would be bring lawsuit 

to keep it from touching any of the wolves, and they are supposed 

to. Their law says, the regulation says it is supposed to. 

What is being done to protect the innocent live in the 2nd District of New Mexico because Fish and Wildlife puts the killer 

wolves, the ones who are too big a danger in Arizona, they get 

brought to New Mexico, and New Mexico is a releasing point? I 

would like to take them to Central Park and release them there. 

If it is good for western New Mexico, it is good for every place. I 

think we should bring them here and put them loose on the mall. 

That would be nice. If it is OK for New Mexico, it ought to be good 

for anyplace. 

But tell me what is being changed about that. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, the Department and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service recognize the challenges of large species, be it wolf, grizzly 

bear or others, that do pose threats to human settlements, property, domestic livestock and so forth. The Endangered Species Act 

does require that we protect species that are threatened or endangered of extinction, and I believe the Department has done that 

well. 

We have just recently proposed the de-listing of the Gray Wolf 

in a portion of its range. As we do that, we do so with a very careful management plan in cooperation with states to help ensure that 

those wolves are managed in such a way that on the one hand they 

thrive, and on the other hand they do not pose threats to people. 

So it is a challenge. These are predator species. On the other 

hand we try to both ensure that human populations and domestic 

livestock are protected by working with states in their management 

as well as with local communities, and then at the same time fulfill 

our responsibilities, but it is an ongoing challenge. 

Mr. PEARCE. The ranchers out in western New Mexico wish they 

would be listed as an endangered species where they could get that 

same protection from the U.S. Government. Thank you. Appreciate 

it, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

holding this very important hearing, and for the testimony that we 

have had here today, and quite frankly, it is astounding, you know, 

just hearing the reports and the accounts, and it is not just limited 

to the Department of the Interior, but virtually every Federal agency in this administration in regards to the political manipulation 

of facts and scientifically based studies, and I am talking about political appointees in the Pentagon, I am talking about the U.S. Attorney scandal right now, I am talking about the revision and rewriting of global climate change and global warming reports. 

Now this ESA is really just the tip of the iceberg of what we 

have been seeing consistently through the administration. I am not 

confident that this matter with Julie MacDonald will be held right 

internally, I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets the Medal of Freedom 

Award by this administration at the end of the day. 

In all seriousness, reading the IG’s report should be a call for action on this, and yet given Secretary Kempthorne’s glowing praise 

for her at the time of her resignation, I am not at all confident that 

106

the Interior Department has the willingness or capability of bringing some accountability to this matter, and that is tragic because 

not only has the Congress lost confidence of this administration 

and in this agency in dealing with this, but more importantly, the 

American people are because they see this manipulation that has 

been taking place over the last six years in this administration. 

I know this has been uncomfortable for you, Ms. Scarlett, but 

that is the way it has to be, and I want to specifically ask you a 

question in regards to the process of de-listing the grizzly bears 

right now, and the American Bald Eagle, and whether or not the 

proposed changed rules that is pending at Fish and Wildlife has 

had any influence in that decision as far as de-listing of the Grizzly 

at Yellowstone and the American Bald Eagle that we are about to 

move forward on. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Let me speak first to the Bald Eagle. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service has been working for some time on a de-listing 

proposal for the Bald Eagle. When the Bald Eagle or if the Bald 

Eagle is de-listed, it comes under the protection of the Bald & 

Golden Eagle Protection Act. Therefore, it will continue to have significant protections. 

Mr. KIND. I understand that, and I submitted a letter to you, or 

to Secretary Kempthorne dated April 13, signed by 25 of my colleagues, including the Chair and Mr. Miller here, questioning the 

wisdom of redefining the definition of ‘‘disturb’’ under the Bald & 

American Eagle Protection Act, and this is important. 

Ms. SCARLETT. It is. 

Mr. KIND. It is an important factor, and as far as maintaining 

the appropriate protection for the Bald Eagle, which is an incredible success story, and the American people see it as such. But if 

we blow this now——

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes. 

Mr. KIND.—in redefining definitions that have common meanings 

and common practice, then we are not going to be able to list it in 

one of those successful stories. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, I believe the definition that we now have 

builds upon the very common practice that you are talking about. 

There were earlier definitions that have been repudiated. The one 

that is currently under consideration builds upon common practice 

and the experience of our Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. KIND. Well, if I could request a written response to the letter 

that we have submitted, and I will give you another copy of the letter today, and perhaps a briefing, and I am taking the lead on it, 

and if you have someone that is specifically—and I have had conversations with Director Hall about this matter myself for some reassurance, because all the fly always counsels were raising concerns about this definition, and perhaps most importantly, most of 

the state fish and wildlife agencies are saying themselves are saying that the proposed redefinition was unworkable, and wouldn’t 

provide adequate protection for the Bald Eagle, and it is important 

that they are on board with all of this given the reliance Fish and 

Wildlife has in working with the state agencies in the implementation of these practice plans. 

So if you could submit that written response or have someone respond to us, and then I would like to sit down with someone. 

107

Ms. SCARLETT. Be happy to do that, and we concur that it is imperative that that definition of disturb build on common practice, 

and assure the long-term survivability and flourishing, indeed, of 

the Bald Eagle. 

Mr. KIND. And as far as Mr. Ruch and Dr. Grifo and Ms. Clark 

is concerned, we have heard some very good recommendations on 

what type of action that perhaps the Congress can take as far as 

tightening up these procedures to see that the science is being pursued and implemented, and what we would be asking from you is 

maybe some specific proposals and what action this Committee, 

this Congress can be taking, assuming that the administration 

themselves or the agency is incapable of implementing changes in 

light of the IG’s reports and all the other reports coming out. 

I have heard the need of greater transparency, greater whistle 

blower protection, perhaps changing the definition of the standard 

of proof from arbitrary and capricious to something that might—

we might have to look at in that regard, in regards to the definition 

of proof that we currently have to show, but we would be looking 

for some specific proposals, and I think some of that is already in 

your written testimony. I haven’t had a chance to review everyone’s 

written testimony yet, but that would be very helpful as we move 

forward. 

Thank you all again, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn. I apologize for not recognizing him earlier as 

he was the first here today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

We have had some discussion today about the role of science and 

I think there has been a—some people may have given the impression that science never varies and people are always in agreement, 

and all scientists are going to look at a problem and come up with 

the same answer and conclusion. 

Dr. Grifo, I hope I pronounced that correctly. 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Wouldn’t you agree with me that scientists can 

look at the same set of facts and in good faith come up with differing conclusions? 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, sir, and that is the purpose of peer review. That 

is the purpose of exchanges at scientific meetings. I mean, I am not 

going to sit here and tell you that every scientist is in lock-step on 

every topic. But I think the problem that we have seen at Interior 

and with Fish and Wildlife is that there is no clear policy that even 

allows the career scientists to be at those meetings, to publish in 

those——

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, that is OK. I didn’t ask about that. 

For instance, what is a species and what is a subspecies? I mean, 

a subspecies is not a species, but yet you have the lumpers and the 

splitters, you know, to use a colloquial term, in the scientific community, and some will say that subspecies shouldn’t get extra protection and others would say it is separate and should get. 

Don’t you agree then that we have these good faith disputes and 

if scientists can’t agree, you know, what is a bureaucrat going to 

do? 

108

I mean, it is not as clear-cut as maybe some of the panel have 

intimated. Wouldn’t you agree with that? 

Ms. GRIFO. The Endangered Species Act asks for the best available science, and that is what we need. Now, that best available 

science can come from a number of different sources, and it can reflect a variety of different opinions. 

Unfortunately, what we are seeing is that when there is a reconciliation of those opinions, that the science is being changed before that open process even occurs, and that is the problem, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, and the reason I bring this up, in Colorado, 

we have the Tree Bulls Meadow Jumping Mouse, and then it was 

getting additional protection, and yet a scientist came along and 

said, hey, that is genetically identical to the Bear Lodge Jumping 

Mouse, which is not threatened up north, north of Colorado. So 

that has created all kinds of turmoil, and millions, tens of millions 

of dollars of expense to the taxpayers, and private property owners. 

Ms. GRIFO. Could I respond? 

Mr. LAMBORN. No, that was just a comment. 

Ms. GRIFO. OK. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thanks for your willingness though. 

Ms. GRIFO. OK. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Ms. Clark, a question for you, a conceptual question. If there is a species that is common and thriving in another 

country, like Canada, let us say, but its total territory in the U.S., 

it is under threat, and wherever it lives in the U.S., and its habitat 

and it itself is under threat and in danger. What should we do? 

Should we assume that because the species itself, its future on the 

planet Earth is assured, but in the U.S. it is under threat. Should 

we take steps to protect it in the U.S. where it is under threat? 

Ms. CLARK. The U.S. Endangered Species Act does under the definition of species provide protection to species, subspecies and distinct vertebrate segment, and the policy defining distinct 

vertebrate segment, at least while I was at Interior, did in fact acknowledge that the United States had an obligation to protect the 

species within its borders because the reach of the law as it relates 

to consultation, obligations for recovery, and interagency coordination happens only within the United States. 

So there actually are a number of species on the list, the Woodland Caribou, the Northern Rockies Wolves, Marble Murrelet, all 

of which a decision was made that they were important to the ecology of the United States, and the Endangered Species Act should 

afford them protection under the rules of the U.S. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So hypothetically speaking, if there is a lynx or 

a be Polar Bear or anything else, and it is thriving in Canada, and 

it only historically was ever marginally in the U.S., that marginal 

existence in the U.S. would trigger all kinds of action against private landowners or anything like that who might step in the way 

of that species where it is 1 percent existence in the U.S.? 

Ms. CLARK. Well, the existence, and having suitable range in the 

United States affords the opportunity of the Endangered Species 

Act to provide that protection. Yes, it does. Today’s law allows for 

the protection of the U.S. range species in danger from their status 

in the United States. 

109

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. So the law doesn’t contemplate the existence 

of that species in other like neighboring countries? 

Ms. CLARK. It can, but there is the opportunity given the reach 

of the law, the other sections of the law—recovery, consultation—

to declare the U.S. population a distinct vertebrate segment because it recognizes the international borders. That was done by policy years ago. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Along a similar vein, and I know Representative 

Young, who was here a few minutes ago, would come down on this, 

but I question whether the original intent of the law and those who 

passed it in Congress 30 some years ago, for instance, wanted insects to be on the list of endangered species, and I noticed that in 

your comment you refer to how it is good that we are bringing back 

the wolf, the Timber Wolf, and the manatee, and I believe the eagle 

is the other species you cite, and those we would all agree deserve 

and need protection, and it is wonderful what is happening. 

But were insects intended by the original passage of the law? 

Ms. CLARK. Yes, absolutely they were, Congressmen, because if 

you look at the ecological web of life, we don’t differentiate between 

charismatic mammals or insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, about 

the ecological connectivity of the fabric of what makes up the systems and the unique habitat systems in this country. 

And so there are a number of insects—butterflies, they are insects. Most wouldn’t debate that. And so it suggests some level of 

taxonomic arrogance to decide whether a wolf gets protection and 

a Bay Checkerspot Butterfly does not. These species are afforded 

legal protection regardless of taxonomic classification. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Excuse me? 

Ms. CLARK. I just summarized by saying all the species, whether 

they are an insect, a mammal, a reptile, if they are in danger of 

extinction or threatened with endangerment should be afforded 

legal protection. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from the 

Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was particularly interested in this hearing. Unfortunately, I 

had another just about equally important hearing so I have been 

back and forth, but I want to thank you for holding this hearing 

because it deals with two issues that have been of great concern 

to me. One is the weakening of the Endangered Species Act. 

In my time serving on the Committee on National Parks, we 

have fought back unsuccessfully in the last Congress some encroachments on that using exaggerated issues regarding the Department of Defense or Native American populations, and today, I 

haven’t completely gotten through all of the testimony either, but 

I notice reports of reducing staff, which also undermines the ability 

of the Department to address the issues concerning the Endangered Species Act. 

But another issue that, as Mr. Kind said, goes far beyond just 

this one agency is the changing of reports and the replacement of 

scientists by not only industry people, but religious ideologies, and 

so the reports don’t come out based on the best available science. 

110

One of the reports that I dealt with as a physician was the one 

coming out of the agency on health care, quality and research on 

health disparities. The first report actually showed that there were 

major disparities between racial and ethnic minorities and the rest 

of the population, and when it got to the Office of the Secretary, 

that report was changed so that the report as it came out initially 

showed that there were no disparities. Luckily, some of the Committee members over here had them go back and issue the original 

report. 

So I am hoping that beginning to look at this one issue today in 

this agency will help to reverse some of that, and it is important 

that we be able to have confidence in the reports coming out of the 

administration. 

I guess, about to ask one question that I am sure it has probably 

been asked. Again, I would ask Deputy Secretary Scarlett, because 

it is important that we are able to have confidence in the reports 

coming out, if all of those reports that came out under Ms. MacDonald, are they being reviewed and can we anticipate that they 

will be revised or looked at and revised, if necessary, using the best 

available science? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Congresswoman, this issue has come up several 

times this morning. Let me just say right now as clearly as I can 

where there is evidence of science manipulation, we want to correct 

that, and we will explore where those incidences are and address 

them. 

I do want to say that I believe we are applying scientific integrity. I think that in the Fish and Wildlife Service we have outstanding scientists. I trust them. I rely on them. I defer to their 

judgment, and Secretary Kempthorne likewise does as well. If 

there are incidences and specific examples of interference, we will 

look at those and take whatever steps are appropriate. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Deputy Secretary Scarlett, my workings with 

you, you know, I have worked with you on issues at home and 

other places, and I found you to be a person of integrity. I think 

though that everyone of the reports that has come out under the 

personnel who resigned needs to be reviewed because unless we 

look at all of them we won’t know if there were some decisions that 

were made that were not based on science. To me, the assumption 

should be there that all of them may have some flaw and need to 

be looked at. 

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I notice 

a lot of other questions need to be asked, but I was going to ask 

Dr. Grifo, if I might. Let me give you an example and see how you 

would respond. 

There is a species that is currently at an historic population level 

but whose habitat may be significantly altered in the next 50 to 

100 years. Should the Fish and Wildlife Service list this species 

today? 

Ms. GRIFO. That is a question for the process that the Endangered Species Act requires, the best available science. We need to 

have the career biologists do their part, whatever advisory committees are appropriate do their part. I mean, that is not for me to anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
111

swer. The important thing is that we have a process that this Act 

enables, and the important thing is that we do not manipulate the 

science going into that process. That is what is critical to the outcome. 

Mr. BROWN. I would like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, is to yield my 

available time to Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. Clark, I was hearing your comment about equal protection 

for any species. So if you had to choose or if we had to choose between a species and a forest dying, which would you choose? 

If it is a matter of the trees and the forest dying, or in spraying 

to protect the trees, you might kill the butterflies there, what decision would you have made as director? 

Ms. CLARK. I don’t make decisions in the hypothetical, Congressman. 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, it is not hypothetical. Let us go to New Mexico 

right now, Cloudcroft, New Mexico. We have 50 or 60 thousand 

acres that have already died, every tree there. They have a disease 

which started about two years. The Forest Service made the decision not to spray for the butterflies and for the Spotted Owl. Meanwhile the forest is going to simply die. Cloudcroft, New Mexico, sits 

nestled in there, and the fire alarm, the fire danger among the citizens is extraordinarily high. People are bringing suits to keep from 

cutting the trees. 

My question is then in the non-hypothetical, would you spray 

and kill butterflies or would you save the forest? 

Ms. CLARK. There is a provision in the Endangered Species Act 

that——

Mr. PEARCE. I am asking what you would do. Would you make 

the decision to spray and save the trees and kill butterflies or 

would you do what has been done right now? 

Ms. CLARK. I am not going to give you a yes or a no, sir. I would 

make the decision——

Mr. PEARCE. That is OK then. I would reclaim my time then. I 

am just asking your input because a decision has been made and 

we got people who are very gravely at risk because of decisions 

that are made. 

Ms. Scarlett, you might want to think about that because it is 

an issue that we will be bringing up. It is a very difficult issue, and 

we have a community at risk, the same sorts of qualitative decisions are being made every day, and so that in this Committee two 

years ago we heard a city councilman from San, I think, 

Bernardino or one of the Sans out there in California, and she 

says, our community is the greenest of the green, and she said, I 

am the greenest of the green commissioners on the city council, and 

she said, we can’t even build a room on the back of a house to accommodate invalids in our town because of the Endangered Species 

Act. She said the Endangered Species Act is broken from the eyes 

of an environmentalist, from the eyes of the greenest of the green, 

the Endangered Species Act is broken beyond belief, and you need 

to fix it. 

I doubt that we hear that testimony here today, but I would yield 

the gentleman back his time. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

112

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Scarlett, I would like to pursue some of the line of questioning that Ms. Christensen and others have been following that 

really has to do with the environment in which the scientists operate so that we can have good science. 

First of all, you said you were unaware of any gag order at the 

Interior Department. Are you familiar with the memo that was 

sent to Fish and Wildlife Service employees instructing them not 

to talk about the relationship between climate change and Polar 

Bears? 

Would you call that a gag order? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am aware of that particular memo. I could answer it or I have with me Dale Hall who actually wrote the memo 

who could describe its purposes and intent. 

Mr. HOLT. Well, I have other questions I want to get to, so let 

me just ask. Would you call that a gag order when it says, let us 

see—anyone approved for travel from the Fish and Wildlife Service 

‘‘will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.’’

Ms. SCARLETT. My understanding of the memo which pertained 

to some international travel is that we had a delegation going to 

a meeting, and an inquiry had come as to what the subject matter 

of the meeting was, and the memo was intended to say that for the 

purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Service attending the meeting, 

their topic was not climate change; that they were to speak on the 

topics in which they had expertise, and that was the intent. It was 

not intended to be a gag order, but rather a clarification of what 

the purpose of the travel was who was going, and as in any international delegation, to have assignments clearly appropriated. 

Mr. HOLT. Well, this gets at my point. It seems to me that you 

have a lot of remedial work to do, you and the others heading the 

agency, with 30 percent of the staff positions vacant in the Ecological Services Program, with the top professional position in charge 

of Federal endangered species efforts vacant for the better part of 

a year. I have to ask whether people feel comfortable in those jobs, 

if you are having trouble filling those positions because it is a very 

uncomfortable position to be in, or whether you are choosing not 

to fill those positions so that the ESA will not be enforced. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, neither of those. 

Mr. HOLT. Neither of those. 

Ms. SCARLETT. This Department remains strongly committed to 

fulfilling the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, and I have 

with me today Bryan Arroya who is actually serving in the capacity 

of head of the ESA program to which you allude. 

Mr. HOLT. Now, there were earlier questions about what steps 

have been taken to correct what might be manipulation of science 

by a now retired or resigned official, and you seem to say that you 

were not making the effort to review and correct any of the errors 

that might be in there. 

You owe it not just to your employees, and not just to us, but 

to the country to do everything you can to restore the environment 

of good science there, and that would include making sure that any 

errors in science, any manipulation in science that occurred for 

whatever reason, political are not, are corrected, and that the posiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
113

tions are filled with people who are competent in their area, and 

that they are told when hired that they will be free to practice the 

science. 

You have some real remedial work to be done regardless of what 

happens to individuals who are fired or who resign, and other departments have faced this. A few of them have tried to deal with 

it, but this is a critical situation throughout our government—the 

politicization of science and the disparaging of scientifically trained 

staff, and my time has expired, but I just want to make sure that 

you understand the seriousness of the task in front of you. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, let me reaffirm that where there is evidence 

of science manipulation we will act upon it. I take that challenge 

and charge very seriously. You will find no greater champion of integrity in science than myself and this Secretary, and we will strive 

to take whatever actions we can to ensure that that is publicly evidenced as well as internally. 

Mr. HOLT. You and he should sit down with every memo that 

passed through the hands and that might have been subject to alterations or manipulation, you should be sitting there at the table 

with scientists going through word by word and correcting those. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think much of 

the discussion or a big part of it has been about the Endangered 

Species Act itself, and the philosophical differences we might hold 

here regarding that Act. I want to get back to the scheduled substance of this hearing which had to do with manipulation that occurred, and in my mind there is no doubt, and the distortion that 

happened to the integrity and the empirical information that 

people use, that we use to make decisions under the Endangered 

Species Act. That is the fundamental issue, I think, at this hearing, 

and I agree with my colleagues, as they have said, that this is almost a pathological behavior on the part of the administration, not 

only in the Interior Department, but in other departments as well. 

Let me ask, with the exception of the Deputy Secretary, the 

three witnesses, part of our responsibilities that our Chairman 

talked about at the beginning has to do with the oversight and 

remedy that we need to talk about on the issue of distortion, manipulation, and the debasing of science and fact as part of the decisionmaking, and if you could for the record and briefly each one of 

you a central one or two recommendations that you mention in 

your testimony, if you could elaborate on those that would help 

guide this committee in terms of oversight and remedy for the long 

haul, and we can begin with Ms. Clark. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. 

I will leave it to my colleagues to talk about some of the transparency and whistle blower issues, but we are quite concerned, I 

am quite concerned about the kind of administrative policies that 

are under rewrite. I am very interested in working with the Department. 

I absolutely believe in the Deputy Secretary’s and the Secretary’s 

goals, and so whether it is—certainly it might not be their intent 

from our perspective the effect of what we know about the regs 

that are under revision will seriously, in essence, rewrite the impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
114

mentation goals of Section 4, the listing provisions, the recovery 

provisions, the consultation provisions, and clearly I don’t know 

how else to interpret ‘‘delegate to the states’’ other than delegate 

to the states, you know, states that are ill-equipped to take on 

some of these challenges, though I certainly agree that greater participation and collaboration and openness is important. 

So while I was asked earlier whether the Clinton Administration 

developed regs to implement the Act, and Secretary Scarlett answered our purpose quite well, the issue that concerns me is that 

while I believe we were working really hard to make the Endangered Species Act ‘‘function’’ better, we never lost sight of the goal 

of achieving species recovery, and through some of the processes 

that I understand are underway—of course, not having seen this 

version of the draft regs—we stand ready to work with this Department, but I really fear it is on a fast track, and I urge the Congress 

to pay careful attention to the regulatory process underway because what was not achieve legislatively in the last Congress could 

easily be achieved administratively, and that would be a real nail 

in the coffin for the Endangered Species Act. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, I am looking forward to seeing how Mr. Hall 

and the Department identify frivolous petitions as we go along in 

this process. 

If the other witnesses want to make one central recommendation, 

I would appreciate that, or a couple. 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, I think one of the most important things, and 

it has come up several times this morning already, is open communication. In response to the Department of Commerce media policy, 

we have sent a long letter—10 plus pages—to Secretary Gutierrez 

about the problems in that Department of Commerce policy, and 

we are happy to make that available. 

But some of the central things in that are that, you know, when 

you become a scientist and work for the Federal government, you 

are not giving up your First Amendment rights, you are not giving 

up your ability to talk about your taxpayer-funded research results, 

and we have to really honor the work that these biologists are 

doing and allow them that opportunity to take advantage of that 

central pillar of the scientific method, which is communicating 

those results, talking about those results. 

To have a Fish and Wildlife Service scientist at a professional 

meeting have to not be able to answer a question? I mean, there 

is no clear policy that we could find on those websites. This is 

something that could happen very quickly. We have a model media 

policy that could be adopted tomorrow by the Interior Department. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Sir? 

Mr. RUCH. I think the central thing this Committee could do is 

open up the black box of decisionmaking in the Department of the 

Interior. We have heard today about the formation of an accountability board. We don’t know who is on it. We don’t know what 

standards they meet. We don’t know anything about it. We have 

heard now about an internal review process that is not spelled out 

that no one has heard of before. 

If there is a paper trail and a transparent process where when 

these changes are made, when the scientists from the Department 

115

are overruled, there is a record and there is a written justification, 

we wouldn’t have need for this hearing. 

The other thing I would add very quickly is that the ability of 

civil servants to communicate with the Congress, to talk to you and 

your staff, need to have some enforcement behind it because, to the 

extent that you have the ability to see into the opacity of these 

agencies directly, that would be a very strong preventative step. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, and I think the resignation of Ms. 

MacDonald does not remedy the issue that we are dealing with 

here, and I would hope that each one of her decisions, each one of 

her reviews are looked at very carefully and in a very transparent 

way, examined for the appropriateness and to assure there was no 

manipulation or distortion of that information. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may for the record like to ask you if I may 

enter into the record a letter that I and Congressman Mitchell sent 

to Director Hall dealing with the de-listing of the Southwest Desert 

Bald Eagle, and accompanying information. Given some of the 

things that we have all read and heard about regarding manipulation, I would request that his response be made available to all the 

Committee as well. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman’s letter will be 

made part of the record. And you are asking for written responses, 

are you? And we would ask the persons to whom those questions 

are directed to respond for the record. 

[The letter submitted for the record follows:]

116


35221.004.eps
117

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps. 

Ms. CAPPS. I concur with the remarks that my fellow Californian, 

Mr. Miller, by requesting further questioning of staff of the Department, if necessary, under oath referred to a minute ago by Jeff 

Ruch. 

Turn this microphone on so I can face the witnesses, and thank 

you for being here today, particularly my constituent who is our 

Deputy Secretary Scarlett from my district in California. 

We all understand that the ESA designates critical habitat in 

order to ensure the recovery of endangered species. Now, in 2005, 

the Department issued a rule to cut back habitat along the Pacific 

Coast for the threatened Snow Leaf Plover by over 40 percent. I am 

using the Plover as an example for many such rules, and its final 

rule, because I want to highlight the—I quote from the preamble 

to the rule on this and many other examples. The Bush Administration has included the following statement. I am quoting from 

that rule, and I have a copy of it here. 


35221.005.eps
118

‘‘In more than 30 years of implementing the ESA, the Service has 

found that the designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species while preventing the Service 

from using scare conservation resources for activities with greater 

conservation benefits.’’

It is my understanding that some attorneys working for the Department oppose the inclusion of this statement in critical habitat 

designations, being of the opinion that this inappropriate language. 

So I want to ask you, Secretary Scarlett, what is the legal justification for including this statement in a final rule on critical 

habitat designation? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Congresswoman, nice to see you. 

I am not an attorney so I am hesitant to give the legal justification for that terminology. It is language that was proposed by the 

Assistant Secretary Craig Manson, a former judge and a lawyer. So 

I would prefer to be able to get back to you with a legal opinion 

on that, which appears to be what you are asking for. 

Ms. CAPPS. I would appreciate that in writing, but while we are 

having that conversation perhaps in a non-legal way. There must 

have been some reason for putting this statement in the rule. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Let me speak in a non-legal way, not trying to 

present the legal justification, but for some time now, and including, I believe, and Jamie could speak to this in the previous administration, there has been concern that critical habitat as practiced 

has not really added advantages to species or enhanced their survivability, if you will. 

One of the things that we have been actually looking at in the 

proposed or possibly proposed changes to the ESA regulations 

would be language that we think would breathe life into critical 

habitat by actually defining it and strengthening its purposes and 

role toward recovery. But I think it is in light of the history of critical habitat which added on to the context of other protections of 

the species really didn’t add much value that that language was 

proposed. 

Ms. CAPPS. And let me ask you a question then about the value, 

and what studies there are to determine this statement that you 

just made. You aligned it with the previous administration, but you 

must affirm it if its presence still in the rule, that there is no need, 

you know, for additional protection. 

Is this based on studies? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Let me clarify. There often is need for significant 

protection of species. The issue at hand is whether critical habitat 

as implemented has provided that additional protection, and yes, 

there are a number of academic studies that have evaluated critical 

habitat and its role in helping species recovery that are very critical of that role. 

Ms. CAPPS. Let me then thank you. I look forward to some more 

statements because it says in the—where I quoted, it says, ‘‘The 

designation provides little additional protection,’’ so that is in the 

rule. 

Dr. Grifo, you referred to a lot of this in your opening statement. 

I am not sure you mentioned the Plover specifically, but it doesn’t 

matter. I mean, that is of interest along the Pacific Coast very 

much, but whether you talk about this rule with respect to that 

119

issue, that species or others, the same rule has been used many 

times. 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes. I would say—I mean, right now we are looking 

at about 30 species for possible scientific problems in the way that 

they were listed or in the way that the critical habitat was designated, and I would just like to say as an aside that really less 

than half of those, I mean a bit less than half of those have anything to do with Julie MacDonald, so this is a much broader problem than that. 

Ms. CAPPS. Right. 

Ms. GRIFO. We have many, many other specific examples that we 

are looking at that at this point do not have her influence on them. 

But I would say, you know, I go back to the Endangered Species 

Act. I mean, there is a process under which, you know, the critical 

habitat is designated, and if we want to have a full, open, scientific 

debate about the value or non-value of that, then let us have that 

in the open and draw those conclusions and move on. But at this 

point the law that we have says we will designate that critical 

habitat, that that is an important part of the whole process. 

Ms. CAPPS. Just finally if I could add, I know the red light is on, 

are you aware of studies on both sides of this issue or many sides 

of it? 

Ms. GRIFO. There are many sides of this issue. 

Ms. CAPPS. Yes. 

Ms. GRIFO. And I would also say that it depends on the particular taxa that we are talking about. I mean, depending on the 

organism and the way that it uses its range and habitat, there is 

going to be a rang of effects. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. I look forward to the written statement, 

but I also think we need more questioning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me go to the gentleman from Maryland who 

has been very patient and with us from the very beginning this 

morning, Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I remember where I was when my 16-year-old daughter told me 

she wanted to be a scientist because I was so excited about it, and 

the testimony today has left me sort of with a sinking feeling in 

the pit of my stomach because my ambition for her, she will make 

her own mind, but if she was going to be a scientist is that at one 

point she would be on the public sector side of that and contributing in ways that so many scientists that you have described are 

trying to do, and I have to worry about—you know, we talk about 

climatic change in the global sense. There is definitely a climatic 

change underway with respect to the scientific community being 

able to bring forth its best research. 

So the other thing I have sort of been engaged in informally is 

my own little research project. I am sitting on committees that 

have looked back at some of the overreaching that is going on with 

respect to these agencies, and as best I can tell, maybe there is not 

a handbook, but there is certainly plenty of evidence that there 

might be on how you undertake to destroy the reputation of government and sell the idea that there is no such thing as good government in this country, and the three-point approach is you can 

either reduce resources dramatically, which makes it tougher for 

120

people to do their jobs; or you can do outsourcing with no oversight, 

which then leads to poor performance which reflects back on the 

agency; or you can have political interference of the kind that we 

have discussed today. 

Everyone does it—sort of customizes, depending on the agency. 

We have seen how the army did it in the case of Sergeant Tillman 

and Jessica Lynch. We have seen what happened at GSA over 

Lorena Doan. We have seen what the Council for Environmental 

Quality in the White House did with respect to crossing out whole 

portions of the scientific reports on global warming. We have seen 

what the Department of Education did with respect to the Reading 

First Program. We have seen what the Vice President and his folks 

did with respect to the CIA, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

I am going to ask you a question that may sound sarcastic but 

it is not. Can you describe to me what you think may be some of 

the unique or special vulnerabilities that exist within the agency 

that is the focus today to this kind of political interference? 

In other words, if I was out to do the kind of distortion that you 

have described, what would be the most effective way for me to accomplish that? 

You have talked about phone calls actually coming into the field, 

telling people out in the field to change a number, to change a sentence, to change a conclusion. That seems pretty heavy-handed and 

not particularly sophisticated way of going about it. But describe 

to me, what are the particular vulnerabilities that this agency has, 

that this program has to this kind of interference? We will start 

with you. 

Mr. RUCH. Scientific careers are delicate things, and a career can 

be derailed in a lot of way that isn’t even considered a formal personnel action. So suddenly not being invited to conferences, being 

forbidden from making presentations, those sort of things are the—

and preventing them from publishing—are the kind of things that 

are generally unchallengeable, management discretion that are life 

and death decisions for that scientist’s career. 

There is another layer, and that is the scientists have almost no 

legal protection. Generally, what the conflict is—these scientists 

they are not whistleblowers. They are not trying to go on 60 Minutes. They are just trying to do their job, and there is no overall 

protection for these scientists who are basically just trying to do 

what they have always done, and for the most part the people that 

we see are utterly stunned in that they were doing the same thing 

they were always doing. They just weren’t paying attention to the 

political whims behind them, and when they suddenly recognize 

that they were institutionally inconvenient, it sort of shattered 

their entire world. 

An additional problem is the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, 

Justice Alito’s first swing vote, that ruled that government employees at all levels of government lack any First Amendment protection when they are speaking as government employees. That is sort 

of a devastating decision in terms of the role, and the rationale was 

because government owns their speech. 

So for people to enjoy constitutional protection, they almost have 

to kind of stand up and rebel, which is itself a stance fraught with 

professional danger, and then you add onto that the utter, almost 

121

inapplicability of whistle blower statutes. So traditionally under 

the Civil Service Law, in order to be a whistle blower somebody 

has to be reporting a violation of law, and imminent danger, gross 

waste or mismanagement, taking out a key recommendation. Watering down a methodology, suppressing information usually 

doesn’t rise to that level. 

So for the most part you have people that are going into battle 

that don’t even think that there is supposed to be a fight without 

any arms. 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

Ms. CLARK. If I could respond to that. I think what is most 

chilling to me, having spent a lot of time in Federal government, 

is there is something special about a career biologist, a career scientist. They are incredibly passionate, incredibly committed, and 

they want to be heard. That doesn’t mean that their decision rules 

or their recommendation rules, and that is not what we are talking 

about here because, you know, it is important. I mean, let me give 

you some of the sound bites I have heard. 

It is things like ‘‘I have never seen such disregard for career 

biologist opinion. I have never been so summarily dismissed,’’ and 

then when you have two of the highest ranking career officials 

remove from their positions, after considerable long careers, highly 

recognized, highly respected, and shunted off into other positions, 

that sends this reverberating chill through the agency that is 

indescribable. 

Many of these biologists are single income or balancing dual 

careers, which is very difficult to balance dual careers in geographic locations, and so what I hear is, you know, it is easier to 

shut up. It is amazing that there are decisions being made that career people aren’t even signing off on anymore. 

It is one thing to have a recommendation bubble up to Washington and have a policy decision to do something different, that 

is the right of the political appointee. It is another thing to call 

down into the ranks of the—I mean, for a GS-9 to get a call from 

a deputy assistant secretary is pretty overwhelming, and the way 

that the Service deals with that, which I have found really interesting, is when they are under fire they start—I mean, you see it 

in the work that UCS computed. 

What they put on e-mail is truly a cry for help, you know. ‘‘Per 

Julie, change this.’’ So it is very clear to anybody that is watching 

that that is what has triggered it. You know, there were times during my time at the Department where decisions did not follow the 

recommendations of the career biologists, but I do not recall one instance where we forced the changed of the underpinning information. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you for your testimony. I think I am out 

of time. 

Ms. GRIFO. Can I also? 

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, can we get one more response? 

Yes. 

Ms. GRIFO. OK, thank you very much. 

I just want to further emphasize some of the things that my colleagues have made, and I would just direct you to—from our Fish 

and Wildlife Service survey that we did. One of the questions is an 

122

open-ended essay question, and all of the responses from the scientists are on our website, and there are hundreds of them, and 

you will hear, you know, in their own words what you have heard 

echoed here. 

But I would also like to broaden it out somewhat because I believe that vulnerability exists wherever you have science-based 

agencies. I believe that, in particular, you know, Fish and Wildlife 

is subject to this because it is a regulatory agency. It is what we 

are seeing at the Food and Drug Administration. It is what we are 

beginning to investigate at the Environmental Protection Agency, 

and so on. 

So I think there is special vulnerabilities when you have a 

science agency that is mixed with the regulatory function because 

when we look at some of the other purely science-based agencies, 

the National Science Foundation, a great deal of USGS, we are not 

seeing problems to this degree. So it isn’t something that is inherent in a Federal scientist. It really has to do, I think, very much 

with that regulatory action. 

I would just close by saying that we have now surveyed or asked 

this question to nine different agencies, and we have 700 scientists 

that have come back and said to us, ‘‘I am afraid to talk about the 

mission-driven work of my agency for fear of retaliation.’’ That is 

huge. 

Mr. SARBANES. Those are very helpful answers. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just note, the last time I checked we were 

trying to recruit more people in math and science and technology 

in this country in order to compete, and obviously what we have 

heard described today is not helping us with that at all. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. 

I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Napolitano. Oh, 

I am sorry, I am sorry. Excuse me, excuse me. The gentleman from 

Washington, Mr. Inslee is recognized who has also been very patient and attentive all morning. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Ms. Scarlett, my name is Jay Inslee. I represent part of the State 

of Washington. We care very strongly, my constituents, about the 

Evergreen State. We want the Federal government to follow the 

law in protection of our salmon, and our orcas and our owls and 

our murrelets, and the sad fact is that under your leadership, we 

have negligence, incompetence, and political hackery. 

I have to tell you that I am more upset after this hearing than 

I was beginning listening to this situation because a fish rots from 

hits head, and this Julie MacDonald situation is not some rogue 

employee that has run countercurrent to this administration and 

this leadership, and you have shown a stunning lack of awareness 

of that or willingness to deal with this situation, and I want to 

know about your involvement in these decisions. 

I am told that you are Julie MacDonald’s supervisor, or at least 

in her management above her, is that correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am not her supervisor. I am as Deputy Secretary, of course, the number two in the department. She reports 

or she reported to the acting assistant secretary and/or assistant 

secretary. 

123

Mr. INSLEE. And were you the person who specifically refused to 

follow scientific information when you were on this ‘‘Washington 

Oversight Committee’’ that overruled the scientists and the recovery team that worked assiduously to create an option for the Spotted Owl recovery plan, and you came back and told them that you 

didn’t want them to have a recovery with designated territory for 

the owl? You wanted a different approach, and said that you should 

look at new science even though those scientists specifically told 

you that that science should not be perverted to be used to do exactly what you did. Was that you who did that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. That is wildly incorrect. We have a recovery team, 

a recovery planning team that prepared a draft recovery plan for 

the Northern Spotted Owl. When we met with that team as they 

presented the draft to a group of us, and I was part of that, I did 

three things. 

First, I commended them on an outstanding report. I did suggest 

as they go through the draft that they might want to re-organize 

it a little bit for clarity and readability. 

Second, in the report they noted that the Bard Owl was a significant threat to the Northern Spotted Owl, and yet the recovery plan 

actually presented no information on how to address the Bard Owl, 

so we asked if there was any science or any method to perhaps include Bard Owl and address that issue. 

And the third thing that we did was to say, given that this is 

a very large landscape scale challenge, would it be possible, and it 

was a question, would it be possible to develop a second option—

one option that was based on lines on a map for conservation areas 

and a second that would be based on performance rules and an 

adaptive management approach. 

They presented us with a final draft, which included both options, the original and that one. The science was absolutely 

unaltered and remained the same in both of them. 

Mr. INSLEE. You were specifically told that the southern range 

information should not be used to eliminate the mapped owl recovery areas, and that is exactly what you suggested to be done, and 

in fact the option that was generated eliminated the owl 

recovery——

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, that is inaccurate. That is simply inaccurate. 

Mr. INSLEE. OK, well, let me ask you. Did the option two eliminate the mapped owl recovery areas? Just tell me. Did it or not? 

Ms. SCARLETT. What option two does is to present using the 

exact same science in an adaptive management approach. 

Mr. INSLEE. Listen. I am going to ask the question. 

Ms. SCARLETT. So we have retained both options——

Mr. INSLEE. You will excuse me, but I will ask the questions. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes. 

Mr. INSLEE. We have a ceratin responsibility in this democracy 

and right now I will be asking them and you will be answering 

them. 

Ms. SCARLETT. That is right, and I——

Mr. INSLEE. And my question is did option two eliminate the 

mapped owl recovery areas? Yes or no? 

124

Ms. SCARLETT. Option two presents an adaptive management approach to addressing the recover of the Spotted Owl using the same 

science. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am going to ask this question until I get an answer. Did the option two eliminate the mapped owl recovery areas? 

Let us get this over. It did, didn’t it? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Option two is an adaptive management approach. 

Mr. INSLEE. It eliminated the mapped owl recovery areas, didn’t 

it? 

Ms. SCARLETT. It is an adaptive management approach. 

Mr. INSLEE. And your answer is yes, isn’t that, correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, these are management options. They are not 

about science. The science is the same in both of them. And so my 

answer to you, if you are asking about any change in science, there 

was no change in science. They read exactly the same. 

Mr. INSLEE. Ma’am. 

Ms. SCARLETT. One uses lines on a map for the management approach, and the other uses an adaptive management approach. 

This was agreed upon by the recovery plan team in full, and both 

options are in the recovery plan proposal on the street. 

Mr. INSLEE. Ma’am, you have grossly undervalued my sense of 

persistence and patients. A mapped out recovery area is an area 

commonly defined in the English language and in biology—my dad 

was a biology teacher so I have some background—that basically 

gives a geographic protection of the range of the Spotted Owl. That 

is very important as the science have told you on repeated occasions. 

When the scientists in the recovery team came to you and suggested an option that retained those MOCAs, mapped owl recovery 

areas, you, as a political appointee without a science degree, came 

back and said that is not good enough for us. Send us an option 

that does not include mapped owl recovery areas, and I am going 

to ask you a really simple question, and there is no excuse not to 

answer this yes or no. 

Does option two include mapped owl recovery areas? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, option two is an adaptive management approach and no scientist at anytime came to us and said we absolutely needed the mapped approach. That is simply an inaccurate 

statement. 

Mr. INSLEE. Ms. Scarlett, I was hopeful going into this hearing 

that this debacle at the Department under the leadership of the 

new Secretary of Interior that we would hope to reorient this agency to do the job for the American people. But your abject refusal 

to even recognize a simple fact that because of your political decision you asked scientists to come back with something that eliminated the principal protection—let me finish. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, I did not do that. 

Mr. INSLEE. No, excuse me. 

Ms. SCARLETT. The premise is simply wrong, and I will not answer the question in that way. 

Mr. INSLEE. Fine. Well, I am just telling you I am still hopeful 

that the Secretary can help clean up this agency, but I think it 

would be helpful to have your resignation because you refuse to 

recognize how sick this situation is, and your refusal to cooperate 

125

on this issue in a host of ways, including the simple recognition of 

what happened here, I think you ought to give serious consideration to turn this post to somebody else who can help re-orient this 

agency. The country deserves it. The new Secretary deserves it. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, I uphold science and its integrity as an absolute imperative. The premise of your question is simply inaccurate. 

Whatever that information was provided to you is not accurate. 

I was at no time told that the mapped recovery option is the only 

scientifically valid option, and incidently, I do have a letter from 

someone on the recovery team who is alleged to have made that 

comment, and who categorically refutes it. 

Mr. INSLEE. I would have more. My time is expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Napolitano. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

What I am hearing and what I have been listening to on the 

video conference is very, very distressing. The administration during the last several months, I believe it is Ms. Scarlett, de-listed 

the Virginia Northern Planes Squirrel, has de-listed the grizzly 

bear, and is talking about down listing the Manatee. Meanwhile, 

there are a number of other candidate species that are eligible for 

listing. It is growing. But there is no effort being made to list any 

of these. 

How are we going to recover endangered species if they are not 

listed? Some day the human being species may be on the endangered list. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Let me say first that the decisions on the Grizzly 

and the other species that you mentioned are—since the matter 

here is a discussion of science—each of those species, according to 

the Fish and Wildlife Service and with no interjection or intervention from Washington, had determined that those species had met 

their recovery goal. According to the Act, therefore, they moved, 

and this has been a many, many, many year process in the making 

for several of those species, they moved toward proposing those delistings. 

With the Manatee, that has not yet occurred. What has come out 

is a five-year status review of the Manatee. That is a science report, and that science report indicates that the trends for the Manatee show that it is not any longer in danger of extinction. But 

whether they act upon that to actually propose a de-listing or a 

down listing, I believe in the case in question, has not yet been undertaken. 

The Service does continue to list species, and it has a balancing 

act of doing the critical habitat designations, recovery planning. I 

am pleased to say they have accomplished by 2008 some 88 percent 

of all species listed more than two and a half years will have a recovery plan, and that is an extraordinarily important step in the 

protection of these species. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Well, then I would pose the question to you, 

what happened to the Bull Trout? I am reading some of the testimony that he submitted for today’s hearing. He is former Bull 

Trout coordinator of Fish and Wildlife Service and discussed the 

role the scientists played in providing peer review for the recovery 

plan, and a five-year status review for the Bull Trout. That was 

back in 2004. 

126

Ms. SCARLETT. I am not familiar with the Bull Trout issue that 

you are describing in particular. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I am sorry. 

Ms. SCARLETT. We can get more information for you. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. OK, because I would like to have that writing 

because despite those efforts the recovery in the five-year species 

review were never finalized, and I would like to have that in writing, Mr. Chair. 

And I certainly, listening to the gentlemen, I would hope that 

nothing ever deters a public servant from talking to a Member of 

Congress. I don’t care if they call them a whistle blower. They need 

to help us protect our species, and help us be able to hold administrators accountable. That is the role we should be playing. There 

should be no deviation from that. That is law, and we should not 

deviate from that, and I would admonish any administrator that 

they should also keep in mind that they work for the general public. Although the administration may have appointed them, their 

responsibility is to the citizens and to those charges that they have 

been given. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady. The Chair has a housekeeping matter. We do have a series of votes on the House Floor 

currently underway. The Committee will stand in recess until 1:30, 

and would ask this panel, I know it has been a long morning and 

we appreciate your patience and responses, if you would come back 

at that time because there are a second round of questions from 

members that are not here now but they will return at that time 

to ask a second round of questions. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO [presiding]. The Committee come back to order. 

Chairman Rahall will be back around 2 o’clock, and I will chair 

during the interim, so we will pick up where we left off. Are we 

on the Republican round or the Democratic round? Do you know? 

Mr. SALI. I think it is your turn. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. All right, all right. Thank you. 

Mr. SALI. And then it is mine. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, I understand that. I was being fair there in 

asking. I left when Grace was asking questions. 

I would like to address some further questions to Ms. Scarlett. 

The oversight team which you chair, how do they each decisions? 

What sort of process do you follow? Is it consensus? Do you have 

votes? How do you do it? 

Ms. SCARLETT. You are talking about the Northern Spotted Owl 

recovery team oversight group? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Ms. SCARLETT. OK, because that——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, there is an oversight committee that has a 

list of people, Jim Case and Lynn Scarlett, David Verde, Julie MacDonald, Julie Jacobson, et cetera, et cetera, that I assume that is 

that group. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, and that group, just for clarification, is solely 

focused on the Northern Spotted Owl recovery plan. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Good. 

127

Ms. SCARLETT. It is not a standing committee that does other 

things. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Basically, what it really is is a review team more 

than an oversight team I would characterize it as. There is a recovery planning team. That team includes many scientists, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service leads that team, but it also has representatives from the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, 

and other entities. They worked out in the Northwest to develop a 

recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. They brought in that 

recovery plan in draft form for the oversight team to review. 

One of the reasons that that review is so important——

Mr. DEFAZIO. And that is the plan that was rejected and sent 

back, and when they asked for modifications? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Well, let me clarify because it really was not rejected and sent back. It was an excellent plan in a draft form, 

which I verbally praised because it was an excellent plan, but there 

were, as I said earlier, three challenges to it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Ms. SCARLETT. On, in its structure it was difficult to read. It was 

organized in a kind of backwards way, so we suggested that when 

they go back and do the redraft they write it in a different order, 

same words, but different order. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. 

Ms. SCARLETT. As I mentioned——

Mr. DEFAZIO. I understand. 

Ms. SCARLETT. OK. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And at what point did you ask for option two to 

be developed? 

Ms. SCARLETT. So at that meeting in which we had the Forest 

Service and the Bureau of Land Management and others reviewing 

the option one, I believe it might have been the Forest Service that 

asked the team or the two representatives who were there presenting it, they asked them—you have presented a plan that actually draws lines on a map for the recovery areas. Is there a way 

to do this differently? Are there other options? 

And the team said this is just one option. There are other ways 

to go about doing this recovery. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The team of scientists in the Northwest by consensus said that they thought there were other options available? 

Ms. SCARLETT. The individuals, the two individuals that were 

representing the team at that meeting. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So two individuals who were representing that 

team made that recommendation. OK. 

So when you asked for development of the second option, see how 

accurate you think this is. This is from a chronology provided by 

the Audubon Society, and they say, October 26-27, full team met. 

‘‘Mr. Lohoefner admitted Forest Service, BLM, were driving the recovery plan revisions demanded by the oversight committee,’’ which 

is consistent with what you just said, ‘‘and stated that the end 

product would have to be flexible enough to be acceptable to the 

Forest Service and BLM.’’

Is that correct? I mean, that is sort of what you are saying, that 

they wanted that. 

128

Ms. SCARLETT. I can’t speak to the conversation that Rhen might 

have had. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Ms. SCARLETT. All I know is what we discussed at the meeting 

that I attended. I can’t speak to conversations that Rhen or others 

had subsequent to that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. But prior to that, on October 19, there was 

an e-mail from the Pacific Region office that said, ‘‘The team will 

no longer make decisions by consensus.’’ Is that correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I don’t know. I don’t recall. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. But it seems like you usurped their decisionmaking process. Then we had two members of the team in Washington who agreed to be driven by the Forest Service and/or BLM 

at some level. We are not certain which. 

Then it went on to say, and to quote, ‘‘Ensure we are exploring 

the options described by the decisionmakers.’’ That would be the 

oversight team, is that correct, the decisionmakers? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I would assume they are referencing the——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Well, this is not an official Wildlife Service 

memo. Maybe you are not particularly familiar with that, but it 

seems like that would probably refer to the oversight, the oversight 

team. 

Now, the oversight team, it seems, got a little later on a bit more 

prescriptive about what they wanted in option two, which was in 

fact e-mails that came, and I believe one of them was, and I have 

moved places here so all my voluminous papers are—here we go. 

‘‘We just received new direction from Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary of the Interior, concerning the NSO recovery plan.’’ We are 

now into early January. It says, ‘‘Both options are due in Washington by February 5. These options are to address the recent direction we received from D.C. Two Word files are attached below.’’

And it is very specific about de-linking option one, and I mean, 

there is very many prescriptive sorts of things. So you are saying 

this was generated locally by the scientists and at the direction or, 

or just sort of the inquiry about a little more flexibility for Forest, 

but this is awfully prescriptive. There is actually five major points 

here about how you would develop option two, which are very prescriptive. 

Do you remember that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I do not, and as a matter of fact, the meeting that 

I attended we did not give prescriptions. Again, we simply said is 

there a way to do another option. We think it is good policymaking 

on something this complex to be able to have several options to 

consider, all of which used the same science and are focused on recovery. 

That particular memo may be somebody’s notes or——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Wesley, and it has dates and, you know, all 

the facts. 

Ms. SCARLETT. I don’t know what they are but I certainly never 

gave any five-point directive or seven-point directive or whatever it 

is. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. But now that essentially option two has become the preferred alternative of the oversight group, how did you 

129

reach the determination? Was that again by consensus or vote or 

did it just sort of come out? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I don’t know that that is correct. I believe that 

the recovery plan that is out for review, the proposed recovery plan 

puts both options forward. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So then you are not favoring option two at this 

point in time? They are both out for discussion? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I believe they are both out for discussion. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. What science was used—we have talked a lot 

about science to develop option two, because there are—it says 

here, and this is another memo, this is earlier—sorry to jump 

around. This is dated October 18, and this was after the first discussion in Washington about maybe having some more flexibility 

and asking that the draft be somewhat revised. 

And point 1[a] is emphasized, ‘‘The new science indicating habitat variability across the range and de-emphasize the past.’’

Ms. SCARLETT. Let me clarify again. The science for both options, 

both the MOCA option, the mapped owl conservation area option, 

and option two utilize the same science, but that science that you 

are referencing pertains to there had been an earlier perspective 

that owls favored only old growth forest areas. 

Some more recent science suggests that that picture is much 

more complex. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And so the recent science would be then references 

to the Olsen study, and the Franklin study, is that correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Well, those seem to be what is being relied 

upon here since they are the only two studies extant recently in the 

literature which questioned the range and viability. 

Ms. SCARLETT. And they were relied upon, by the way, for both 

options. I want to underscore that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, that is unfortunate because the author of the 

Olsen study says, and it says actually within the published version, 

‘‘We do not recommend that the forest managers use our modeling 

results as a prescription for managing habitat either within the Oregon coast range or elsewhere until similar studies have been conducted. Likewise, the small amount of variability in fitness parameters attributable to habitat variables in our models should not be 

used to argue that habitat has little influence on owl demography.’’

So I guess maybe we relied more on the second one from Mr. 

Franklin since that one says don’t use this to change anything. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir. Sir, the recovery planning team utilized the 

science that it had available, the best available science. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So your review group just sort of cursory——

Ms. SCARLETT. We did not——

Mr. DEFAZIO.—and you didn’t really review these things——

Ms. SCARLETT. We did not——

Mr. DEFAZIO.—and you don’t understand the underlying science. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, we did not question the science that was presented to us. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, but if this is accurate. 

Ms. SCARLETT. The report——

130

Mr. DEFAZIO. If that is the science that was used and the scientist who created it said that, do you think you should base a plan 

on it? 

Ms. SCARLETT. The plan, it is my understanding in my discussions with the Fish and Wildlife Service, is not based on a single 

scientific study. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. No, we have a second one. Here we go. 

Ms. SCARLETT. But rather——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Franklin is the only other—Allen Franklin—

the only other study extant which questions this same, the habitat, 

and he says in a letter, as he and his co-authors have repeatedly 

noted, their data is just a first approximation and ‘‘in itself should 

not be considered definitive.’’

So the science on which option two is based, the authors of the 

science say it shouldn’t be based there, but you are saying that we 

had spontaneous movement in this direction, just a couple members of the team showed up and the Forest Service——

Ms. SCARLETT. No. 

Mr. DEFAZIO.—and BLM, and it was not directed by you or anybody else on this oversight team that this option be developed, that 

you follow this new science, and all that it is just sort of a coincidence we ended up here. 

Ms. SCARLETT. No, sir, that is not what I am saying. What I am 

saying is that there is science on the Spotted Owl and the kind of 

habitat it needs, and the kind of threats that it has. The recovery 

planning team looks at the composite of that information. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, what does your group do in terms of looking 

at the work of that team? 

Ms. SCARLETT. And then that group wrote a draft recovery plan. 

That plan——

Mr. DEFAZIO. We are repeating ourselves. We are up to the current——

Ms. SCARLETT. If you would like to understand the process, I am 

trying to go through it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Because it was really fairly straightforward. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Very. 

Ms. SCARLETT. The material comes in. We look at it. It looked 

good. It looked as though it was going to be at least a way from 

a land management standpoint to try to achieve recovery goals. 

But because we are talking about a large landscape scale, because 

we also were told, including in the recovery plan science information itself, that this was a dynamic situation, and that they were 

learning more about the bird, we asked in light of that whether it 

would be prudent to have an adaptive management approach. 

Those at the table said we can go back to the group and see so 

that——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Who were those at the table? Which two members 

of the team? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I don’t recall. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. SCARLETT. It was the Fish and Wildlife Service, the lead——

Mr. DEFAZIO. It would be useful for you to provide those names 

to the Committee. 

131

Ms. SCARLETT. We could provide that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Ms. SCARLETT. And those individuals said we can explore this. 

We will go back to the recovery planning team. They did and the 

recovery——

Mr. DEFAZIO. And are you aware that the team by consensus, 

which was no longer allowed having adopted the further one, was 

not very happy with this directive? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I don’t know their disposition. I did not speak to 

them directly, but what I am told is that they rolled up their 

sleeves and they developed a second option, and I am told that at 

least at the point in time at which it was advanced to us that there 

had been consensus on that option. 

Again, remembering that like the NEPA process where we ask 

ourselves for good management decisions to have options, this was 

about giving us some choices to reflect on, and the public because 

both options are out for public review. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. This has nothing to do with the desire of the 

agencies to target the last remaining old growth in Pacific Northwest and a desire of those agencies to pick up the harvest by targeting those areas. Nothing at all. 

Ms. SCARLETT. I believe——

Mr. DEFAZIO. This is all about the owl and its recovery and the 

ecosystem. 

Ms. SCARLETT. I believe the agencies in question who have large 

areas of land to manage up there were looking for recovery planning options that would give them some guidance and ability to 

help both fulfill their mission and at the same time——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, unfortunately, there is also a legal mission 

that is required. 

Ms. SCARLETT.—recover the——

Mr. DEFAZIO. And I am afraid you are going to be tested legally 

if you pursue option two, and I think you would be found wanting 

and we will be back right where we were with Cy Jamison in Bush 

one which is under injunction and losing what little timber harvest 

we have left. 

Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. Sali. 

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Scarlett, I just want to state for the record that I appreciate 

your effort to respond today in spite of being cut off repeatedly, in 

spite of being, I think, really demeaned today, and I want you to 

know I appreciate your service to the country, and the difficult job 

that you have. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you. 

Mr. SALI. Ms. Clark, do you believe that science is the factor that 

should drive all determinations for a listing? 

Ms. CLARK. I think, Congressman, that science is the foundation 

upon which decisions are made, and by law the decision on whether or not to add a species to the list is by law made on the best 

available science. 

Mr. SALI. And that should be our sole criteria for a listing? 

Ms. CLARK. For determining whether or not a species should be 

afforded legal protection, it is science. 

132

Mr. SALI. And do you think the same thing is true for designation of critical habitat? 

Ms. CLARK. Well, by law, designation of critical habitat is based 

on the best available science, and scientific and economic considerations, and so that is a part of the law where economics, the economic impacts and benefits are weighed as well. 

Mr. SALI. And so we shouldn’t just use science when we are making a determination for critical habitat for a listed species, is that 

correct? 

Ms. CLARK. Oh, current law suggests otherwise. Current law allows for both science and the economics to be factored in. 

Mr. SALI. And when the agency is carrying out a five-year species 

review, should science, best available science be the sole standard 

that we make those determinations by, whether there should be a 

change or not? 

Ms. CLARK. When determining whether a species is endangered 

or threatened, science should be the dominant factor. 

Mr. SALI. I am asking about the five-year species review that the 

agency is required to——

Ms. CLARK. Well, the five-year species review is to determine status. Is an endangered species still endangered? 

Mr. SALI. Right. 

Ms. CLARK. Should it be threatened? That, sir, is a scientific underpinning because it is the status of the species that is being evaluated. 

Mr. SALI. And Dr. Grifo, do you agree with the comments that 

Ms. Clark just made? 

Ms. GRIFO. I do. 

Mr. SALI. So that best available science should be the sole factor 

for listing. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. GRIFO. That is the law. 

Mr. SALI. And you believe that for designation of critical habitat 

it is best available science and economic considerations I think——

Ms. GRIFO. That is the legislative framework we have, and I 

think that underscores why it is so important that we get the best 

available science, and have that, because it is so important in making these decisions. 

Mr. SALI. And best available science should drive the species review whether to continue a listing in its then current form or 

change it to some other designations. You agree with that? 

Ms. GRIFO. I would agree with Jamie Clark, yes. 

Mr. SALI. And so for both of you, I guess I am asking, do you 

think we ought to just follow part of the law or all of the law? 

Ms. CLARK. Do you think we should just? I didn’t hear. 

Mr. SALI. Should the Fish and Wildlife Service be required to follow all of the law or just part of the law, or can we just pick and 

choose what we want to follow? 

Ms. CLARK. Well, it never occurred to me that agencies could pick 

and choose what part of Federal law they would want to follow, sir. 

So my assumption is that the Fish and Wildlife Service would follow all the laws that they are charged with overseeing. 

Mr. SALI. Well, I am looking at 16 U.S.C. 1531[b] which deals 

with the listing decision, and it requires, and I am quoting from 

133

the statute, the determination be made ‘‘solely on the basis of the 

best science and commercial data available.’’

Commercial data, does that indicate to you that there is some 

economic impact in the listing decision or not? 

Ms. CLARK. It does not actually. The commercial data part of 

that, I believe, was intended to take into account international 

commerce, trade, and things like that. It was never to bring into 

account the economic impacts of——

Mr. SALI. You would agree that that is not best available science 

though when we start talking about those areas, correct? 

Ms. CLARK. Well, it affects the status of the species. Absolutely, 

I would agree that it does that. 

Mr. SALI. And so it would be correct——

Ms. CLARK. The trade in the species, the commercial impacts of 

utilization of the species, that is the kind of commercial——

Mr. SALI. It would be correct to say—I am sorry. It would be correct to say that best available science is not the sole driving consideration under a listing decision because the law requires inclusion 

of commercial data available in making and conducting that decision, correct? 

Ms. GRIFO. The other part of that is that, you know, for many 

species the science is part of that commercial data. I mean, that 

commercial data is often based on a scientific process, and I think, 

you know, the source is not nearly as important as making sure 

that we have a direct conduit——

Mr. SALI. I want to make sure——

Ms. GRIFO.—from the suppliers to the process. 

Mr. SALI. OK, on that point I want to make sure I understand. 

You are saying that that trade between countries is a scientific determination. 

Ms. GRIFO. No. What I am saying is that in certain instances 

commercial data may also be related to scientific information. Fisheries, for example, a lot of the information that we have on fisheries is very well collected under a commercial framework. That is 

all we are saying, and that in many instances——

Mr. SALI. Wouldn’t that be scientific information though at that 

level? 

Ms. GRIFO. Well, if it is peer reviewed, if it goes through a scientific process. You know, there are other determinants of what is 

science. If it is evidence-driven, if it——

Mr. SALI. Other determinants. So you would be changing your 

testimony about——

Ms. GRIFO. No. 

Mr. SALI.—best available science? 

Ms. GRIFO. If it is evidence-driven, you know, it becomes part of 

a scientific process. 

Mr. SALI. Well, is it science or is it commercial data? 

Ms. GRIFO. In some instances, it could be both, and that is not 

a detriment to the science nor is that a detriment to the commercial data. It is simply an instance in which population information 

is sometimes based on fisheries’ data on catches. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So your testimony is that——

Ms. GRIFO. But traditionally in the Act——

Mr. DEFAZIO.—commercial data is science? 

134

Ms. GRIFO. No, that is not what I have said. Let me be clear. We 

can talk about a definition of science and what is a scientific process and what is not a scientific process, and then we can take that 

framework and we can look at what comes in from commercial 

sources, and we can evaluate through a scientific process, through 

an evidence-driven process whether that is appropriate information 

to take into account. That is all I am saying. 

Mr. SALI. Should commercial data, as required by the statute, be 

included in the listing decision that is not scientific data? 

Ms. CLARK. It hasn’t thus far. I mean, I am not sure I am following your question, Congressman. But the clause, the listing criteria, the clause that we are talking about, the link of the commercial data is to the science status of the species, and that science 

process that informs the decision. They aren’t independent issues 

that are weighed. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, do you believe that science or commercial 

data? 

Ms. CLARK. I believe that commercial——

Mr. DEFAZIO. The information you are talking about that should 

be considered. 

Ms. CLARK. It all relates to the status. Science which can subsume the commercial information is what informs the decision on 

status of a species. 

Mr. SALI. Do I understand your testimony then to be that notion 

of commercial data is just surplusage in the language of the statute? 

Ms. CLARK. No, not at all. I would agree 100 percent with Dr. 

Grifo’s recitation of the fisheries instance, for example. 

Mr. SALI. Well, let me approach this just a little differently here. 

When you were hired by the Defenders of Wildlife, do you believe 

that that organization took your political views into account in 

making that decision? 

Ms. CLARK. That was never a part of my interview. No, I don’t 

believe that they did. 

Mr. SALI. Do you think it is very likely that Ms. Scarlett would 

be hired ever by the Defenders of Wildlife? 

Ms. CLARK. I wouldn’t suggest one way or the other. I would certainly—I am not the hiring official, but certainly I believe that Secretary Scarlett could—I would love for her to apply. I mean, you 

know, that would be fine. 

What is important to people——

Ms. SCARLETT. I might be looking for a job after this meeting. 

Ms. CLARK. That is right. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CLARK. That is right. What is important to Defenders of 

Wildlife, if we want to talk about my organization, is a commitment and a passion to conserve wild plants and animals in their 

natural communities. 

Mr. SALI. Do you think there is a political dynamic in this hearing today? 

I mean, it seems like the people on this side of the benches tend 

to agree more maybe with the work that Ms. Scarlett has done, and 

the folks on that side tend to agree with the points that you are 

trying to bring. 

135

Do you think there is a political element in this hearing today? 

Ms. CLARK. Well, actually, Congressman, what is interesting for 

me is it seems like it is not much difference in that in previous congresses it was just literally flipped. 

Mr. SALI. And so the politics—I guess my point is this. You represent, and Dr. Grifo, I would be happy to hear your comments on 

this as well, you represent nonprofit organizations that in my view 

pretty clearly have a political bent, and your testimony before us 

is that we are encouraged to believe essentially your position, and 

not trust what the Fish and Wildlife Service has been doing, and 

so I am wondering if it is OK for politics to be a part of your organization, and for you to come and advocate certain things in front 

of this Committee, but it is not OK for the government agencies to 

have anything political as a part of their work on the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Why is it we should take your testimony as the gospel truth and 

follow everything you suggest, and not listen to the agency? Why 

is it OK for there to be politics involved in your opinions but not 

in the government agency? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am going to suggest that you want to hold that 

thought because I went over by six minutes, the gentleman’s——

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that you went over 

by five minutes your first turn, and by nine minutes your second. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Nine? 

Mr. SALI. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, we will give you—OK, I thought it was six. I 

must have gotten it upside down. Let us hear the answer, please. 

Ms. CLARK. I will give you a couple of answers to that. 

First, yes, I am representing proudly Defenders of Wildlife, but 

I am also representing a 20-year career in the Federal government, 

including a big chunk of time as both a career biologist and as director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. So I believe I come with 

more than just my Defenders of Wildlife knowledge. 

Yes, I think it is a huge disappointment that we have reduced 

the importance of a law like the Endangered Species Act to a political debate. This is not about making ‘‘political decisions’’ based on 

a science framework. Administration after administration has the 

opportunity to do that. Some get caught. Some go through the 

gauntlet. 

What we are talking about is if in fact the science underpinning 

by which political appointees make decisions has been tinkered 

with or disrupted to change the foundation. That is what I presumed this hearing was about. It is not to suggest that political appointees of either party can’t make a decision. 

Mr. SALI. And Ms. Clark, I appreciate the comment that you just 

made because I do believe that this whole area is just riff with 

really partisanship and I want to state for the record that I do believe that the work of protecting species is important work. You 

know, whether we get into a debate about the law, whether we 

have commercial data or best available science as a standard, you 

know, is that really getting the job done, and I am not sure that 

it is. 

I hope you will excuse me today for, I think, what were some 

fairly pointed questions. My intent was to get to this notion that 

136

politics does seem to be driving this, and I am going to suggest on 

both sides of the aisle, and in the meantime the species that we 

all, I think, are hoping to protect are not getting the benefit of the 

best work that we can give them. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. GRIFO. Could I respond? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Who is that? We are way over, but just go ahead. 

Ms. GRIFO. Very quickly. Very, very quickly. 

I mean, I think that we can agree absolutely that obeying the 

law as written is not a partisan issue. I think we can agree that 

valuing the science is not a partisan issue. I mean, these are 

things, these are values that I think pervade, you know, both sides 

of the aisle, and very importantly. 

But I think the important thing here is that, you know, what we 

are bringing forward is not our word. You know, you don’t have to 

believe us. It is the documented examples of things like, you know, 

tract changes where the science is changed. I mean, that is clearly 

a partisan issue, and together we should agree that fixing that and 

making sure that that does not happen, because we all value the 

science, is an issue that is truly nonpartisan. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Ms. Scarlett, you have interjected some levity but I have to return to a real serious issue. First, I want to ask you what does 

MOCA mean in this context? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Mapped owl conservation area. 

Mr. INSLEE. Has that ever been changed to managed owl conservation area? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes. 

Mr. INSLEE. And in October 18, 2006, what was the definition of 

MOCA? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Say that again. 

Mr. INSLEE. In October 18, 2006, what was the definition of 

MOCA? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, I don’t know if there was a different—if that 

acronym was used with a different set of words at that time. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, it is either mapped or managed owl conservation areas, right, one of the two? 

Ms. SCARLETT. That is my recollection. 

Mr. INSLEE. And it is specifically designated geographic areas for 

the protection of Spotted Owls, right? 

Ms. SCARLETT. As used in the context of the recovery planning 

process, yes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Now, I had asked you earlier if your committee 

which you chair required the planning teams regionally to present 

to you an option that eliminated the MOCA concept. As best I 

could tell, you hadn’t. 

I want to refer you to a memo dated October 18, 2006, titled 

‘‘Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan Options’’. Have you seen 

that document before that is before you? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am looking at it right now, I think. 

Mr. INSLEE. I have been told that it is a memo generated by your 

committee and sent back to the region to basically encapsulate 

137

your direction to them from your committee, from this Washington 

Recovery Committee. Is that what that is? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I believe what this might be is a summary. It was 

not generated by me, but I believe subsequent to the meeting one 

of the members of the committee tried to summarize and capture 

what the discussion was, so I think it is better characterized not 

so much as a direction as it was a summary of what was the conversation on next steps. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, it says, ‘‘The recovery team will develop two 

options that tier off the existing draft recovery plan,’’ and then it 

has further information. 

Ms. SCARLETT. That is correct, and that was a summary of the 

conclusion of the meeting. 

Mr. INSLEE. And on page two, I refer you to paragraph two, 

which is option two as I understand. It says, ‘‘Provincial habitat 

targets,’’ and then it has bullets, and if you read along with me, 

it says, ‘‘Eliminate the MOCA concept and instead establish provincial habitat target.’’

Do you agree that is what it says? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I agree that is what it says. 

Mr. INSLEE. And wouldn’t you agree that this memo, which appears to be the summary of what you did, called for eliminating the 

MOCA concept? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No, I do not agree to that statement because we 

did not conclude that we would eliminate the concept. What we 

asked for was option one, which retained that concept, and then 

adding to that option two so that we would have two options to consider. 

Mr. INSLEE. And you ordered them to come up with an option 

two that eliminated the MOCA concept, didn’t you? 

Ms. SCARLETT. We asked them to come up with a concept that 

utilized adaptive management, sir, based on the same science foundation. If the issue today is the interference or changing of science, 

the science foundation, for anyone that reads both options, reads 

exactly the same. 

As managers and as the discussion that Mr. Sali just presented 

indicated, it is incumbent upon us to try and figure out what are 

the best management options to achieve recovery goals. We put 

forth—we asked the team to come up with two, the one they had 

originally come up with, and an alternative so that we could consider both, and that is what has been done. 

Mr. INSLEE. Ma’am, I have given you every chance in the world 

to honestly answer this question. 

Ms. SCARLETT. And that is an honest answer. 

Mr. INSLEE. Every chance in the world, including the memorandum from your own committee saying what you did. I am just 

telling——

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, that is an honest answer because if you look 

at this document, it includes option one, which still has the 

MOCAs, and therefore I am not going to sit before you and answer 

that we asked for the elimination of it. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am going to ask you one more time. Did you not 

ask for option two that would require the elimination of the MOCA 

138

concept, and that is the language of the memo? Did you not do 

that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. We asked for an option that did not use the 

MOCA concept. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. We could have saved 20 minutes if you 

had answered that question. 

Ms. SCARLETT. No, sir, if I may. 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me ask you one more question here. The Endangered Species Act, I assume you believe it gives the administration 

the authority to look at issues of habitat destruction and how that 

habitat has been destroyed, including cutting down old growth forests, is that correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Could you repeat that again? 

Mr. INSLEE. I am sorry. The Endangered Species Act gives the 

authority to the agency to consider issues of habitat destruction, including looking at reasons why habitat is being destroyed and how 

the Federal government can consider their preservation? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Absolutely the Act takes into account habitat 

modification and its impacts on species. 

Mr. INSLEE. And including how that habitat is being destroyed, 

correct? Like if you cut down the old growth, that is a thing to be 

concerned about. 

Ms. SCARLETT. The Act includes consideration of any changes in 

the habitat that might affect the species. 

Mr. INSLEE. OK. Then why is the agency taking such a shortsighted approach on Polar Bears and global warming? I want to 

read from a document dated December 27, 2006, for immediate release. It says, ‘‘Interior Secretary Kempthorne announces a proposal to list Polar Bears as threatened under Endangered Species 

Act,’’ and it says on page two, ‘‘While the proposal to list the 

species is threatened cites the threat of receding sea ice, it does not 

include a scientific analysis of the causes of climate change. That 

analysis is beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act review 

process which focuses on information about the Polar Bear and its 

habitat conditions, including sea ice.’’

Now, the fact of the matter is, is that global warming is causing 

the melting of the Arctic ice. The Polar Bear survival as a species 

is dependent upon the existence of that Arctic ice. Your administration under your leadership refuses to consider the human activities 

that are at least in part responsible for melting of the habitat that 

keeps these bears alive. 

Now, you just got done telling me that it is part of your job to 

look at habitat destruction and the reasons for that habitat destruction, and your refusal to look at the reasons why the Arctic 

ice is melting would be just as glaringly incompetent as refusals to 

look at clear cutting the old growth for Spotted Owls. 

Now, the fact of the matter is your administration under your 

leadership is refusing to consider the reason for the habitat destruction that could lead to the extinction of Polar Bears, isn’t that 

correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No, that is certainly not correct, sir. Since 2001, 

President Bush has affirmed that climate change is occurring, and 

that there are anthropogenic or human-caused reasons for that. 

139

I currently chair a climate change committee in the Department 

of the Interior with some 60 plus participants, including many U.S. 

Geological Survey scientists. We are looking at its impacts across 

the lands and waters that we manage. 

In the instance that you cite with respect to the Polar Bear, the 

entire focus of that proposed listing was indeed the change in habitat, the sea ice melting. The reason for the particular language that 

you cite there is that the Fish and Wildlife Service comprises biologists. Therefore, their scientific expertise is biology. They were able 

to import information about sea ice and sea ice melting, but they 

did not feel that they were competent to judge or write about the 

causes of climate change. That we look to our U.S. Geological Survey and many other bodies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change——

Mr. INSLEE. That is correct, and your approach is magnificently 

short-sighted because you do have the authority under this Act to 

have those other agencies of the government look at the causes of 

climate change and the reasons why the Arctic is melting, and you 

are sitting there telling me we can’t use taxpayer dollars to find 

out why the climate change is occurring——

Ms. SCARLETT. Sir, we are doing that. 

Mr. INSLEE.—under this—well, excuse me. Then I guess you 

are——

Ms. SCARLETT. We are absolutely doing that but in——

Mr. INSLEE. You are telling me this document then that came out 

of Secretary Kempthorne’s office dated December 27, 2006, is a 

bunch of hooey, is that what you are telling us? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No. What I am saying to you is that in the context of the Endangered Species Act, the Act directs the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to look at five factors that might affect species, one 

of which is habitat. 

So in the context of their proposed listing, they looked at habitat 

and they did write up significant comments with respect to sea ice, 

and the sea ice trends. But in the context of ESA, that is the limitation of what their charge is. 

Their charge is not in that document to turn around and re-do 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, but the 

administration and the Department are very actively engaged in 

that. In fact, we have frequent presentations by our U.S. Geological 

Survey people reporting on their science as it relates to that issue. 

Mr. INSLEE. I will just ask one more crack at this and then I 

will——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Excellent. 

Mr. INSLEE.—be finished. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. 

Do you agree or disagree with this document that came out of 

the Secretary’s office that said that a scientific analysis of the 

causes of climate change is beyond the scope of the Endangered 

Species Act? Do you agree or disagree with that statement? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I agree that that is an accurate statement. The 

focus of the ESA is on the habitat and the document clearly cites 

the change in habitat, including sea ice melting. It is not a forum 

for talking about larger climatology and atmospheric chemistry. 

There are places for that, and we are engaged in those efforts. 

140

Mr. INSLEE. I wish it was so, and thank you. You have given me 

two answers to the same question. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. If the gentleman can stay 

for a few moments. 

Mr. INSLEE. Briefly. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, Mr. Rahall is supposed to be here too, and 

I have 10 constituents waiting in my office. I am wondering if you 

would take the Chair, but let me just do some quick business. 

I have a unanimous consent request for a statement from Representative Saxton, a letter directed to Secretary Kempthorne from 

Wayne Gilchrest and Mr. Saxton, a statement by the Ranking 

Member Don Young, testimony by Robert Hallock, former Fish and 

Wildlife employee, and a statement by the Wildlife Society regarding the final TWS position statement on the Endangered Species 

Act, and without objection we will enter those into the record. 

[The information follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of New Jersey 

The Endangered Species Act is often called the ‘‘crown jewel’’ of our nation’s environmental laws because it is the only environmental statute that aims to protect 

both threatened and endangered species and the habitats on which they depend. 

The ESA has been a remarkably successful statute. It has saved many species from 

extinction and helped to restore such iconic wildlife as the gray wolf and bald eagle 

across much of their historic range. 

Congress remains committed to the goal of protecting endangered species for future generations of Americans, and it is important that the Administration and Congress work together to ensure that any changes in the way the Act is implemented 

be accomplished in the open and with full opportunity for public vetting. I have expressed my concerns over reports that the Administration is considering overhauling 

the Act through regulatory and policy changes. Congressman Gilchrist and I sent 

a letter to Secretary Kempthorne on April 18, 2007, regarding some troubling administrative policy changes to the ESA that were reported in the media, and I will 

submit that letter here for the record as well. 

I want to reiterate my opposition to any attempt to rewrite the ESA administratively, especially if those changes might weaken in any way the critical safety net 

that the ESA represents for species and habitat. While I am, of course, open to suggestions to improve implementation of the Act on the ground and strengthen its 

ability to recover species, any broad changes to the ESA should have full deliberation in Congress. 

I look forward to this hearing and to future dialogues over how we can best fulfill 

the promise of the ESA and protect America’s wildlife heritage. 

[The letter to DOI Secretary Kempthorne submitted for the 

record by Mr. Saxton follows:]

141


35221.008.eps
142

[The statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Don 

Young follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Republican,

Committee on Natural Resources 

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you for holding this hearing. I am one of 

only nine members of the current House of Representatives who voted for the Endangered Species Act in 1973. 

I supported that Act because I felt then, as I do now, that we have a responsibility 

to help conserve and restore wildlife species. It is for this reason why I have sponsored, co-sponsored and voted for efforts to protect a diverse group of species including elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, Great Apes, neotropical migratory birds and marine turtles. 


35221.009.eps
143

Having said that, I can assure everyone within the sound of my voice that no one 

who voted for this legislation ever envisioned that this Act would be used to smash 

the dreams of millions of Americans. 

Our forefathers who sacrificed everything for our freedom would be shocked to 

learn that Americans are unable to fully utilize their property because of a blind 

salamander, fairy shrimp, fountain daters, ground beetles and kangaroo rats. 

In fact, there are 2,489 domestic and foreign species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service has designed critical habitat for 487 

species. Yet, despite spending billions of dollars, designating millions of acres of critical habitat and disturbing the lives of millions of property owners who must, in 

some cases, pay extortion fees to develop their land, only 8 domestic species have 

ever been ‘‘recovered’’ in more than 30 years. 

There is no question that politics and not the Department of the Interior are running the Endangered Species Act. It has been hijacked by misguided federal judges 

and radical environmental organizations whose sole interest is not to recover species 

but to gouge themselves on taxpayer money. The Fish and Wildlife Service has not 

initiated a listing decision on its own since 1995. Instead of recovering species, the 

Service must spend its merger dollars preparing and defending themselves against 

an endless barrage of lawsuits. It has gotten so bad that the Service has now hired 

a full-time attorney that does nothing except monitor the legal filings against the 

agency. 

This is not a new problem. It started in the Clinton Administration and has continued unabated in the Bush Administration. Organizations, like the Center for Biological Diversity, know they can go to federal court and sue the agency over a listing 

or critical habitat designation. They know they will win, they will be handsomely 

compensated for suing and they can then hire more lawyers to file or threaten to 

file more lawsuits. Meanwhile, species continue to languish on the Endangered 

Species Act with little, if any, hope of ever recovering. 

In my own State, the National Marine Fisheries Service is investigating whether 

beluga whales in the Cook Inlet should be listed on the Endangered Species Act. 

The agency is responding to a petition filed by an organization that has a political 

agenda of driving a stake in the heart of economic development in Alaska. This Act 

has become a powerful weapon to stop or limit development in this country. 

Mr. Chairman, instead of criticizing political appointees within the Department 

of the Interior for doing their job, this institution would be better served by asking 

how we can improve the Endangered Species Act. There is no one who can objectively say that this program is working effectively with a less than 1 percent recovery rate because the only entity that is profiting from the Act are those groups who 

endlessly sue the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

In the past four years, millions of dollars has been paid to litigants in hundreds 

of court cases. Just imagine, if these funds had been used for the original purpose 

of the Act which was to recover and then remove species from the list. 

It is time to stop this madness. Federal policy makers have a right to question 

the conclusions of career biologists. These employees are hardworking dedicated 

public servants but they are not infallible. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and want to hear their perspectives on how we can restore the Endangered 

Species Act to its original intent. 

[The testimony submitted for the record by Robert Hallock 

follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by Robert J. Hallock 

Subjects 

Department of the Interior staff makes changes to Fish and Wildlife Service 

February 8, 2006 redesignation of Critical Habitat for the endangered Kootenai 

River white sturgeon that prevent its recovery. This is a documented case history 

of misuse of the best available scientific information during rule making, and subsequent obstruction of regulatory processes under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

by the Bush Administration appointees within the Department of the Interior and 

the Army Corps of Engineers for political purposes. Several remedies widely applicable to the ESA are offered below. 

Qualifications 

By Robert J. Hallock, PhD., 33 years with Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Division of Ecological Services, responsible for administration of the ESA. I was the 

144

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Kootenai River white sturgeon (Kootenai sturgeon) Recovery Team Leader. I am the primary author of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Interim Rule published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2006, expanding designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon in the Kootenai River within northern 

Idaho. I was the Fish and Wildlife Service consultation biologist directly involved 

with Corps of Engineers’ operations of Libby Dam, on the Kootenai River in 

Montana. 

Background, Status of the Surgeon, and Urgency to Conserve 

The Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress to insure that the species 

diversity of the United States was not threatened by untempered economic growth 

and development. As implemented it is a balance between development and the 

goals of the ESA. The Act primarily accomplishes Congress’ goals through listing 

and recovery of species at risk of becoming extinct. Key to protection and recovery 

of a species is the development of the biological opinions on Federal activities including the proper use of essential primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat 

Designation of Critical Habitat falls under section 4 of the Act. Such determinations are supposed to be made ‘‘on the basis of the best scientific data available.’’ 

By definition, critical habitat ‘‘means (i) the specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with provisions 

of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations and protection.’’ Recovery of the Kootenai sturgeon is dependent upon restoring sufficient water depth to allow migration into otherwise 

suitable designated Critical Habitat to spawn, and incubate embryos. 

Background and urgency for listing and development of critical habitat: The 

Kootenai sturgeon numbered about 7,000 in 1980, but only about 1,400 when listed 

in 1994, and fewer than 500 of these fish remain today. They have not successfully 

reproduced since 1974, coincident with the operations of Libby Dam, Montana. As 

a result of operating the Kootenai River for hydroelectric power generation and flood 

control, this dam has significantly altered spawning season flows, depths, and water 

temperatures of the river. Since Libby Dam, annual average maximum water depth 

within designated critical habitat has been reduced by about 12 feet. This loss in 

depth has precluded known use of this critical habitat for 15 out of the last 16 years 

that intensive monitoring has taken place. The exception being 2006, when the 

Corps failed to follow its established, previously consulted upon, flood control procedures, and caused a high water event only 3 feet shallower than the unregulated 

annual average annual peak flow event within this newly designated critical habitat. Under these conditions in 2006 about one third of radio tagged females in 

spawning condition did migrate into this critical habitat. 

Intervention 

A senior Department of the Interior official forced the Service to change the essential primary constituent element for water depth to a level not recommended by the 

Service, not supported by the available scientific data and information, and not leading to survival or recovery. 

For 12 years the Army Corps of Engineers has ignored the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative measures to provide greater flows of three biological opinions 

(1995, 2000, and 2006) that found jeopardy to the continued existence of the species 

based upon their proposed actions. The biological recommendations addressed the 

critical need to restore spawning habitat by enhancement of powerhouse releases 

through either use of the spillways or installation of the additional existing generators, turbines, and related facilities now stored within the powerhouse at Libby 

Dam. Biologists of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game have documented population declines, and they have estimated that the remaining adult sturgeon die at 

9% per year. Because the reduced water depth, most sturgeon continued to spawn 

over unsuitable sandy substrate downstream of the newly designated critical habitat. Because of these unsuitable conditions, millions of eggs and embryos perish annually. 

Besides Army Corps of Engineers’ years of failures to follow earlier and existing 

biological opinions, the Corps’ staff has begun insinuating pending ‘‘stock limitation’’. Stock limitation would be used as an excuse to evade responsibility to use 

their authorities to recover the Kootenai sturgeon because an argument could be 

made that there would not be enough spawning sturgeon remaining to demonstrate 

a reproductive response, no matter what form of habitat restoration occurs. The 

Service and the Recovery Team, including State, Tribal, and Canadian entities, believe recovery is achievable. 

145

Specific Points of Intervention 

The following is a list of extraordinary efforts by the staff of the Secretary of the 

Interior to intervene, to delay, and to nullify the regulatory process of designation 

of critical habitat, leading to obstruction of subsequent consultation under section 

7, and how and why this is occurring: • Abuse of the ‘‘Data Quality Act’’ which is supposed to assure quality, objectivity, 

and integrity of Federal government information. In practice, the Secretary’s 

staff inserted inappropriate information to minimize accountability of the regulated agencies in advance of critical habitat designation (rule). Initially they attempted to eliminate a measurable depth criterion of at least 7 meters altogether. Then they required the Service to arbitrarily reduce recommended minimum water depth to at least 5 meters. 

No sturgeon spawning migration or successful recruitment has been documented in the designated critical habitat with minimal flows resulting in water 

depths of only 5 meters. This critical habitat rule facilitates legal challenges 

from affected third parties such as Anheuser-Busch (hop farms), downstream 

Canadian hydroelectric operators, or conservation groups. Any litigation delays 

effective recovery actions. In addition, insertion of the Secretary’s staff’s arbitrary 5 meter depth criterion made my critical habitat rule useless during the 

subsequent ESA section 7 consultation for Libby Dam that was signed 10 days 

later (February 18, 2006). This consultation addressed the most significant of 

the essential critical habitat features: minimum water depth suitable for normal spawning migration behavior, survival, and recovery. Had the original 

draft critical habitat recommendation, greater than 7 meters, stood, the February 18, 2006 biological opinion would have had the same clear minimum 

water depth standard, and it would have led to recovery. • Anti-ESA/regulatory language. The Secretary’s Office required the insertion of 

boiler plate propaganda falsely claiming that the designation of critical habitat 

is of little value for conservation of listed species, and that litigation resulting 

from these tardy or faulty rules wastes agency resources. Because of the Interior staff’s arbitrary reduction in critical habitat need for depth discussed in the 

bulleted item above, the Secretary’s required inserted language becomes a selffulfilling prophesy. This Interim ‘‘final’’ Rule is flawed, and it does not provide 

for either survival or recovery of the Kootenai sturgeon. • In an overt attempt to obstruct future section 7 consultation, Julie McDonald 

forced the Fish and Wildlife Service to insert faulty consultation baseline language into the February 8, 2006 Interim Rule designating critical habitat for 

Kootenai sturgeon, Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 26, Feb. 8, page 6389. MacDonald inserts: ‘‘In some cases, the PCEs may exist as a result of ongoing Federal actions. However, the Service does not foresee that continued operations of 

Libby Dam in a manner consistent with past operations would result in adverse 

modification of critical habitat. These conditions are part of the current baseline 

conditions.’’ As our Interior Solicitor has pointed out, if this were true there 

would be no need for the Corps to have consulted on the operations of Libby 

Dam three times each with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Also, no special management could subsequently be recommended to the Corps by the Service to address the ongoing adverse modification of critical habitat. 

On a conference call with me, Susan Martin and others of the Service’s Spokane 

Field Office, Dale Hall, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, was adamant 

that this baseline insertion in the Kootenai sturgeon Interim Rule was out of 

line. He vowed that he would deal directly with Julie MacDonald, and to have 

this passage removed. Unfortunately, he failed. As cited above this language remains in the published Kootenai sturgeon critical habitat Interim Rule. • The Secretary’s Office’s recent creation of required special internal procedures, 

‘‘concept papers,’’ to provide themselves and their preferred special interests an 

advanced, closed-door, opportunity to intervene in the process prior to the publication of even Proposed Rules. Rules are supposed to be based solely on best 

available scientific information. This unnecessary and inappropriate procedure 

serves only political ends while attempting to shield key portions of the Administration’s deliberative process from public review. 

• Direct alteration of the quality of scientific information relied upon. Direction 

to misclassify four peer reviewed research papers by the U.S. Geological Survey 

as ‘‘gray literature’’. This weakens the information on altered physical parameters leading to the primary constituent element, the minimum 7 meter depth 

criterion, and invites Data Quality Act challenge by affected third parties. It is 

widely understood that USGS peer review process and research quality is second to none. 

146

• Also in the concept paper phase, the Secretary’s staff arbitrarily eliminated all 

quantification of essential physical-habitat features, the Primary Constituent 

Elements including the essential minimum 7 meter water depth. • When the Service resisted, the Secretary’s staff ‘‘cherry picked’’ an outlier data 

point (5 meters) from the best available scientific data to misrepresent as the 

essential physical habitat feature for water depth. This alone rendered this published Interim ‘‘final’’ Rule useless for the conservation of the Kootenai sturgeon. • The arbitrary 5 meter water depth criterion inserted personally (as documented 

in ‘‘track changes’’) by Julie MacDonald of the Secretary’s staff essentially nullified the section 7 consultation regulatory requirement upon the Army Corps 

of Engineers to provide greater flows and essential water depths. The Corps 

was no longer obligated to provide flows within the newly designated critical 

habitat sufficient to meet even a minimal water depth for proper spawning migration behavior. That February 18, 2006 section 7 consultation which relied in 

part upon my interim critical habitat rule is now in Court. Thus, the Secretary’s 

required boiler plate claiming that critical habitat is resulting in unwarranted 

litigation has already become a self-fulfilling prophesy assured by the behavior 

of the Secretary’s own staff. • Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald arbitrarily inserted unreferenced 

materials in my Federal Register notice of February 8, 2006, misrepresenting 

the Army Corps of Engineers’ performance in providing sufficient flows during 

the previous 12 years. The insertion was to the effect that the Corps had been 

in compliance with prior jeopardy biological opinions on the operations of Libby 

Dam. The fact is that they have repeatedly failed to implement the flow enhancement measures specified in 1995 and 2000 jeopardy biological opinions. 

The unacknowledged fact is that the Corps has been sued and lost in District 

Court for noncompliance with the biological opinions. It is also significant that 

MacDonald (or possibly the Corps as ghost writers for MacDonald) failed to reference the litigation history of noncompliance to be consistent with the Data 

Quality Act. Julie MacDonald’s insertions also contain a favorite misrepresentation by some Corps’ Northwestern Division staff that the ‘‘(t)he declines [of 

Kootenai sturgeon] are believed to be due to recruitment failure largely related 

to lack of appropriate spawning and rearing habitat’’. The Corps (through MacDonald) is trying to make the impression that appropriate spawning and 

rearing habitat is naturally lacking. The truth is that the critical spawning/ incubation habitat still exists but requires adequate flows and water depth to 

make it accessible. Presence of suitable habitat and the ability of sturgeon to 

reach and use it was documented as an unintended consequence of the Corps’ 

deliberate disregard of their own flood control procedures in spring of 2006.* 

The Corps’ action resulted in high flows and water depths, and in response a 

third of the radio tagged females in spawning condition did occupy and use this 

critical habitat. This proved that the suitable spawning/incubation habitat existed, and that it is the Corps’ operations of Libby Dam that are precluding normal migration and utilization by spawning and incubating sturgeon. 

• Delays forced upon the Fish and Wildlife Service. The chronic intervention by 

the Secretary’s staff in late 2005, including their newly required ‘‘concept paper’’ 

phase delayed the process to the extent that procedural deadlines set by the 

Court could no longer be met even with a 60 day extension to February 1, 2006, 

granted by the Court. Thus, the current critical habitat rule is uniquely labeled 

‘‘Interim Rule’’, with internal language stating that it ‘‘does constitute a final 

rule’’. Yet this rule calls for public comment, a unique label and rule. 

• During the fall of 2005, it appeared that Julie MacDonald and her assistant 

Randal Bowman were intending to set up this Interim Rule for failure through 

a third party challenge under the Data Quality Act. However, during January 

2006 their strategy changed to one of direct obstruction through arbitrary insertion of erroneous primary constituent elements and unreferenced information 

that would not support either survival or recovery of the Kootenai sturgeon. 

From that time it appeared impossible to overcome this politically motivated obstruction from the Department of the Interior. 

• Intimidation of powerless Fish and Wildlife Service staff by political appointees 

through the Senior Executive Service (SES) personnel in management positions. 

Throughout the attached documentation it is evident that numerous Fish and 

Wildlife Service biologists at field, regional, and central office staff levels attempted to adhere to the best available scientific information during the formulation of this Kootenai sturgeon Interim Rule. However, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service staff was ultimately unable to resist political intervention and total disregard of the Data Quality Act by Julie MacDonald and her assistant, Randal 

147

Bowman, seeking early political intervention on behalf of economic special interests. The Endangered Species Act regulatory processes were deliberately subverted by the Bush Administration appointees acting through compliant Civil 

Service managers and Senior Executive Service personnel. 

Remedies 

If you truly want the regulatory agencies to conduct business as Congress has prescribed in the laws, than you need to replace all SES positions in the regulatory 

agencies with regular Civil Service positions. In this way agencies may again have 

stable public servants as leaders and their staffs will have sufficient autonomy to 

do their jobs without fear of retaliation. 

Senior Executive Service has created a systemic cancer within the regulatory 

agencies, where the smallest of decisions are subjected to political review and the 

best available scientific information becomes negotiable. SES was created by the 

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and now most of the top positions in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Regional Director up, are SES. It is about money in exchange for 

political control. SES employees have higher pay scales and compete for bonuses 

from a dedicated bonus source in exchange for loyal political obedience. These 

SESers have hire and fire authority over regular civil servants, yet like their appointed political masters in the Departments, few have been held accountable for 

adverse personnel actions or poor resource decisions, including those involving the 

ESA. They have for decades systematically selected and promoted regular Civil 

Service line officers for similar levels of obedience even when that obedience means 

that laws could be violated. With such a top down structure well established it 

should be no surprise that the purposes of the ESA are not reliably fulfilled in response to shifting political priorities in the Executive Branch. 

• Accountability for Federal employees for disregard of requirements of the Endangered Species act is almost unheard of. While adequate provisions exist 

within the Act, for political reasons they rarely enforced. In some instances 

where politics has been given priority over best available science, known threats 

to currently listed species have been perpetuated. Some of these treats may be 

closely linked to take, a prohibited action under section 9. Where it can be demonstrated that such actions were outside the scope of the Endangered Species 

Act or established consulted upon agency procedures, the potential of criminal 

liability exists. Accountability has also been lacking when politics has trumped 

best available scientific information in a high proportion of recent listing decisions. Some of these poor decisions have been reversed by the courts. However, 

this may take years. In the interim threats commonly remain unaddressed, as 

species continue to decline. 

The problem here is that investigations involving Endangered Species Act are initiated within the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement, (a subdivision of the Department of the Interior) prior to referral to the Department of Justice. Since frequently Interior officials are involved directly or in some way complicit, these investigations do not occur or they do not reach the Department of Justice for prosecution. This has become a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. 

As a remedy, Congress could redirect that all potential instances of wrongdoing 

under the Endangered Species Act now be referred directly to the Department of 

Justice for investigation and prosecution if warranted. Further, a tracking system 

is suggested to allow Congress to assess performance by the Department of Justice. 

• Abolish the so-called Data Quality Act and anything else that comes up administratively to carry out the same objectives. This is nothing more than a poorly 

disguised tool to aid special economic interests and the Federal action agencies 

serving these special interests evade Federal laws and regulations, including 

the ESA under the veil of ‘‘sound science’’. 

* The Army Corps of Engineers has been forced to publicly admit that their 2006 

spill at Libby Dam of up to 31,000 cfs was a result of deliberate repeated failure 

to follow their own flood control procedures. The Corps has yet to admit to why they 

deliberately disregarded their primary mission and authorities three times in 2006 

alone. Nor have they taken disciplinary actions against those responsible for the adverse effects. Effects of this spill included: 1) Unreported lost hydroelectric revenue 

of approximately $20 million that will never be included in the annual Treasury 

payments by Bonneville Power Administration. Unreported agricultural losses were 

also in the $ millions. 2) Due to extended periods of elevated dissolved gas in the 

water during this forced spill, there was unauthorized injury of threatened bull 

trout in the Kootenai River below Libby Dam documented by Montana Department 

of Fish Wildlife and Parks, 3) The Corps was responsible for generating unwarranted fear of flooding in the local communities, and 4) The Corps has lost credibility as an agency charged with assuring public health and safety. The Corps’ After 

148

Action Report of this spill event omitted disclosure of the extensive economic losses, 

omitted any credible explanation of why they disregarded their own established procedures on three occasions in 2006 alone, and arbitrary omission an external peer 

review on their After Action Report consistent with the Data Quality Act. 

Calls for a Department of Defense Inspector General whistleblower investigation, 

FBI investigation, and Service’s Division of Law Enforcement investigation have all 

been ignored. No one has been yet been held accountable within the Corps, suggesting that they were working under orders from high in the Administration. I can 

offer only two explanations for this Corps operational failure 1) it was an arrogant 

and irresponsible attempt to resist regulatory recommendations under the ESA from 

both the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to adopt a more fish friendly 

flood control procedure, and 2) it would serve to maintain the status quo and the 

optimization of hydroelectric operations in the U.S. and Canada, and agricultural 

operations in Idaho, especially 50 acres of hops owned by Anheuser-Bush Inc. that 

are planted within the levees along the Kootenai River. 

Supporting information for testimony of Robert J. Hallock at House 

Committee on Natural Resources, Full Committee Oversight Hearing 

Subject: Chronology of Julie MacDonald’s intervention into Kootenai sturgeon 

Critical Habitat Interim Rule (FR Vol. 71, No. 26 Wed. Feb. 8, 2006, Pages 6383-

6396) 

Julie MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, was directly involved in the technical details during Fish and Wildlife Service’s development of the 

Interim Rule expanding the designation of critical habitat for the Kootenai sturgeon, 

published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2006, under a Court order. 

This discussion involves a listing decision under section 4 of the Endangered 

Species Act and by definition it is supposed to be developed ‘‘solely on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data available’’. However, the communications 

identified below document how Ms. MacDonald regularly inserted the administration’s policy and distorted the scientific information during development of this Interim Rule redesignating critical habitat for the Kootenai sturgeon. 

The following annotated chronology tracks the development of two of the significant flaws which Ms. MacDonald forcibly inserted into this Interim Rule: 

1) One flaw involves a policy matter that inappropriately establishes a baseline 

condition of the existing Federal agency operations of Libby Dam for subsequent 

consultations. These ongoing operations of Libby Dam known are known to have 

been causing recruitment failure among Kootenai sturgeon for 30 consecutive years. 

This flawed baseline condition, established in this critical habitat rule by Julie MacDonald, constrained the Fish and Wildlife Service during section 7 consultation and 

allowed the Federal actions agencies to avoid full utilization of their authorities to 

conserve the Kootenai sturgeon. This is precisely what occurred in a biological opinion on Libby Dam operations issued on February 18, 2006 just 10 days after this 

Interim Rule. 

2) The other flaw involves arbitrarily (‘‘cherry picking the data’’) to minimize the 

depth metric in the Primary Constituent Elements (PCE). This was also intended 

to minimize the regulatory burden, and it resulted in a management threshold metric not likely to support or conserve the endangered Kootenai sturgeon. Thus subverted politically, this critical habitat Interim Rule becomes ineffective, and the DOI 

required boiler plate additions to the critical habitat rules condemning the process 

become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Throughout this process you will see attempts (ultimately unsuccessful) by various staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service to resist Ms. MacDonald in order to develop a functional and defensible critical habitat consistent with the Endangered 

Species Act. 

The dates below are arranged by the date upon the most recent e-mail in a communication string. Some of these e-mail communication strings include relevant attachments with Julie MacDonald’s input in track changes. 

09-23-05: Guidance is sought on how to address this baseline issue initiated by 

the Corps of Engineers involving Kootenai sturgeon. Reference is made to inappropriate use of baseline in the ongoing resignation of critical habitat for bull trout and 

the possible poor precedent for the ongoing redesignation of critical habitat for 

Kootenai sturgeon. 

11-29-05: e-mail message from Jesse DELia 

Julie MacDonald becomes directly involved in the drafting of the sturgeon critical 

habitat rule. The attachment: Kootenai comments(11-18-05) includes her comments 

in track changes. Within this iteration of the draft rule the faulty baseline language 

149

has already been inserted in both the Primary Constituent Elements discussion and 

in the Section 7 Consultation discussion, page 33 and 39 respectively: 

‘‘Each of the areas designated in this rule have been determined to contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life history functions of the Kootenai 

sturgeon. In some cases, the PCEs exist as a result of ongoing Federal actions. As 

a result, ongoing Federal actions at the time of designation will be included in the 

baseline in any consultation conducted subsequent to this designation.’’

My primary constituent elements section with specific metrics, including at least 

23 feet (7 meters) of river depth have been removed entirely. In their place is inserted on page 33 ‘‘We have not changed the existing PCEs in this rulemaking.’’ 

This is not based on the best scientific information available in 2005. 

01-19-06: Draft rule returned from Fish Wildlife and Parks (DOI, MacDonald). 

This iteration includes my suggested insertion within the flawed baseline paragraph 

now moved into the Special Management Considerations and Protections section: 

‘‘However, the current ongoing operations of Libby Dam do not provide for sufficient 

flows and depths of the Kootenai River that are features essential to the conservation of the sturgeon.’’ In addition two narrative PCEs are reinserted, neither has 

specific measurable metrics. DOI required ‘‘boiler plate’ subsections discrediting the 

critical habitat process is still present within the Supplementary Information section. 

01-25-06, 12:16 PM: Includes terse, accusatory comments and directions from 

Julie MacDonald to Ren Lohoefener, e-mail of 01-21-06. Note MacDonald’s reference 

to her data, underlined for emphasis. Includes another iteration with more of 

Julie MacDonald’s ‘‘rewrite’’ of 01-20-06, and her comments shown in track 

changes. 

My sentence inserted in the flawed baseline discussion remains on page 26. 

In the background information section page 6 Julie MacDonald has misrepresented the data and ‘‘cherry picked’ and the lowest end of the range depth where 

any sturgeon egg has been recovered by one researcher working only in the 

Kootenai River, 16.5 feet (5 meters). She then relied upon that to replace my 23 feet 

(7 meters) management criterion in the PCEs. In her 01-20-06 draft rule on page 6 

Ms. MacDonald now states ‘‘The data indicates that Kootenai Sturgeon actually 

spawn at depths roughly greater than 16.5 ft(5 m)...’’. Then on page 24 MacDonald 

changes the PCE metric to read’’ A flow regime ‘‘to produce depths of at least 16.5 

ft(5 m)...’’. Julie MacDonald, said to be an engineer by training, is here functioning 

as a biologist. 

The required DOI political boiler plate discrediting the critical habitat process has 

been removed from this document. 

MacDonald inserts an almost entirely new background section. Of particular interest is the first full paragraph found on page 6 involving the role of the Army 

Corps of Engineers. There are numerous implications: 

1) First, is obvious that no one in the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote this new 

background section. It came from MacDonald to the Service. I certainly did not 

write this although I am identified as principal author at the end of this Interim 

Rule. 

2) There are no citations for the information in this paragraph. A different standard is used to measure the veracity of materials inserted by Julie MacDonald in to 

the rule. There is a double standard on information quality involved here. I have 

no entries to identify the source of this misrepresented information in the administrative record for this Interim Rule. Data Quality Act disregarded by MacDonald 

3) Because the several misrepresentation(s) in this paragraph mirror those perpetuated by the Army Corps of Engineers staff over the past 11 years (involving noncompliance with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives of 3 Jeopardy Biological 

Opinions) it is apparent that staff from the Army Corps either directly wrote this 

paragraph for MacDonald or otherwise communicated it to her. 

4) First sentence attributes the declining population of sturgeon as ‘‘due to recruitment failures largely related to lack of appropriate spawning and rearing habitat.’’ We have heard Dave Ponganis of the Corps make this same misleading claim 

for years. To the contrary spawning and rearing habitat has been always been there 

in the braided reach. However, the Corps operations of Libby Dam have reduced 

water depth, and this has in most years been altering normal behavior of sturgeon 

during their spawning migration and causing them to spawn unsuccessfully elsewhere over unsuitable sandy substrate. 

5) The third sentence is a half truth at best. The Corps has disregarded the RPAs 

of our 3 jeopardy biological opinions over an 11 year period. The RPAs I am referring to are Service recommendations to use the spillways at Libby Dam specifically 

to augment flows, in excess powerhouse capacity, to allow the sturgeon to migrate 

and reproduce normally. By refusing to perform the most obvious recommended exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
150

periment involving flows the Corps has suppressed a logical adaptive approach to 

conservation. If you do not do the experiment you don’t have to evade the results 

if they are inconvenient. 

01-25-06, 3:04 PM: Series of e-mail messages in a mode of ‘‘triage’’ in response 

after the fact to MacDonald’s manipulation of the data involving depth needs for migration of Kootenai sturgeon spawners. The direct conference call mentioned was 

supposed to include Julie MacDonald and me. If MacDonald was on the call she was 

not announced. During that call I explained how inappropriate this 5 meter depth 

criterion was, and how it was not supported by the citation relied upon by MacDonald in her inserted background section on page 6 or on page 24, her inserted 

PCEs. The Service staff really had no alternatives, but to include MacDonald’s edits. 

At this point MacDonald had essentially assumed my role as primary author of this 

Interim Rule. 

(A total of 5 e-mail strings, including attachments with MacDonald’s input in 

track changes sent in separate e-mails) 

[NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record has been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

]The Final TWS Position Statement on the ESA prepared by The 

Wildlife Society follows:]

151


35221.010.eps
152


35221.011.eps
153

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just to clarify Mr. Sali’s point as best as we can 

on the commercial factors, I mean, this quotation a little longer, it 

says, ‘‘Solely on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information regarding a specie’s status without reference to 

possible economic or other impacts of such determination.’’

But there does not seem to be an otherwise, according to staff, 

definition of commercial data, so we will have to continue to plumb 

the depths of that, but my understanding is economic considerations come in at the top of designation of critical habitat and/or 

the ‘‘God Squad’’ being convened to determine the fate of a species. 

Commercial data, at least in consideration of salmon generally, and 

that is, as was stated by one of the witnesses, which is, we catch 

fish, we have to document the fish we catch, and that can be submitted a part of an argument about the viability of the species. 

Finally, just one last thing to Secretary Scarlett, and hopefully 

this time we will agree. We have an interagency problem here 

which you could resolve satisfactorily. Chairman Rahall has a large 

number of petitions regarding the record of decision on the de-listing of the, or listing, is it a de-listing? De-listing of the Northern 

Flying Squirrel, and I won’t read the formal name, and these were 

postmarked on the date that comments closed, but the Postal Service delivered them after that date, and apparently, according to 

Chairman Rahall, thus far the position of the Department has been 

that they can’t accept them even though, for instance, the IRS says, 

gee, if you mailed your check by midnight, it is OK. 

What do you think? Can we help these people out? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I would prefer to turn to my expert Dale Hall on 

this. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. SCARLETT. He is the one that would know the procedures 

and rules with respect to the timing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is the gentleman——

Ms. SCARLETT. He says we will——

Mr. HALL. Yes, I wasn’t aware that they were late comments, so 

we will take them. 

Ms. SCARLETT. He said we will take them. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, great. Excellent. We end on a positive note. 

The Chairman will be happy if he ever comes back. I will be happy 


35221.012.eps
154

if he comes back, too, because I have to go meet my constituents 

but I appreciate Mr. Inslee taking over. 

I thank the panel for sitting for such a long time, the interruption, your patience, and your answers, and look at that, perfect 

timing, we solved your flying squirrel problem. So the next panel. 

The CHAIRMAN. The next panel is composed of Mr. Dominick A. 

DellaSala, Chief Scientist and Executive Director, National Center 

for Conservation Science & Policy; Ms. Judith Schoyer Rodd, Director, Friends of Blackwater; Mr. John Young [Retired] Biologist, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Mr. William P. Horn, Attorney 

at Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot. 

Lady and gentlemen, we welcome you to the Committee. We do 

have your prepared testimony and it will be made a part of the 

record as if actually read, and you are encouraged to keep your oral 

testimony within the five-minute limit. 

Dr. DellaSala, do you want to proceed? 

STATEMENT OF MR. DOMINICK A. DELLASALA, CHIEF 

SCIENTIST AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER 

FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE & POLICY 

Mr. DELLASALA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Committee Members. 

My name is Dominick DellaSala. I am Executive Director and 

Chief Scientist for the National Center for Conservation Science & 

Policy, which is a conservation science policy think tank in Ashland, Oregon. I, for the past year, have served on the Fish and 

Wildlife Service recovery team. 

By now the Committee has heard several allegations related to 

my testimony, and I submitted it for the record, but I am going to 

summarize here. I would like to set the record straight on the recovery process that I witnessed as a recovery team member. 

To begin with, the recovery team did not include any of the wellrecognized published, established, independent owl scientists. This 

was unusual in the terms of recovery team makeup. 

The second point I would like to make is that the team came up 

with a draft in September, in part that was based on mapped 

reserves of old growth forests. That draft was sent back to 

Washington, D.C. on September 29. It came back to us with direction from the Washington Oversight Committee. We were told first 

that the Washington Oversight Committee ‘‘rejected the draft,’’ and 

instead sent us instructions to develop two independent options 

based on this new direction. 

I have extensive documentation of that provided as e-mails from 

different recovery team members that I could submit in addition to 

my testimony. Some of those are summaries from discussions that 

were had with recovery team members and Lynn Scarlett. 

During this process, we were told to do the following: Use ‘‘new 

science’’; second, increase emphasis on the Bard Owl; third, de-emphasize old growth habitat protections; fourth, de-link the recovery 

plan from the Northwest Forest plan protections. 

I want to point out the so-called ‘‘new science’’ that is based on 

just two studies, both options one and two significantly reduce the 

amount of old growth forest habitat based on interpreting those 

two studies, and it has already been read by Congressman DeFazio 

155

the specific caution noted by the researchers not to apply their 

studies in management recommendations at this time. 

In addition to that, we had conference calls with those researchers that warned us against doing this. We had other input from 

those researchers to the recovery team that said don’t use our results to develop habitat provisions. That advice was ignored. The 

habitat provisions made it into the draft in both options one and 

two. It is not based on the best available science at this time. 

Now, despite the authors’ warnings, now we have a document 

that would reduce old growth habitat under both options, and contrary to earlier statements on the September draft submission, it 

did include provisions about the Bard Owl. That is not true that 

we did not have provisions in the plan about the Bard Owl. The 

recovery team acknowledged this as a threat, had specific actions 

in there. 

I will point out that when a species like the Spotted Owl is faced 

with multiple threats, including the Bard Owl and habitat loss, you 

protect more habitat, not less. There is a very strong body of conservation science that supports that statement. 

Now, what we got were two options. Option one has the mapped 

owl conservation areas, or MOCAs, but significantly reduces by 27 

percent the amount of habitat capable for Spotted Owls compared 

to the Northwest Forest plan. Option two does not have any 

mapped reserves. It is difficult as a scientist for me to evaluate an 

option that does not have maps, but based on an exercise we did 

as recovery team members it appears that that option would result 

in about 823,000 acres of old growth forest being left out of the reserve network. 

We have an owl that is declining. We have the prevailing science 

that says it needs habitat protected in fixed reserves. There is only 

7 million acres of the 24.4 million acres of Federal old growth left. 

Every acre is precious. 

So what is motivating this? First of all, in my testimony I have 

documented the timber settlement agreement that was reached between the industry and this administration in 2001. That was led 

by the American Forest Resources Council. It was designed to triple the amount of old growth logging in the Pacific Northwest. 

The administration settled and delivered on those processes 

through a five-point plan that was designed to weaken the habitat 

protections for listed species, including the owl and fish throughout 

the Northwest. That is what is playing out here in this recovery 

process. 

The recovery process throughout was inappropriately interfered 

politically. It is not based on the best available science. The authors themselves of the studies that were cited warned against 

using it in this manner. Yet it still appears in the recovery plan. 

I think what we have now is a product that is not based on the 

principles of the Endangered Species Act with respect to the best 

available science being used to develop objective measurable criteria. Instead, we have a recovery plan that was politically motivated and is most likely to reduce habitat at a time when we are 

witnessing an accelerated decline for the threatened Northern 

Spotted Owl. 

Thank you. 

156

[The prepared statement of Mr. DellaSala follows:]

Statement of Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D., Chief Scientist and

Executive Director, National Center for Conservation Science & Policy 

Chairman Rahall and committee members, thank you for this opportunity to testify on scientific integrity and the Endangered Species Act. My name is Dominick 

DellaSala. I am Executive Director of the National Center for Conservation Science 

& Policy, a science-based conservation organization in Ashland, OR. Since last June, 

I have served as a member of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) appointed 

recovery team for the threatened Northern Spotted Owl. 

There are three key points I will make today in my response to the draft recovery 

plan for the Northern Spotted Owl published in the Federal Register on April 26, 

2007: 

1. what was supposed to be a science-based plan was derailed by a pattern of political interference (see Exhibit A); 

2. the recovery plan includes habitat provisions recommended for the owl that are 

considerably less than currently afforded the owl under the NWFP; and 

3. while oversight of agency documents by department officials in itself is not unusual, in this case political interference clearly allowed the Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to have an inappropriate amount of influence that resulted in a recovery plan that is not based on the best available 

science. 

Throughout my testimony I will be referring to options 1 and 2 of the draft plan. 

For simplicity, Option 1 is based, in part, on the fixed network of mapped habitat 

reserves—called Late-Successional Reserves or LSRs—initially established under 

the NWFP. Option 2 does not rely on fixed reserves but rather lets the Forest Service and BLM decide where blocks of habitat will be located according to a ‘‘rule set’’ 

detailed in the recovery plan (see Appendix B of the plan). Both options are inadequate to recover the owl. 

(1) Spotted owl recovery plan and process was derailed by political 

interference 

Distinguished Members, in 1991 one of the Northwest’s most famous judges, The 

Honorable William Dwyer said that the debate over the Northern Spotted Owl is 

about more than this one species. As he recognized, under the law, the owl was the 

indicator species of the remaining old-growth forest; all but a small fraction of which 

is now gone (Seattle Audubon v. Evans, 777 F. Supp. 1081, 1088 (1991). Judge Dwyer’s ruling set the stage for the adoption of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan. 

In April 2006, under pressure of lawsuits by both the timber industry and conservation groups, the USFWS agreed to prepare an updated recovery plan for the 

threatened Northern Spotted Owl (an early draft was published in 1992 but it was 

never officially adopted because the Secretary of Interior assumed at the time that 

the NWFP would serve as a de facto recovery plan). The agency assembled a multistakeholder team consisting of representatives from federal and state agencies, timber industry, and conservation groups to develop an updated recovery plan. This 

team did not include any of the many well-recognized, independent scientists with 

expertise in owl biology. The USFWS charter document under which the recovery 

team made decisions emphasized that ‘‘recommendations for recovery actions from 

the Team will be made in a collaborative manner, striving for the highest level of 

consensus possible. 

In late September of 2006, the recovery team forwarded its draft plan to USFWS 

headquarters in Washington D.C. for internal review. The team recommended a recovery strategy that was anchored mostly in the existing LSR network. We reached 

consensus on this approach because it was the most scientifically credible way to 

recover the owl. The recovery team also agreed it was the most efficient way to integrate the NWFP and the recovery plan. The scientific rationale for using fixed reserves for conserving spotted owls and other old-growth dependent species has been 

repeatedly reaffirmed in the scientific literature (e.g., Courtney and Franklin 2004, 

Thomas et al. 2006, Noon and Blakesley 2006, Strittholt et al. 2006). For instance 

in a USFWS-commissioned five-year ‘‘status review’’ of the Northern Spotted Owl 

in 2004, two scientists, Drs. Steven Courtney and Jerry Franklin concluded that: 

• ‘‘the Reserve and Matrix strategy of the NWFP has been successful and is performing as expected’’ (Chapter 9, page 9); and 

• the NWFP has made important contributions to protect and recover the endangered owl and without the plan the situation of Northern Spotted Owls would 

be far bleaker’’ (Chapter 9, page 15). 

157

In addition, the latest analyses of demography of spotted owls (Anthony et al. 

2006) has shown that owls are reproducing and surviving better on federal land 

managed under the NWFP than on non-federal lands where logging is much greater 

(i.e., the annual rate of owl population declines on nonfederal lands was more than 

twice that on federal lands). 

Although the recovery team agreed that a network of protected LSRs would be 

the foundation of the spotted owl recovery strategy, we did not reach consensus on 

specific habitat provisions for the owl, particularly in the southern part of its range. 

The team agreed to forward our science-based recommendations to USFWS headquarters on the condition that the draft plan undergo rigorous scientific peer review, 

and that substantive revisions be made, if necessary, pending results of peer review. 

The USFWS initially rejected this request for peer review, citing insufficient time 

as a constraint, although more than five months elapsed during which the agency 

prepared the draft for publication. The recovery team was notified on April 24, 2007 

(two days before public release of the draft plan) that the peer review process is finally underway. 

In late September, the Pacific Regional Director of the Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Ren Lohoefener, notified the recovery team of the existence of a ‘‘Washington [DC] 

Oversight Committee,’’ consisting of high-ranking officials from the departments of 

Agriculture and Interior, who would scrutinize the draft recovery plan (detailed in 

attached Exhibit A). At the time, the oversight committee included Julie MacDonald, who was under investigation for political interference in other ESA matters 

and recently resigned from her position. On October17, the recovery team was told 

that the Oversight Committee rejected the September draft recovery plan, in part, 

because it was based on the NWFP’s network of LSRs and therefore did not provide 

enough ‘‘flexibility.’’ The Oversight Committee instead directed the recovery team 

and federal agency staff to rewrite the plan, and to include a second alternative—

Option 2—that does not rely on fixed habitat reserves. 

I want to emphasize that Option 2 is not a product of the recovery team. In fact, 

on February 7, Mr. Ren Lohoefener, Pacific Regional Director of USFWS, gave direction to the team to ‘‘don’t spend any more time on Option 1, the majority opinion 

of the Washington oversight committee is they prefer Option 2.’’ This new direction 

was not based on sound science but was designed to give the Forest Service and 

the BLM the discretion to exempt public forests from the NWFP in response to 

‘‘friendly’’ lawsuits filed by the timber industry (known as the ‘‘global settlement 

agreement’’—see attached Exhibit B) to triple the amount of logging in the region. 

The USFWS also received direction from the Oversight Committee to do the following. • De-emphasize past science and rely on ‘‘new science’’—we were told to base 

habitat recommendations on a handful of studies in the southern part of the 

owl’s range. Two of those studies point to the owl’s reliance on a mixture of 

forest age classes (Franklin et al. 2000—northern California Klamath province, 

Olson et al. 2004—Oregon Coast Range). However, the authors of both of the 

studies specifically cautioned against using the results to guide forest management actions for spotted owls. A third study, also in the southern range near 

Roseburg, Oregon did not conclusively confirm spotted owl use of younger forests. Unfortunately, the USFWS ignored these warnings and wrote a draft plan 

that inappropriately recommended region-wide habitat criteria that significantly underestimate the old growth habitat needs of the owl. The clear intent 

of this directive was to downplay the importance of old growth habitat to allow 

additional old growth logging on federal lands (detailed below). 

• ‘‘Flip and switch’’ the presentation of threats to the spotted owl in the draft plan 

by minimizing the importance of habitat loss and placing more emphasis on 

Barred Owls—An October 25 memo directed the recovery team to ‘‘indicate [the 

Barred Owl] was [the] only threat given priority number 1’’and summarize the 

habitat threats discussion into less than a page.’’ An untitled document dated 

October 27 and distributed to the team at a meeting in Portland by Dave 

Wesley, recovery team leader, contained instructions from Lynn Scarlett, 

Deputy Director of Interior, directing the recovery team to make the new option 

(Option 2) ‘‘less focused on habitat preservation.’’ Although Barred Owls have 

emerged as a recent threat to spotted owls (Kelly et al. 2003, Crozier et al. 

2006), the science of conservation biology and endangered species management 

is clear on this point—when a species is faced with multiple threats it is best 

to conserve more habitat for it, not less. 

• ‘‘De-link the recovery plan from the Northwest Forest Plan’’—On October 18, we 

received notice from the USFWS to ‘‘de-link the owl plan from the Northwest 

Forest Plan’’ to provide the Forest Service and BLM with more ‘‘flexibility’’ (see 

attached Exhibit A). On October 26, Mr. Lohoefener admitted that the Forest 

158

Service and BLM were driving the recovery plan revisions demanded by the 

Oversight Committee, and stated that the end product would have to be flexible 

enough ‘‘to be acceptable to the Forest Service and BLM.’’ Under intense questioning from recovery team members, both Dave Wesley, USFWS recovery team 

leader, and Cal Joyner, the Forest Service representative on the recovery team, 

explained that ‘‘flexibility’’ meant giving the Forest Service and BLM discretion 

to alter or eliminate Managed Owl Conservation Areas (or MOCAs as in Option 

1 of the draft recovery plan) from the recovery plan. Notably, the BLM is currently revising its forest plans on 2.4 million acres in western Oregon and is 

considering alternatives that do not include fixed reserves (see Exhibit B) and 

the Forest Service recently excluded from NEPA its forest plan revisions (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 241, Friday, December 15, 2006, pp 75481-75495.). It 

should be noted that one of the primary reasons why the owl was listed in 1990 

was ‘‘inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms.’’

2) The recovery plan includes habitat provisions recommended for the owl 

that are considerably less than currently afforded the owl under the 

NWFP 

Option 1 vs. NWFP—a comparison of the habitat provisions in Option 1 vs. the 

habitat provisions in the NWFP for the LSRs (Tables F1 and F2 in Appendix F (errata copy) of the draft recovery plan vs Table F1 and Table 3-8 in Lint 2005) indicates that Option 1 could reduce the estimated amount of habitat capable for owls 

by 27%. 

This is mainly because the Option 1 reserve network (MOCAs) does not include 

all of the existing LSRs. Option 1 also lowers the habitat bar for owls in two additional ways: (1) setting delisting thresholds for suitable owl habitat at 50-70% within the reserve network (instead of the 100% late-successional goal for LSRs under 

the NWFP), and (2) allowing delisting to be considered when an arbitrary 80% of 

the MOCAs in the Option 1 reserve network meet the low regional habitat criterion. 

Both of these provisions could result in premature delisting of the owl if habitat is 

judged to be sufficient based on this standard. 

Option 1 vs. Option 2—Option 2 could result in even greater reductions than Option 1 because the rule set allows the Forest Service and BLM to consider smaller 

reserves by limiting the size of owl habitat blocks relative to Option 1. When applying the rule set for Option 2, the recovery team estimated that 823,000 acres of oldgrowth habitat could be left out of the network of habitat blocks compared to Option 

1 (unpublished recovery team exercise). In particular, because Option 2 does not include fixed habitat reserves, only includes an ‘‘example’’ of possible habitat block locations (Appendix B), and does not include total acreage figures, it may not meet 

the requirements of the Endangered Species Act regarding ‘‘measurable, objective’’ 

standards for delisting criteria. 

I would like to point out that only about 7 million acres of the 24.4 million acres 

of public forests in the PNW is currently old growth (Strittholt et al. 2006) and not 

all of this is protected (e.g., 1 million acres of old forest can be logged in the 

‘‘matrix’’). This represents but a fraction (15%) of historic conditions (all ownerships) 

and therefore every acre of old growth is important. Conversely, the vast majority 

of public and non-federal lands include younger forest age classes. 

I would also like to point out that recent demography studies of spotted owls 

found that 9 of 13 study areas across the range of the owl had declining populations 

and the rate of decline was accelerating (Anthony et al. 2006). The bottom line here 

is that the owl is declining from multiple causes at a time when the USFWS is proposing a recovery plan that lowers the bar on habitat protections under both options. 

The flexibility the administration desires cuts both ways—in fact—there is an 

even stronger scientific case to be made for enlarging reserves for the spotted owl 

due to the increased threats posed by Barred Owls and loss of habitat from fire. 

I and other team members mentioned this repeatedly during recovery team meetings, yet this science-based recommendation was rejected by the USFWS. Unfortunately, the habitat provisions in both options could result in the need to up-list the 

owl to endangered status in the future should populations continue to decline and 

habitat be further reduced by logging facilitated by inadequate regulatory mechanisms. This could eventually result in less flexibility not more. 

159

3) While oversight of agency documents by department officials in itself is 

not unusual, in this case political interference clearly allowed the Forest 

Service and BLM to have an inappropriate amount of influence that 

resulted in a recovery plan based more on the timber objectives of land 

managers than on the best available science. 

In closing, I want to underscore the unusual makeup of the recovery team and 

the change in process under which it operated when the Oversight Committee took 

charge late in the process. Typically, recovery plans are developed by recognized experts in the ecology and management of the listed species to ensure that recovery 

objectives and delisting criteria are based on best available science (Department of 

the Interior and Department of Commerce 1994). Under the ESA, the purpose of 

recovery plans is to get listed species to recover to the point where delisting is warranted and protection under the ESA is no longer needed. In order for a listed 

species to move from the ‘‘intensive care unit’’ to a viable population, recovery plans 

must be based on best available science. Obviously, that was not the case here as 

the USFWS did not include the highly recognized owl experts on the recovery team 

whose seminal work was cited and, in some cases, misrepresented. 

The political interference documented in this case led to misapplication of habitat 

provisions under both options and the creation of Option 2, which is by no means 

a recovery team product nor was it generated out of consensus. In fact, according 

to a news story in the Land Letter on May 3, Dave Wesley, leader of the agency’s 

spotted owl recovery team, stated ‘‘the less-defined second option was requested by 

Interior Department political appointees and other high-level officials in Washington, D.C.’’

Therefore, in spite of nearly a year of participation as a recovery team member, 

I cannot stand by this document. The agency, however, did eventually and only recently agree to conduct peer review of the plan. Should peer review confirm the scientific flaws noted in my testimony, the recovery plan should be rewritten by working closely with recognized owl scientists to ensure it is based on the best available 

science without further political interference. Clearly, in the case of the draft spotted owl recovery plan science took a back seat to politics. 

Literature Cited 

Anthony, R.G. and several others. Status and trends in demography of Northern 

Spotted Owls. Wildlife Monographs 163. 48 pp. 

Courtney, S., and J.F. Franklin. 2004. Chapter 9: Conservation Strategy. In: S.P. 

Courtney, J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.L. 

Fleischer, A.B. 

Franklin, J.F., R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski (eds). 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. 

Crozier, M.L., and several others. 2006. Does the presence of barred owls suppress 

the calling behavior of spotted owls. The Condor 108:760-769. 

Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce. 1994. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants: notice of interagency cooperative policy on information standards under the Endangered Species Act. Friday, July 1, 1994 

(34271). 

Dugger, K.M., F. Wagner, R.G. Anthony, and G.S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of Northern Spotted 

Owls in Southern Oregon. The Condor 107:863-878. 

Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, 

habitat quality, and fitness in Northern Spotted Owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70:539-590. 

Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony 2003. Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? The Condor 105:45-53. 

Lint, J. 2005. Status and trends of Northern Spotted Owls populations and habitat. 

USDA PNW-GTR-648. 

Noon, B.R., and J.A. Blakesley. 2006. Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl 

under the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology 20:288-296. 

Olson, G.S., and several others. 2004. Modeling demographic performance of Northern Spotted Owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. J. Wildlife Management 

68:1039-1063. 

Strittholt, J.R., D.A. DellaSala, and H. Jiang. 2006. Status of mature and old-growth 

forests in the Pacific Northwest. Conservation Biology 20:263-374. 

Thomas, J.W., J.F. Franklin, J. Gordon, and K. N. Johnson. 2006. The Northwest 

Forest Plan: origins, components, implementation experience, and suggestions 

for change. Conservation Biology 20:277-286. 

NOTE: Exhibits have been retained in the Committee’s official files. 

160

Response to questions submitted for the record by

Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D. 

Questions from Republican Members 

I would like to thank the members of the Committee for the opportunity to respond to these follow-up questions from the hearing. My responses to each question 

are set out below. In general, a number of the questions appear to raise issues of 

a legal nature. While I am not an attorney, my testimony before the Committee was 

offered as a conservation biologist and scientist. Nonetheless, I have attempted to 

respond to the Committee’s questions to the best of my ability. 

(1) What role should the states have in protecting endangered species? Do 

you agree with Ms. Rodd that the Fish and Wildlife Service should not 

devolve management responsibilities to the states? States control road 

building, energy development, including alternatives, and home development which could affect listed species. 

Response: The Endangered Species Act is a federal environmental law. It already 

recognizes an appropriate role for the states in a number of places explicitly in the 

following provisions: (1) 16 U.S.C. § 1531(a)(5) finds that encouraging state involvement in species protection is important to the success of the Act; (2) § 1531(c)(2) recognizes a congressional policy of cooperation with states to resolve water resource 

and endangered species issues; (3) § 1533(b)(1)(A) directs the Fish & Wildlife Service 

to consider state efforts to protect species in making listing decisions; (4) 

§ 1533(b)(1)(B) directs the Fish & Wildlife Service to consider in making listing decisions species identified by states as in need of protection; and (5) § 1535 generally 

establishes a program for cooperation with states in species conservation. The ESA 

also implicitly recognizes cooperation with the states as, for example, 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1532(13) includes officers, employees, agents, departments, and instrumentalities 

of states as ‘‘persons’’ generally subject to all applicable requirements of the Act. 

One of the reasons we need a nation-wide law for threatened and endangered 

species is because many species cross state lines or are subjected to impacts that 

come from outside a particular jurisdiction. Because the ESA is a federal law, any 

role for the states in protecting listed species should be consistent with the purposes 

of the ESA and should comply with its provisions. 

(2) Many endangered species are located on private property. Do you believe that the agency should not weigh the effects of proposed listings 

on land owners in their deliberations to list a species? 

Response: Section 4 of the ESA sets out the factors the Fish & Wildlife Service 

may consider in determining whether a species should be listed as threatened or endangered (see 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1)(A)—(E)). These factors are appropriately focused on sources of biological threats to a species because the question of whether 

a species faces a sufficiently imminent risk of extinction to warrant listing is fundamentally one of biology. The ESA also appropriately allows consideration of the 

effects of a listing on private property owners and others in provisions other than 

the listing criteria of section 4 (see, for example, 1533 U.S.C. § (b)(2) which allows 

the Fish & Wildlife Service to exclude specific areas of habitat critical to a species 

from designation as critical habitat for economic reasons so long as the exclusion 

will not result in the extinction of the species). This separation of the biological 

question of whether a species should be listed as threatened or endangered from 

other issues about how to respond to a listing is logical and well-founded. From a 

scientific perspective, the effect of a listing on a land owner is not germane to the 

biological question of the degree of risk the species faces. 

(3) When the agency designates critical habitat doesn’t the law allow the 

balancing of scientific findings with economic and other considerations? 

Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA specifically provides that: ‘‘the Secretary 

may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat, unless 

he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the 

failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned’’ (see also 50 C.F.R. §§ 424.12 to 424.21—regulations that govern 

designation of critical habitat recognizing role of economic impacts and other considerations in final habitat designations). Thus, it would appear that the ESA and its 

implementing regulations already allow the consideration of economic issues in 

making a critical habitat determination under specific circumstances and standards. 

In my view, this approach adequately allows the balancing of scientific findings with 

economic and other considerations. 

161

(4) As a biologist, have you ever been in a position where there were other 

scientists that did not agree with a position you took based on research? 

Response: Many apparent disagreements among scientists arise at first because 

they are addressing different but related issues, working from different assumptions, collecting different data, or using different methodologies. When they compare 

assumptions and data and analyze them objectively to determine which are most 

appropriate and reliable, areas of disagreements are usually reduced or eliminated. 

It is for this reason that focusing on science and relying on the best available scientific and commercial data—as the ESA does—provides the best foundation for reliable decisions about species and their conservation. 

In addition, while it is certainly not unusual for scientists to disagree over research findings, these disagreements are best resolved through the peer review process of which I have participated throughout my 20-year career. Peer review is the 

gold standard by which quality science is objectively judged. When disagreements 

over published articles occur, they also may be resolved through point and counter 

point articles and additional research. In this manner, scientists benefit by rigorous, 

independent review and exchange of ideas, and decision makers benefit by having 

the best science available to make informed policy choices. 

As subject editor for two scientific journals, The Natural Areas Journal and Conservation Biology, I have overseen the peer review process using a refereed and 

independent (blind) peer review process. This is the best standard we have for resolving scientific debate. My own research, which includes over 150 published articles, has gone through this type of rigorous, independent peer review. 

(5) What do you think of Mr. Horn’s testimony where he describes making 

policy decisions after receiving differing scientific recommendations? 

Do you agree that in those cases it is necessary for a policy person to 

make decisions that not all scientists would agree with? 

Response: There is a legitimate and appropriate difference between science and 

policy. Scientific issues depend on detailed observations, objective analysis of data, 

and carefully drawn conclusions based on the facts and analysis. Policy issues often 

reflect other values, including societal ones. The key, however, is for policy makers 

to explain their policy choices in light of setting aside such findings where they 

choose to do so. Only with such clear and careful articulation of the grounds for policy choices can the public and others evaluate whether a policy choice is appropriate 

in light of the broader policy choices and standards set forth in our laws. 

Agency officials or decision-makers sometimes choose to ignore scientific findings 

in making policy choices. In these cases, the foundation on which those decisions 

were made is undermined with the likely outcome of a poor and risky decision. For 

this reason, it is important that decisions by policy persons are made in an open 

and transparent manner so that consequences can be appropriately weighed by society. Far worse, however, are the cases in which decision-makers seek to manipulate, 

distort, overturn, or suppress scientific findings in order to make them comport with 

their policy preferences. There were numerous examples given by witnesses at the 

May 9 hearing that point to an unprecedented manipulation of science by agency 

officials in this administration. These efforts essentially rely on subterfuge to deprive the public and the Congress of any ability to evaluate the soundness of decisions. In my view, this is an inappropriate approach to the intersection between 

science and policy that I have tried to focus in on one particular instance—the preparation of a draft recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl—in my testimony to 

the Committee. Indeed, under the Endangered Species Act, the overriding policy of 

the Fish & Wildlife Service must be ‘‘to provide a means whereby the ecosystems 

upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, 

[and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and 

threatened species’’. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). In the case of the spotted owl recovery 

plan, preconceived outcomes got in the way of sound science. 

(6) Would you agree that science is never clear cut, that two scientists 

could research an issue and come up with different results or opinions? 

Science is often quite clear cut, especially where there is sufficient information to 

draw reliable conclusions. In cases where it is not, scientists lack enough information to draw reliable inferences. Even in these situations, however, scientists often 

have methods of analysis that can provide useful and reliable insights in the face 

of uncertainty and risk assessment and most often couch there statements in probability terms. Where scientists do ‘‘research an issue and come up with different results or opinions,’’ as I noted above, it often involves different assumptions, analytical methods, and so on. For that reason, these apparent differences can usually be 

162

resolved—if not immediately then over time—by scientists working together, comparing their results, refining their analyses, and stating their confidence limits. The 

idea—suggested by the question—that there is no such thing as a right answer in 

science, is resolvable through peer review and statements of confidence in the findings. 

In addition, reputable scientists would not reach hasty conclusions when the facts 

are largely unknown or in dispute. The risks to endangered species, and society, go 

up when policy decisions are based on scientific uncertainty (e.g., findings that have 

low confidence levels or have limited application) and poor choices. This is especially 

troubling when the science is outright ignored, manipulated, or interfered with in 

order to support preconceived outcomes. To illustrate this point, I would like to discuss a particular case where hasty or incorrect policy decisions could lead to more 

costly measures or, even worse, changes that are impossible to reverse. 

In the case of threatened Northern Spotted Owl, there is a scientific consensus 

that the owls’ survival depends on protecting old-growth forests from logging. This 

is based on more than two decades of research (see Anthony et al. 2006). The draft 

spotted owl recovery plan, however, falsely concluded that the owl does not need a 

high proportion of old-growth forests to survive. This conclusion was based on just 

two studies (Franklin et al. 2000, Olson et al. 2004) in the southern portion of the 

owls’ range where owls were reported using a mixture of forest age classes (not just 

old growth). However, a third study (Dugger et al. 2005) by some of the same researchers in a nearby study area could not confirm these findings. When a small 

number of studies produce results that are inconsistent with a larger body of work, 

the proper scientific approach is to treat these with great caution and work to 1) 

confirm whether they are correct or not, and 2) if correct, how far can they be reliably extrapolated? The following statements from these researchers underscore my 

concerns: 

• ‘‘...we do not recommend that forest managers use our modeling results as a prescription for managing habitat either within the Oregon Coast Range or elsewhere until other similar studies have been conducted.’’ (Olson et al. 2004). 

• ‘‘I have repeatedly noted that the monograph (Franklin et al. 2000) represents 

just a first approximation of these relationships, which form the basis for future 

studies, but in itself should not be considered definitive.’’ (Dr. Alan Franklin in 

a November 21, 2006 letter to Paul Phifer, Fish & Wildlife Service, which was 

forwarded to the recovery team). 

Unfortunately, these warnings were ignored by Fish & Wildlife Service which instead chose habitat provisions for the owl that low-ball old-growth protections based 

on false interpretations of the two studies. This is a clear-cut example of making 

hasty decisions that could result in premature delisting of the owl, or even worse, 

continued and irreversible habitat losses. In this case, science was misapplied and 

statements of scientific uncertainty ignored in order to support a preconceived outcome dictated by the Washington Oversight Committee as detailed in my testimony. 

Because conservation science is the science of ‘‘crisis management,’’ especially in 

the case of endangered species, prudent decision making should be based on the precautionary principle. Old growth habitat once logged takes many decades to re-grow. 

Because the owl requires old growth over most of its range, as most owl biologists 

have concluded, logging these forests pushes the species closer to extinction and 

could trigger an up-listing to endangered status, resulting in decisions more costly 

socially and economically. Most notably, the owl is an indicator species of old-growth 

forests, which contain a broad suite of values widely supported by society. These 

were considered in the Northwest Forest Plan, and any action that weakens the 

Plan has implications that reach beyond the fate of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

Literature Cited 

Anthony, R.G. and several others. Status and trends in demography of Northern 

Spotted Owls. Wildlife Monographs 163. 48 pp. 

Dugger, K.M., F. Wagner, R.G. Anthony, and G.S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of Northern Spotted 

Owls in Southern Oregon. The Condor 107:863-878. 

Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, 

habitat quality, and fitness in Northern Spotted Owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70:539-590. 

Olson, G.S., and several others. 2004. Modeling demographic performance of Northern Spotted Owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. J. Wildlife Management 

68:1039-1063. 

Ms. RODD. Chairman Rahall. 

163

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JUDITH SCHOYER RODD,

DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF BLACKWATER 

Ms. RODD. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your 

Committee. 

My name is Judith Schoyer Rodd. I am the Director of Friends 

of Blackwater, a citizen’s organization with 1,000 dues-paying 

members, and offices in Tucker County and Charleston, West 

Virginia. 

We West Virginians are extremely proud of our beautiful mountains, rivers, and rural communities, and we are fierce and zealous 

in their defense and protection. We are particularly proud of the 

West Virginia Highlands, a little bit of Canada in Appalachia. 

I am here on behalf of the Save our Squirrel, or SOS Coalition, 

a consortium of 25 groups that have banded together to prevent the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from removing Federal endangered 

species protections from the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel, Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus. 

Our coalition member groups include the Wilderness Society, the 

National Wildlife Federation, the American Lands Alliance, the 

Center for Biological Diversity, the Southern Appalachian Bio Diversity Project, the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, 

Heartwood, Stewards of the Potomac Highlands, and the Maryland 

Conservation Council. 

Ginny, a flying squirrel as we like to call her, and her babies are 

the signature species of our state’s highest mountains. Ginny is a 

relic of the last ice age. When the glaciers retreated, Ginny’s ancestors were isolated on the high mountain ridges of six West Virginia 

counties and one in Virginia. 

Ginny has evolved a remarkable lifestyle, surviving a demanding 

and specialized habitat—feeding at night on underground fungi 

that grow in the cool, moist forest and mountain tops. 

Ginny has been on the Federal endangered species list since 

1985. In the fall of 2006, officials at the Fish and Wildlife Service 

announced a fast-track de-listing proposal for Ginny. The proposal 

developed in secret without input from official recovery plan authors is to strip all Federal protections from the West Virginia 

Northern Flying Squirrel. This proposal generated a huge negative 

public reaction. The agency says that the public cannot see 2,325 

pages in the agency’s files on de-listing. 

Members of Congress, this isn’t national security. What can be 

so secret about a squirrel? The agency’s stealth de-listing plan is 

illegal and absurd procedurally and substantively. 

Fish and Wildlife Service admits it has no idea how many squirrels there are. The threats to Ginny and her habitat are growing, 

not shrinking. The meager scientific data on Ginny’s habitat and 

likely future has been cherry picked and mischaracterized to support a clearly pre-determined conclusion. 

The leading scientist who has studied the squirrel for decades 

has opposed the de-listing proposal. More than 5,000 people have 

sent comments to Fish and Wildlife Service opposing the plan, and 

we have submitted a 50-page comment letter refuting every assertion in the agency’s proposal. 

164

People in the agency tell us they have no funding to implement 

the recovery plan, and instead they are planning how to scrap the 

recovery plan altogether. Certainly it would solve a lot of problems 

for everyone but the species and its habitat. It is shameful and 

shocking to learn that what we are experiencing in West Virginia 

is a symptom of a greater problem—the attempted rollback of endangered species protection across America by political appointees 

who appear to despise the very law they are sworn to uphold. 

We join with Americans everywhere in saying that we will not 

tolerate any rollback of the protections of the Endangered Species 

Act. 

As I speak to you today, Ginny is nursing her babies in a birchbarked line nest. Ginny can survive the cold mountain nights, but 

she can’t protect herself from Beltway machinations. It is up to us 

to protect Ginny, and all the other wonderful parts of the creation. 

Our SOS, Save Our Squirrel Coalition represents millions of 

Americans who expect nothing less from our government, and that 

is why I would like to thank you for the opportunity to come to 

Washington and tell our story. I have included further remarks in 

my written testimony, and will be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rodd follows:]

Statement of Judith Schoyer Rodd, Director, Friends of Blackwater,

on behalf of the ‘‘SOS!—Save Our Squirrel’’ Coalition 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee. My name is Judith Schoyer Rodd. I am the Director of Friends of Blackwater, a citizen organization with one thousand dues-paying members, and offices in Tucker County and 

Charleston, West Virginia. 

We West Virginians are extremely proud of our beautiful mountains, rivers, and 

rural communities, and we are fierce and zealous in their defense and protection. 

That is why I am appearing today on behalf of the ‘‘SOS!—Save Our Squirrel’’ Coalition, a consortium of 25 groups that have banded together to prevent the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service from removing federal endangered species protection for the 

West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel, (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus). Our Coalition 

member groups include The Wilderness Society, American Lands Alliance, The Center for Biological Diversity, Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Southern 

Appalachian Forest Coalition, Heartwood, Stewards of the Potomac Highlands, and 

Maryland Conservation Council. 

‘‘Ginny’’ the flying squirrel, as we like to call her, is the ‘‘signature species’’ of our 

State’s highest mountains. Ginny is a relic of the last Ice Age. When the glaciers 

retreated, Ginny’s ancestors were isolated on the high mountain ridges of six West 

Virginia counties (and one in Virginia.) Ginny has evolved a remarkable lifestyle, 

surviving in a demanding and specialized habitat, feeding at night on underground 

fungi that grow in the cool, moist, forested mountaintops. 

Ginny has been on the federal Endangered Species List since 1985. In the Fall 

of 2006, officials at Fish and Wildlife announced a fast-track ‘‘de-listing’’ proposal 

for Ginny. The proposal, developed in secret, without input from official recovery 

plan authors, is to strip all federal protections from the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel. 

This proposal generated a huge negative public reaction. The agency says that the 

public cannot see 2,325 pages in the agency’s files on de-listing. Members of 

Congress—this isn’t national security. What can be so secret about a squirrel? 

The agency’s stealth ‘‘de-listing’’ plan is illegal and absurd—procedurally and substantively. Fish and Wildlife admits it has no idea how many squirrels there are. 

The threats to Ginny and her habitat are growing, not shrinking. The meager scientific data on Ginny’s habitat and likely future has been ‘‘cherry-picked’’ and 

mischaracterized, to support a clearly predetermined conclusion. The leading scientist who has studied the squirrel for decades has opposed the de-listing proposal. 

More than 5,000 people have sent comments to Fish and Wildlife opposing the 

plan, and we have submitted a fifty-page comment letter, refuting every assertion 

in the agency’s proposal. Members of Congress, people in the agency tell us they 

have had no funding to implement the recovery plan, and instead they are planning 

165

how to scrap the recovery plan altogether. Certainly it would solve a lot of 

problems—for everyone but the species and its habitat! 

It is shameful and shocking to learn that what we are experiencing in West 

Virginia is a symptom of a greater problem. The attempted rollback of endangered 

species protection across America—political appointees who appear to despise the 

very law they are sworn to uphold. We join with Americans everywhere in saying 

we will not tolerate any rollback of the protections of the Endangered Species Act. 

As I speak to you today, Ginny is nursing her babies in a birch-bark lined nest. 

Ginny can survive the cold mountain nights, but she can’t protect herself from Beltway machinations. It’s up to us to protect Ginny—and all of the other wonderful 

parts of the Creation. Our ‘‘SOS—Save Our Squirrel’’ Coalition represents millions 

of Americans who expect nothing less from our government. That’s why I thank you 

for this opportunity to come to Washington and tell our story. I have included further remarks in my written testimony and I will be happy to take any questions.

Issues in FWS implementation of the Endangered Species Act nationally.

I would like to make the following points about the importance of endangered 

species recovery plans. The Endangered Species Act requires FWS to develop recovery plans for endangered species. Recovery plans are a roadmap for protection and 

recovery of the species. For a species to be de-listed or downlisted, it must meet the 

recovery criteria contained in the recovery plan. 

The Bush Administration has completed fewer recovery plans than any administration since the Carter administration. To date, the Bush Administration has completed just 100 recovery plans, compared to 577 under the Clinton administration 

and 174 under the first Bush administration. Moreover, the Bush administration 

has interfered with development of recovery plans to an unprecedented degree. 

The Apache trout recovery plan is one example. Then-regional-director Dale Hall 

went around the Apache Trout Recovery Team to revise the Apache Trout Recovery 

Plan to make it easier to de-list the trout. Over the objections of the Team Members 

the weaker, revised plan was adopted. The Northern Spotted Owl recovery plan is 

another example of interference in the development of recovery plans. 

The Bush administration has also ignored recovery plan criteria in order to speed 

downlisting and de-listing of species, and not only in the case of the West Virginia 

northern flying squirrel. For example, in April 2006, FWS recommended downlisting 

the Florida manatee from endangered to threatened, even though it admitted the 

manatee had not yet met the downlisting criteria established by a panel of scientists 

in 2001 to assess the manatee’s progress, and contained in the recovery plan. FWS 

claimed it ignored those criteria and instead followed the legal definitions of ‘‘endangered’’ and ‘‘threatened.’’ FWS cancelled its downlisting plans shortly afterward 

after an outcry from scientists and the public. 

I also wish to address the recently leaked proposed changed Fish and Wildlife 

Service regulations for the Endangered Species Act, which exemplify the contrarian 

approach of the administration to science. The administration’s draft regulations 

would limit scientists’ ability to do what is needed to recover species. This developing regulatory package is an attempt to formalize the administration’s approach 

of suppressing and distorting endangered species science to get the outcomes it 

wants. Specifically, the proposed changes would tie scientific hands regarding decisions about whether to list a species as threatened. A species should be listed as 

threatened if it is likely to become endangered within ‘‘the foreseeable future’’. Currently, this definition is left up to scientists, because it varies case by case. The 

draft regulations would arbitrarily define ‘‘foreseeable future’’ as ‘‘10 generations or 

20 years, at the discretion of the Service’’ in most cases. What would that mean for 

species like the WV Flying Squirrel, which is threatened in the long term by global 

warming? 

The draft regulations also improperly devolve authority to the states. Currently, 

States are encouraged to participate in recovery planning, listing decisions and critical habitat designations, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the ultimate responsibility and authority to make a scientifically-based, non-political decisions. It often does so over the objections of state agencies, which are more beholden 

to local political pressure. The Administration’s draft regulations say ‘‘States, may 

request and be given the lead role in almost every aspect of the Act, including, but 

not limited to, [listing, consultation, and Habitat Conservation Plans.]’’ There are 

many reasons, from political pressure in-state to resources of the state agency, for 

caution when handing such responsibilities to the states.

Comments On the Proposed De-Listing of the West Virginia northern flying 

squirrel

The proposed de-listing rule for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel 

(WVNFS) is deeply flawed and fails to meet the basic requirements of the EndanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
166

gered Species Act for recovery of a species. The squirrel is not going to ‘‘fly solo’’ 

as the Fish and Wildlife Service claims but instead will glide into extinction under 

this proposal. Here are the problems with the proposal. 

1. The Administration’s process for this de-listing proposal violates the Endangered Species Act by ignoring the WVNFS Recovery Plan standards and fails 

to provide a post-de-listing monitoring plan for public review and comment. 

2. There is no credible information on the flying squirrel population, which in 

turn does not allow assessment of population trends. 

3. There is inadequate and misleading information on flying squirrel habitat. 

4. There are flaws in the modeling for flying squirrel presence, capture counts 

and habitat needs. 

5. The plan relies on the good intentions and interest of others to protect the 

squirrel after de-listing despite an inadequate regulatory framework and lack 

of funding. 

6. There is inadequate analysis of ongoing and cumulative impacts on flying 

squirrels, including failure to examine the devastating effects of: 

Æ Climate Change 

Æ Energy Development 

Æ Private Land Development and Highway Construction 

Æ Timbering

Process Concerns

Ignoring the Recovery Plan is Violation of the Endangered Species Act

The WVNFS de-listing proposal is the clearest crystallization to date of a heretofore background effort by the Bush administration to dispense with recovery plans 

by arguing that objective, measurable, concrete de-listing criteria should be overridden by the five non-criteria-based listing factors. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) throws out the Recovery Plan for the squirrel by saying it is too old and is 

irrelevant because ‘‘new light’’ has been shed and ‘‘new information has become 

available’’ which is never explained. The recovery plan was amended as recently as 

2001 and the Service has not and cannot demonstrate that the recovery criteria are 

scientifically inadequate. The recovery plan’s requirement of population stability is 

the bedrock of conservation biology and cannot credibly be replaced by an unscientific concept of ‘‘persistence,’’ and the recovery plan’s requirement of perpetual habitat protection is another important principle of conservation biology. 

It is quite evident that there is nothing inadequate with the recovery criteria in 

the plan. The de-listing proposal and 5-year review certainly do not demonstrate 

any inadequacies. To the contrary, its justification for designating the species as recovered follows the same general logic as the plan: the population is healthy, the 

species life history is sufficiently known to be managed, the habitat is currently protected, the habitat will be protected into the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the 

de-listing proposal and 5-year review repeatedly state that these have been accomplished by implementing the plan. However the logic doesn’t match the facts on the 

ground. 

It is no accident the Service tries to denigrate the Recovery Plan because it cannot 

meet the goals for de-listing the squirrel as outlined by the Plan. First, the Recovery 

Plan requires that 80% of the core habitat (Geographic Recovery Areas or GRA’s) 

for the squirrel have a stable or increasing population for at least ten years. There 

is no data indicating whether the WVNFS is stable, increasing or decreasing. How 

does the Service deal with this problem? It throws out the goal because it would 

prevent de-listing. While not alerting the reader that it is violating this provision 

of the recovery plan, the Service substitutes the demographically meaningless and 

undefined concept of ‘‘persistence’’ to replace population measures. Secondly, the recovery plan requires that all core habitat areas be managed for the species in perpetuity. The de-listing proposal admits that they are being managed under a multiple-use mandate that will result in continued logging of important squirrel habitat. 

And thirdly, the recovery plan requires that high elevation forests be protected in 

perpetuity, while the de-listing proposal notes that they may be completely destroyed by global warming.

Process Out of Order: Need for Comment Period on the Post-De-listing 

Monitoring Plan

It is clear from the December 19, 2006 Federal Register Notice and the meeting 

on February 9, 2007 between Friends of Blackwater and the FWS that the agency 

does not have a post-de-listing monitoring plan in place. This is a problem for a 

number of reasons. The ESA requires that a post-de-listing monitoring plan be published simultaneous with the de-listing rule. Unless and until such a plan is distribVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
167

uted to the public, this de-listing rule is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance 

with the law. 

Any purported plan has not undergone full public scrutiny. The public has a right 

to comment on the full range of what is proposed in de-listing the flying squirrel. 

In failing to provide the post-de-listing monitoring plan at this time, the FWS is 

fragmenting the commenting process and denying the public the opportunity to provide fully informed comments. A second comment period will be required when the 

post-de-listing monitoring plan is completed. The 5-Year Review and the post-de-listing monitoring plan are inextricably linked. In order to understand if the assertions 

of species viability after de-listing contained in the 5-Year Review are true, it is necessary to know the monitoring steps proposed to ascertain the state of squirrel viability. This critical information is missing since the post-de-listing monitoring plan 

has yet to be written.

FOIA Request and the Comment Period Deadline

Friends of Blackwater submitted a FOIA request (#2006-00988) on the West 

Virginia northern flying squirrel proposed de-listing rule Sept 10th, 2006. We received materials from that FOIA request on December 19th. Friends of Blackwater 

appealed the partial denial of 2,325 pages of documents. This appeal was submitted 

on Feb 2, 2007 (Appeal Number 2007-060). We received phone confirmation that 

more documents would be released in February. We have yet to receive any of the 

released documents. 

We would like an official explanation for the long delay in the release of these 

materials. When can we expect to receive these documents? Withholding documents 

undermines the rule making process, and lessens public trust in federal agencies. 

It further undercuts the ability of the public to make informed comments when denied access to legally releasable materials that serve to illuminate the proposed delisting. The signatories of this letter request that the comment period remain open 

until all documents have been received and reviewed.

Population Concerns

The foundation of wildlife biology is understanding the population ecology of a 

species and its habitat. In the absence of population data the utmost caution must 

be observed in considering any action they may directly impact a species or its 

habitat. 

The proposed rule states that de-listing is justified because of ‘‘an increase in the 

number of individual squirrels’’ (proposal at 75924). At the time of listing, ten squirrels where known at four sites; between 1985 and 2005 there were 1,141 captures 

at 107 sites (proposal at 75926). An unknown portion of the captures were recaptures, thus the 1,141 captures do not represent 1,141 squirrels. The population size 

was not known or estimated at any point between 1985 and 2005. These data do 

not in any manner support the Service’s assertion that the population has increased 

since 1985, nor has the Service provided any additional data to support the strange 

assertion. The only valid conclusions one can draw about WVNFS populations 

trends are 1) the population size is not known now or at any time between 1985 

and 2005, 2) the 1985 to 2005 population trend is not known, 3) the current population trend is not known, 4) some capture sites have been used relatively continuously since 1985, some have been used sporadically, some have been abandoned, and 

many are lacking in sufficient data to determine whether use has been consistent, 

sporadic or abandoned between 1985 and 2005, and 5) the Service has completely 

dropped the ball on WVNFS monitoring, having consistently failed over a 20-year 

period to fund or establish demographically useful surveying methodology. 

A recent analysis of all federally listed species in eight northeast states determined that all had persisted and 93% had increased in size or remained stable since 

listing (Suckling 2006). Under the proposal’s ‘‘persistence’’ criteria, all of them 

should be removed from the endangered species list. Some such as the piping plover, 

roseate tern, and green sea turtle have done considerably better than persist, they 

have dramatically increased in size, yet none have been proposed for de-listing because, unlike the case of the WVNFS, the Service is requiring that the species meet 

scientific recovery criteria established in recovery plans. The Service’s procedure in 

this case is to ignore the recovery plan and proceed to de-list in the absence of any 

explicit recovery criteria based on the nearly meaningless and poorly defined concept of ‘‘persistence.’’ This clearly violates the Endangered Species Act requirement 

that the Service scientifically demonstrate the species is recovered.

Data Analysis of Captures from Field Reporting Forms for WVNFS

To further clarify the number of endangered squirrels captured as stated in the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed rule, we analyzed data from a digital database 

of squirrel captures provided by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources 

168

from 1988 through 2006. This data analysis concluded there were a total of 1,199 

captures during this time period with only 79 recaptures. However, there were some 

327 captures that did not include any information about ear tag numbers placed on 

captured squirrels with no clear reason for this lack of information. These 327 

records represent a distinct anomaly in the capture data that seemed to indicate 

that there may have been as few as 793 unique captures. 

Due to this and several other inconsistencies within the data source we obtained 

copies of the actual field reporting sheets from the West Virginia Department of 

Natural Resources office in Elkins, West Virginia in order to try to further understand these and other inconsistencies in the capture data. 

Data from available field capture forms was then entered into an Excel Spreadsheet. A total of 1,233 documents representing research from years 1985 to 2006 

were entered for assessment. As a means of trying to keep the information as accurate as possible, forms that were illegible (in part or whole), forms that were duplicates of others, as well as type written forms that appeared to be summary in nature but lacked definitive information were excluded for the purpose of data analysis. After excluding data that fell into those categories, capture data was assessed 

for some 1,147 separate events. 

Upon review of the capture data, 104 events had been recorded as recaptures and 

114 events were recorded as unknown. For the purpose of analysis it was assumed 

that unknown meant it was not possible for any number of reasons to determine 

whether the animal had been captured in previous field studies. This led to the determination (based solely on the exclusion of captures recorded as recaptured or unknown) that only 929 events remained as possible unique captures. 

Further analysis of the data included assessment of the assignment of tag numbers during capture events. During 275 captures the animal was not tagged. Reasons for the lack of tagging ranged from escape of the animal to ‘‘not applicable’’. 

These 275 events also included several nestlings that were not tagged at the time 

the data was recorded. Without tagging of these animals on initial capture it cannot 

be known if they were ever recaptured. Analysis of the data from these 1,147 captures presents several inconsistencies in the actual collection of the field data. 

To summarize, analysis results show 114 events where initial capture or 

recapture was unknown; 275 instances where a tag number was not assigned to an animal; and 104 events that were definitively recaptures. 

When these numbers are considered, unique squirrel captures over the last 

21 years may only number 654 individuals. Considering that the squirrel 

only has an average life span of four years this is a very small number indeed.

Ecological Issues

In examining the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Five-Year Review of the status of the 

squirrel on which the proposed delisting rule is based, one anticipates an extensive 

review of current literature related to the WVNFS alongside results of independent 

research performed by the agency, supported by expert opinions. Instead one encounters a synthesis of some current and relevant information alongside numerous 

unfounded assertions. Also troubling is the use and indeed heavy reliance on unpublished, non-peer reviewed science such as Menzel 2003. Instead of a comprehensive 

and objective review of the status of WVNFS, the Five-Year Review fails to address 

relevant ecological information and basic principles of conservation biology. In an effort to correct these deficiencies we present some of the ecological issues that are 

ignored by the agency. 

• The WVNFS has been documented and is known to inhabit deciduous forests 

at lower elevations and should not be considered an obligate to spruce fir forests. 

• The WFNS is typically considered to inhabit forests with older growth characteristics such as an all-aged forest structure, vertical diversity, down woody debris, and a high level of diversity of plants, animals, fungi, mosses, and lichens. 

Although the WVNFS is associated with this habitat it can exists across a broad 

range of forest habitats but needs forests with older growth conditions in 

enough places across its range to persist. 

• Protecting only old growth spruce forests will not ensure the protection of northern hardwoods. Northern Hardwoods communities must also be protected in reserves of sufficient size. Without knowing the spatial needs of the WVNFS it 

is presumptuous to assume that just protecting small portions of forest will be 

sufficient to recover the species. 

• It is essential to not only maintain reserves of spruce and northern hardwoods 

but also to retain their connectivity across the landscape. Any loss of 

connectivity via road building, large-scale logging, etc. should be considered as 

169

a substantial threat that has not been abated at the scale appropriate to recover 

the species. Studies indicate that roads can have major impacts to the ability 

of flying squirrels to move across the landscape (Weigl et al. 2002). 

• Other forest health issues that compound the threats to the WFNVS include: 

the loss of Eastern Hemlock to the Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, the loss of Fir to 

Balsam Wooly Adelgid, the loss of Beech due to Beech bark Disease, and the 

impacts of Oak Decline in northern hardwood communities. Even if it were true 

that all threats at the time of listing the WVNFS have been abated (which they 

most certainly have not) there are new threats which are growing that may 

have untold consequences for the WVNFS. De-listing this species now would 

strip away the protections offering it the best chance for survival.

Red Spruce

Role of Spruce in Boreal Habitat

High elevation spruce in the Southern Appalachians is a relict of widespread 

spruce occurrence during the Pleistocene. However, spruce is just one component of 

this habitat. The proposed de-listing and the modeling on which the de-listing proposal relies focus on spruce to the exclusion of other components of boreal habitat. 

It is simplistic to imagine that spruce and elevation by themselves determine preferred habitat for G. sabrinus fuscus.

Habitat Age-Class and the Squirrel

One of the most consistent factors associated with G. sabrinus fuscus is older 

growth trees and old growth conditions. This should be a primary focus of recovery 

efforts. However, this is in direct opposition to efforts to ‘‘restore’’ spruce forests, as 

this is likely to involve harvesting mature tree to be replaced with new regeneration. Even if spruce regeneration is successful, which is highly unlikely under a climate change scenario, these immature trees are unlikely to provide good habitat in 

any foreseeable future.

Food Sources

The use of food sources by Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus is critical to an understanding of their habitat use. One study of the G sabrinus fuscus fecal pellet contents, done by Donna Mitchell of the WV DNR in 1998 gives us some insight into 

what the squirrel eats. Entitled ‘‘Spring and Fall Diet of the West Virginia Northern 

Flying Squirrel’’ it was published by the American Midland Naturalist in 2001. The 

pellets studied were collected from 115 captured squirrels from 1989 to 1991 in the 

spring and fall. No information was collected for winter and summer food sources. 

The spring samples show equal consumption of buds from red spruce and beech 

trees and fungus associated equally with both conifer and broadleaf trees. In the 

fall, fungi were more widely eaten, as were beechnuts. Lichen and mosses were also 

found in the samples. This small study supports the contention that the squirrel forages in both northern hardwood and conifer habitat and is not limited to red spruce 

forest types.

Model Used to Plan Management is Flawed

Over simplistic models of habitat requirements cannot be used solely to justify the 

de-listing of the WVNFS. The interpretation of this information has led the FWS 

to draw conclusions on the ecology of WVNFS and its population that are unsubstantiated. The de-listing proposal for Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus is heavily based 

on habitat modeling (Menzel, 2006). While this modeling is useful as an interesting 

addition to characterizing G. sabrinus fuscus, the study should not be promoted as 

definitively characterizing the habitat of G sabrinus fuscus. The model contains untested assumptions, is based on limited data, is a simplified model that does not account for important variables in the species’ biology, and remains an unverified and 

untested model. The model is also being applied outside of its intended scope and 

for purposes that are not supported by the study that the model is based on.

Threats to squirrel from second home and energy development, logging, 

road building, and climate change

Road building, mining, gas development, industrial wind and second home development are all increasing and pose significant threats to the WVNFS due to habitat 

fragmentation and removal which the Fish and Wildlife Service ignores. 

Threats to the squirrel from logging continue on both private and public land. 

While the Monongahela National Forest claims to have protected the squirrel from 

logging under their old and new management plans, they in fact allow logging in 

all hardwood stands occupied by the squirrel as well as logging in mix hardwood 

and conifer stands to encourage red spruce to dominate the canopy. They also allow 

logging to thin red spruce stands. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s claim that the 

170

Forest Service’s management plans protect the WVNFS has never been substantiated. 

There is a strong scientific consensus that spruce-fir forests will disappear from 

the Southern and Central Appalachians (and probably the United States) under 

even the most conservative global warming models. While some components of the 

northern hardwood forest will likely remain in the region, it will likely cease to 

function as a discrete ecological community. This will likely result in the extinction 

of the WVNFS. In the medium term (i.e., next 100 years), global warming is probably the greatest threat to the squirrel’s existence, yet the de-listing proposal provides only a cursory glance at the issue. This violates the Endangered Species Act 

requirement to employ the best available scientific information in making de-listing 

decisions. The proposal’s passing reference, moreover, is miscited, misinterpreted, 

and relies on criteria disallowed by the Endangered Species Act. The final decision 

must provide a thorough review of the large body of published scientific studies examining the likely impact of global warming on the WVNFS and its habit. (See attachment III)

Experts Excluded from Process

Research professors Dr. Peter Weigl and Dr. John Pagels, who were on the Appalachian northern flying squirrel Recovery Team and had developed much of the 

methodology to carry out the recovery goals, were not invited to work on the delisting process. They were not told that de-listing was being considered, only 

downlisting. Their years of research would have been invaluable to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service personnel working on the Five Year Review of the West Virginia 

northern flying squirrel. However, they were not consulted and much of their research was not used. Dr. Weigl made clear in his comments submitted for this comment period that he is opposed to de-listing Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus. Dr. Pagels 

raised a number of important concerns about de-listing as well

Conclusions and Recommendations

We believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service has no scientific basis for de-listing, 

let alone downlisting to threatened the WVNFS. We believe that the shoddy work 

revealed in the proposed rule to de-list and the Five Year Review show an attempt 

by the current administration to move away from the hard science of recovery plan 

criteria and to de-list any species that has become a bother. This proposal has undermined the public’s confidence in the scientific work of the Service. We ask this 

committee to demand that the Service convene a blue ribbon panel of independent 

scientists to review this proposal and the data that it is based on and come up with 

a new plan for the WVNFS that will ensure its protection into the future. Without 

such a plan it will not ‘‘fly solo’’ but come crashing to the ground and glide into extinction.


35221.001.eps
171

Response to questions submitted for the record by Ms. Judith Rodd 

(1) Ms. Rodd, you talk about leaked proposed changes to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s ESA regulations. The Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in a letter to Chairman Rahall has indicated that these ‘‘draft 

regulations’’ were ‘‘never adopted by the Department or the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and represented just one point of view on the 

issue’’. Do you believe the Service should have any regulatory authority 

to modify how the Endangered Species Act works? 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has no ‘‘regulatory authority’’ to modify the substantive requirements and protections of the ESA without Congressional action. The 

leaked draft regulations go far beyond any permissible interpretation or application 

of the ESA. They are therefore illegal on their face 


35221.002.eps 35221.003.eps
172

(2) You seem to object to the notion that authority be devolved to the 

states. Doesn’t the Governor and the West Virginia legislature care 

about the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel? Based on the fact 

that the federal government has recovered less than I percent of the 

2,400 listed species, don’t you think you might have a better outcome 

at the state level? 

The federal Endangered Species Act has not only prevented the extinction of 99% 

of all species ever listed, it has also put the majority of listed species on an upward 

recovery trend. The Fish and Wildlife Service found in 2004 that of those species 

with a known trend, 68% are stable or improving. When properly funded and implemented by the federal government, the Endangered Species Act is successful at its 

core purpose. 

(3) You mentioned in your testimony that the Service has no funding to implement the recovery plan for the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel. Do you know how many species have recovery plans? Do you know 

what the Congressional appropriation was for ESA Recovery efforts in 

FY’06? Do you know that figure was $16 million more than the last year 

of the Clinton Administration? 

Currently, 1312 species are listed as endangered or threatened, of which 1077 

have approved recovery plans. While appropriations for recovery have certainly increased during the Bush administration, the Bush administration has used these 

funds far less efficiently than did previous administrations. The Clinton administration completed 577 recovery plans over eight years. The Reagan administration completed 243 plans over eight years. To date, the Bush administration has completed 

only 100 plans over six years. 

In the face of this need and its own poor record at completing recovery plans, the 

Bush administration has consistently requested cuts to recovery funding. In FY’06 

Congress appropriated $73 million for endangered species recovery—$9 million more 

than the amount the administration requested that year. In FY’07 the administration once again requested a cut to recovery funding, requesting $65 million for recovery. The House of Representatives again demonstrated that Congress values endangered species recovery more than the White House by approving $70.6 million 

for recovery in FY’07. 

(4) If this species has been listed since 1985, what has happened for the 

past 22 years? 

Under agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources and the Monongahela National Forest have conducted nestbox surveys for the flying squirrel. Out of the 4,000 nestboxes put up 

only 2% were occupied by the squirrel. Because the nest box survey protocol differed 

from year to year and the surveys were not done on a regular basis the results cannot be used to calculate the squirrel population. 

(5) One of the reasons that the Fish and Wildlife Service has a lack of financial resources is the endless number of lawsuits. While I am sure 

you support lawsuits, since members of your coalition filed many of 

them, but wouldn’t it be better for the plaintiffs to take their financial 

judgements and to spend some of that taxpayer money helping Ginny 

and her kids and not just hiring more attorneys? Are you for Ginny or 

more lawyers? 

In passing the Endangered Species Act, Congress specifically recognized the need 

for citizen enforcement of the Endangered Species Act by including a citizen suit 

provision. The need for this provision has never been more clear. The present administration has taken almost no action to protect the nation’s endangered species 

except under court order. Indeed, all of the 57 species newly protected by this administration have followed court order. 

Moreover, the administration’s claims that litigation is draining the coffers is almost entirely baseless. Attorneys fees paid to conservation organizations that successfully sue to force protection of endangered species are not paid out of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s budget. Instead, they come from the budget of the Department of Justice. Reflecting this fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s own budgetary 

documents fail to show substantial expenditures on litigation related expenses beyond carrying out the duties that are required under the law and necessary for the 

conservation of species. 

Rather, records show that at the end of 2005, the Fish and Wildlife Service found 

themselves in the awkward position of not having spent over $500,000 dollars that 

they had set aside for litigation related expenses precisely because attorney’s fees 

173

are not paid from their budget. This money was instead spent on making findings 

to determine if additional species required the protections of the Act, which is one 

of the agency’s primary duties. 

(6) You state in your written testimony that it would be improper to 

devolve authority to the states with regard protecting endangered 

species. However, states have always has primacy with regard to wildlife management in their states. Has West Virginia adopted any state 

management measures to protect the flying squirrel? 

The West Virginia state code gives the state primacy over wildlife. However the 

state has no state Endangered Species Act (ESA) but instead has an agreement with 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service which charges that agency with enforcement of the ESA and the funding of research on endangered species. The West 

Virginia Department of Natural Resources does much of the field work on endangered species using federal funds and submits reports to Fish and Wildlife. 

(7) In your written testimony, you list road building, mining, gas development, industrial wind, and second home development as significant 

threats to the flying squirrel. These are actions controlled by the State, 

correct? With the limited resources the Fish and Wildlife Service has to 

implement the ESA, shouldn’t the state be responsible and take actions 

to limit the effect these activities have on the flying squirrel? 

Much of this work is regulated by the federal government such as road building 

and mining. The state has very limited funding to do the work. and would be unable 

to carry out the task. 

(8) How does mining effect the flying squirrel? Are you recommending that 

mining, gas development and wind energy not be pursued in West 

Virginia as alterative fuel sources? 

In some cases strip mining removes the forest habitat of the West Virginia northern flying squirrel. Mining and energy development are continuing with the West 

Virginia northern flying squirrel on the endangered species list. The Fish and Wildlife Service staff consults with companies and individuals about the effects of their 

activities on the squirrel and outlines ways to avoid harm to the squirrel and in 

some cases suggests mitigation measures.

Judith Holyoke Schoyer Rodd 

Director, Friends of Blackwater 

501 Elizabeth St., Room 3

Charleston, WV 25311

roddj@hotmail.com 

Charleston Office Phone 304-345-7663

Charleston Office Fax 304-345-3240

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Young. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN YOUNG [RETIRED],

BIOLOGIST, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Young. I was a biologist with NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

for my entire 30-year career. My work with both agencies was relative to implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 

Endangered Species Act. I retired in 2005. 

In 2002, I was selected as the first and today the only Bull Trout 

coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service. My understanding is 

that the Pacific Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service is currently 

planning to refill this position after nearly a two-year vacancy. 

As Bull Trout coordinator, my job was to serve as a conduit between field staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the scientific community, the public, and the managers of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in preparing three documents required under the ESA after 

a species is listed as threatened or endangered: a recovery plan, a 

174

critical habitat designation, and a five-year review of the species 

status. 

All of the information I am providing to you today, including my 

written testimony, is reflected in the respective administrative 

records for these three initiatives. The administrative records are 

available from the Pacific Region of Fish and Wildlife Service in 

Portland, Oregon. 

To prepare the recovery plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service established recovery teams across the range of Bull Trout in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. Recovery teams were 

made up of biologists and other stakeholders representing other 

Federal agencies such as the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management, state fish and wildlife agencies, private timber companies, private utility companies, private ranchers and farmers, 

and others. 

The recovery plan was drafted and released for public comment. 

The draft plan was also peer reviewed by fishery biologists identified by the American Fishery Society. Peer reviewers included U.S. 

Forest Service research biologists, university professors, biologists 

working for private timber industry corporations, biologists working for state fish and wildlife agencies, and others, and included 

some of the most prominent Bull Trout researchers as reflected by 

the current scientific literature. 

Public and peer review comments were considered and the draft 

recovery plan was edited accordingly. To date, the final recovery 

plan for Bull Trout has not been released. 

To prepare the critical habitat proposal, a team of Fish and Wildlife Service biologists worked with recovery team members to describe habitat necessary to support the recovery of those populations identified in the draft recovery plan as essential to the survival and recovery of Bull Trout. 

Again, public comment was solicited and peer review initiated, 

and again peer review affiliations ranged from Federal and state 

agencies to private timber companies and academia. 

Based on public and peer review input, the amount of critical 

habitat proposed for Bull Trout was reduced significantly in the 

draft final designation submitted by staff biologists to Fish and 

Wildlife Service mangers. 

An economic analysis of the effects of the critical habitat proposal 

was prepared concurrently by a private contractor and released for 

public comment. At the direction of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Washington office some 50 pages of this analysis describing the potential economic benefits of Bull Trout critical habitat designation 

were deleted. Therefore, the economic analysis only described potential negative economic effects of the proposed designation. 

The economic analysis also, by policy direction, vastly overestimated the potential negative economic effects of critical habitat 

designation by including all costs incurred pursuant to the conservation of Bull Trout since listing in 1998, and by double and triple counting costs of conservation measures that benefit multiple 

species of listed fish, but were assessed in full to each of the respective species. 

Subsequent dialogue with Fish and Wildlife Service Washington 

office, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife 

175

and Parks resulted in numerous categories of exclusions of areas 

from the Bull Trout critical habitat designation. None of these exclusions were based on science, and the rationale for several categories of exclusions was either unclear or illogical. 

The final critical habitat designation for Bull Trout was a fraction of that presented to Fish and Wildlife Service managers following public comment and peer review, and the result was a designation of scattered patches of critical habitat across the Pacific 

Northwest, not reflective of the connected habitat representing the 

life history requirements of this species. 

Accordingly, the critical habitat designation is currently being 

litigated by several conservation organizations. 

In 2004, a five-year review of the status of Bull Trout was initiated in response to a request from the Governor of Idaho. For this 

project, a panel of experts was convened to assist Fish and Wildlife 

Service biologists and managers in designing a process for both collecting information relative to the status of Bull Trout, and also for 

subsequent decisionmaking. 

Panel members were chosen through a literature searching process with the most qualified individuals were identified based on 

their contributions to the scientific literature. Panel member affiliations included the Fish and Wildlife Service, academia, and the 

U.S. Geological Survey, and others. 

As was the case with the draft recovery plan and the critical 

habitat proposal, the draft five-year review was then submitted for 

peer review by scientists from a diversity of affiliations. The result 

of the review was that some populations of Bull Trout were in an 

improved conservation status since listing. Some populations were 

in a degradated conservation status, and overall the populations of 

Bull Trout in the United States were still appropriately listed as 

threatened under the ESA. 

To date, this review has not been released, and my understanding is that the Fish and Wildlife Service intends to begin 

work on a new five-year review for Bull Trout. 

The intent in responding to the ESA requirements for preparing 

a recovery plan, a critical habitat designation and a five-year review was to create a transparent scientifically based process that 

the public, the scientific community, and the mangers in the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks could track. 

The transparent process and the scientific basis for these initiatives are reflected in the administrative records held by the agency, 

and available for public and congressional review. The failure to finalize these initiatives consistent with a carefully developed processes and peer reviewed scientific information I have described has 

resulted in a lowering of morale among Fish and Wildlife Service 

scientific staff; a reduced respect for the work of the agency from 

scientific peers, and the public; the willingness of the scientific 

community to assist the Fish and Wildlife Service in such initiatives in the future; and a tremendous waste of labor and associated 

budget within the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

176

Statement of John A. Young, Biologist (Retired),

NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

This statement is submitted by John A. Young. I was a biologist with NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for my entire 30-year career. My work 

with both agencies was relative to implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act (SEA). retired in 2005. 

In 2002 I was selected as the first, and to date the only, Bull Trout Coordinator 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). My understanding is that the Pacific Region of the USFWS is currently planning to re-fill this position after a nearly 

two year vacancy. 

As Bull Trout Coordinator, my job was to serve as the conduit between field staff 

of the USFWS. the scientific community, the public, and the managers of the 

USFWS in pre-paring three documents required under the SEA after a species is 

listed as threatened or endangered: a Recovery Plan, a Critical Habitat Designation, 

and a 5-year review of the species status. All of the information I am providing to 

you today is reflected in the respective administrative records for these three initiatives. The administrative records are available from the Pacific Region of the 

USFWS in Portland, Oregon. 

Bull Trout Recovery Plan 

To prepare the Recovery Plan the USFWS established Recovery Teams across the 

range of bull trout in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho and Montana. Recovery 

Teams were made up of biologists and other stakeholders representing other Federal agencies, such as the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, State 

fish and wildlife agencies, private timber companies, utility companies, private 

ranchers and farmers, and others. The recovery plan was drafted and released for 

public comment. The draft plan was also peer reviewed by fishery biologists identified by the American Fisheries Society. Peer reviewers included U.S. Forest Service 

research biologists, university professors, biologists working for private timber industry corporations, biologists working for State fish and wildlife agencies, and others, and included some of the most prominent bull trout researchers as reflected by 

the current scientific literature. Public and peer review comments were considered 

and the draft recovery plan was edited accordingly. To date the final recovery plan 

for bull trout has not been released. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat Designation 

To prepare the critical habitat proposal, a team of USFWS biologists worked with 

recovery team members to describe habitat necessary to support the recovery of 

those populations identified in the draft recovery plan as essential to the survival 

and recovery of bull trout. Again, public comment was solicited and peer review initiated and, again, peer reviewer affiliations ranged from Federal and State agencies 

to private timber companies and academia. Based on public and peer review input, 

the amount of critical habitat proposed for bull trout was reduced significantly in 

the draft final designation submitted by staff biologists to USFWS managers. 

Subsequent dialogue with the USFWS Washington Office and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks resulted in numerous categories of exclusions of areas from the bull trout critical habitat designation. None of these exclusions were based on science, and the rationale for several categories of exclusions 

was either un-clear or illogical. 

For example, the entire ‘‘action area’’ of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) (i.e., the Federal hydro power projects on the Columbia and Snake 

Rivers) was deleted from the critical habitat designation. ‘‘Action area’’ is a term of 

art under the SEA and indicates the scope of habitat that a species that is affected 

by project operations occupies. So, if an adult bull trout migrates through a dam 

on the mainstream Columbia River and is potentially affected by dam operations, 

the ‘‘action area’’ includes the spawning grounds high up in the watershed (sometimes a hundred miles or more distant from the mainstream river) where the adult 

fish was born and returns to reproduce. The problem with excluding these areas 

from a critical habitat designation is that the operators of the FRPS—the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bonneville Power Administration—only control operations on the mainstream Columbia and Snake Rivers. 

These agencies have absolutely no discretionary authority over upstream habitat occurring on private farms and ranches, State lands, or Federal lands managed by the 

Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. While an argument might be made 

that exclusion of the mainstream Snake and Columbia River areas directly managed 

by the agencies operating the FRPS is appropriate, blanket exclusion of the 

FFCRPS ‘‘action area’’ is completely illogical. USFWS staff identified this category 

177

of exclusion as inappropriate, but USFWS managers were overruled by the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

Another example of an illogical, unsupportable category of exclusion is that of all 

reservoirs within the range of bull trout habitat. There are hundreds of large and 

small reservoirs built for irrigation water storage, flood control, and hydro power 

generation in the Pacific Northwest. Operators of these reservoirs include Federal 

Agencies, private utility companies, private associations of ranchers and farmers, 

and State and local governments. Operational plans for these reservoirs are diverse, 

depending on their purpose. Some, but certainly not all, of the operators of reservoirs have consulted with the USFWS under the SEA and have accordingly considered the conservation of bull trout when designing their annual operation plans. 

Most pertinent to this discussion is that the exclusion of all reservoirs within the 

scope of proposed bull trout critical habitat was made at the direction of the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks without an analysis of the 

status of individual operational plans, any associated conservation measures, and 

the effect of those plans and measures on the habitat necessary for the continued 

survival and recovery of bull trout. Again, the efficacy of this blanket exclusion was 

questioned at the staff level, but again USFWS managers were directed to include 

this exclusion category in the final critical habitat rule by the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 

The final critical habitat designation for bull trout was a fraction of that presented to USFWS managers following public comment and peer review, and the result was scattered patches of habitat across the Pacific Northwest not reflective of 

connected habitat. representing the life history requirements of this species. Accordingly, the critical habitat designation is currently being litigated by several conservation organizations. 

Bull Trout Proposed Critical Habitat Economic Analysis 

An economic analysis of the effects of the critical habitat proposal was prepared 

concurrently by a private contractor and released for public comment. At the direction of the USFWS Washington Office, 50+ pages of this analysis describing the potential economic benefits of the proposed bull trout critical habitat designation were 

deleted. Therefore, the economic analysis only described potential negative economic 

effects of the proposed designation. 

The data presented in the Economic Analysis has also been skewed, by policy, to 

over-estimate costs associated with a critical habitat designation for bull trout. For 

example, fish passage facilities on the hydro power projects in the Pacific Northwest 

were built long before bull trout were listed as threatened and were designed primarily to pass salmon and steelhead from their spawning grounds to the Pacific 

Ocean and back again. These facilities are expensive to build and maintain, and do 

benefit some populations of migratory bull trout, as well as the salmon and steel 

head they were originally built for. However, in the economic analysis of proposed 

bull trout critical habitat the full cost of construction and operation has been attributed as a cost relative to the bull trout critical habitat designation. There was no 

attempt to pro-rate costs by species based on the degree of benefit. More astounding 

is the fact that these same full costs of construction and operation are also reflected 

in the NOAA Fisheries Economic Analysis of proposed critical habitat for species of 

salmon and steelhead under that agency’s jurisdiction. The public, therefore, is 

being intentionally misled to believe that the costs of designating critical habitat 

and the general conservation of listed species of fish in the Pacific Northwest are 

multiples of the actual costs incurred. 

Another troubling policy currently being implemented is direction to include all 

costs associated with the conservation of a species since listing in the economic analysis of a proposed critical habitat designation. For bull trout, which were listed in 

1998, some 5 years prior to the initiation of the critical habitat designation, the 

costs include all conservation efforts implemented during this 5-year period. This 

policy of including all costs within a document prepared ostensibly to address the 

critical habitat proposal, and clearly titled as relevant only 10 the critical habitat 

proposal, is disingenuous at best. 

Bull Trout 5-year Review 

In 2004, a 5-year review of the status of bull trout was initiated in response to 

a request from the Governor of Idaho. For this project, a panel of experts was convened to assist USFWS biologists and managers in designing a process for both collecting information relative to the status of bull trout and also for subsequent decision-making. Panel members were chosen through a literature searching process 

where the most qualified individuals were identified, based on their contributions 

178

to the scientific literature. Panel member affiliations included the U.S. Forest Service, academia, the U.S. Geological Survey and others. 

As was the case with the draft Recovery Plan and proposed Critical Habitat designation, the draft 5-year review was then subjected to peer review by a diverse 

group of scientists, and the document was edited accordingly. The result of the 5-

year review was that some populations of bull trout were in an improved conservation status since listing, some populations were in a degraded conservation status, 

and overall the populations of bull trout in the United States were still appropriately listed as threatened under the SEA. To date, this review has not been released, and my understanding is that the USFWS intends to begin work on a new 

5-year review for bull trout The inescapable perception is that policy makers in the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary are looking for a different result. 

Summary 

The intent in responding to the SEA requirements for preparing a recovery plan, 

a critical habitat designation, and a 5-year review was to create a transparent, scientifically-based process that the public, the scientific community, and managers in 

the USFWS and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

could track. The transparent process and the scientific basis for these initiatives are 

reflected in the administrative records held by the agency and available for public 

and congressional re-view. The failure to finalize these initiatives based on the carefully developed processes and peer reviewed scientific information I have described 

has resulted in a lowering of morale among USFWS scientific staff, a reduced respect for the work of the agency from scientific peers and the public, a reduced willingness of the scientific community to assist the USFWS in such initiatives in the 

future, and a tremendous waste of labor and associated budget within the USFWS. 

Observations on the Critical Habitat Process in General 

It is clearly stipulated in the SEA that critical habitat be designated within a year 

of a listing of a species as threatened or endangered. The unwritten policy of the 

USFWS under both the current administration and the preceding administration is 

that critical habitat is of little value beyond the consultation requirements associated with listing, and critical habitat development is not initiated unless and until 

the agency is sued to do so. Because the SEA is abundantly clear in this regard, 

the agency almost never prevails in such litigation and is routinely directed by the 

court to work out a schedule for completing critical habitat designation with the litigants. 

This unwritten policy of resisting a basic requirement of the SEA represents poor 

management at its worst. If the intent is to influence Congress to modify the requirements of the SEA, it has not been successful. What has resulted is a pattern 

of reactive management where the agency is litigated, forced to work out a schedule 

for completing a critical habitat proposal where planning alternatives are limited, 

and then forced to refocus existing labor and budgetary resources to meet the mandates of the court. The court costs of successful litigants that the agency must assume, negative publicity to the agency resulting ’from the public perception that the 

agency is not doing its job, and a demoralized work force associated with this ‘‘head 

buried in the sand’’ management approach are the unnecessary and avoidable by 

products of such poor management practices.

Response to questions submitted for the record by John Young 

Questions from the Minority Members 

1. I do not disagree with former Secretary Babbitt and former Director Clark relative to the regulatory value of critical habitat. The listing of a species results 

in regulatory protections that are not particularly enhanced by the designation 

of critical habitat (except in the rare case where unoccupied critical habitat is 

designated to provide for the recovery of a species whose range has been severely depleted). The identification of critical habitat, however, does serve to 

inform and educate the public as to specific areas that are important to the 

survival and recovery of listed species. Despite agency views on the value of 

critical habitat, it is important for the agency to follow the law and avoid unnecessary lawsuits and the public perception that the agency is not interested 

in fulfilling its mission to implement the ESA. 

2. Yes. However, the balancing must be based on sound economic and other considerations with supporting logic. In the case of bull trout, many of the considerations were illogical, as I have documented in my written testimony and 

which is clearly reflected within the administrative records for the bull trout 

critical habitat initiative. 

179

3. Yes. In the cases of bull trout recovery planning, critical habitat designation, 

and the 5-year review we sought peer review from expert scientists with a variety of backgrounds and affiliations to work through any such disagreements. 

Scientific peer review is the mechanism to work through any such situations 

where scientists disagree. 

4. Yes. However, if the policy maker has two opinions from two scientists, it 

would be appropriate to seek further input from additional peer reviewers to 

ensure that all facets of the scientific disagreement have been appropriately reviewed. 

5. Yes. Federal scientists must document their findings based on the scientific literature and, where appropriate, expose those findings to scientific peer review 

so that the entire basis for any conclusions are transparent to the public, other 

scientists, and policy makers. 

6. Yes. 

7. Yes, definitely. Critical habitat is defined in the ESA as habitat necessary to 

provide for the ‘‘conservation’’ of the species in question. 

‘‘Conservation’’ is defined in the ESA as those measures necessary to provide for 

the survival and recovery of the species in question. One would not expect to recover 

a species if the life history requirements that have resulted in the evolution of the 

species over thousands of years are ignored. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Horn. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM P. HORN, ATTORNEY,

BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER & CHEROT 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is William Horn, 

and I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Endangered Species Act, and the interactions of policy and science in 

its implementations. Let me add that my comments arise from my 

prior tenure as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks, my present service on the National Academy of 

Sciences’ Environmental Board, and my long-time representation of 

the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. 

The implementation of the ESA from my perspective both as an 

insider and also as an private practitioner over the last 15 plus 

years is always an exercise in both policy and science, and frankly, 

it can’t be any other way. 

One incontrovertible fact is that Congress has never provided the 

Department or the Service with the infinite resources to administer 

the program, and as a result, program administrators, regardless 

of their political stripe or their status as political or careers, are 

compelled to make unescapable policy choices regarding which 

species to focus on first, which recovery programs to pursue, which 

listing decisions take priority, and so long. There just simply aren’t 

the staff and the dollars to do everything all at the same time. 

Choices need to be made. 

Science plays, obviously, an important role in making those 

choices, but it is my submission that only the most naive would 

conclude that science always provides clear answers for every ESA 

decision. For example, in Florida’s Everglades, the water management regime necessary to bring back the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow adversely impacts two other listed birds, the Everglade’s Kite 

and Wood Stork. Someone has to make a policy decision appropriately informed by relevance science about which water management approach should be pursued, which one of those three species 

gets priority over the others because there is no simple way to pick 

something that takes care of all three simultaneously. 

180

Now, these types of limitations became very evident to me on an 

issue that showed up on my desk in 1986. At that time only seven 

California Condors remained in the wild and they were dying regularly. Half of the condor recovery team argued that the remaining 

birds needed to be captured, and to be made part of a captive 

breeding program then untested. The other half of the recovery 

team were adamant that captive breeding was scientifically 

unproven. The birds should be allowed to remain in the wild, and 

even to die with dignity in the wild, as one member put it. 

Ultimately, I made a policy decision to try the unproven science, 

capture the remaining birds, and embark on a breeding program, 

an effort that was delayed while we were sued by environmental 

plaintiffs who argued that that decision was contrary to accepted 

science. 

Now, as the Committee may know, the captive breeding program 

turned out to be an enormous success, and had we waited for some 

kind of scientific consensus to arise from the battling members of 

the recovery team or we had accepted the environmentalists view 

of good science at that time, wild condors would likely be extinct 

today. 

Now, the obvious thesis of this hearing is that this administration is somehow singularly responsible for making a variety of ESA 

decisions to not list in contravention of scientific information. 

We would submit that a proposed listing, earlier related, represents another example of an environmental gesture triumphing 

over science, and that concerns the proposed listing of Polar Bears. 

And although the bear populations are at historic highs throughout 

the Arctic, and Canada successfully manages these populations, the 

Service is no proposing to list all Polar Bears as threatened based 

on one disputed model that predicts major shrinkage of sea ice in 

45 years. 

The U.S. sporting community, Canada, the Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game and others have reacted strongly, contending that 

the science does not support the conjecture contained in this one 

model. We believe that good science would acknowledge that the 

bears had previously survived at least two major climate warming 

periods. Good science would recognize the present overall health of 

the bears. Good science would also recognize the present sport 

hunting programs, which Canada administers, which provide important funding would be cut off and terminated if the listing proceeds. Unfortunately, instead of good science, we see an environmental gesture in this particular case. 

Let me just conclude by noting that any attempt to run this program on pure science is divorced from reality. There is no pure 

science in many circumstances because the answers aren’t clear or 

they are clearly provisional. The scientists disagree, often strongly, 

and predictive models usually are even more at odds. 

With such uncertainties inherent in wildlife management necessitate policy judgments by responsible and accountable officials, 

and someone ultimately other than the dueling scientists has to 

make calls on whether or not to capture the condors or choose the 

appropriate Everglades water flow regime to benefit the sparrow, 

storks, or the kites. That type of balance in this system just cannot 

be escaped and should be recognized by all of those who take this 

181

program seriously, and care deeply about all of the species that it 

seeks to protect. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]

Statement of William P. Horn, on behalf of the

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance 

Mr. Chairman: My name is William P. Horn and I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before the Committee to discuss implementation of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) and how matters of policy and science interact. These comments arise 

from my tenure as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

from 1985-1988, my present service on the National Academy of Sciences Board on 

Environmental Science and Toxicology, and my long term representation of the U.S. 

Sportsmen’s Alliance and its interests in wildlife conservation, scientific management of wildlife, and related ESA issues. 

Implementation of the ESA is an exercise in both policy and science. It cannot 

be any other way. One incontrovertible fact is that Congress has never provided the 

responsible agency—the Department of the Interior and its U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS)—with infinite resources to administer the program. As a result, program administrators are compelled to make choices regarding which species to focus 

on, which recovery programs to pursue, which listing decisions take priority, etc. 

These unescapable choices—that have afflicted every Administration, Democrat or 

Republican, since 1973—require policy decisions and it goes without saying that policy choices are political choices. 

Science plays an important role in making these choices but only the most naive 

would conclude that science provides clear answers, and clear policy choices, for 

every ESA decision. For example, in Florida’s Everglades the water management regime to benefit the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow adversely impacts other listed 

species such as the Everglades Kite and the Wood Stork. The scientists who constitute the recovery team for each species are making focused judgments, and recommendations, designed to benefit ‘‘their’’ species even if it means hindering the 

conservation or recovery of the other species. Someone has to make a policy decision, 

appropriately informed by relevant scientific data, about which water management 

approach should be pursued and that someone is usually a senior policy maker (i.e., 

a political appointee) and not a biologist in his or her white lab coat 

The limitations of ‘‘science’’ were very evident in one major issue that arrived on 

my desk during my term as Assistant Secretary. In the late 1980’s, only seven California Condors remained in the wild following a series of deaths from power line 

collisions and unknown causes. One half of the condor recovery team scientists argued that the remaining birds needed to be captured and become part of a captive 

breeding program. The other half were adamant that captive breeding was scientifically unproven, the birds should be allowed to ‘‘die with dignity’’ in the wild. Ultimately, I made a policy decision to try the unproven science, capture the remaining 

birds, and embark on the breeding program—an effort that was delayed while the 

Department was sued by a group of environmentalist plaintiffs which opted for the 

‘‘die with dignity’’ approach. As the Committee may know, the captive breeding program turned out to be a great success and today approximately five dozen condors 

in at least two separate populations exist in the wild. Had we waited for some kind 

of consensus to arise from the battling scientists, wild condors would likely be 

extinct. 

In the same time frame, FWS received from a group of Stanford University professors a petition to list a purported subspecies of Bay Checkerspot butterflies. However, the lepidopterist taxonomists were hopelessly divided over whether or not the 

butterflies were a bona fide subspecies. That was the crucial issue as if they were 

a subspecies, they would be eligible to be listed and if not, there were sufficient 

numbers of this species elsewhere that listing would not be warranted. Ultimately, 

I made a policy decision to list the butterfly by siding with those taxonomists claiming it was a subspecies. 

This happens to be one area where there is no ‘‘pure’’ science to help resolve disputes. The taxonomy community is famous for being divided between ‘‘lumpers’’ and 

‘‘splitters.’’ The former take a dim view of subspeciation and are much inclined to 

group things at the species level. In contrast, the latter leans toward dividing (i.e., 

splitting) species into smaller and smaller subspecies. For ESA purposes, this is important since ‘‘subspecies’’ are eligible for listing and the taxonomic determination, 

as in the butterfly case, drives the listing decision. A policy maker (i.e., a political 

appointee) who, in effect, puts the splitters in charge will end up listing many more 

182

subspecies compared to a policy maker who puts lumpers in charge of speciation determinations. Both sides of the taxonomic community can claim the mantle of good 

science, yet a policy maker who goes with one side will surely be criticized by the 

other for departing from good science. 

A fundamental problem with the present ESA is that it does not allow for enough 

policy judgments. For example, the statute provides for the listing of six different 

types of ‘‘species’’: at one end are ‘‘endangered species’’ and at the other end ‘‘threatened distinct population segments.’’ It was always my policy judgment that more 

attention—and finite resources—needed to be directed toward ‘‘endangered species’’ 

as these ‘‘species’’ are on the brink of extinction. On the other hand, a ‘‘threatened 

distinct population segment’’ means that only this limited segment is in serious 

trouble and that the species, or subspecies, as a whole is likely doing alright. The 

Act clearly contemplated allowing Interior and FWS to make these kinds of distinctions, especially between ‘‘endangered’’ and ‘‘threatened’’ species, but court rulings 

over the years have largely erased this intended and needed flexibility. 

The sloppy language of the Act has been construed by courts to create a situation 

where, in essence, every listed species must be recovered regardless of cost or consequence. Of course, without infinite resources, the agency lacks the ability to do 

everything it is supposed to do under the Act: review species, list species, engage 

in consultation with other federal agencies, issue biological opinions, conserve 

species, recover species, fulfill the international side of the program, and enforce the 

taking proscriptions. When senior policy makers attempt to make needed choices, 

informed by scientific information, to establish priorities and decide which endangered species, endangered subspecies, endangered population segment, threatened 

species, threatened subspecies, or threatened population segment requires attention 

over another, litigation is almost automatic from those adherents of the species 

given second or third priority. A federal court then commandeers the program and 

directs the commitment of finite staff and monetary resources until the next court 

moves a different species to the head of the list. No application of ‘‘science’’ in a policy/political vacuum is going to solve these inherent problems with the ESA. 

Repeated judicial intervention has also been a bane of the program and many of 

the rulings have little to do with science but a lot to do with the badly written Act. 

Please note that this trend is hardly recent. During Secretary Bruce Babbitt’s tenure at Interior, during the Clinton Administration, the Department and FWS were 

the target of incessant ESA lawsuits—mostly from the ‘‘environmental’’ side. Career 

staff complained repeatedly about how ESA program resources were being commandeered by the courts and how difficult it was to administer the program amid 

a welter of often conflicting judicial edits. 

A more recent example of judicial overreach is the lynx. Every wildlife biologist 

knows that lynx populations are tied inextricably to their primary prey species—

snowshoe hares. In addition, the lynx is a northern species primarily occupying 

habitats in Alaska and Canada where populations are unendangered and 

unthreatened. In contrast, lynx populations in the northern tier of the Lower 48 

states cycle up and down with the relative abundance of hares. When the lynx population shrinks, as it always does in this natural cycle, it contracts and lynx numbers 

in states such as Maine or Minnesota drop. The FWS, aware of this cycle, declined 

to list as endangered or threatened the naturally marginal lynx POPULATION 

SEGMENTS in the Lower 48. This science-based decision was rejected by a U.S. 

District Court in D.C., based on the sloppily written ESA, and now these lynx are 

listed as a threatened distinct population segment. Of course, listing won’t do much 

for lynx abundance in these states since no Act of Congress or federal court can 

keep snowshoe hares at perpetually high levels. If the Committee is serious about 

ensuring a primary role for science in ESA decisionmaking, it should amend the Act 

to ensure greater judicial deference to the expert determinations of the FWS. 

We all have a front row seat to the next case of the courts v. science. In Yellowstone, the previously threatened distinct population segment of grizzly bears has 

reached numbers substantially greater than the recovery goal set 20 years ago in 

its recovery plan. Indeed, it’s safe to say that this population of bears recovered 

years ago, and should have been delisted then, but the agency is genuinely fearful 

of political fallout from delisting and judicial intervention. The ‘‘usual suspects’’ 

have announced their intention to challenge in court, this completely warranted and 

scientifically established delisting, and it will be interesting to see if science (and 

FWS) prevail over those interests with an apparently vested interest in keeping the 

recovered bears on the ESA list. 

The obvious thesis of this hearing is that the Bush Administration is singularly 

responsible for making ESA policy decisions, such as listings, in contravention of scientific information. A pending proposed listing, however, represents the triumph of 

politics—and gesture making—over science. Polar bear populations are at historic 

183

highs throughout the Arctic and Canada so successfully manages six (of the 19) populations that they sustain both subsistence and sport hunting. Similarly effective 

management in Canada, by FWS in Alaska, and in other countries has led FWS to 

conclude that no present hunting, habitat alteration, etc. are causing adverse impacts on these populations. Nonetheless, in response to a lawsuit filed in California, 

FWS is now proposing to list all polar bears as threatened under ESA based on one 

disputed model that predicts shrinking sea ice in 45 years. 

Canada and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, among others, have reacted strongly to this proposal contending that the science does not support the conjecture enshrined in this one model. Good science would recognize that there are 

many climate change sea-ice models, some of which predict differing levels of nearshore and multi-year sea ice during summer months from 40 to 100 years from now. 

Good science would acknowledge that polar bears have previously survived at least 

two major climate warming periods (centuries before humans loosed carbon dioxide 

into the atmosphere). Good science would recognize that changing sea-ice conditions 

will benefit some seal species that serve as prey for the bears. Good science would 

note that present studies indicate that polar bear survival may be more dependent 

on certain snow conditions for denning rather than sea-ice conditions. Good science 

would recognize the overall health of polar bear populations. Good science would 

also recognize that if any bear population segments deserved listing, it would be the 

two or three populations for which little information is available so no one knows 

conclusively if these populations are indeed threatened. 

Unfortunately, instead of good science, we see a political gesture. We understand 

the desire of some interest groups to turn the polar bear into their poster child for 

‘‘global warming.’’ We’re bitterly disappointed that the Interior Department, so far, 

has bought into this kind of gesture-making and is trumping good science and conservation. In fact, listing would hurt bear conservation efforts by barring U.S. citizens from participating in the Canadian sport hunting program and cut off a primary source of funding for important conservation and scientific management programs. 

Let me conclude by noting that any attempt to rely on ‘‘pure science’’ to run the 

ESA program is divorced from reality. There is no ‘‘pure science’’ as in many instances answers aren’t clear or are completely provisional. Scientists disagree, often 

strongly, and predictive models are usually more at odds. Such uncertainties, inherent in wildlife management, necessitate policy judgments by responsible and accountable officials. Someone other than dueling or competing scientists have to 

make the calls on whether or not to capture the condors or choose an Everglades 

water flow regime to benefit the sparrows, the storks, or the kites. Fundamentally 

the availability of only finite staff and funding resources—per Congress—mandate 

that policy choices be made. Priorities have to be set because all elements, and all 

species, cannot be treated equally despite what the law may provide. Those too are 

policy decisions—not science. Under these immutable circumstances it would be 

naive, at best, and counterproductive to try to administer the ESA program on the 

basis of a myth—‘‘pure science.’’

Response to questions submitted for the record by William P. Horn 

1. I cannot recall a listing of an otherwise healthy species of fish or wildlife based 

solely on a single model that predicts population declines over a 45 year or 

greater time span. There have been instances where a species was in some difficulty (e.g., spotted owls) and population models predicted a further decline in 

overall numbers. The approach underlying the present proposed listing of all 

polar bears is unprecedented since the worldwide population of the bears is at 

or above record highs. Please note that if a presently healthy population can, 

or must, be listed based solely on one model that projects problems 45 years 

or further into the future, many otherwise presently healthy species will become eligible for listing now. 

2. There are dozens of listings of distinct population segments (DPS’s) as endangered or threatened species. Some of the highest profile species are DPS’s, including Yellowstone grizzly bears, lynx in the Lower 48 states, and numerous 

salmon runs on the West Coast. In these cases, the overall species is healthy 

(e.g., there are tens of thousands of grizzly bears in Alaska and Canada) but 

a specific population segment is determined to be in jeopardy. 

3. The Act includes an effective hierarchy with endangered species on top and 

threatened distinct population segments at the bottom. Clearly, limited resources ought to be focused on endangered species—facing extinction—rather 

184

than on population segments of otherwise healthy species especially when 

those segments are only ‘‘threatened.’’

4. The proposed listing of the polar bear is a major mistake on many levels. First, 

the listing will terminate the single most effective polar bear conservation program—the sport hunting program administered in Canada that generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue to fund tangible, on-the-ground conservation and management activities. Second, the bear MIGHT be in trouble 

45 years from now IF the one model regarding sea ice shrinkage turns out to 

be correct. It strikes me as foolish to expend finite resources now, as the result 

of a listing, on the presently healthy polar bears rather than direct those resources at genuinely endangered species. Third, listing the bears based on a 

45 year projection will set a precedent that will likely compel the listing of 

many Arctic species that are otherwise presently healthy. This would further 

skew the allocation of limited resources away from presently endangered 

species. 

5. We regard the listing of the polar bear as an environmental gesture—a bald 

faced effort to make the bear the ‘‘poster child’’ for global warming doomsayers. 

There is nothing in the ESA that empowers the Secretary of the Interior to 

begin to regulate CO2 emissions within the U.S. or in the world (i.e., China 

or India) so the listing will do little or nothing to address the purported root 

cause of Arctic sea ice shrinkage—excessive CO2 output into the atmosphere. 

In addition, there is nothing in the legislative history of the ESA indicating 

Congress ever contemplated or intended the ESA to be used to regulate human 

activity on such a broad scale. 

6. Listing all polar bears as threatened, as presently proposed, would not provide 

the Fish and Wildlife Service any authority to protect or conserve polar bear 

habitat in Canada or any other foreign country. Since only two of the 19 bear 

populations are found within the U.S. (Alaska), the listing is really only a gesture since the listing would not empower FWS to do much of anything to beneficially impact conservation of the other 17 bear populations. 

7. A variety of environmentalist interests challenged my decision to capture the 

remaining wild California Condors in the mid-1980’s and embark on the ultimately successful captive breeding program to save the species from extinction. 

The Department and FWS were initially enjoined from conducting the capture 

program by U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. as a result of the environmentalist lawsuit challenging the capture/captive breeding decision. Most of 

the arguments against the decision claimed that there was insufficient scientific justification to embark on the captive breeding effort and that once the 

birds were captured, they would never be returned to the wild. This led to one 

of the plaintiffs commenting that it was preferable to have the condors ‘‘die 

with dignity’’ in the wild rather than be captured for the then unproven captive 

breeding program. Ultimately, the courts upheld the Department’s decision and 

the capture/breeding program proceeded—and succeeded. 

It is likely that such arguments would be used again today. Unfortunately, there 

are many interests whose primary interest is using the ESA to impose land use controls and other restraints on human activity rather than focus on bona fide wildlife 

conservation and species recovery. Keeping species in the wild, even at the risk of 

extinction, advances this regulatory agenda. Moreover, other interests will fight to 

maintain a listing for these same reasons even though sound scientific data demonstrates that a listed species has recovered and warrants delisting. 

8. Federal employees, including scientists, retain their First Amendment rights. 

Furthermore, agency scientists have an obligation to provide the best data and 

scientific judgments—consistent with applicable law—to senior policy makers. 

However, there is often no bright line between a scientific dispute and a policy 

issue. Our system recognizes that the elected President and his executive 

branch team make the policy decisions. Career personnel have an obligation to 

adhere to those policy judgments. If career personnel want to make independent policy (and contradict Presidential appointees and others confirmed by 

the Senate), they need to give up their protected civil service status and enter 

the political arena. 

9. Clearly there must be interaction between research and management for both 

to be effective and serve the public interest. It’s clear though that management 

decisions usually fall in the policy realm where accountable political appointees 

hold sway. Accordingly, it is well established that much research is asked for 

to enable an agency to deal with pressing management issues. Smart managers, though, realize that they should ask the researchers where research is 

needed and where it will ultimately help an agency discharge its duties under 

applicable law including the ESA. 

185

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony and patience in being with us all morning and into the afternoon. 

Let me ask you, Ms. Rodd, the first question, if I might. Could 

you please explain the flaws and the serious concerns that you 

have with the process at the Fish and Wildlife Service has undertaken to de-list the squirrel? 

Ms. RODD. Certainly. Thank you for the opportunity. 

We are very concerned because in this case the recovery plan has 

been thrown out as a standard by which the recovery is being 

measured. The squirrel is—we are told that the squirrel population 

is persistent. We are told that the habitat is protected and the 

threats are going down. 

The recovery plan sets up a way to measure these things. You 

measure a basic population. You look at trends over 10 years. No 

measures of population have been made. The agency itself admits 

they have no understanding of what the population is. 

So they have turned to this strange term ‘‘persistence’’, which 

means once in a while a squirrel pops up, and that is their science 

for going all the way from endangered to no protection at all. The 

habitat that they have described is not an agreement with all the 

major scientific papers. They describe the squirrel as being totally 

dependent on a Red Spruce habitat, when in fact it uses both Red 

Spruce and Northern Hardwoods. And so when they say, well, we 

will protect Red Spruce, they are losing half the habitat. This 

misdefinition of habitat could be fatal to the squirrel. 

Third, they talk about threats decreasing, and in that case they 

say, we are protecting the squirrel on the Monongahela National 

Forest, and there won’t be any logging under the new forest plan. 

But reading the details of the new forest plan logging is allowed 

in all the habitats where the squirrel exists. It is allowed in Red 

Spruce habitat which they have singled out for protection, but they 

still are allowing logging. It is allowed in the Northern Hardwood 

habitat, and it is allowed in Hemlock, which is another place where 

the squirrel is found. So it is not being protected from logging. 

It is not being protected from road building. They claim that flying squirrels have the ability to slide 140 feet and therefore could 

cross a four-lane highway and be fine. This is absurd. They base 

this on one study, one letter, anecdotal instance of a squirrel crossing a power line, and they compare that to a four-lane highway. 

They also would, in order for the squirrel to glide the 140 feet, 

you would have to plant 200 feet trees along the edge of any highway to allow them to get that amount of glide going. 

We also find a flaw in their numbers. They are saying that 1,147 

squirrels have been found over 21 years, and that is enough to say 

the squirrel is fine. We looked at the original field notes for everyone of those captures, and we are able to confidently claim that 

they have only caught 654 squirrels in 21 years. That is 30 a year. 

They didn’t even go back and look at the basic research to see what 

was there. 

We are very upset with the shoddy science being done here, and 

we are upset that the recovery plan is being thrown out, which apparently, I am surprised to learn, is happening all over the place. 

We are part of a national trend. We don’t like it. 

186

The CHAIRMAN. So what would be your recommendations for correcting these faults? 

Ms. RODD. We would like a Blue Ribbon scientific panel to be 

convened on this rule, proposed rule, to review the science and 

come up with a recommendation. We would like this panel to consist of independent scientists, scientists that are not part of the 

agency, either Fish and Wildlife or the Forest Service. That is what 

we would recommend. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Mr. Young, let me ask you, as a former employee at Fish and Wildlife you have perspectives certainly that 

none of us have, and I have a question regarding the role that 

science and peer review have in ESA decisions. 

If the work that scientists provide that Fish and Wildlife Service 

has ignored, as we understand happened with the Bull Trout, what 

incentive is there for outside scientists to devote time to peer reviewing ESA decisions? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, that is a good question, Mr. Chairman, and I 

am sorry Congressman Inslee is not here because my response reflects some of his constituents, I believe. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will share your responses. 

Mr. YOUNG. Little incentive. For instance, when the critical habitat designation came out as it did come out, our partners in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, several of our partners 

there who were members of recovery teams and participated in the 

critical habitat process, and participated as peer reviewers as well, 

were incensed and basically expressed outrage and I am sure it 

was just a knee-jerk reaction, but at least initially said don’t come 

back and ask us for any help again because you are just wasting 

our time. 

It is disingenuous to ask a peer reviewer who has a career, or 

a group of peer reviewers, they have careers, they have their own 

duties to do, to devote time to reviewing hundreds of pages of documents sometimes, providing helpful guidance with their expertise, 

and then to see the final result that reflects none of their input. 

So it is damaging to the agency in that regard, I believe. 

The CHAIRMAN. What guidelines or what documents, rather, are 

available to guide Fish and Wildlife employees when it comes to 

making critical habitat designations? 

For example, how do they know what is to be included in an economic impact analysis? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, the economic impact analysis is done by private contractors, so they are guided by the Washington office, and 

there is a staff member in the Washington office who is an economist, the sole economist, as I understand, in the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Of course, that person doesn’t make the policy 

that guides these contractors. That is done by others in the Department. 

So I can’t really respond beyond that. You know, there are people 

who provide guidance through the economist in Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Are the peer reviewers paid? 

Mr. YOUNG. Peer reviewers are not paid. 

The CHAIRMAN. They are not paid. 

187

Mr. YOUNG. No. No, they are voluntary, and you know, as the 

Bull Trout coordinator I worked hard to develop relationships with 

these people, and with these agencies so that they would take the 

time, and their supervisors would allow them to take the time to 

help us with peer review, and in the case of the five-year review 

of the panel that guided the whole five-year review process. In that 

case, even our regional director, it appeared to me, was so nervous 

about making a decision that he wanted an outside panel to guide 

the process that led to the decision to be totally transparent in the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. We thank you for your testimony today. Appreciate it very much. 

The Committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:48 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[A letter from Gail S. Olson, Ph.D., submitted for the record by 

The Honorable Jay Inslee follows:]

May 16, 2007

The Honorable Jay Inslee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Inslee:

I am a wildlife biologist who has conducted research on the relationships between 

Northern Spotted Owls and their habitat for the past 8 years. I (along with 6 coauthors) published a paper on some of the results of that research in the Journal 

of Wildlife Management in 2004 and it has been cited several times in the draft 

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. Specifically, results published in my paper 

have been used to support the habitat provisions for both Options 1 and 2 in the 

Plan. I strongly believe this to be at least a misinterpretation of my research results 

and at worst deliberate misuse. 

One of the key findings described in the paper was that a mixture of older forest 

and young or non-forest was positively associated with owl survival and reproductive output within one study area in the Oregon Coast Range. We anticipated the 

temptation to use this information to write habitat prescriptions when we discussed 

the ‘‘Management Implications’’ of the research. On p. 1052 of Olson et al. (2004), 

we stated: ‘‘...we do not recommend that forest managers use our modeling results 

as a prescription for managing habitat either within the Oregon Coast Range or 

elsewhere...’’. This statement is alluded to within the Recovery Plan (p. 36) and the 

claim is made that these results were used only to establish de-listing guidelines 

and not to set management prescriptions. However, it is difficult to imagine that 

delisting criteria and habitat prescriptions can be completely de-linked, and the rest 

of the Plan as written does not appear to separate the two concepts. 

Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to assume that my research results were used 

to set habitat provisions in the Plan. Therefore, I believe it is important to reiterate 

the reasons why we made that statement in the paper. 

1. The amount of variation explained by the models is low. That means that the 

habitat variables that we examined are not strong predictors of owl population parameters (survival and reproductive output). Many other factors likely have an influence, including habitat components not examined in this study. 

2. The habitat variables we used in the study were assessed by transcribing aerial 

photography images. Errors in this process may misrepresent the amounts of certain habitat types. 

3. Our results may reflect unique conditions within our study area and may not 

be representative of other areas. Replication of this study in other areas is necessary 

to determine whether our results were typical or anomalous. 

In addition to these general caveats, I’ve identified at least 5 key areas where the 

results of my research were misapplied within the Plan. 

1. Definition of owl habitat. The habitat variables used in our analyses were not 

the same as those that will be used in measuring ‘‘habitat-capable’’ acres in the proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\35221.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
188

visions within the Plan. Although there may be some overlap in the definitions, no 

effort was made to determine what this overlap is. Therefore, specific values from 

my research may translate to entirely different values of the habitat definitions 

used in the Plan. 

2. Scope of analyses and scale of measurement. Our research was conducted within a study area known to be historically inhabited by spotted owls. The aim of our 

study was to see if we could determine differences in owl demographic performance 

within this area based on the habitat in the area immediately surrounding owl nest 

trees and activity centers (owl territories). Thus our study only assessed habitat at 

a relatively small scale and not across entire landscapes. To infer that the same pattern of habitat found within 1500m of owl territory centers can be applied to landscapes as a whole requires additional assumptions that are certainly not supported 

by my research and also is contrary to what most ecologists believe about the importance of scale in studying wildlife-habitat relationships. 

3. Misinterpretation of habitat fitness potential. The Plan bases much of its support for the habitat provisions on a measure called ‘‘habitat fitness potential’’, which 

was developed by Franklin et al (2000) as a means of combining the affects of habitat on owl survival and productivity into a single measurement. Because they used 

a common population modeling method based on a projection matrix, they used the 

symbol λh as short-hand notation to represent habitat fitness potential. This likely 

has led to confusion and the assumption that this measurement can be equated to 

the more widely used λ which is a population projection measure used to measure 

population trends in northern spotted owls (c.f. Anthony et al. 2006). In general, values of λ indicate whether a population is increasing (λ>1.0), decreasing (λ<1.0), or 

stable (λ=1.0). However, values of λh cannot be similarly interpreted because they 

are based on animals already recruited into the population. They are also idealized 

values based on the assumption that the models used to estimate the survival and 

reproductive output parameters used to calculate habitat fitness potential are accurate. They are NOT based on direct analyses of the data collected from spotted owls 

within those individual territories. 

4. Appendix D. The most obvious example of poor use of science in the Plan is 

found in Appendix D, which purports to describe what habitat fitness potential is 

and it does nothing of the sort. First, there is no information on how habitat fitness 

potential is calculated, which is necessary for any understanding of what it is. Second, the analyses presented to determine the province-specific habitat threshold values are completely ad hoc. The ‘‘limited data set’’ attributed to the Olson et al. 

(2004) paper consisted of 6 data points where were intended as visual examples 

only, and no data were provided on specific habitat values within the paper. Thus 

they were estimated from a figure (Figure 5) that was never intended to be used 

in such a way. The graph in Figure D.2. is not of the true relationship between λh

and the habitat variable, which can be calculated directly because λh was computed 

based on a formula containing habitat values. Even the analysis based on Figure 

D.3., which is supposedly taken directly from the Olson et al (2004) Figure 2 is incorrect in that it does not accurately estimate the maximum value, which is known. 

In general, none of the analyses in Appendix D that relate to Olson et al. (2004) 

were necessary or appropriate. 

5. Lack of uncertainty measures. It is a major tenet of modern scientific analyses 

that the uncertainty of estimates be reported so that the results can be properly interpreted. Estimates are commonly given with confidence intervals or other measures of variance. The Plan repeatedly ignores such uncertainty and does not consider how such uncertainty may affect the recommendations of the Plan. 

In summary, my general impression with respect to the use of my research is that 

the Recovery Team lacked an understanding of the methodologies used and deliberately ignored warnings against using it to write management prescriptions. I was 

never asked to answer questions regarding either the methodology nor the recommendations, which further leads me to believe that clarity on these issues was 

not desired. I hope this letter provides some of this clarity and sets the record 

straight on what can and cannot be inferred from my research. 

Sincerely, 

Gail S. Olson, Ph.D.

189

[Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan Options, October 18, 2006, 

submitted for the record by The Honorable Jay Inslee follows:]


35221.006.eps
190

Æ


35221.007.eps